Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[stickin_damud]

There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world to respond to this.

LOL!!! That one I missed. But didn't you know some dirt is older than others. It takes a keen eye to recognize the old dirt from the REALLY, REALLY old dirt....in a photo no less.

 

[Hellbound]

No prob.

I had found that data before, because I wanted to see about calculating the kinetic energy of the impact...but I figured it wouldn't make a dent in KT's claims so I didn't bother with the math

 

[DavidJames]

There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world to respond to this.

It's comments like those you quoted that that are moving me from alternating laughing and being angry at him to feeling sorry and pity.

The boy is clearly a legend in his own mind but is hopelessly intellectually immature. He has no education (or at least doesn't use it) and lacks basic logic skills. Like many other CTers, he has no clue what he's really saying nor it's impact or ramifications. Life for him plays out like a video game or movie. With them, he can master all there is to know by watching and playing them over and over again. No research, no analysis necessary, it's no more complex then pixels on a monitor.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Let's not forget Killtwn's version of events...

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/WynB/KilltownFlt93Explanation.jpg[/qimg]

I like the way in A) The plane breaks into parts and in B) the plane is back together again and mashed into the earth. Presumably somewhere between A and B (I guess A and a half), the parts bounced off the ground, reassembled themselves, backed up a little to regain velocity, and then slammed themselves into the ground.

I liked that. I liked that part a lot.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Killtown, why do you lie about the events of 9/11?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044ef003c49c05.jpg[/qimg]​

Notice that because of the peculiar color cast of the photo, the charred areas appear in shades of purple. If we select a mid-range purple in that area and convert to black & white, here's what we get:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044ef07fc55f53.jpg[/qimg]​

Killtown, you got some 'splainin to do!

Wolfy, do you have a measurement on this?

 

[Skibum]

I think it supposed to be a multiple choice question, what do you think happened A or B.

I pick C.

 

[Yoink]

I checked out of this a while ago, but I'm just popping back in to say thanks to Gumboot, Arkan_Wolfshade, Gravy and R. Mackey for continuing to smack Killtown's pathetic arguments around. I do think it serves a purpose, even though it's a little like watching a six-year old arguing physics with Einstein.

I do have a question about the crash, actually for those who've been following these crackpot theories for longer than I have: when the conspiracy nuts go on about how far down the investigators had to dig for "buried" parts of the plane are they making those figures up entirely or what? I find it hard to imagine that large parts of the plane would have been "buried" in any normal sense of that word (i.e., actually tunnelling into the earth like lawn darts). The plane would be like a big alloy balloon slamming into the earth--it would pop like a balloon, I'd have thought, rather than tunnel in (although, obviously, denser pieces of the plane could detach from the body and burrow down; I wouldn't have thought something as large as an engine would--but that's just a guess).

On the other hand, I can imagine that at the moment of impact it would send a large amount of
dirt would have been flung up into the air, only to rain down on the crash site immediately afterwards. Could that be what "buried" parts of the plane? And could that also account for some of the "blurring" of what might otherwise be a more clearly defined "charred area" under the initial fireball?

 

[KingMerv00]

I like the way in A) The plane breaks into parts and in B) the plane is back together again and mashed into the earth. Presumably somewhere between A and B (I guess A and a half), the parts bounced off the ground, reassembled themselves, backed up a little to regain velocity, and then slammed themselves into the ground.

I liked that. I liked that part a lot.

I don't think A and B were meant to be in sequence. I think they are alternative ideas. In Killtown's opinion the plane should have been:

A) Cystalline?- The 757 absorbs the kinetic energy of a nosedive by breaking into huge identifiable chunks. The plane is brittle but for some reason, its components (the wings, the cockpit, etc.) are not. Sort of like breaking a cue ball by throwing it at a brick wall.

B) Hard nosed with a fuselage of jelly - The tip of the plane is strong enough to survive impact and burrow underground but the rest of the plane accordian-collapses like Roadrunner cartoon.

The only two options. Period. I base this on absolutely nothing.

 

[Hellbound]

A) Cystalline?- The 757 absorbs the kinetic energy of a nosedive by breaking into huge identifiable chunks. The plane is brittle but for some reason, its components (the wings, the cockpit, etc.) are not. Sort of like breaking a cue ball by throwing it at a brick wall.

[Killtown]No, idiot!

THe plane breaks up, right? Those pieces are only falling 40 or fifty feet!!! There's no WAY they'd blow into a million pieces!!! They're already off the plane, so they aren't going 580 mph any more, they're just falling!!!one!!!!111!1!!!1eleven!!!\[/Killtown]

 

[KingMerv00]

[Killtown]No, idiot!

THe plane breaks up, right? Those pieces are only falling 40 or fifty feet!!! There's no WAY they'd blow into a million pieces!!! They're already off the plane, so they aren't going 580 mph any more, they're just falling!!!one!!!!111!1!!!1eleven!!!\[/Killtown]

Well let's do a REAL experiment Killtown. Get into an elevator, destroy the emergency brakes and cut the cable. Wait till you get to the 1st floor and then jump. Report back to me.

 

[R.Mackey]

I do have a question about the crash, actually for those who've been following these crackpot theories for longer than I have: when the conspiracy nuts go on about how far down the investigators had to dig for "buried" parts of the plane are they making those figures up entirely or what? I find it hard to imagine that large parts of the plane would have been "buried" in any normal sense of that word (i.e., actually tunnelling into the earth like lawn darts). The plane would be like a big alloy balloon slamming into the earth--it would pop like a balloon, I'd have thought, rather than tunnel in (although, obviously, denser pieces of the plane could detach from the body and burrow down; I wouldn't have thought something as large as an engine would--but that's just a guess).

On the other hand, I can imagine that at the moment of impact it would send a large amount of dirt would have been flung up into the air, only to rain down on the crash site immediately afterwards. Could that be what "buried" parts of the plane? And could that also account for some of the "blurring" of what might otherwise be a more clearly defined "charred area" under the initial fireball?

Keep in mind that the "burrowed" parts didn't burrow that far. Engine cores, for instance, are actually quite dense and -- if you blow off the N1 and N2 rotor vanes -- pretty narrow in cross section. And as far as we can tell without a proper reference, they didn't penetrate further than 15 feet. The Black Boxes, which are a bit bigger than lunchboxes, are pretty dense (about 16 pounds) owing to their armor steel housing. They are located in the tail of the aircraft, thus would fall through the remains of the fuselage into the deepest part of the crater on impact and keep moving. These were found at a depth of about 25 feet if memory serves.

Remember that the impact point for Flight 93 was landfill on an old mine, so relatively loose dirt. This is about as good as conditions will get for ground penetration. On harder-packed or rocky terrain, you'd probably still see a few pieces bury themselves. But even if you hit water at that angle and velocity, the results would be shattering.

It's quite likely that a lot of dirt was thrown up on impact, and a good bit of it must have fallen back onto the impact point. But probably not more than a foot, at the outside, I'd guess. More likely the original crater walls collapsed inwards to give you some of those burial depths. This is all guesswork, though, and modeling this would be nearly impossible.

Incidentally, there are other witness accounts that are consistent with a nearly completely aersolized fuel deflagration on impact:

Carol Delasko, who works at the marina, said she saw a light cloud that stretched several hundred feet across rising about 200 feet into the air moments after the crash.

"It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up and it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti."

When it got to Terry Lowery's 65-acre farm, about three-quarters of a mile away, "it just looked like it was raining down," Lowery said.

"Paper, insulation and mail -- I picked a bunch up," he said.

(from http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp) And before Killtown says some crap along the lines of "There's no raining confetti in Val's photo! Consp!R@(33!!", these are very small pieces we're talking about, below the threshold of resolution of her camera.

I'm still waiting to see anything whatsoever, besides the ravings of a scientifically ignorant malefactor, that's inconsistent with Val's photo.

 

[Wyn]

Hiya, Wyn! Yeah, that one cracks me up big time. I love the words "should be" and "probably". Some real expert opinion there. Notice all the math and physics he uses to support his assertions in the diagrams? Er, wait. There isn't any. It's amazing that the fact that a mostly hollow airplane weighing at least, what 25 tons?, traveling about 580 mph laden with around 5500 gallons of fuel will likely behave escapes his superior mind. Earth to Killtown, come in Killtown. This is your brain speaking. Please come home, I miss you.

Hayadoin Stick? I'm over here watching these guys skin Killtwn. He's dead, but doesn't know it yet!

Yeah, that drawing is a hoot. As soon as the nose hits the ground, the tail is not going 580 MPH anymore and just breaks off and falls gently to the ground!

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Thank you. I wasn't sure, but was GUESSING low to be safe. I ADMIT it. (Killtown, can you hear me?) I know some of the big airliners (777) can weigh over 500,000 pounds loaded and the 757 THAT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE THAT DAY had to be somewhat less. I don't think it takes away from my point: that's a whole lotta inertia and it would be practically impossible to predict EXACTLY how the impact would play out. What we can do is look at what happened and reason if it is possible and/or likely.

Can someone smarter than me perhaps explain all the vectors that are in play at the impact point. We have 3D position, then we have velocity vectors in 3 dimensions and also acceleration vectors in 3 dimensions, correct? It seems to me that UA93 was in the middle of a barrel roll at impact and that it is likely that one of the wing tips (the easterly one that KT keeps showing the unburnt grass around) hit first. IF this is the case (keeping in mind this all happens in less than a second) the plane would sort of roll as it disintegrates. When I look at where the trees burned up, it seems very likely the result of a roll component at impact combined with the aerosolization of the fuel which gave us the HUGE fireball. Some of the sprayed fuel sets the trees on fire, the rest ignites immediately and completely giving us Val's plume.

Stick, that's a good point about the roll and how it might have affected the direction the fuel could have gone. Just another variable that has to go into this complicated issue.

 

[Yoink]

Keep in mind that the "burrowed" parts didn't burrow that far. Engine cores, for instance, are actually quite dense and -- if you blow off the N1 and N2 rotor vanes -- pretty narrow in cross section. And as far as we can tell without a proper reference, they didn't penetrate further than 15 feet. The Black Boxes, which are a bit bigger than lunchboxes, are pretty dense (about 16 pounds) owing to their armor steel housing. They are located in the tail of the aircraft, thus would fall through the remains of the fuselage into the deepest part of the crater on impact and keep moving. These were found at a depth of about 25 feet if memory serves.

(Preface: Killtown, please take note--this is how grown-ups approach a problem that initially puzzles them: they assume that they don't know everything involved and they seek out rational explanations. They don't say "I don't understand this, therefore it is obviously false!!!" If they did that, we'd all still believe that the sun circled around the earth.)

R. Mackey--thanks for that reply. I have to say that even with loosely packed landfill soil, and even at that speed I'm finding it difficult to picture the FDRs penetrating twenty-five feet of soil. Is that figure firm? Does anyone have a reference for it? There's relatively little mass in one of those FDRs: even at 580mph I wouldn't expect it to "burrow" more than a few feet into even loosely packed soil. Ever watch a pile-driver at work?

None of this, of course, helps the conspiracy nuts: why would anyone "faking" the crash site bury the FDRs so deep? Why wouldn't they burn the grass all around it (the way Hollywood obviously did for their recreation: they know what uninformed people "think" a crash site should be like)? But still, it strikes me as weird. Either the 25' figure is wrong or my "gut feelings" about this aren't worth zilch.

One thing's for sure: if they 25' figure is right, then the forces involved in that crash are simply staggering: the kind of thing that could only be accurately modeled by childlike pen drawings of cartoon planes.

 

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey--thanks for that reply. I have to say that even with loosely packed landfill soil, and even at that speed I'm finding it difficult to picture the FDRs penetrating twenty-five feet of soil. Is that figure firm? Does anyone have a reference for it? There's relatively little mass in one of those FDRs: even at 580mph I wouldn't expect it to "burrow" more than a few feet into even loosely packed soil. Ever watch a pile-driver at work?

...One thing's for sure: if they 25' figure is right, then the forces involved in that crash are simply staggering: the kind of thing that could only be accurately modeled by childlike pen drawings of cartoon planes.

It's claimed in Wikipedia, haven't found the original reference but I've seen it elsewhere before.

But remember, this doesn't mean the FDRs tunneled through 25 feet of undisturbed earth. They were at the tail of the plane. The fuselage tore a good sized hole, shredding themselves as they went, and the FDR fell into that hole. They may not have by themselves tunneled far at all. They've also got more mass than you may appreciate.

Nonetheless, the forces involved in this crash are staggering. A rough estimate of the energy released from impact alone -- not including the fuel, just kinetic energy -- is equivalent to 1,580 kg of TNT. Sobering thought.

 

[Wyn]

I found a super secret picture of Killtwn and some more of his drawings.....

 

[The_Fire]

Just to point out how WRONG guestimates can be:

from http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]Weights[/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva] Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]

And that, kiddies, is why proper research is important. BTW: It took one google with this site coming up as no. 1.........
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Buckwheatjones]

I don't think A and B were meant to be in sequence. I think they are alternative ideas. In Killtown's opinion the plane should have been:

A) Cystalline?- The 757 absorbs the kinetic energy of a nosedive by breaking into huge identifiable chunks. The plane is brittle but for some reason, its components (the wings, the cockpit, etc.) are not. Sort of like breaking a cue ball by throwing it at a brick wall.

B) Hard nosed with a fuselage of jelly - The tip of the plane is strong enough to survive impact and burrow underground but the rest of the plane accordian-collapses like Roadrunner cartoon.

The only two options. Period. I base this on absolutely nothing.

Ok. I can see it that way. The type "What should have happened" looks like a statement rather than a question, since no question mark's present. As in Here's What Should Have Happened: A, then B.

Well, we know he's pulling for B, and keeps repeating the information that "the fuselage was buried 15 feet into the ground," etc. to back up his claim that whole plane, wings and all got planted with the tail sticking out like a Lawn Dart.

Except he also believes that no plane at all crashed there, so I guess what they dug out of the ground was yesterday's garbage. But it's just interesting to note that killtown is the only one on here who can possibly believe plane crashes occur this way, intact and compressed accordion-style.

Odd.

Killtown....What color is the sky in your world?

 

[KingMerv00]

Except he also believes that no plane at all crashed there, so I guess what they dug out of the ground was yesterday's garbage.

Yesterday's garbage has windows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P200061.jpg

 

[Yoink]

It's claimed in Wikipedia, haven't found the original reference but I've seen it elsewhere before.

But remember, this doesn't mean the FDRs tunneled through 25 feet of undisturbed earth. They were at the tail of the plane. The fuselage tore a good sized hole, shredding themselves as they went, and the FDR fell into that hole. They may not have by themselves tunneled far at all. They've also got more mass than you may appreciate.

Nonetheless, the forces involved in this crash are staggering. A rough estimate of the energy released from impact alone -- not including the fuel, just kinetic energy -- is equivalent to 1,580 kg of TNT. Sobering thought.

Yes, there's a bit difference between "25' below the original surface level of the field" and "25' below the point where we started digging." As to them having "more mass" than I figure: I think you mean that they are "denser" than I figure (i.e., not just "more mass" but "more mass per cubic inch"). But even if I assumed they had the density of solid lead, I'm still not picturing them getting far into the soil. I did a little googling and found that a bullet will penetrate about 16 inches into dry sand at maximum. I don't know if you can scale that up for the FDR, but I'd be interested in the maths that shows a radically different result.

If I had a suspicion about all this it would be that the 25' figure was the total depth to which they were required to dig away the site to make sure that they got everything, and that this figure got attached to the FDRs by the press because it's a dramatic number ("Wow, they buried that far!").

Obviously, though, I could be utterly wrong on every count.