Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Gravy]

You know Gravy, funny you bring up the crater.

I'm sure it is funny to you. In fact, you think that Photoshopped feces on that grave site is "Funny!"

Why don't you tell us what's funny about that, Killtown?

 

[SezMe]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Anyway, assuming it is, notice the shrubbery in the foreground. It appears to be only a few feet from the crater yet there is no apparent singing and there is no bending or breakage of the very thin branches that I would expect.

I might add, since this is the first time I've posted in all these 911 threads, that I think the CTers are pond scum that are doing real damage to the USA. I am not one of them.

 

[gumboot]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

To my way of thinking, a lack of evidence of extensive fire at the crash scene could suggest the fuel all fireballed in the air (collaborated by Val's photo).

In addition, a large chunk of forest was completely burned down. Assumably that was caused by the crash, so may indicate that the fuel headed in that direction and didn't burn the direct crash area.

I would only expect large burnt areas if the fuel spilled onto the ground and then burned on the ground - as is typical with low-speed air crashes.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Anyway, assuming it is, notice the shrubbery in the foreground. It appears to be only a few feet from the crater yet there is no apparent singing and there is no bending or breakage of the very thin branches that I would expect.

I might add, since this is the first time I've posted in all these 911 threads, that I think the CTers are pond scum that are doing real damage to the USA. I am not one of them.

I believe the photo is authentic, but I've never seen the original. We're looking at a cropped copy. It appears to have been taken from near the impact point of the right wingtip (the plane was nearly upside-down). If it was taken with a long lens, then apparent distance compression comes into play.

I think this is a good example of how "common sense" is meaningless when analyzing an event like this. "Common sense" (and Bruce Willis movies) makes me think that the grass within the wingspan should be scorched from the blast. But I have no actual experience with events like this, nor do I know exactly how, when, and where the fuel was dispersed. So, the photo is more evidence of how much I don't know about high-speed airliner crashes. I wonder what Killtown has learned from it.

 

[Belz...]

For this experiment it did.

Incredible. You HAVE no opinion, do you ? You're using photographic evidence to argue that a plane DID crash there, and when reminded of the fact that you previously hinted that there was no plane you answer this ?? So, you didn't mix up your lies ? It was intentional all along ?

Despicable.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not understanding your whole "dirt" thing?

I'm going to fix that up for you:

I'm not understanding your whole thing?

There.

 

[Dr Richard]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Anyway, assuming it is, notice the shrubbery in the foreground. It appears to be only a few feet from the crater yet there is no apparent singing and there is no bending or breakage of the very thin branches that I would expect.

I might add, since this is the first time I've posted in all these 911 threads, that I think the CTers are pond scum that are doing real damage to the USA. I am not one of them.

This is a tragic event - 170+ dead including 45 children - I came across the picture today. However, I think it answers your question, SezMe.

"A Russian airliner that crashed in eastern Ukraine yesterday killing all 170 passengers and crew on board was probably struck by lightning as it encountered heavy turbulence, a preliminary investigation suggested last night..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1856135,00.html

Look at the picture. The engine in the foreground is charred, smoke is drifting across the frame - but a lot of the grass looks unburnt.

The fires look even more impressive here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5276784.stm

I agree with Gravy's summary that predicting damage to surrounding vegetation in airplane crashes of this sort is impossible.

 

[Gravy]

Incredible. You HAVE no opinion, do you ? You're using photographic evidence to argue that a plane DID crash there, and when reminded of the fact that you previously hinted that there was no plane you answer this ?? So, you didn't mix up your lies ? It was intentional all along ?

Despicable.

Perhaps here he's hinted. Everywhere else he states it flat-out.

"Because no 757 crashed in Shanksville. The scene was all faked"

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=53

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Here's the photographer holding a less-cropped print of that photo.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/flight9306.html

 

[Wyn]

I believe the photo is authentic, but I've never seen the original. We're looking at a cropped copy. It appears to have been taken from near the impact point of the right wingtip (the plane was nearly upside-down). If it was taken with a long lens, then apparent distance compression comes into play.

I think this is a good example of how "common sense" is meaningless when analyzing an event like this. "Common sense" (and Bruce Willis movies) makes me think that the grass within the wingspan should be scorched from the blast. But I have no actual experience with events like this, nor do I know exactly how, when, and where the fuel was dispersed. So, the photo is more evidence of how much I don't know about high-speed airliner crashes. I wonder what Killtown has learned from it.

The fuel tanks don't go all the way out to the wing tips so, the wing tip would have hit the ground, as shown, but no fuel is there. I'd be willing to bet that the scorching in this picture is limited to the dimentions of the fuel tanks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.)

I have no sense of the scale of that picture. What is casting the shadow?

DR

 

[Graham2001]

The impact pattern in the picture shown by Killtown is definitely caused by the high-speed impact of an aircraft.

Back in 1971 a British European Airways Vanguard crashed near Ghent in Belgium (2nd October 1971). The rear pressure bulkhead failed causing air to rush into the tail and destroy the rear control surfaces.

The plane 'tipped up' and hit the ground vertically at full speed. The impact pattern is just the same one big central hole with linear 'dents' where the wings hit. From the pictures in McArthur Jobs 'Air Disaster 4' (tinyurl.com/ogche) it would appear that the debris stayed very close to the point of impact in that case as well.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

This is a tragic event - 170+ dead including 45 children - I came across the picture today. However, I think it answers your question, SezMe.

"A Russian airliner that crashed in eastern Ukraine yesterday killing all 170 passengers and crew on board was probably struck by lightning as it encountered heavy turbulence, a preliminary investigation suggested last night..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1856135,00.html

Look at the picture. The engine in the foreground is charred, smoke is drifting across the frame - but a lot of the grass looks unburnt.

The fires look even more impressive here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5276784.stm

I agree with Gravy's summary that predicting damage to surrounding vegetation in airplane crashes of this sort is impossible.

Anybody living in the Midwest is familiar with the damage done by tornadoes and the random nature of destruction that can accompany such bursts of physical violence....your house is fine but your neighbor's gets flattened, etc.

 

[rwguinn]

To my way of thinking, a lack of evidence of extensive fire at the crash scene could suggest the fuel all fireballed in the air (collaborated by Val's photo).

In addition, a large chunk of forest was completely burned down. Assumably that was caused by the crash, so may indicate that the fuel headed in that direction and didn't burn the direct crash area.

I would only expect large burnt areas if the fuel spilled onto the ground and then burned on the ground - as is typical with low-speed air crashes.

-Andrew

Just remember--at 585 mph and a 40 degree crash angle, the fuel/aircraft had a 448 mph horizontal velocity. that is 657 feet per second, horizontally. that is 115,000 foot-lb/sec of horizontal momentum just for the fuel--which, if Sir Issac was correct, is a lot of reason to keep traveling, with not much to stop it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just remember--at 585 mph and a 40 degree crash angle, the fuel/aircraft had a 448 mph horizontal velocity. that is 657 feet per second, horizontally. that is 3.6 million foot-lb/sec of horizontal momentum just for the fuel--which, if Sir Issac was correct, is a lot of reason to keep traveling, with not much to stop it.

Do we know from what direction the impact occurred?

 

[Yoink]

There's something sadly bathetic about this. For quite a while I thought KT might actually have something that he thought was a devastating blow to the "OCT"--I never doubted that it would be based on some kind of logical or mathematical error, but I thought it would be at least something new. Perhaps he'd have found a website that gave figures for estimating smoke cloud from fireball size or something.

But it turns out that all he's going to do is get busy with Photoshop again. If he actually bothers to go through with this nonsense I predict (and would be willing to bet large sums of cash on the prediction) that the central turn in his "debunking" argument will be, once again, the good ol' argument from personal incredulity: "and of course the smoke cloud couldn't possibly be that big!" Which just brings us back to where we started: it looks wrong to KT, so it is wrong: QED.

Sad and sordid.

 

[Yoink]

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

Anything I left out?

KT: the "fuel % burned upon impact" is a pure guesstimate (the person who gave you those figures says so). It's probably not a bad guesstimate, but it can't plausibly be used to constrain your modelling. You'd be better to go from 10-99%--at least that way you won't be vulnerable to perfectly reasonable second-guessing on that variable.

The fireball temperature figures are at least based upon some known constants, but were provided to you in both cases by people who didn't know for sure what the effects of super-compression followed by aerosolization of fuel might be on fireball temperature. By all means run whatever "calculations" you want to do based on these figures, but--again--be aware that further research is required before these figures could be in any way declared to be certain limits.

I don't remember where you got the peak fireball width from, or whether the numbers you have there honestly represent anybody's work (why don't you put post numbers in as references for these figures? Given that none of them are your work, that would be honest as well as helpful). Without confirmation from one of the more knowledgeable members of the group, I'm suspicious of those figures.

Windspeed: that range is absurd. We have two different readings: 9 knots is a daily average, correct? 25 knots comes from the black box. I think we can assume that the black box's reading with the plane heading nose down at 580 knots into the ground is suspect. The 9 knots is meaningless for determining wind speed for a given couple of minutes in a whole day. We also know almost nothing about wind direction. The only honest figures you could put in for windspeed AND direction are "unknown." Or, if you prefer "0 to 40kt, direction unknown. You simply don't have the data to support the range you're offering there. (I offer 40 knots, by the way, as an upper limit simply on the basis that wind anywhere in that range would have been likely to draw comment from witnesses).

Plume size: aaaarggh! I tried to explain this to you before. That is the observed plume size. It is not one of your "constraining variables." The whole point of your stupid pretend "experiment" is to determine the possible range of plume sizes. Put the observed plume size down in a separate section as "the null hypothesis"--if the outcomes of your calculations from the known variables rule out the possibility of a plume of that observed size, then you will have disproved the null hypothesis and you can party. Plus, I'll corner the market in specially reinforced umbrellas to protect people from the flocks of flying pigs that will shortly take to the sky.

Elapsed time: again--that's not a constraining variable in your "experiment." We know nothing whatsoever about the time of the photograph other than Val's "five second" claim. We are all agreed that this claim is of zero informational value. Unless at the end of all this your whole thing will be to rest on that "five seconds" claim as somehow binding, there is no point in putting this value into your "experiment."

So, apart from the fact that every variable you propose is either wrong, irrelevant, or unproven, and that there are dozens of crucially important variables that you are leaving our of your calculation, this looks great.

 

[Hellbound]

Just to point one other thing out:

Peak fireball width should be a determination from your other variables. Specifically, the scatter pattern of the fuel, ignition type and method, fuel/air ratio, timing of the ignition, air pressure that day, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, and probably some other things I've forgotten. Best we can give is a guess which, if you're going to use, you really don't need anything else. Most of the data we've offered would be used to calculate a peak fireball width (more accurately, a range of results), and the characteristics of the fireball could be used to determine the plume size range.

 

[mortimer]

My guess is KT will come back with some more photoshopped Google Earth images and say, "Well, if there's no way the plume was that big back when I determined (from forensics and calculations) plume size with 7,500gal of fuel, there's no way it can be that big with even less fuel! QED!"

 

[CurtC]

...the central turn in his "debunking" argument will be, once again, the good ol' argument from personal incredulity: "and of course the smoke cloud couldn't possibly be that big!"

I had the impression that he was wanting to know how large of a fireball could lead to a smoke cloud that big, and assuming that the fireball was at ground-level, would try to prove that it couldn't be as big as would be necessary, because the trees within that fireball would have been burned.

Something along the lines of "to make a smoke cloud 600 meters across, the initial fireball would had to have been 300 meters across at ground-level, but we know it wasn't that big becuase trees 150 meters from the crater were unharmed. Further, if you look at the trees that were burned, it indicates a 75-meter fireball, which could not grow to a 600-meter smoke cloud."

I'm making some of these numbers up, but I thought that's where Killtown was headed.