Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
Have a good weekend, Doc. See you Monday!
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
killtown, I'll answer your question if you answer mine first.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Let's hope your electricity doesn't go out
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Let's hope your electricity doesn't go out
You too buckwheatjones.
But do you mean to say this thread will still be going on on Monday!?.....
Ok, finally after two pages later, we'll proceed with you hypothetical experiment.
Now here is the more the generous estimates I gave you guys. BOTH debunking my claim...
-------------------------------
Hypothetical #1, the minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Hypothetical #2, the maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
--------------------------------
So now let's start by going through process of how the plume was formed.
UA 93, a Boeing 757, crashes into the ground, begins to crumple and break apart, the wings hit, the fuel tanks crack, the fuel ignites, then explodes into a fireball burning 75-95% of the fuel in the plane. The fireball starts to rise up in the air past the forest section into a mushroom cloud formation.
Is this fairly accurate so far?
Now here is the more the generous estimates I gave you guys. BOTH debunking my claim...
-------------------------------
Hypothetical #1, the minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Hypothetical #2, the maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
--------------------------------
So now let's start by going through process of how the plume was formed.
UA 93, a Boeing 757, crashes into the ground, begins to crumple and break apart, the wings hit, the fuel tanks crack, the fuel ignites, then explodes into a fireball burning 75-95% of the fuel in the plane. The fireball starts to rise up in the air past the forest section into a mushroom cloud formation.
Is this fairly accurate so far?
chran
Muse
I don't know. I weren't there.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Probably not accurate.
The fuel tanks would shatter upon impact (evidence is the lack of any large pices remaining). This would not cause fuel to ignite, then explode. It would spray/splatter the fuel over a large area, aerosolizing a good portion of it. This fuel cloud would be ignited (by the engines, most likely) and would then explode.
This is a likely version of events, that is consistent with a high-speed impact.
The fuel tanks would shatter upon impact (evidence is the lack of any large pices remaining). This would not cause fuel to ignite, then explode. It would spray/splatter the fuel over a large area, aerosolizing a good portion of it. This fuel cloud would be ignited (by the engines, most likely) and would then explode.
This is a likely version of events, that is consistent with a high-speed impact.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Why did you stop?
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
I'll answer your question after you answer mine.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
If you have five variables, would you not have 25 hypothetical scenarios to have to evaluate?
Last edited:
Ok, I'll go along with that. Everybody else concur?
(See KingMerv00, this is why I stopped.)
Killtown: can I have one more go at trying to explain to you why we don't need to "agree" to any specific proposed "estimate" you offer?
You want to prove that this photo could NOT be an actual photo of the cloud generated by the crash of Flight 93. We are not trying to prove that it MUST BE, we are merely holding that it COULD BE. Think about the implications of all of those terms in capitals for a moment.
Now, in order to hold that it COULD BE a photo of that cloud, all we have to show is that it is perfectly conceivable, under a wide range of possible initial conditions that a cloud of the size seen in that photograph could have been produced by the crash of a plane such as Flight 93. That's it. This has been done (in an extraordinarily detailed manner). For our position to remain undisturbed we don't have to agree to any one specific variable as to the amount of fuel, or how much of it was burnt on impact, or exactly how fast the wind was blowing or whatever. All we have to show is that there is as yet NO REASON TO BELIEVE that what we observe in the photograph lies outside the range of possible results of the crash of Flight 93.
Now, the burden of proof is entirely upon you. If you continue to wish to demonstrate that the photograph COULD NOT BE an undoctored photograph of the cloud generated by that crash, then it is entirely up to you not only to postulate an "assumed" value for one of these variables but to PROVE that one of the variables involved in determining the size of the cloud in fact rules out the possibility that the photograph is authentic.
So, tell me Killtown:
A) are you in fact capable of understanding the difference between our position and your position?
B) what, to you, is the most telling piece of evidence you have which, in your view, rules out the possibility that this photograph could be authentic?
You want to prove that this photo could NOT be an actual photo of the cloud generated by the crash of Flight 93. We are not trying to prove that it MUST BE, we are merely holding that it COULD BE. Think about the implications of all of those terms in capitals for a moment.
Now, in order to hold that it COULD BE a photo of that cloud, all we have to show is that it is perfectly conceivable, under a wide range of possible initial conditions that a cloud of the size seen in that photograph could have been produced by the crash of a plane such as Flight 93. That's it. This has been done (in an extraordinarily detailed manner). For our position to remain undisturbed we don't have to agree to any one specific variable as to the amount of fuel, or how much of it was burnt on impact, or exactly how fast the wind was blowing or whatever. All we have to show is that there is as yet NO REASON TO BELIEVE that what we observe in the photograph lies outside the range of possible results of the crash of Flight 93.
Now, the burden of proof is entirely upon you. If you continue to wish to demonstrate that the photograph COULD NOT BE an undoctored photograph of the cloud generated by that crash, then it is entirely up to you not only to postulate an "assumed" value for one of these variables but to PROVE that one of the variables involved in determining the size of the cloud in fact rules out the possibility that the photograph is authentic.
So, tell me Killtown:
A) are you in fact capable of understanding the difference between our position and your position?
B) what, to you, is the most telling piece of evidence you have which, in your view, rules out the possibility that this photograph could be authentic?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
The question everyone is asking is what is the purpose of your hypothetical.
Because, as it stands, it won't prove anything since it's entirely based on our (non-experts) best guesses and assumptions, and there just isn't enough data to work with.
Of course, this all assumes that you actually understand how to do the calculations you're going to attempt, something which I don't believe will happen.
But don't worry, I'm waiting to correct your next mistake, which should be any moment now.
CurtC
Illuminator
I agree that the fuel would be "aerosolized," but don't think it would take the engines to ignite it. There were plenty of ignition sources just from the metal crunching into the ground at 500 mph.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Good point. But the impact area would (at least initially) be under the fuel, so it's a toss up as to the impact or the engines (the engines are right there on the wings, after all).
Either way, you're igniting partially aerosolized fuel
So if I got this correctly, the fuel would hit the ground first and spread out, then ignite and then explode?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
You don't have it correctly. The fuel would spray out everywhere. Think water balloon.
The fuel, while still in the air/spraying/etc, would hit an ignition source (engines, hot debris) and explode...not ignite then explode, but explosive ignition is likely due to the aerosilized fuel. At the very least you have an extremely rapid combustion of the airborne fuel.
Again, you simply read what you want into these points, which doesn't suprise me. You can't really place this on a timeline, because it's essentially simultaneous. The timeline would be measured in thousandths of a second. At the impact speed, the entire crash would only have taken about 4 hundreths of a second.
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
Don't think water balloon, think fuel air bomb. Sort of like a scaled down A-Bomb. WOOF!
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I was building up to that. Considering that I doubt Killtown knows what a fuel-air bomb is or how it operates until he googles it after we referenced it, you've ruined my chance to correct his mistake when he assume that this fuel just burned, as if one tossed a match in a puddle of gasoline.
TO be fair, it's likely that only a percentage of the fuel would have been aerosolized to the point of forming an FAE-type reaction, and not all of that at the correct fuel/air ratio. I'd think 5% to 10% would be a relatively conservative number. Howeve,r that initial blast is going to serve to further aerosolize, scatter, and ignite the fuel around it, etc.
- Status