DAMN are you lazy!
You can't add a speed to a length! Do you understand this or not??
At the moment, you are flirting with a failing grade.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
You can't add a speed to a length! Do you understand this or not??
At the moment, you are flirting with a failing grade.
No I don't, so you gonna give YOUR figures or not? If not, I'll wait until some other OCT can since you can't seem to be able too.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
LISTEN! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM. THE ONUS IS UPON YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIATES/CORROBARATES YOUR CLAIM. AS YOUR OPPOSITION ALL WE NEED TO IS ANALYZE, AND POSSIBLE REFUTE, YOUR EVIDENCE.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
We've already given you figures, Killtown. And those figures are anywhere from 100 meters of so radius up to 700 meters or more, depending on the specific characteristics of the impact (which we do not know). Mackey's method will give a ballpark, but even it isn't accurate. Likely ignition would start long before that first second, but the initial burn/blast of aerosolized fuel would spray and aerosolize more fuel, creating a rapidly expanding fireball regardless of initial size. It's a chaotic event, there's simply no way to calculate a precise size.
Of course, you can't seem to understand this. You can't seem to realize that there isn't enough information to make that determination. All we can say is that, based on expert opinion, experience with explosives and demolitions, and physics, that a plume of 600m to 1000m for a 10,000 gallon jet fuel explosion/ignition is possible.
You, on the other hand, seem able to ignore all the math, physics, and, well, knowledge, and somehow declare that the fireball should have been 600 feet, period. Wiht nothing but your idea of how big the fireball should be. Not only that, but you seem to believe this is good enough to slander and libel other people, accusing them of being accessories to mass murder.
You've already admitted on here that you made your accusations based on claims which you did not know how to actually evaluate, and numbers that just seemed right to you. If the tables were turned, and you were accused of murder based on this evidence, you'd be screaming "police state!" and scrambling to get in front of a camera before the judge got to the bench.
Of course, you can't seem to understand this. You can't seem to realize that there isn't enough information to make that determination. All we can say is that, based on expert opinion, experience with explosives and demolitions, and physics, that a plume of 600m to 1000m for a 10,000 gallon jet fuel explosion/ignition is possible.
You, on the other hand, seem able to ignore all the math, physics, and, well, knowledge, and somehow declare that the fireball should have been 600 feet, period. Wiht nothing but your idea of how big the fireball should be. Not only that, but you seem to believe this is good enough to slander and libel other people, accusing them of being accessories to mass murder.
You've already admitted on here that you made your accusations based on claims which you did not know how to actually evaluate, and numbers that just seemed right to you. If the tables were turned, and you were accused of murder based on this evidence, you'd be screaming "police state!" and scrambling to get in front of a camera before the judge got to the bench.
Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.
It seems to be on its way to making a pretty big plume.
How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Your maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.
It seems to be on its way to making a pretty big plume.
How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Your maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
LISTEN! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM. THE ONUS IS UPON YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIATES/CORROBARATES YOUR CLAIM. AS YOUR OPPOSITION ALL WE NEED TO IS ANALYZE, AND POSSIBLE REFUTE, YOUR EVIDENCE.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
I'm probably going to regret it, but I'll try to put this in simple terms for Killtown.
An experiment is something YOU DO, not us. YOU set the parameters, YOU do the calculations, and YOU provide the information for review. WE do not do the legwork for YOUR experiment.
I would highly recommend you stop using that word, as you are demonstrating that you do not know how to use it properly.
Second, just a couple of other facts and personal suppositons (since so many of us have presented them and you have not).
500 Miles/per hour = 733.3 Ft/sec (others put the speed at 550-580MPH, but I'll stick to round numbers). As the Boeing 757 is 155.25 Ft long, the time of impact was approximately 0.21 seconds.
In those 0.21 seconds the entire plane impacted the ground and destroyed itself, releasing the accumulated Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy (I leave it to Killtown to calculate that Energy, it is simple enough that I can do it so I am sure he can). Some of that energy was directed at gouging out the hole, while the rest was used to distribute materials in the nearby woods (the 8 mile question has been fully debunked elsewhere, but let us not move off target).
The fuel (the Boeing 757-200 could carry a max of 11,489 gallons and had been in the air for 1:21 (takeoff 8:42, crash 10:03). For thought purposes, let us say 8,000 gallons remained.
That fuel was released in the inital 0.21 seconds and was splashed into the air at an appreciably high fraction of the contact speed (I do not have the math to calculate the rebound speed, if someone knows an expert in fluid dynamics, that would help). But the fuel would splash in a wide pattern, much like doing a cannonball dive (my speciality) into the swimming pool.
Almost immediately, the heat from the engines and the release of that many megajoules would reach the critical temperature and ignite the fuel. Again, the actual dynamics of the fireball is beyond my math. However, please note Killtown, that (1) the ignition point would be at or near ground level (2) the ignition would NOT be instantaneous,as fuel particles are already in motion away from the crash and the ignition would have reach them, perhaps measuring in hundreths of seconds, but still time for the fuel to spread farther into the air and (3) the inherent Kinetic Energy of the fuel (as Buckwheatjones source noted) would contribute to the acceleration that the fuel was already undergoing. In other words, the JET B wasn't JUST LYING ON THE GROUND WAITING TO EXPLODE: IT ALREADY HAD AN APPRECIABLE ACCELERATION FROM THE CRASH.
You expose again the greatest weakness of the CTists; you cannot do the Math. You cannot do the Physics. And without those two tools, you cannot prove One. Single. Bloody. Thing. And you have admitted the Math is beyond you; I will take it as a working hypothesis that Physics is also not your strong suit. Which leaves you where...??
RMackey or BWJ or others, if I have made any errors in my calculations or suppositions, please note them.
An experiment is something YOU DO, not us. YOU set the parameters, YOU do the calculations, and YOU provide the information for review. WE do not do the legwork for YOUR experiment.
I would highly recommend you stop using that word, as you are demonstrating that you do not know how to use it properly.
Second, just a couple of other facts and personal suppositons (since so many of us have presented them and you have not).
500 Miles/per hour = 733.3 Ft/sec (others put the speed at 550-580MPH, but I'll stick to round numbers). As the Boeing 757 is 155.25 Ft long, the time of impact was approximately 0.21 seconds.
In those 0.21 seconds the entire plane impacted the ground and destroyed itself, releasing the accumulated Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy (I leave it to Killtown to calculate that Energy, it is simple enough that I can do it so I am sure he can). Some of that energy was directed at gouging out the hole, while the rest was used to distribute materials in the nearby woods (the 8 mile question has been fully debunked elsewhere, but let us not move off target).
The fuel (the Boeing 757-200 could carry a max of 11,489 gallons and had been in the air for 1:21 (takeoff 8:42, crash 10:03). For thought purposes, let us say 8,000 gallons remained.
That fuel was released in the inital 0.21 seconds and was splashed into the air at an appreciably high fraction of the contact speed (I do not have the math to calculate the rebound speed, if someone knows an expert in fluid dynamics, that would help). But the fuel would splash in a wide pattern, much like doing a cannonball dive (my speciality) into the swimming pool.
Almost immediately, the heat from the engines and the release of that many megajoules would reach the critical temperature and ignite the fuel. Again, the actual dynamics of the fireball is beyond my math. However, please note Killtown, that (1) the ignition point would be at or near ground level (2) the ignition would NOT be instantaneous,as fuel particles are already in motion away from the crash and the ignition would have reach them, perhaps measuring in hundreths of seconds, but still time for the fuel to spread farther into the air and (3) the inherent Kinetic Energy of the fuel (as Buckwheatjones source noted) would contribute to the acceleration that the fuel was already undergoing. In other words, the JET B wasn't JUST LYING ON THE GROUND WAITING TO EXPLODE: IT ALREADY HAD AN APPRECIABLE ACCELERATION FROM THE CRASH.
You expose again the greatest weakness of the CTists; you cannot do the Math. You cannot do the Physics. And without those two tools, you cannot prove One. Single. Bloody. Thing. And you have admitted the Math is beyond you; I will take it as a working hypothesis that Physics is also not your strong suit. Which leaves you where...??
RMackey or BWJ or others, if I have made any errors in my calculations or suppositions, please note them.
As a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof. What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."
h**p://***.raypfob.com/proof.htm
1) FINALLY, someone steps up to the plate.
So we have for your fireball diameter estimates:
min = 100m/330ft
max = 700m/2,230ft
Does anybody object?
2) And this is what I'm trying to help you guys prove out of the goodness of my heart.
Yes, math is not my strong point.
You ok with these estimates?...
min = 100m/330ft
max = 700m/2,230ft
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Neither is critical thinking, nor reading comprehension apparently.
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
I cannot say as I indicated above, I do not have the math for doing fluid dynamics in a situation such as this.
Do you admit the fuel was moving at a appreciable speed before the fireball increased the acceleration?
Hey, it's all up to you guys what figures you want to give me. this is your theory I'm trying to prove. you guys decide what your fireball estimates are.
I tried to help you determine by showing you the fireball size the B-52 crash & Moab bomb made. I'd say 93 would have made one the size of the moab personally, but that's up for you guys to decide.
Quoted in entirety for posterity.
If you are honestly that ignorant of physics, then it is going to be extremely difficult to explain all of the steps that go into a full calculation. I am willing to walk through it, if you are willing to listen. But this is absolutely proof positive that your feelings on what the smoke plume represents are totally incorrect, and not based on any science at all. Your claims to have "calculated" and "double checked" are a fraud, plain and simple.
I cannot convince you to apologize for your actions based on your misplaced beliefs. Only you can make amends. All that I can do is attempt to educate. I will do so now.
You cannot add two quantities of different types. This is commonly referred to as "apples and oranges." I cannot add five pounds to twelve gallons to get seventeen feet.
Speed and distance are related quantities but they are not the same. Speed is distance divided by time. Meters per second (or m/s) is a measurement of speed. Meters by itself is a measurement of distance. You attempted to add the speed of the aircraft, let's call it 500 knots (you can look up the actual Flight Data Recorder number at your leisure, this is close enough) to the length of the wings, let's call that 40 meters (also not quite right but close enough).
Note I am keeping the units: knots and meters. It's a good idea to keep the units whenever you calculate. That way you can check to see if it's safe to add numbers together. Since knots and meters are totally different, we can't just add these numbers.
I looked up in Wikipedia that one knot = 0.514 meters / second. Therefore 500 knots = (500) x (0.514) meters / second = about 257 meters per second.
Now I have meters per second (speed) and meters (wing size). They're closer, but they're still not the same. We can't add them. We need to think about what we're doing.
What I really want to calculate is a distance, specifically how far I think fuel might travel after the plane hits the ground and splatters, but before it ignites. I need a time. I need to guess how long it might be before ignition. I mentioned this in the first post where I challenged you to solve the equation.
Obviously the time will not be very long, but remember, we are estimating a maximum size this time. The minimum would be for time = 0, i.e. instant initiation of every single drop of fuel, but the maximum will be more. I chose to take one second as the initiation time. Note: I am making an assumption. There is nothing wrong with making an assumption, so long as I declare it. Others may challenge my assumption, and I should take their objections under consideration, or change my assumption if faced with new information.
The distance the fuel will splatter in one second is equal to how fast the fuel is traveling, times the amount of time. In this case, the fuel might splatter at the speed of the aircraft before collision. It might travel slower, too, maybe even a lot slower, but it's not likely to go faster. We're after the maximum, so we take the speed of the plane as the speed of the fuel. Thus, in the one second we assume before ignition, we compute:
Fuel splatter distance = speed x time = 257 meters / second x 1 second = 257 meters second / second = 257 meters
We further make the assumption that the fuel splatters equally in all directions on impact. Again, this is probably an overestimate, but we want the maximum. This means that fuel sprays 257 meters on both sides of the wings. Therefore, the maximum initial fireball size is the following:
Fuel spray size = spray (ahead) + spray (behind) + size before spraying
= 257 meters + 257 meters + 40 meters (the width of the wings) = 554 meters
There you go. That is an estimate of the maximum initial fireball size.
Do I think this number is reasonable? It's probably too big. In my opinion, the fuel would probably not spray equally in all directions. I also believe that the fuel rapidly decelerated as it hit the open air, but it would depend on whether the fuel tanks completely crumbled into small pieces, or whether larger fragments (which would fly farther) scattered, entraining fuel with them. We might even have had several distinct fires, well separated, contributing to a single larger fireball. Large chunks might fly very far indeed.
In my opinion, an initial fuel distribution size of about 200 meters seems reasonable. But I would believe numbers as small as 50 meters, and as large as 500 meters, depending on exactly what happened. Unfortunately, there is only one static photo long after the blast, so we will never know.
Remember, this is the size of the fireball at ignition. It will rapidly get larger after it ignites, and convection will spread it further still.
Now, was any part of that unclear? There is no shame in asking for help.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Killtown, this just sums up how little thinking you are doing. On multiple occasions I have given you the ACTUAL crash angle of UA93. Yet still you persist with your "minimum" and "maximum" ranges.
Clearly you are not even remotely interested in dealing with anything that approaches reality.
-Andrew
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
No, he doesn't. So sad.
Ok, we got two choices now for your fireball widths:
1#:
min = 100m/330ft
max = 700m/2,230ft
2#:
min = 50m/165ft
max = 500m/1,640ft
R.Mackey also brought up that this is for the "initial" fireball, so I think we should factor in the after fireball width before it burns out and turns to smoke. Cool?
1#:
min = 100m/330ft
max = 700m/2,230ft
2#:
min = 50m/165ft
max = 500m/1,640ft
R.Mackey also brought up that this is for the "initial" fireball, so I think we should factor in the after fireball width before it burns out and turns to smoke. Cool?
Ok, that was "40 deg", right? Does everybody concur with this?
- Status