Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

1. Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because we've already seen the Concorde plane crash photo that looks more like the first photo than either of the other two.

2. It is impossible to tell the wind effect on the first photo in part because the source of the plume is obscured by the landscape on the horizon.

3. So, now, tell me how you are able to state this with certainty:

1) Even though the Concorde crash had a mushroom shape, that's about all it had in similarity. It's column was thick, suggesting fuel still burning and the video quality made the color undeterminable.

Val's plume looks like a short pulse blast, consistent with the middle plume.

2. Yes, I would agree now.

3. Because similar color and shape with similar thin column consistent with a short pulse blast?

4. Now that I gave you my clip wasn't good to determine shifting, you'll notice the middle plume had to have sprouted straight up, then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

 

[Killtown]

1) I am estimating the plume to be approximately 526 meters, well blow Buckwheatjones' sources' 600-1000 meter max size estimation.

2) I am saying that the prevailing wind conditions (at 9 or 25 knots)

3) were sufficient to cause the plume to drift on a south-east course, which would place it within the angle of view of the camera.

1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

2) Where did the 25 knots come from?

3) Is this in a path along your yellow line?

 

[Gravy]

then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

How can you tell, from a two-dimensional film, that the plume has shifted "90 degrees to the right?" You keep saying this. Many people have pointed out the errors in your logic. It doesn't seem to have had any effect.

 

[Gravy]

1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

Why do you "think" so?

2) Where did the 25 knots come from?

The flight 93 FDR. Personally, I don't put much stock in that figure, but my point is that you're guessing at when the picture was taken and what the wind speed was. Guessing isn't reason for libel.

 

[mortimer]

4. Now that I gave you my clip wasn't good to determine shifting, you'll notice the middle plume had to have sprouted straight up, then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

It could well be that the plume shifted, but it is impossible to tell from the photograph. The shift, if it happened, is obscured by the horizon and landscape.

 

[Killtown]

I'll tell you what Gravy, you admit the methods you used as "murdervillage" of egging me on to answer your questions to me were immature and deceptive and Dog Town's gross insult towards me was wholly uncalled for, then I'll start debating with you again as long as you promise to not insult me or any of my theories/thoughts/beliefs. Deal? You don't even have to be sincere about you admitting to this.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

2) Where did the 25 knots come from?

3) Is this in a path along your yellow line?

RE 1) Given the following from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846325#post1846325

"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m."

No, I do not feel it is 'a "tad" large'. It is within the dimensions provided by the engineer. The calculations posted by Buckwheatjones have not been contradicted/debunked/etc. I do, however retract my statement of "600-1000 meter max size estimation." I should have referred directly to the post I was recalling. My estimate of 526 meters is within the given range of 500-600m however.

RE 2) The flight data recorder info posted earlier in this thread.

RE 3) What path? Which line? If you are referring to the drift of the plume, it is not on the image I posted. Given the information I provided; anyone wishing to reproduce it can do so.

ETA: I would like to emphasis that my conclusion holds true for a windspeed of 9 knots or 25 knots.

 

[pgwenthold]

1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

I don't know. How big do YOU think it should be, and how did you determine that figure?

 

[Killtown]

It could well be that the plume shifted, but it is impossible to tell from the photograph.

Clarify, you agree that by the way the middle plume is shifting 90 degs, Val's plume could have done this too?

 

[Gravy]

I'll tell you what Gravy, you admit the methods you used as "murdervillage" of egging me on to answer your questions to me were immature and deceptive and Dog Town's gross insult towards me was wholly uncalled for, then I'll start debating with you again as long as you promise to not insult me or any of my theories/thoughts/beliefs. Deal? You don't even have to be sincere about you admitting to this.

I apologized days ago. You refused to accept my apology. How many times on this forum have you played the "poor, persecuted Killtown" in order to avoid answering questions? Get on with it already. This is a discussion forum.

 

[Killtown]

I apologized days ago. You did not accept my apology.

I'm not asking you to apologize, I'm asking you to:

1) admit you used immature and deceptive techniques to try to make me answer your questions

2) and admit Dog Town's gross insult towards me was highly uncalled for.

 

[Gravy]

Clarify, you agree that by the way the middle plume is shifting 90 degs, Val's plume could have done this too?

Please see the above posts that point out the flaws in your "90 degree" claims.

 

[Stellafane]

I'm not asking you to apologize, I'm asking you to:

1) admit you used immature and deceptive techniques to try to make me answer your questions

2) and admit Dog Town's gross insult towards me was highly uncalled for.

And will you apologize for destroying -- and quite possibly endangering -- the life of an innocent women, simple because she snapped a picture that disproves your theory? Wouldn't that also be classified as "highly uncalled for"?

 

[Gravy]

I'm not asking you to apologize, I'm asking you to:

1) admit you used immature and deceptive techniques to try to make me answer your questions

2) and admit Dog Town's gross insult towards me was highly uncalled for.

Guess what, Killtown? I resorted to those techniques because you refused to answer the same questions repeatedly in other forums. Yup. So I resorted to satire.

For the third time, I am not Dog Town. Several times you've requested that this thread be brought back to topic, but when things get uncomfortable for you, you derail it yourself. Get on with it. This is a discussion forum.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just wanted to add that, given the analyses done in this thread, I feel comfortable using Val's photo as corroborating evidence of Flight 93's crash.

 

[CurtC]

Val's plume looks like a short pulse blast, consistent with the middle plume.

...

3. Because similar color and shape with similar thin column consistent with a short pulse blast?

Killtown, it's really hard to infer what your point is. Based on this post, I think you're saying that the plume on the right is angled due to the wind, while the other two plumes are vertically-oriented, indicating that the vertical ones happened in a short amount of time, while the slanted one is continuing to burn.

If this is what you're saying (and I do wish you'd spell it out more clearly), I agree.

The Shanksville photo is vertically oriented, and it is not directly above the crash site (by my estimates, it's 200-250 meters South, and possibly some amount East or West).

There. Happy? I agree with you on that point.

But what I think you're missing is that while the picture on the right is from a crash, it's from one that is continuing to burn. The is a continuous amount of smoke coming up from the ground, while the wind blows the alread-released smoke sideways, resulting in a slanted column.

The Shanksville plane impacted at a very high speed, in which the fuel was pretty much all splattered up and consumed all at once. It didn't continue to burn, as in the other photo where the fuel was simply spilled onto the ground. That's why the Shanksville fireball happened mostly all at once, and resulted in a vertical trail of smoke that drifted sideways with the wind. In that way, it was like an ordnance blast.

 

[Killtown]

And will you apologize for destroying -- and quite possibly endangering -- the life of an innocent women

If you can prove I "destroyed -- and quite possibly endangered" her life.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

i cant believe im sortof defending killtown, but val macclatcheys home address is pretty easy to come by, anyone with half a brain could find it (although i think its amusing killtown seems to be the only CT capable of finding it)

 

[Killtown]

1) If this is what you're saying (and I do wish you'd spell it out more clearly), I agree.

2) There. Happy? I agree with you on that point.

3) The Shanksville plane impacted at a very high speed, in which the fuel was pretty much all splattered up and consumed all at once. It didn't continue to burn, as in the other photo where the fuel was simply spilled onto the ground.

4)That's why the Shanksville fireball happened mostly all at once, and resulted in a vertical trail of smoke that drifted sideways with the wind. In that way, it was like an ordnance blast.

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) So why did one's fuel splatter all over the ground and UA 93's didn't? I never quite got the particular reasoning.

4) So I was right?...

Killtown:

Ok, then the jet fire plume [from UA 93 crashing] rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1847324#post1847324

 

[Killtown]

1) i cant believe im sortof defending killtown, but val macclatcheys home address is pretty easy to come by, anyone with half a brain could find it

2) (although i think its amusing killtown seems to be the only CT capable of finding it)

1) Thanks, honorable people defend those who are being wrongfully accused.

2) What do you mean?