Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[R.Mackey]

1) Did you see the tail imprint?

2) You mean where the FBI say they recovered 95% of the plane?

I can't be sure from this photo -- captured off a TV, so hardly high-resolution -- what is what. There could be a tail mark somewhere. What difference does it make? I'm saying this looks to me more like a splat than a lawn-dart, entirely consistent with my statement.

You made the claim, Killtown. Use whatever actual reference you can find. That means "whoever actually dug up the plane pieces." I suspect that was NTSB and/or FAA, not FBI, but whatever. Doesn't matter.

You said the wings were buried. Now tell us why you said that. This picture is not a good reason because it doesn't say that. Give us a good reason, and we'll listen.

 

[Killtown]

The tone of your words sound like you think you're refuting his point, that it was shredded into small pieces mostly, but you haven't at all.

Here's a question that might lead you to see why: what happened to the dirt that used to be where the crater is now?

I don't know, what happened to the dirt?

 

[Skibum]

What does OCT mean?

Original Conspiracy Theory

 

[Dog Town]

Original Conspiracy Theory

I think it means Official?

 

[ghost707]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

[qimg]http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_msnbc.jpg[/qimg]

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)

You finally admitted you were wrong without even realizing it!

 

[Killtown]

You said the wings were buried. Now tell us why you said that. This picture is not a good reason because it doesn't say that. Give us a good reason, and we'll listen.

Well since they had to dig 15 ft to find the plane and aerials show wing imprints, just thought the wings were buried too:

The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/10/news_pf/Worldandnation/Small_town_shoulders_.shtml

 

[Wyn]

Original Conspiracy Theory

I take by the way dimbulb has been using it he and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd are saying the real story is the "original" conspiracy theory?

 

[Skibum]

I think it means Official?

Now that I think about it, I believe you are correct.

Guess I shouldn't post between hands while playing poker, LOL.

 

[Wyn]

Of course. We all know that no debris was found, except in the "crater."

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044cee5fd5ffdd.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044cee64ce6629.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044cef2ea7f492.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e01768321a1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044cee5fd97a51.jpg[/qimg]​

Well, yeah, all that stuff was spread around by Val, so she could sell pictures, and the FBI, because, well, BECAUSE!!!

 

[R.Mackey]

Well since they had to dig 15 ft to find the plane and aerials show wing imprints, just thought the wings were buried too:

That's not very scholarly, but I appreciate you giving some kind of reference. This is progress.

Think about what it means, though. If they had to dig "15 feet to find the plane," and the plane is -- by your own admission -- about 150 feet long or so, don't you think that means that most, if not all, of the plane was much closer to the surface? Or even on the surface? Heck, the body diameter of the plane is more than 15 feet.*

Can you imagine digging 165 feet to find the nose of the aircraft? Clearly that is NOT what happened. Also note that the wings, being sectionally quite light and presenting the most surface area to the ground, would be the least likely parts to penetrate. Landing gear, engine cores, the Black Boxes, those things might penetrate 15 feet, but it is folly to assume the wings would do the same.

We need to find a more thorough report to see just how much of the plane was in the ground, and how much was found on the surface. A lot of it was found on the surface. You like pictures, Gravy showed several. I like measurements, please try to find those instead.

* I think. Should be pretty close. Feel free to look it up and correct me.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

1) Did you see the tail imprint?

2) You mean where the FBI say they recovered 95% of the plane?

In little bitty pieces? And this explains that the wings got buried in the ground how? If you have a credible report that the wings and the fuel inside them were lodged in the earth, please provide a link.

Thanks.

 

[Killtown]

Well just wanted to mention that about the wings and them saying they had to dig for the plane just in case you needed to make some adustments to your figures. If not I think we are done with the estimates...

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

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 - 184m
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

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



Anything I left out?


What I'm going to do is draw your min/maxs on a satellite photo and show where you min/mix plumes had to be at the given times in your estimates. So as this experiment is about, it's to try to prove YOUR guys theory.

 

[LashL]

Killtown: Why do the numbers for the plume size still say 600-700 m in the "variable" section.

As Yoink said a few pages ago:

You're still confused about the difference between "variables" and "observartions." Your "plume size" is roughly the observed plume size--not the range of possible plume sizes that could be produced by a crash with these characteristics.

The range of possible plume sizes would obviously be a much larger range than 600-700m.

 

[LashL]

Anything I left out?

Yes, see above.

 

[R.Mackey]

OK, if you're going to accept that the fuel probably stayed mostly above the surface, that's fine. If you still doubt it, go ahead, but please try to find some support for your buried wings idea.

If you just want to show plume position on a satellite map, you don't need to consider the fireball at all. All you need is the smoke size estimate from the photo. The min/max of the smoke cloud is based on uncertainties in the geometry of the picture, nothing else.

The alternative is consider min/max smoke size from physics, in which case the impact, fireball, cloud dispersion etc. are all relevant. But in this case you would not use the size computed from Val's picture. That computation is not based on the physics.

We've been telling you for about ten pages not to mix up the two. Either go with the physics-based, min/max, range of possible events, or go with the observed events which are limited to a single picture of smoke. Don't mix them up. Pick one.

 

[Killtown]

OK, if you're going to accept that the fuel probably stayed mostly above the surface, that's fine. If you still doubt it, go ahead, but please try to find some support for your buried wings idea.

If you just want to show plume position on a satellite map, you don't need to consider the fireball at all. All you need is the smoke size estimate from the photo. The min/max of the smoke cloud is based on uncertainties in the geometry of the picture, nothing else.

The alternative is consider min/max smoke size from physics, in which case the impact, fireball, cloud dispersion etc. are all relevant. But in this case you would not use the size computed from Val's picture. That computation is not based on the physics.

We've been telling you for about ten pages not to mix up the two. Either go with the physics-based, min/max, range of possible events, or go with the observed events which are limited to a single picture of smoke. Don't mix them up. Pick one.

Well I was going to draw the min/max fireballs over the crater, draw the min/max plumes within the Val's camera view, then draw the width lines from each fireballs to their plumes, then add the time they would have to do it at.

 

[Killtown]

Killtown: Why do the numbers for the plume size still say 600-700 m in the "variable" section.

As Yoink said a few pages ago:



The range of possible plume sizes would obviously be a much larger range than 600-700m.

Well post the numbers you want me to use then.

 

[R.Mackey]

Well I was going to draw the min/max fireballs over the crater, draw the min/max plumes within the Val's camera view, then draw the width lines from each fireballs to their plumes, then add the time they would have to do it at.

Fine. But keep in mind that it's trickier than that. In particular:

• The fireballs need not be centered on the crater. If you buy my mechanism, it probably won't be.
• I don't see how you intend to step forward in time with the fireball. Thermal expansion will probably dominate, not windspeed. You haven't considered heat at all, nor convection, nor diffusion.
• Remember that the smoke in Val's picture doesn't need to match -- in fact, will not match -- all of the fireballs. It is quite possible for the maximum fireball size to be larger than the photographed smoke! The picture only describes one outcome, not the space of all likely outcomes.

So keep that in mind as you get busy with MS Paint. And you still haven't referenced any of your numbers. Or apologized to Val.

 

[Gravy]

You finally admitted you were wrong without even realizing it!

Hey, can somebody reprint this?

Way to go, Killtown! You just admitted that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville!

So what has this whole charade been about?

 

[Gravy]

I don't know, what happened to the dirt?

You tell us. How much of the soft earth was compacted, how much displaced, and how much dispersed?