Which fuel burns at a greater temperature?
And don’t you think after the 9-11-2001 attacks that terrorists will be seeking to use fuel tanker trucks that supply gas stations gas as “the” weapon of choice, to bring down more buildings by, say, exploding the fuel tanker trucks right at first floors to certain buildings, to be certain they collapse? This is since it wasn’t really the planes used as weapons but the fuel they packed.
Jet fuel is essentially kerosene. For round numbers, all organics burn at a similar temperature: Adiabatic flame temperature - Wikipedia.
But: You’ve confused explosions and fires. Not surprising the way Hollywood portrays them. Both gasoline & kerosene make crappy explosives. They need oxygen to burn, and getting enough oxygen blended in with the fuel before igniting the whole thing is difficult.
The advantage jets have over gasoline tanker trucks as improvised weapons is A) 2-10x as much fuel, B) greater speed at impact/initiation to spread the fuel & atomize it for better, faster, and more widespread ignition and combustion, and C) the kinetic impact of a couple hundred thousand pounds of aircraft mass moving at a couple to a few hundred mph.
Versus those factors, even a 20% difference in burning temperature would be insignificant.
Further, If you wanted to determine the relative destructive power of either fuel in isolation, you’d probably want to compare the chemical energy content. Ref Energy density - Wikipedia the typical values are 44.4 MJ/kg for gasoline and 46 for kerosene. IOW, kerosene is *more *enegetic than gasoline by about 2% by weight and by ~15% by volume.
Since it has been 13 years since 9/11, and we have seen not a single fuel tanker truck attack, I suspect that this will not end up being their weapon of choice.
A 300,000+ pound aircraft flying at 200+ mph produces much more of a wallop than an 80,000 pound truck just sitting next to a building when it hits something. Even if the truck drove into a building, it probably couldn’t be going more than 70 mph in most cities.
Also consider by flying into the building, the fuel was injected into the interior. A truck outside wouldn’t have the same affect. Most large trucks can’t get into underground parking. I guess a truck loading dock might make a little difference.
Yep, and probably more like 350+ mph, 200 is slow for an airliner (not slow - landing slow, but slow - getting ready for an approach slow.)
At least one of the 9/11 planes that struck the WTC was traveling over 550 MPH.
Probably the most explosive tanker truck bomb you could make would be if you took a cryogenic tanker and filled it with the appropriate mixture of liquid methane and liquid oxygen. I don’t know however if those two are miscible in liquid form.
Yep not surprising. Unlike piston engined props, jets can easily exceed their maximum operating speed even in level flight.
I think you could do just as well with charcoal. Many years ago I saw an article about the popular stunt of lighting a charcoal grill with a cigarette and a gallon of liquid oxygen. You were supposed to put the cigarette on the pile of charcoal, and THEN pour the LOX on top. The article stated that if you poured on the LOX and then lit the pile, you’d have a massive explosion, and went on to say that one charcoal briquette saturated with LOX was the equivalent of a stick of dynamite.
So get a LOX truck, and pour in as many charcoal briquettes as you can fit. Don’t even need a detonator, just a simple igniter: 9-volt battery + steel wool in tank, + remote switch (to complete the igniter circuit) in cab of truck.
Remember too that the key factor in why the Twin Towers collapsed was that the impact force of the planes caused the fireproof coating on the steel girders of several floors to get blasted away. This lead to the prolonged fire being able to weaken & melt them to the point of collapse. And once one floor lost structural integrity the Towers became a house of cards. Total collapse was inevitable.
Aside from the fact that a large tanker pulling up to a building that is not a filling station would draw attention - probably before getting near the building.
Then there is the oxidation problem. The bomb used in the attack on the Federal Building (OK?) had a tank of oxygen in the mix - they knew that they had too much (fertilizer) bomb mix for the amount of air in the truck.
Anyway:
Jet A = kerosene (those engines require lots of maintenance).
Piston engine = 100 Octane LOW-LEAD - the engine design is straight out of the 1930’s - last improvement was in 1944. They require lead. I once saw a very expensive (Ferrari or better) fueling from the airport’s tanker (100 LL). Both illegal and stupid. Yes, you get 100 octane. And your engine gets fouled royally from the lead. When the label says “unleaded only”, believe it.
The planes themselves were indeed used as weapons - their brutally forceful impact played a major role in the WTC’s destruction. Even if nearly empty of fuel, or if there were somehow no subsequent fire, a Boeing 767 slamming into a skyscraper at hundreds of mph would still do great damage.
We are quite good at putting out fires at ground level. Starting huge fires at the base of a building would not have the same devastating effects as one 90 floors up.
Also, the effects from fire on 9/11 were not planned for. The terrorists planned to knock the buildings into each other. They believed that crashing a plane into the top of the building would knock it over. When they saw the buildings standing after the impact, they thought the mission was a failure.
The first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, was a truck bomb:
As was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing:
and the East African U.S. Embassy bombings:
Lots of such incidents, all the way back to the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing:
and forwards (Wikipedia has an entire category for various terrorist attack modes).
None of them involved fuel tankers; as “LSLGuy” pointed out, those don’t make very effective explosives.
Which is why my hypothetical was a cryogenic tanker that could hold the fuel and oxygen pre-mixed.
That will make a great Dumb Criminals video or fail video. Never mess with Oxygen.
I assume that if a methane/oxygen mixture doesn’t spontaneously detonate as a room temperature gas, it wouldn’t as a mixed cryogenic liquid. Providing the increased density doesn’t make a difference. And hopefully there’s nothing in the tank that could act as a catalyst. But yeah, I wouldn’t want to test it.
Didn’t you think after Timothy McVeigh’s attack in Oklahoma City that the domestic anti-government terrorists would continue to use rental vans packed with fertilizer and diesel oil to bring down more buildings?
Timothy McVeigh did a hell of a job with ammonium nitrate. Imagine a semi truck loaded with that stuff in the middle of a congested city. It’d be a lot easier to learn to drive a semi than fly a jumbo jet.
uhhhh… what? Air isn’t an issue for explosives, explosives have their own oxidizer in them. Ammonium nitrate (the fertilizer) included…
ohhhh, unless it was ANFO, in which case the fuel oil part does need air? Stillm would it work that way? The Ammonium nitrate provides plenty of oxidizer