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.
Why? My fireball sizes were towards the low end of our range anyway, and well inside it. I feel no need to adjust.

-Andrew
Well since your max fireball size is BIGGER than your max plume size, well...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 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 estimates
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

-------------------------------
 
Ah, I see the ignore list is growing again.

Afraid I'll show you scary pictures again, Killtown?
 
Well since your max fireball size is BIGGER than your max plume size, well...


It is not. 860m is not MY maximum fireball size, and I have NEVER given max and min sizes for the plume.

Quit with your games and GET ON WITH IT.

-Andrew
 
We are almost done. I'm going to make it easy on you guys. Fill in the your max fireball size and we'll be nearly done...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - ???
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

-------------------------------
 
Hey buck, you're gonna have to recalculate things!


as I said earlier (not bothering to link):
You are indeed less educated than a yellow-handled screwdriver...
Volume of a sphere=4/3*pi*r^3
50% reduction in volume =25% reduction in radius
reduction in mass= little reduction in energy, since energy =1/2 *M*v^2, and v (velocity) is still 51480 ft/sec (so energy is still 5315 ft-lb, or 7173J per piund of airplane weight)
lower volume+ large energy=more aerosol=larger fireball, probably
 
Possibly, but a large portion of the fuel is going to be driven into the ground, as well.

Here's my thinking:

IMagine the impact as the point of origin of an explosion (which it essentially is, at those speeds). You can model an explosion as an expanding sphere. Assuming equal distribution of shrapnel, debris, and fuel, with a point of origin at ground level, half the fuel gets buried into the ground and half sprays upwards or outwards, aerosolized by the force of impact, and igniting as soon as it spreads far enough to reach the right fuel-air mix. What's in the ground is not likely to aerosolize unless it's tossed back up somehow, and even then will likely stay atttached to dirt and other debris, so would not make an FAE-type explosion but just a burn. THis additional fuel may have burned, but I doubt it would aerosolize and explode.

Of course, in an impact like this, more debris would be thrown forward (inertia would carry more of it into the ground), so even 50% seems a bit wishful thiking to me. However, becasue of the complexity of the crash I can't rule anything out. Because it hit sideways and at an angle, the wings could have been torn in a manner to spread/spray more fuel, etc. However, I think a 50% baseline seems reasonable, and I don't think it'd get much higher than that, so I guesstimated 70%.

I'm going to take issue with the observation that half the fuel would be buried into the ground. I don't think this is right. The percentage of what went up as opposed to down is going to be far higher in favor of aerosolization.

Here's why:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...+tanks+757&nojs=1&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8

I hope that ridculously long link works because it shows the fuel tank layout for the 757. As you can see most of the fuel is carried in the wings. The center tank's girth expands out past the wingroots almost to the engine nacelles. When the plane hit, I would think the first thing to go would be the wings and the gas. They're going to overstress and snap off right away rather than get buried into the ground. As for the centerline tank, it's going to going to rupture on either side of the roots when the wings go, and send the gas the same way as everything else. Up.
 
We are almost done. I'm going to make it easy on you guys. Fill in the your max fireball size and we'll be nearly done...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - ???
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

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


GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL! WE. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. THEORY. WE HAVE MADE EDUCATED GUESSES BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION! GET ON WITH YOUR DAMNED GAME ALREADY!
 
unlike CTers the people here are not comfortable pulling random numbers out of the a$$ to support their viewpoints
 
More like reposted the information on the websites were her photo is advertised.

The point stands. She posts to sell the photo. You post so people will call her up and harass her after reading your crap. Look at you. You are certainly getting an education now and doing all sorts of legwork here that you didn't before. But the difference is you judged her guilty by association first without learning half of what you did on here. At least she stands by her name. You stand behind anonymity.
 
Kc has been busy, a post of his from ats.
Just in, Flight 93 reportedly had about 5,500 gals of jet fuel at impact.

Kind of hard to make a BIG smoke plume with so LITTLE fuel!

And also take into account that many OCTs believe a lot of fuel was buried underground along with the plane!

Just be honest with yourselves and come to the realizaton that the smoke plume in Val McClatchey's photo was NOT from Flight 93 crashing

He has a little cult growing! How cute.
 
Hey buck, you're gonna have to recalculate things!

Actually, this is your conspiracy theory. You should recalculate things but I don't think you're smart enough to find someone who can do it for you. Either way, I think Yoink's post will bear out that will show 45% less fuel doesn't necessarily mean a cloud half as big. Besides, I think your 70% guess about how much fuel initially went up is too small. Gas carried in wings. Wings break off right away when contacting something more solid than they are.

I don't think you'll be doing your Happy Dance for long.
 
Why is this thread still going? Killtown has shown no evidence to support his theory.
Never had, never will.
 
But the difference is you judged her guilty by association first without learning half of what you did on here. At least she stands by her name. You stand behind anonymity.
Evidence that Killtown has learned anything here? :confused:
 
I'm going to take issue with the observation that half the fuel would be buried into the ground. I don't think this is right. The percentage of what went up as opposed to down is going to be far higher in favor of aerosolization.

Here's why:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...+tanks+757&nojs=1&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8

I hope that ridculously long link works because it shows the fuel tank layout for the 757. As you can see most of the fuel is carried in the wings. The center tank's girth expands out past the wingroots almost to the engine nacelles. When the plane hit, I would think the first thing to go would be the wings and the gas. They're going to overstress and snap off right away rather than get buried into the ground. As for the centerline tank, it's going to going to rupture on either side of the roots when the wings go, and send the gas the same way as everything else. Up.

Good points. I was thinking about that, which was the only thing that kept me from being firm on a 50% figure. So 70% would be a not-unrealistic average; a sphere centered 20m or so above the ground, at the point where the wings snap off and the tanks rupture. I'll go with that :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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