My manner??? You gots to be kidding me. Maybe you missed yours and just about everybody else's manners toward me.
I can't explain it, so go ahead.
Ever playing the victim, eh? If I treated you one iota as rudely as you've treated Val McClatchey, slandering her in the press so badly that the newspapers have seen fit to print her story, I might begin to have some sympathy. Go ahead and find my alleged mistreatment of you, if you feel so hurt.
Thank you for admitting that you don't understand volatility in this context. This would go much faster if you were more open about your lack of understanding, rather than us having to coax it out of you every time.
Volatility in this context means the tendency for certain chemicals -- in this case, jet fuel -- to evaporate in air. This is an important quality. It is this quality that makes it possible for gasoline to explode in glorious fireballs, as in movie props, yet also burn in a much slower, more controlled manner, as it does in your parents' automobile. Whether gasoline burns or explodes (the technical term is
"deflagrates," meaning that the flame front travels slower than the speed of sound, as opposed to
"detonates" where the flame front is supersonic) is a function of how well it is mixed with the air.
If you leave a quantity of jet fuel exposed to the air indefinitely, it will eventually all evaporate. But it takes a fairly long time. The reason is that only some of the fuel is exposed to the air at any one instant, the rest being surrounded by other jet fuel.
On the other hand, if you "aerosolize" the fuel, it means you are shaking the fuel and jetting it into the atmosphere, much like how an aerosol spray can converts liquid paint into an airborne suspension. In this case, the fuel is in small drops, well mixed with air, with a lot of surface area open to the air. This makes the fuel evaporate much, much faster.
This explains why the pictures you've presented of air crashes burn so very differently from Flight 93. As explained to you numerous times, the key difference is the
impact speed of the aircraft. It is this speed, this kinetic energy combined with fragmentation of the fuel tanks, that determines whether the fuel is more-or-less poured onto the ground as a liquid, as in your infamous B-52 video, or whether it is streaked through the air in all directions at high speed, as in Flight 93.
In the former case, the fuel is not free to evaporate very quickly, and thus it burns. There will tend to be a dark, smoky, fuel-rich initial fireball as the evaporated fuel at the edges is consumed, followed by a lingering plume as the residual fuel, starved for oxygen, can only evaporate and burn slowly.
In the latter case, the fuel is spread over a much larger area, allowing most or even all of it to mix prior to (or during) igniton. This results in a far larger, more concussive -- but actually cooler -- fireball, with little fuel left over to form a lingering plume.
Because Flight 93 crashed so fast and so hard, it is expected that the latter case is more relevant. These crashes are also extremely unusual, which is why you've been unable to find any videos that are good models.
Do you understand? I can clarify if you still need more help.
