Meet Jerry V. Leaphart

Where does this leave Leaphart?

No clue on 911, no physics skills, he ignores the kinetic energy impacts by saying aircraft are hollow tubes.

The DEW no-plane dolt, Leaphart has to make up lies he has not made up yet to explain the evidence he ignores due to willful ignorace.
wtcengine4.jpg

What lie can Leaphart make up about this; the not so hollow propulsion system of jet aircraft which impacted the WTC, which burns the not-flammable jet fuel at thousands of degrees.


Only a few morons support Leaphart and Judy's idiotic DEW insanity.
They take action...
standup.jpg

What is their best skill? Spreading lies, stupid lies, lies so stupid they don't know they are stupid.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
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.

[qimg]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh177/shampo_bucket/nailonthehead.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Why do you insist that Kerosene is combustable?? Its not, its flameable. It has an ignition source of BELOW 100 deg. F. NOT ABOVE.

I thought we had gone over this.

You're STILL WRONG, and that link from WEKIPEDIA even debunks you.
 
jammonius said:
Snipped

However, more in touch with the subject of this thread; i.e., the volatility of jet fuel and its properties, have you taken a look at that huge photo that beachnut has posted up for us twice now? I'm talking about this one:

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg[/qimg]

Look at it. Why is the smoke freakin' light gray in color? That is woefully inconsistent with a kerosene fire that should be jet (no pun intended) black, billowy and thick, consistent with particulate rich kerosene.
Click to expand...

Two things.

#1- You must be color blind.
Damn
Capture.png

I have pointed out the grey smoke.

Secondly, there are many other things that are burning in that fireball.
Not all will burn grey.

You cannot tell exactly what is burning by the color. You can tell within a class what is burning by the color of smoke.

Black=hydrocarbon.

What is jet fuel?? Oh, yeah, a hydrocarbon.

Der.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!!!!
 
GlennB said:
jammonius said:
Jet fuel is not flammable .....
Click to expand...
I resign
Click to expand...

Just to clear this one up, jammonius was - in the most pedantic sense possible - correct, according to the official definition of the word "flammable". Jet fuel is formulated such that its flashpoint is about a degree higher than the upper limit of the official definition of the word "flammable", and therefore qualifies as "combustible", allowing it to enter a less serious hazard class. Anything with a flashpoint below 38ºC is classified as a workplace hazard; Jet A has a flashpoint of 38ºC, just barely freeing it from that classification.

Jammonius was, of course, using the fallacy of equivocation. The commonly understood meaning of "flammable" is "capable of burning", whereas the formal meaning is "a combustible substance with a flashpoint below 38ºC". Jammonius is trying to conflate the two meanings, by suggesting that, because jet fuel does not conform to the formal meaning, it therefore does not conform to the common meaning and therefore cannot burn. Why he thinks he can get away with this blatant example of misrepresentation is beyond me; however, that seems to be the case with all of his thought processes.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom