Thus spake "Johannes Ullrich" <jullrich@euclidian.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html ... While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building.
On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords.
The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks?
Jet fuel ak.a kerosene is essentially the same thing as diesel. The only reason it's 'inert' is that it's too dense to explode like gasoline. You have to mix in oxidizers (e.g. fertilizer) or atomize it mechanically (e.g. BLU-82) before ignition if you want a big boom. The problem with the WTC was actually the lack of a big boom -- the slow-burning fire lasted long enough to weaken the structure. If there had been a couple tons of fertilizer on those planes, you would have seen a massive fireball but the buildings would have stayed up, just like in 1993. Not sure how this is relevant to NANOG, but I find it interesting. S