Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwpjr

I thought the original theory of bundled high voltage wires arcing inside the fuel tank was bogus from the get-go. I'm no expert, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but, there would probably not been enough oxygen inside the tank to sustain an explosion. Jet fuel, I believe, is primarily kerosene, not gasoline....


40 posted on 07/16/2004 6:10:20 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Red Badger

Correct. An explosion from "fumes" has to occur when the 'fume/air' mix is precisely X (I don't know what it is for kerosene fumes.)

In the case of natural gas, though, the mix has to be precisely 7% IIRC.

So there are a LOT of co-incidences which must have happened--besides the fact that there was NO OTHER Boeing plane on which this EVER happened.


74 posted on 07/16/2004 7:11:31 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Red Badger
I thought the original theory of bundled high voltage wires arcing inside the fuel tank was bogus from the get-go.

There is no HIGH voltage wiring in the fuel tank.

And yes, it's essentially kerosene, and demonstrably will not ignite unless the temperatures are way above ambient, or else the fuel has been turned into an aerosal, such as by an impact, or warhead detonation pressure wave.

140 posted on 07/16/2004 5:39:42 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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