Meet Jerry V. Leaphart

[jammonius]

When faced with the stunning blend of arrogance and ignorance demonstrated above, I can only gasp in amazement and nominate the content for an award. Good luck in the February Stundies, and equally good luck in some day realising what a colossally embarrassing blunder you have just made.

Dave

Dave,

OK, if it makes you happy to be able to say an error was made, fine.

I will correct it as follows with a simple wikipedia reference:

"Kerosene, sometimes spelled kerosine in scientific and industrial usage,[1] also known as paraffin, is a combustible hydrocarbon liquid. The name is derived from Greek keros (κηρός wax). The word Kerosene was registered as a trademark by Abraham Gesner in 1854 and for several years only the North American Gas Light Company and the Downer Company (to which Gesner had granted the right) were allowed to call their lamp oil kerosene.[2] It eventually became a genericized trademark.

It is usually called paraffin (sometimes paraffin oil) in the UK, South East Asia and South Africa (and parafin in Norway) (not to be confused with the much more viscous paraffin oil used as a laxative, or the waxy solid also called paraffin wax or just paraffin); the term kerosene is usual in much of Canada, the United States, Australia (where it is usually referred to colloquially as kero) and New Zealand.[3]

Kerosene is widely used to power jet-engined aircraft (jet fuel) and some rockets, but is also commonly used as a heating fuel and for fire toys such as poi.
"

Keep your shirt on, Dave.

 

[Dave Rogers]

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Kerosene-9924436

Section 5: Fire and Explosion Data​

Flammability of the Product: Flammable.

Read 'em and weep.

Dave

ETA: You still haven't realised the stupid thing you did. Keep looking. This is fun.

 

[BigAl]

Jet fuel is not flammable and a spark should not cause ignition. But, if memory serves me correctly, the claim was that kerosene vapor might, if a lot of other circumstances worked out just right and the moon was full and in alignment with jupiter and mars, that it might explode, or something.

You get my drift, right?

You are drifting. Jet fuel is flammable in the presence of oxygen. The last time I checked, oxygen was present at WTC on 9/11. I was able to breath and didn't die for lack of it.

 

[BigAl]

Dave,

OK, if it makes you happy to be able to say an error was made, fine.

I will correct it as follows with a simple wikipedia reference:

"Kerosene, sometimes spelled kerosine in scientific and industrial usage,[1] also known as paraffin, is a combustible hydrocarbon

I don't think you understand a word of what you google up and post.

 

[MarekM]

But, it is just as fair, I think, to say that "{b}ecause it might be somewhat misleading on its face" and therefore inaccurate, unclear and inconsistent, it is a word that should be stricken. After all, the whole point of modern language usage is to be clear, or so one can fairly argue.

If clarity, consistency, and accuracy are you main concerns, you'd have to strike thousands of english words that are inaccurate, unclear, and inconsistent. Leaphart isn't bothered by these other words. He's only bothered by this one and he's driven by political motives. The last thing I want to see is the censorship of our language for political purposes.

 

[jammonius]

If clarity, consistency, and accuracy are you main concerns, you'd have to strike thousands of english words that are inaccurate, unclear, and inconsistent. Leaphart isn't bothered by these other words. He's only bothered by this one and he's driven by political motives. The last thing I want to see is the censorship of our language for political purposes.

MarekM,

Your post is noteworthy for the type and kind of fallacies you have rolled into it, as well as your obvious attempt at polarization. Wow.

Your first fallacy is that of "false choice" combined with a non sequitor of linkage of one thing with another, or, of one word with "thousands" that you do not bother to exemplify.

Then your second fallacy is the assumption that Leaphart "isn't bothered" by these [unexemplified] other words as if "being bothered" by the unexemplified other words is a prerequisite to criticism of one word. In short, you have constructed a classic example of the false and stupid syllogism form. Nothing more and nothing less.

From the syllogistic statement you then go on to take it to a false and fraudulent political statement, capped off with mock indignaiton over word usage, after you have used words to engage in one form of twisted reasoning after another.

Let me ask you, did you know what you were doing and sought merely to get away with it; or, do you sincerely believe your statement made sense?

 

[MarekM]

MarekM,

Your post is noteworthy for the type and kind of fallacies you have rolled into it, as well as your obvious attempt at polarization. Wow.

Your first fallacy is that of "false choice" combined with a non sequitor of linkage of one thing with another, or, of one word with "thousands" that you do not bother to exemplify.

Then your second fallacy is the assumption that Leaphart "isn't bothered" by these [unexemplified] other words as if "being bothered" by the unexemplified other words is a prerequisite to criticism of one word. In short, you have constructed a classic example of the false and stupid syllogism form. Nothing more and nothing less.

From the syllogistic statement you then go on to take it to a false and fraudulent political statement, capped off with mock indignaiton over word usage, after you have used words to engage in one form of twisted reasoning after another.

Let me ask you, did you know what you were doing and sought merely to get away with it; or, do you sincerely believe your statement made sense?

Haha. Thanks for the analysis, but I'm not clear on your position. Are you suggesting that accuracy, clarity, and consistency were the only factors motivating Leaphart?

Are you at all concerned with words being censored for political reasons?

 

[jammonius]

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Kerosene-9924436

Section 5: Fire and Explosion Data​

Flammability of the Product: Flammable.

Read 'em and weep.

Dave

ETA: You still haven't realised the stupid thing you did. Keep looking. This is fun.

Dave,

OK, I'll engage with you on this. I don't think the issue is resolved as yet:

Kerosene is referred to over and over again as being "combustible" not "flammable."

See:

www.hess.com/EHS/msds/Kero_Dyed_9912_clr.pdf

What may have happened here, however is that there may have been a revision in the description of kerosene occuring after TWA 800. I don't know that, as yet.

Mind you, I am not here saying your information is wrong. I am here saying that it is correct to characterize kerosene as combustible, rather than flammable.

The flash point of kerosene is >100 degrees farenheit. In comparison, gasoline, which is flammable, has a flashpoint of -45degrees, thus highlighting the huge volatility difference between the two hydrocarbons.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Kerosene is referred to over and over again as being "combustible" not "flammable."

... I am here saying that it is correct to characterize kerosene as combustible, rather than flammable.

ETA: See below. There is indeed a technical distinction between combustible and flammable.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/combustible

com⋅bus⋅ti⋅ble  /kəmˈbʌs

tə

bəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuh

m-buhs-tuh-buh

l] Show IPA
–adjective 1.capable of catching fire and burning; inflammable; flammable: Gasoline vapor is highly combustible.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flammable

flam⋅ma⋅ble  /ˈflæm

ə

bəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [flam-uh-buh

l] Show IPA
–adjective easily set on fire; combustible; inflammable

Thesaurus:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/combustible

Entry Word: combustible
Function: adjective
Meaning: capable of catching or being set on fire <donʼt store oily rags and other combustible materials in a hot attic> Synonyms burnable, flammable, ignitable

________

I don't believe you did that. I am amazed that you are so benighted that you tried to draw a distinction between "combustible" and "flammable". They are both adjectives describing the same thing! They both mean that a substance can catch fire!

 

[BigAl]

Dave,

OK, I'll engage with you on this. I don't think the issue is resolved as yet:

Kerosene is referred to over and over again as being "combustible" not "flammable."

See:

www.hess.com/EHS/msds/Kero_Dyed_9912_clr.pdf

Don't you know how to use a dictionary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/combustible
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flammable

It appears you don't understand the meaning of the English words you post.

 

[MarekM]

To be fair, when distinguishing, a combustible substance has a flash point at or above 100 degrees F and a flammable substance has a flash point below 100 degrees F.

But to say that jet fuel is therefore non-flammable is either extremely ignorant or intentionally misleading. Either way, Leaphart got it wrong.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, hold on here. Before we go any further with this, there is a difference between what's considered flammable and what's considered combustible:

• http://www.hcpro.com/SAF-208328-874...etween-flammable-and-combustible-liquids.html
• http://www.toolingu.com/class-850155-flammable-combustible-liquids.html
• http://www.meridianeng.com/hazmater.html

combustible liquid: A liquid that will ignite if it reaches its flash point and is provided with an ignition source. Combustible liquids have a flash point above 100° Fahrenheit (37.8°C).

flammable liquid: A liquid that will ignite if it reaches its flash point and is provided with an ignition source. Flammable liquids have a flash point below 100° Fahrenheit (37.8°C) and can typically ignite at room temperature.

The distinction is at what temperatures they can ignite at. Flammable liquids have a wider range of temperatures at which they are prone to ignition. Combustible ones must be above a certain temperature. Furthermore, flammables apparently are more readily vaporized.

Now, jet fuel has a flash point of exactly 100^oF, so technically it is right on the border of flammable and combustible. The question now is, what's the context? If a person is trying to claim that jet fuel needs to be above it's flash point to ignite, he's right. However, if he's trying to imply that jet fuel cannot easily burn, he's wrong. Context is key here.

 

[bjornart]

No, it is not. It is combustible. For more information see:

http://www.astronautix.com/props/n2oosene.htma

Excerpt:

N2O4/Kerosene
Propellant Formulation: N2O4/Kerosene. Optimum Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 4.04. Temperature of Combustion: 3,445 deg K. Density: 1.25 g/cc. Characteristic velocity c: 1,660 m/s (5,440 ft/sec). Isp Shifting: 276 sec. Isp Frozen: 264 sec. Pp Isp Shifting: 345. Isp (sl): 276. Isp (vac): 323. Oxidizer: N2O4. Oxidizer Density: 1.450 g/cc. Oxidizer Freezing Point: -11 deg C. Oxidizer Boiling Point: 21 deg C. Nitrogen tetroxide became the storable liquid propellant of choice from the late 1950's. Nitrogen tetroxide consists principally of the tetroxide in equilibrium with a small amount of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The purified grade contains less than 0.1 per cent water. Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) has a characteristic reddish-brown colour in both liquid and gaseous phases. The solid tetroxide is colorless. N2O4 has an irritating, unpleasant acid-like odour. N2O4 is a very reactive, toxic oxidiser. It is non-flammable with air; however, it will inflame combustible materials. It is not sensitive to mechanical shock, heat, or detonation. Nitrogen dioxide is made by the catalytic oxidation of ammonia; steam is used as a diluent to reduce the combustion temperature. Most of the water is condensed out, and the gases are further cooled; the nitric oxide is oxidised to nitrogen dioxide, and the remainder of the water is removed as nitric acid. The gas is essentially pure nitrogen tetroxide, which is condensed in a brine-cooled liquefier. 1959 production amounted to 60,000 tonnes per year. In carload lots of one-ton cylinders, the price was $ 0.15 per kg. By 1990 NASA was paying $ 6.00 per kg due to environmental regulations. Fuel: Kerosene. Fuel Density: 0.806 g/cc. Fuel Freezing Point: -73 deg C. Fuel Boiling Point: 147 deg C. In January 1953 Rocketdyne commenced the REAP program to develop a number of improvements to the engines being developed for the Navaho and Atlas missiles. Among these was development of a special grade of kerosene suitable for rocket engines. Prior to that any number of rocket propellants derived from petroleum had been used. Goddard had begun with gasoline, and there were experimental engines powered by kerosene, diesel oil, paint thinner, or jet fuel kerosene JP-4 or JP-5. The wide variance in physical properties among fuels of the same class led to the identification of narrow-range petroleum fractions, embodied in 1954 in the standard US kerosene rocket fuel RP-1, covered by Military Specification MIL-R-25576.

[Bold and Italics added]

Since no one has bothered actually explaining what you've failed to understand here. Your quoted text here is about a suggested rocket propellant consisting of an oxidizer and fuel. In this case N₂O₄ and kerosene. Your bolded part refers to the oxidizer N₂O₄ and has nothing to do with the properties of kerosene.

Kerosene is flammable/combustible (pretty much synonyms), which is why it will work as a rocket propellant together with an oxidiser like N₂O₄, or as jet fuel together with an oxidiser like O₂. You can also bring down sky scrapers with it with the latter oxidiser.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Guys, what's the context of the jet fuel claim here? I don't feel like wasting my time watching some moron rant to find out. Is he drawing on the technical distinction between flammable and combustible? Or is he merely trying to build a case that jet fuel could not have caught fire in the Twin Towers. If the former, what's the connection to conspiracy fantasy? If the latter, why does he think the conditions weren't enough for the fuel to flash over when an airliner with running jet engines struck both buildings?

 

[jammonius]

Ok, hold on here. Before we go any further with this, there is a difference between what's considered flammable and what's considered combustible:

• http://www.hcpro.com/SAF-208328-874...etween-flammable-and-combustible-liquids.html
• http://www.toolingu.com/class-850155-flammable-combustible-liquids.html
• http://www.meridianeng.com/hazmater.html

The distinction is at what temperatures they can ignite at. Flammable liquids have a wider range of temperatures at which they are prone to ignition. Combustible ones must be above a certain temperature. Furthermore, flammables apparently are more readily vaporized.

Now, jet fuel has a flash point of exactly 100^oF, so technically it is right on the border of flammable and combustible. The question now is, what's the context? If a person is trying to claim that jet fuel needs to be above it's flash point to ignite, he's right. However, if he's trying to imply that jet fuel cannot easily burn, he's wrong. Context is key here.

Please let elmondo know that we are here interpreting what a speaker said at a UN conference on racism in 2009. That is what the thread is about, as I understand it, because that is what we were linked to.

The speaker said 9/11 hadn't ever been properly explained, or words to that effect and referenced the combustible/flammable distinction apparently in a context of saying the degree of destruction was inconsistent with a substance that was combustible not flammable. Thus, I would have to say the context involves the issue of volatility of kerosene.

Was the speaker right, wrong, moderately right, moderately wrong, whatever. Let the games begin on that.

That is the context as nearly as I can tell.

 

[switchpoint]

The speaker said 9/11 hadn't ever been properly explained, or words to that effect and referenced the combustible/flammable distinction apparently in a context of saying the degree of destruction was inconsistent with a substance that was combustible not flammable. Thus, I would have to say the context involves the issue of volatility of kerosene.

Was the speaker right, wrong, moderately right, moderately wrong, whatever. Let the games begin on that.

That is the context as nearly as I can tell.

The speaker in question, if I am not mistaken, was a lawyer - with no particluar background in anything but making sounds with his mouth. Yet, based on his hot air, I am suppose to be in favor of starting a new investigation whose very nature is an unfound accusation of murder.

Yeah....ain't gonna happen.

 

[MarekM]

Guys, what's the context of the jet fuel claim here? I don't feel like wasting my time watching some moron rant to find out. Is he drawing on the technical distinction between flammable and combustible? Or is he merely trying to build a case that jet fuel could not have caught fire in the Twin Towers. If the former, what's the connection to conspiracy fantasy? If the latter, why does he think the conditions weren't enough for the fuel to flash over when an airliner with running jet engines struck both buildings?

Quote:

"[T]he event (9/11) has never been fully analyzed, investigated, nor properly explained. We noted that even if you assume jet liners hit the World Trade Center, that they are mere hollow aluminum tubes and that jet fuel is mere kerosene, which is not even flammable, let alone powerful enough to melt steel and almost instantaneously turn it to dust, as was seen to have happened."

Clearly no technical distinction here. Which is why, as I stated, he is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mind you, I am not here saying your information is wrong. I am here saying that it is correct to characterize kerosene as combustible, rather than flammable.

Clearly, then, the word "flammable" might be somewhat misleading on its face and therefore inaccurate, unclear and inconsistent, so it is a word that should be stricken from the dictionary. After all, the whole point of modern language usage is to be clear, or so one can fairly argue.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Please let elmondo know that we are here interpreting what a speaker said at a UN conference on racism in 2009. That is what the thread is about, as I understand it, because that is what we were linked to.

The speaker said 9/11 hadn't ever been properly explained, or words to that effect and referenced the combustible/flammable distinction apparently in a context of saying the degree of destruction was inconsistent with a substance that was combustible not flammable. Thus, I would have to say the context involves the issue of volatility of kerosene.

Was the speaker right, wrong, moderately right, moderately wrong, whatever. Let the games begin on that.

That is the context as nearly as I can tell.

"combustible" and "flammable" are synonyms for the sake of WTC and this discussion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym​

He's irrelevant as far as WTC goes.

Note that volatility and flash point have nothing to do with how hot a fire is.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Quote:

"[T]he event (9/11) has never been fully analyzed, investigated, nor properly explained. We noted that even if you assume jet liners hit the World Trade Center, that they are mere hollow aluminum tubes and that jet fuel is mere kerosene, which is not even flammable, let alone powerful enough to melt steel and almost instantaneously turn it to dust, as was seen to have happened."

Clearly no technical distinction here. Which is why, as I stated, he is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

Oh, Christ... the context isn't even relevant, and certainly doesn't even bring to question the distinction between "combustible" and "flammable". He's not trying to make a fine point; he's trying to imply that jet fuel couldn't have caused what was seen on 9/11. And in particulars he's correct - the jet fuel was only involved initially. Problem is, he's wrong in overall thrust; if his argument is that the jet fuel is not "powerful enough to melt steel and almost instantaneously turn it to dust", then he's not even talking 9/11 anymore, let alone the difference between flammable and combustible. He's talking about a fictional scenario, not about the actual event itself.

• No steel melted. Nearly all steel was recovered, and of the recovered steel that was sent to NIST, none of it showed any signs of melting
• No steel turned to dust.
• The jet fuel burned off within minutes. The resultant fire was an office contents one; the jet fuel merely touched off that blaze.

So the technical distinction between "flammable" and "combustible" doesn't even apply here, because the whole idea he's presenting is that jet fuel could not have achieved two results that had nothing to do with 9/11: Melting steel and turning steel into dust. He's wrong at level so fundamental that doesn't even begin to require that we discriminate between "flammable" and "combustible".

ETA: Ps. Thanks for the information. Saved me from having to suffer yet another truther display of lunacy, and for that, I'm openly grateful!