Post #60 is highly misleading as to its overall content and false as to its most important particular; namely, the volatility difference as between merely combustible kerosene one the one hand and flammable gasoline, on the other.
Let's set the record straight:
According to http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html, gasoline ignites at 257°C. Also, temperature of flame from burning petrol is 471°-560°C.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel, jet fuel has an open air burning temperature much less than that of gasoline of 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
Tucked in the midst of post #60 is the following:
"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"
The underlined portion of the above quote confirms that what Leaphart said was literally true, as beachnut admits.
Virtually all else that beachnut says and posts in #60 above is meaningless as an attempt to say that what Leaphart said was false. Instead, beachnut admits that what Leaphart said was true.
The remaining part of the above quote is worse, posters, far worse. The remainder of the quote is where beachnut engages in propaganda of the worst sort.
beachnut is attempting to further an unproven assumption, to put it no more strongly than that. The same fireball that beachnut uses for the proposition that jet fuel is present is also the evidence that is relied on for the assertion that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Note beachnut's syllogism: Since the video shows a jetliner and since jetliners use jet fuel, therefore the video shows jet fuel exploding.
But there is one problem, isn't there, posters?
That video manifestly, definitively and absolutely shows no jetliner of any kind, let alone a Boeing 757. You can look at the video a million times and you cannot see a plane of any kind, let alone a widebody Boeing 757 jetliner.
That little video is a case study in propaganda and in the power of suggestion. You are told to believe that video provides proof of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon; and, indeed, if any such thing had happened, a video placed where that camera was placed, and despite its relatively low quality, could almost certainly have captured the event such that a Boeing 757 could be seen and such that exploded parts of it would be visible. And such that one could say, with a straight face, if any such thing had happened, that it shows a jetliner impact. But, that video does no such thing.
That video is quite clear in this respect and in this respect only:
There is no jetliner in it.
Therefore, the assertion that jet fuel is present is unproven and cannot be asserted as a fact based on that video, beachnut. Your attempt to use that video for that purpose was wrong and was one of the weakest fallacies to have been posted up in this entire thread.
By the way, threads like this are not unique. The issue of the combustibility of kerosene and the obvious problem that kerosene is not nearly volatile enough to damage steel has come up many times in 9/11 related threads.
Here's but one example of one that was fairly similar to this one; namely, the difficulty of distinguishing between what is combustible and what is flammable:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44580&page=3
beachnut, you have here been exposed as having posted a long post that is misleading and false.
Let's set the record straight:
According to http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html, gasoline ignites at 257°C. Also, temperature of flame from burning petrol is 471°-560°C.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel, jet fuel has an open air burning temperature much less than that of gasoline of 287.5 °C (549.5 °F).
Tucked in the midst of post #60 is the following:
"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"
The underlined portion of the above quote confirms that what Leaphart said was literally true, as beachnut admits.
Virtually all else that beachnut says and posts in #60 above is meaningless as an attempt to say that what Leaphart said was false. Instead, beachnut admits that what Leaphart said was true.
The remaining part of the above quote is worse, posters, far worse. The remainder of the quote is where beachnut engages in propaganda of the worst sort.
beachnut is attempting to further an unproven assumption, to put it no more strongly than that. The same fireball that beachnut uses for the proposition that jet fuel is present is also the evidence that is relied on for the assertion that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Note beachnut's syllogism: Since the video shows a jetliner and since jetliners use jet fuel, therefore the video shows jet fuel exploding.
But there is one problem, isn't there, posters?
That video manifestly, definitively and absolutely shows no jetliner of any kind, let alone a Boeing 757. You can look at the video a million times and you cannot see a plane of any kind, let alone a widebody Boeing 757 jetliner.
That little video is a case study in propaganda and in the power of suggestion. You are told to believe that video provides proof of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon; and, indeed, if any such thing had happened, a video placed where that camera was placed, and despite its relatively low quality, could almost certainly have captured the event such that a Boeing 757 could be seen and such that exploded parts of it would be visible. And such that one could say, with a straight face, if any such thing had happened, that it shows a jetliner impact. But, that video does no such thing.
That video is quite clear in this respect and in this respect only:
There is no jetliner in it.
Therefore, the assertion that jet fuel is present is unproven and cannot be asserted as a fact based on that video, beachnut. Your attempt to use that video for that purpose was wrong and was one of the weakest fallacies to have been posted up in this entire thread.
By the way, threads like this are not unique. The issue of the combustibility of kerosene and the obvious problem that kerosene is not nearly volatile enough to damage steel has come up many times in 9/11 related threads.
Here's but one example of one that was fairly similar to this one; namely, the difficulty of distinguishing between what is combustible and what is flammable:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44580&page=3
beachnut, you have here been exposed as having posted a long post that is misleading and false.
