I've just been reading NCSTAR 1-5E, which describes how NIST, in order to test and calibrate their Fire Dynamics Simulator code, built, in the lab, actual cube farms representative of those on the impact floors, packed them with actual instruments to measure rate of fuel consumption, rate of heat release and upper layer gas temperatures as a function of time, lit them on actual fire, recorded the measurements and compared those to predictions made by the FDS program for models of the experimental workstations.
Among the independent experimental variables was the presence or absence of jet fuel. If I'm reading the gas temperature graphs correctly, the presence or absence of jet fuel didn't produce any major differences in the upper layer temperatures. It did affect the peak heat release rate, the time between ignition and peak heat release and the duration of the workstation fires.
The impression I've gotten from reading NCSTAR 1-5 is that th role of the jet fuel was analogous to the role lighter fluid plays in lighting a charcoal grill- burning liquid scattered over a supply of solid fuel served to get all that fuel burning faster and more uniformly than if only one cubicle had been set on fire. It was the sustained burning of that solid fuel that produced the thermal damage that eventually caused the steel structure to fail.
resolver, if you aren't simply trolling, you may find it beneficial to actually read NCSTAR 1-5 and its sub-reports. They go into considerable detail about how the fire simulations worked, what assumptions were made in building the models for simulation and how these related to standard practices in fire safety engineering, the lengths NIST went to in torture-testing their computer tools to see how well they reflected reality and how the results were checked against the available data from the day itself.
This kind of rigor stands head, shoulders, trunk and knees above "common sense" claims propounded by CT shills in YouTube videos.
