Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Killtown said:
I don't want to be accused of deliberately putting the wrong info in to further MY theory.
Click to expand...

Ok then killtown, and everyone else, how about we run with:



Your minimum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: 400m
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 400m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

--------------------------------

Your maximum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 70%
Fireball temp: 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 1000m
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

Killtown, if you disagree with this, please EXPLAIN WHY

Note - assumed fireball size = plume size. Someone else please feel free to correct, but I cannot see how it affects smoke plume size myself...
 
After 50 pages and nearly 2,000 posts, don't you think it's time you did some work, Killtown.

You have deliberately and cruelly harmed someone who was deeply affected by 9/11. Are you going to make amends, or not?

Are you a man? Prove it.
Click to expand...

From Gravy. I concur!
 
Yoink said:
By the way, Killtown: back when you were ignoring me I posted links to a couple of videos you might find interesting (given that videos are, for you, the gold standard of "forensic" investigation). Have a look at these:
Link 1
Link 2

Notice in the first one, that when the smoke cloud rises above the treeline (some time after the actual crash takes place) it is initially "untethered"--that is, there is clearly daylight between the "mushroom cloud" and the trees. Shortly thereafter, a trail of more smoke comes up and joins the cloud. There's no more footage after that.

Notice in the second one (which is, I gather from other sites reporting on the event, pre-planted fuel "bombs" being detonated on the ground in a simulation of the Pearl Harbor air attack) how the mushroom clouds A) never cease expanding (and expand massively relative to their initial fireballs), how they also boil up into the sky without any marked "trail" or "tether" of smoke linking them back to the ground. Finally, notice that there is some variation in the size, color, and shape of the clouds despite the fact that all these explosions have the "same" source and are all occuring in exactly the same atmospheric conditions. Any explanations?
Click to expand...

Nice work Yoink.
 
Yoink said:
Link 2

Notice in the second one (which is, I gather from other sites reporting on the event, pre-planted fuel "bombs" being detonated on the ground in a simulation of the Pearl Harbor air attack) how the mushroom clouds A) never cease expanding (and expand massively relative to their initial fireballs), how they also boil up into the sky without any marked "trail" or "tether" of smoke linking them back to the ground. Finally, notice that there is some variation in the size, color, and shape of the clouds despite the fact that all these explosions have the "same" source and are all occuring in exactly the same atmospheric conditions. Any explanations?
Click to expand...
Hey, looks just like Val's plume. Thanks!

:D
 
Ok, here are you new figures....


-------------------------------

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

-------------------------------

Unknown constants:

Ambient temperature
Wind direction
Plume color

-------------------------------

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 400m - 1,000m
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 400m - 1000m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 60 sec

-------------------------------
 
Dr Richard said:
Ok then killtown, and everyone else, how about we run with:



Your minimum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: 400m
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 400m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

--------------------------------

Your maximum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 70%
Fireball temp: 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 1000m
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

Killtown, if you disagree with this, please EXPLAIN WHY

Note - assumed fireball size = plume size. Someone else please feel free to correct, but I cannot see how it affects smoke plume size myself...
Click to expand...

Your peak fireball widths are way too high :) Fireball size would be roughly equal to the size of the column, not the upper cloud (the "stem" of the mushroom).
 
Hey, looks just like Val's plume. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yes, it is fuel exploding. It's not surprising that it looks like Val's plume. The plume that resulted from an explosion. Of fuel. :rolleyes:
 
By the way, Killtown, did you follow my explanation about the relationship between the volume of a sphere and its width? I'd be happy to diagram it out for you. Or does it just go into that long list of things that you call "waaaaaaaaaaaay too complicated" because you either A) don't understand them or B) find them irreconcileable with your half-assed "theory"?

P.S. Now that you have show over and over and over again for 50 pages that you have no evidence whatsoever in support of your claims, don't you think it's about time that you apologized to Val McClatchey for making these unsupported, scurrilous and clearly illegal allegations against her? You will only feel more bitter shame the longer you put off making that apology.
 
Last edited:
Oops. Just noticed Killtown doing a little more "creative" accounting. At the top of this page he had % fuel burned on impact at 95% and has now downrated it to 70%.

I think we are doing KT a disservice.

I think he DOES have some form of calculation and is frantically reworking it with every post and trying to slip his changes in unnoticed so that when we finally agree to his doctored set of variables, he will sudddenly and miraculously publish his "proof".

Unless of course this was fourth genuine mistake mistake this evening, Killtown, in which case I retract the above observation wholeheartedly and unreservedly.
 
Ok, how about these....


-------------------------------

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

-------------------------------

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 860m <<< old figures
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

-------------------------------

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

-------------------------------
 
Killtown said:
Ok, how about these....


-------------------------------

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

-------------------------------

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 860m <<< old figures
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

-------------------------------

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

-------------------------------
Click to expand...

How can the max plume size be less than the max fireball size?
 
Killtown said:
Ok, how about these....


-------------------------------

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

-------------------------------

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 860m <<< old figures
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

-------------------------------

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

-------------------------------
Click to expand...

Where do you get 30-70% fuel burn rate? Why couldn't 99% of the fuel burn?

Also, putting in the observed plume size as a "variable" in an equation that is supposed to generate the range of possible plume sizes is hilarious stupid.
 
How long is the football field when the goalposts shift so fast?
Click to expand...
My production staff is laughing at me, laughing. That one got me good. Almost coke soaked my laptop!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom