Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: davikkm

Interestingly, jet fuel isn’t that easy to ignite.


2 posted on 10/05/2017 9:53:09 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: G Larry

We used an acetylene torch to get it to light up.


4 posted on 10/05/2017 9:55:34 AM PDT by eyeamok (Idle hands are the Devil's workshop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

the tannerite in his trunk that never made it to the tanks would have made it a lot easier.


9 posted on 10/05/2017 9:57:33 AM PDT by bioqubit (bioqubit: Educated Men Make Terrible Slaves - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

Interestingly, jet fuel isn’t that easy to ignite.


To put it mildly.

I use diesel to start and feed wood fires on my property because it’s hard to get into trouble like you can with gasoline. And Diesel and jet fuel are not that far apart, at least in combustibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

I could shoot a diesel can all day without getting it to do anything.

Now, gasoline is another matter.


17 posted on 10/05/2017 10:00:53 AM PDT by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm male.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

Maybe he didn’t realize it was jet fue- l just saw tanks


20 posted on 10/05/2017 10:02:37 AM PDT by hoosiermama (When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

Jet Fuel vapor is quite explosive.

If those tanks were only 1/2 full, or less, the remainder being air...and a powerful round hits the “empty” part of the tank, there would be a big bang.

A very big bang.

Ever hear of a Fuel-Air explosive?


23 posted on 10/05/2017 10:04:11 AM PDT by Mariner (Pink Pussy Hats for the NFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

No, it’s not. Paddock might have had a chance if he had been able to put his stash of Tannerite at the base of the tanks and even then a hundred pounds would have been preferable to fifty pounds.


25 posted on 10/05/2017 10:05:25 AM PDT by VietVet876
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry
Interestingly, jet fuel isn’t that easy to ignite.

Closer to kerosene than gasoline, IIUC.

36 posted on 10/05/2017 10:09:28 AM PDT by JimRed ( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

Thanks for pointing that out, though most here probably don’t understand why.

Gasoline, and AV-Gas for reciprocating engine aircraft has a lower ignition temperature and is more likely to ignite by a spark. Jet fuel, for turbine and jet engines, is designed to have a higher flash point temperature and, as you stated, is harder to ignite.

I have not heard anyone state whether the storage tanks Paddock shot were AV-Gas or Jet fuel. It would seem a not well thought out part of his plan if the tanks turn out to be jet fuel, which they probably are.


39 posted on 10/05/2017 10:11:00 AM PDT by Magnum44 (My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry
"...jet fuel isn’t that easy to ignite."

Ha! I used to test-run jet engines - one guy was smoking a butt next to a 5 gal. pail full of fuel, no big deal - a "brand new" Engineer went to the boss yelling about "safety!" and a possible "explosion!".
We were in tears - it was hilarious.

46 posted on 10/05/2017 10:18:08 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12184/what-are-the-differences-between-fuel-types-comparing-with-vehicles/12188


72 posted on 10/05/2017 10:45:03 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (https://imgoat.com/uploads/645920e395/39513.gif)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry
Interestingly, jet fuel isn’t that easy to ignite.

Like when Bruce Willis lights jet fuel and it burns so fast it catches the plane and blows it up in Die Hard 2.

76 posted on 10/05/2017 10:59:09 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Goblins, Orcs and the Undead: Metaphors for the godless left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry

I wondered if he had originally planned to place the Tannerite on or around the tanks to either kill more victims or create a diversion to facilitate an escape - don’t know if that would work but from the limited videos I’ve seen it seems plausible.


106 posted on 10/05/2017 1:15:31 PM PDT by techrules2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: G Larry
Not easy to ignite. That's something he should have (might have) known since he owned a couple planes.

And if they did ignite, the flames would go straight up.

Do we even know ABSOLUTELY that the bullets found in the tanks came from his guns?

123 posted on 10/08/2017 3:15:57 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson