The hammer of failure...
No, it is not. It is combustible.
...
[Bold and Italics added]
So, once again, it is to be noted the UN speaker ...
...yet again.
This is funny as you quote pick an article which tells you jet fuel is flammable. You support lies and then provide evidence you don't understand jet fuel.
...
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?
Why did the guy speaking to the UN say jet fuel was not flammable?
Here is jet fuel burning in a fire ball at the Pentagon, is he trying to say jet fuel can't do this? Hello?
Jet fuel, could be called less flammable than gasoline but it burns with more or less the same heat energy. Why did Leaphart say jet fuel was not flammable? This is a jet fuel fire ball which started a large fire and collapsed part of the Pentagon.
...
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.
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.
Why do you quibble about this?; jet fuel is flammable.
Look at a jet fuel truck! (what is the heat energy in jet fuel vs gasoline?)
Jet fuel truck. See red sign with 3 at bottom?; it means Flammable liquid.
Oops, jet fuel is a Flammable liquid! No wonder I used it in my jet engines! Take your hammer of failure to that since you support Leaphart trying to make a point by saying jet fuel is not flammable. You are too hung up on this, and when you see less flammable, is still flammable.
http://mlss.gov.jm/eoshd/data/nioshdbs/ipcsneng/neng0663.htm
Leaphart made a mistake on jet fuel, and leaps into the pit of stupidity...
Leaphart believes in beam weapons did 911; pure insanity
Leaphart says jet fuel is not flammable and spews the junk about not melting steel; no one ever said the steel melted. The best I can go is jet fuel is less flammable since it is right at 37 degree flash point.
For your other failed CT, flight 800, above 37°C explosive vapor/air mixtures may be formed. You see on Flight 800 with the tank nearly empty, the tank is next to the air-conditioning system and this heated the tank up! oops, so your Flight 800 conspiracy is bogus too.
Leaphart was spewing nonsense about jet fuel in general to along with his failed beam weapon support of Judy and her moronic delusions on 911. You can quibble about jet fuel all day, it does not make the beam weapon or Leaphart failure to understand 911 move him and Judy out of the idiot nut case conspiracy theorist camp of stupid ideas on 911.
When Leaphart said jet fuel was not flammable trying to play down the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT found in the burning jet fuel. He is anti-science, pro-fantasy. It makes no sense for him to say it, and exposes him as a fraud who used hearsay about 911 in a speech to the UN.
The hollow "aluminum tube" is dumb as rocks too, since the energy of impact was 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy. Should of taken physics...
Jet fuel has a higher flash point makes it safer to transport than gasoline, but the energy in jet fuel is more than gasoline, so it burns with more heat. More heat, more damage! Jet fuel burns, it burns "hotter" in that it has more energy; more heat energy than gasoline. Got your hammer of stupid ready? Being literal may get you an F, for failure. Hammer time
