At the macro level, that proposition just about holds water. But the geared turbofan of 2015 bears virtually no resemblance to a 1960s turbojet other than they both turn fuel into thrust.The only thing that has changed in the last 79 years has been introduction of jet fan engines.
If you mean that there's no non-liquid fuelled alternative then again, I just about agree with you. But there's no reason why that liquid needs to be a hydrocarbon, and even less reason why it has to be from fossil fuel.There is no fossil fuel substitute for the jet engine and batteries would not sustain transcontinental flights of prop propelled aircraft even if the whole aircraft was a battery.