Numbers for the amount of aluminum in the airplane appear to be SWAGs, and the report alludes to "folklorish" understandings of Al/water reactions, but it would be necessary to see the calculations to know whether the original author might have some idea of what his theory actually is, and whether the author may have known more than the reporter passed on.

A possible problem is that although the airplanes carried significant amounts of fuel, and in an engine when burned with compressed air it can produce the temperatures cited for rendering the aluminum "reactive" ordinary unconfined burning of the aircraft fuels do not reach the temperatures he claims. He also fails (according to the news report) to account for cooling of the Al as it "drips down into the water" and doesn't show how sufficient water would be pooled to provide for the reaction claimed. (Airframe parts almost never undergo really significant melting in crashes, even when fire is extensive. although conditions in the towers were somewhat unusual and might have given different results.)

No such exotic causes are needed to explain the collapse, and whether some effect that might be similar to what the "paper" attempts to describe might have been a contributing factor in the rate and sequence of structural failures cannot be given a lot of credibility based on the report on the report.

The cited report hasn't appeared in AIT posted papers as yet, so it's not available (yet) for more detailed review.

I'll probably wait for the movie.

John