Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
I actually had to adjust these.

Your max peak width was way too wide to be realistic.

Everybody cool with these new figures?


-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft
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
Peak fireball width: 300m/985ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft

--------------------------------
 
Killtown said:
I actually had to adjust these.

Your max peak width was way too wide to be realistic.

Everybody cool with these new figures?

[...]

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 300m/985ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft

--------------------------------
Click to expand...

Now, now, just a minute. Before you go altering numbers out of thin air, you need to explain just where they came from.

You've jumped several steps. First of all, our estimate maximum fireball at initiation, not peak, was higher than this.

Second, you've somehow computed "peak width," but not explained where it came from. You'll understand that, since you don't even know the difference between distance and speed, that we don't have much confidence in this calculation.

Third, you've decided -- without telling us why -- that the number is "too big." Tell us why and see if we agree.

Fourth, you've substituted a new number, without any justification. Tell us why.

If you can do all that, I might agree. But take your word for it? Nope.

Ask for help if you need it. Show your work. You'll get the hang of it someday.
 
R.Mackey said:
Now, now, just a minute. Before you go altering numbers out of thin air, you need to explain just where they came from.

You've jumped several steps. First of all, our estimate maximum fireball at initiation, not peak, was higher than this.

Second, you've somehow computed "peak width," but not explained where it came from. You'll understand that, since you don't even know the difference between distance and speed, that we don't have much confidence in this calculation.

Third, you've decided -- without telling us why -- that the number is "too big." Tell us why and see if we agree.

Fourth, you've substituted a new number, without any justification. Tell us why.

If you can do all that, I might agree. But take your word for it? Nope.

Ask for help if you need it. Show your work. You'll get the hang of it someday.
Click to expand...

Ok, you want your peak width back at 700m?
 
Oop, yet another new page...
Mercutio said:
Why don't you first apologize to Val and put up a disclaimer on your site that it is all fiction, since you have demonstrated that you do not have the understanding to have "checked the numbers twice" and confirmed anything at all?

After you do that, then you can treat this as the little game you seem to think it is. Before you do that, all you are is dishonest.
Click to expand...
 
R.Mackey said:
I didn't say that. I said "show your work." Please do so, now.
Click to expand...
Your min peak is 2x the length of the wingspan.

Your max is almost 18x wider.

Don't you think that's quite a bit of difference from the fuel min/max being only 1.34x difference?
 
Mercutio,

If you are not going to add relevant stuff to the experiment, then wait until it is over please.
 
Mercutio, I just now realized that you were a moderator. Please let me know if I step over the line. This discussion has been, to put it mildly, rather exasperating at times.

I also wondered from the start, since Killtown has actually been threatened with legal action for violation of Val McClatchey's copyright, if this entire post shouldn't have been reported and moderated at once. I see many of the offending photos have been removed (as they should have been) so I will continue to operate under the assumption that we are still within required standards.

I continue to echo your request that Killtown apologize.
 
Killtown said:
Your min peak is 2x the length of the wingspan.

Your max is almost 18x wider.

Don't you think that's quite a bit of difference from the fuel min/max being only 1.34x difference?
Click to expand...
No. I take it you didn't read what I wrote at all. An 18x difference is quite possible given the speed of impact. If you drop an open bucket of paint from a great height, is it possible for the paint to spread 18x larger than the can? You bet your failing report card it's possible.

Second, where did the 1.34x difference come from? Did you compute this on your own? How did you get this number? (But no, I don't agree with it at all.)
 
Killtown said:
Mercutio,

If you are not going to add relevant stuff to the experiment, then wait until it is over please.
Click to expand...
It is quite relevant. You have posted your conclusions before you have actually calculated them. This is not how one conducts an experiment.
 
R.Mackey said:
No. I take it you didn't read what I wrote at all. An 18x difference is quite possible given the speed of impact. If you drop an open bucket of paint from a great height, is it possible for the paint to spread 18x larger than the can? You bet your failing report card it's possible.
Click to expand...
So 93 made a fireball the width of 7 football fields? Hardly.
 
I won't accept that even if Andrew does concur. Think about the problem. Give your reasoning. Don't just vote with the crowd, or -- as I'm pretty sure you're doing -- feign obstinance to bully other people into going along with you.

What do you say? You made a conclusion, tell us why.
 
R.Mackey said:
I won't accept that even if Andrew does concur. Think about the problem. Give your reasoning. Don't just vote with the crowd, or -- as I'm pretty sure you're doing -- feign obstinance to bully other people into going along with you.

What do you say? You made a conclusion, tell us why.
Click to expand...
Your minimum is a football field wide already, you realy think 7 football fields?

I've PM'd Buckwheat and Apathoid to way in on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom