One is really big, the other isn't.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
One is really big, the other isn't.
I am talking about formation. One formed bigger than the other. Duh.
Yep, more stalling.
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
RE: Yoink...
"The non-linear dynamics of fluids and gases (like the formation of a mushroom cloud) are about the most complicated events known to man."
Wrong. Trying to talk sense to this clown (killtown) is one of the most complicated events known to man.
Several pages ago I posted a remark by a Ph.D from CalTech who runs the Explosion Dynamics Lab there. He simply said there was not enough information in the photo to say whether or not the cloud was created by jet fuel. He claimed there was no way to rationally determine this. Too many unanswered variables. It was inconclusive.
So. Based on that, the only way to make a claim one way or the other would be through irrational means, i.e., Wishful Thinking.
Now science runs on hypothesis which is an educated guess. Then you go about building legs for your argument with facts, figures, calculations, etc. killtown came on here with and educated guess in the form of maps, vectors, and the like, but those failed to speak to the many variables involved. In fact, one of killtown's stoutest pillars was that he "made the size of the explosion at the crash site to be what was reasonable to him."
All this, however, without knowing even how much fuel a 757 carried at full loadout, or whether or not the plane crashed at an angle.
Nonetheless, over some 800 posts in this thread, his hypothesis has been decimated by others so now he is building a new one in the tiniest of increments. If he ever, ever gets to the Big Finish, it had better be good. This is like watching Punch Drunk Love unfold into the great big nothing that it was.
Hopefully, killtown's ending will be a lot more entertaining than that Stink Bomb. Until then, discussing this matter is like running in Jell-O.
"The non-linear dynamics of fluids and gases (like the formation of a mushroom cloud) are about the most complicated events known to man."
Wrong. Trying to talk sense to this clown (killtown) is one of the most complicated events known to man.
Several pages ago I posted a remark by a Ph.D from CalTech who runs the Explosion Dynamics Lab there. He simply said there was not enough information in the photo to say whether or not the cloud was created by jet fuel. He claimed there was no way to rationally determine this. Too many unanswered variables. It was inconclusive.
So. Based on that, the only way to make a claim one way or the other would be through irrational means, i.e., Wishful Thinking.
Now science runs on hypothesis which is an educated guess. Then you go about building legs for your argument with facts, figures, calculations, etc. killtown came on here with and educated guess in the form of maps, vectors, and the like, but those failed to speak to the many variables involved. In fact, one of killtown's stoutest pillars was that he "made the size of the explosion at the crash site to be what was reasonable to him."
All this, however, without knowing even how much fuel a 757 carried at full loadout, or whether or not the plane crashed at an angle.
Nonetheless, over some 800 posts in this thread, his hypothesis has been decimated by others so now he is building a new one in the tiniest of increments. If he ever, ever gets to the Big Finish, it had better be good. This is like watching Punch Drunk Love unfold into the great big nothing that it was.
Hopefully, killtown's ending will be a lot more entertaining than that Stink Bomb. Until then, discussing this matter is like running in Jell-O.
Buckwheatjones,
do agree this B-52 crash is similar in how 93's explosion and plume formed, regardless of size and color?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZAJu-KrtA
do agree this B-52 crash is similar in how 93's explosion and plume formed, regardless of size and color?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZAJu-KrtA
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
Couldn't say. All I know about 93's explosion is the picture on Val's camera. And since there isn't enough data to support anything one way or the other, what I think about a B-52's explosion is immaterial. But evidently you do, so why don't you move it along.
BTW, I thought you weren't going to discuss anything with me until you got an apology from me because I called you "boy."
CurtC
Illuminator
No, the B-52's crash was low speed, resulting in fuel basically spilling on the gound then burning. Flight 93's would likely have made a large, aerosolized splash which then exploded in the air.
K, good thing I took the time with this because this is what I'm not understanding. Can you explain more?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Killtown, I am sure, given your extensive experience in such matters, you already have the necessary information, however I wish to point something out to you. If you are already aware of it - as I am sure you must be - please accept my apologies.
The B-52 crash footage you linked to occured at very low speed, with an aircraft that has a wingspan half again that of a 757.
As can be seen in to video footage, the port wing of the B-52 "sinks" into the ground well before ignition. As is suggested by the fireball, the fuel spreads laterally across the ground over a very large area - one could say it "spilled".
These events are not consistent - to the extent of basic logic and guess work - with a high speed impact of a more compact fuel load.
I must reiterate that I do not have the expertise to assess how the fireball WOULD form in such a scenario - and have not been able to find any comparable crash footage with which to even make an educated guess. However, from my laymans point of view, I would SUSPECT that a fireball from a 757 crashing at high speed would form VERY differently to a B-52 sinking into the ground in a low-speed turning stall.
-Andrew
ETA. The second of these crashes depicts an F-14 exploding in mid-air. Although not against the ground, it's the best example of a rapid-ignition fireball I've found so far.
Last edited:
Dunno what you're talking about. Plume formation doesn't take place at a fixed size. One plume formed larger than the other. Prove they formed at the same size.
Ok, read this, it's explained right here:
hxxp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61633
(replace the xx with tt)
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Aw, did you have to bring up Loose Change?
An interesting thing about that 1984 test crash of the remote-controlled 720: it was considered a failure because the remote pilot couldn't control the approach, and the plane hit left wing down, rupturing the left wing tank. It was supposed to be a belly landing.
I kind of see what you are getting at, but still confused I guess about the fuel behavior.
I agree that the B-52 fuel fireball looks like it "spilled" (I described it as "splattered") over the ground before it started rising up. I'm still at a loss as how a high-speed plane impact with that much fuel as 93 had would behave dramatically different. would it "spill" less, or not at all?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Killtown, since it's been over a day since you announced your experiment, and you've made a multitude of posts since without showing that you have any understanding what the scientific method is, and you show no signs of actually doing any work, I ask you, for the fifth time, to answer my questions about the issues you raised in this thread.
Remember, I was asking these at this time last night, and you wouldn't answer then. Please do so now.
Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=795
I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.
Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.
Your prompt reply is expected.
Remember, I was asking these at this time last night, and you wouldn't answer then. Please do so now.
Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=795
I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.
Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.
Your prompt reply is expected.
I'll maybe get to them after the experiment is over, so pray no one further stalls.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Sixth time
Maybe at some time in the future? No. No more running, no more stalling, no more excuses.
With all the time you've spent explaining why you're not answering the questions, you could have simply answered them. What are you afraid of?
So take three minutes out of your busy non-schedule and do so.
If you don't answer with your next reply, I'll take that as a refusal to answer. Clear enough? Remember, many people are watching your behavior here.
Here they are again, for the sixth time.
Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=795
I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.
Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.
Your prompt reply is expected.
Maybe at some time in the future? No. No more running, no more stalling, no more excuses.
With all the time you've spent explaining why you're not answering the questions, you could have simply answered them. What are you afraid of?
So take three minutes out of your busy non-schedule and do so.
If you don't answer with your next reply, I'll take that as a refusal to answer. Clear enough? Remember, many people are watching your behavior here.
Here they are again, for the sixth time.
Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=795
I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.
Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.
Your prompt reply is expected.
- Status