I'm not stalling. I'm waiting for people like YOU to concur with the peak fireball width.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
How did you arrive at 20%? How do you know there wasn't much more zoom, say 300%? That's what would have happened if I'd been filming with my 100-300mm variable lens. Is this another of your famous wild guesses?
So how did you "assume" this fireball was 90 meters across? Is that another wild guess? Is this "peak" or "initial" size? Did the fireball continue to grow?
And there are two other errors of logic. The first is that I computed a maximum size, not an expected size. That's what you asked for, and that's what I did. The second is that the size is primarily based on speed of impact. Your B-52 example crashed much, much slower than Flight 93. Ergo, the two are not directly comparable.
Do you understand these differences? Now do you accept my computation, or do you have an additional concern?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
That's odd, because I thought it was up to you to present your claim, the evidence supporting your claim, and then for you to defend your claim. I guess I was wrong. You're just here to troll.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Me? I haven't been involved in a single calculation here. Why would I be? Please complete your calculation, show your work, then move to the next step. You've been stalling since page 20. You can stall forever, but I'm betting that people will eventually lose interest in your bizarre act.
Ugh, missed this one the first time through. That's three errors of logic. So this plane didn't nosedive at all?? Why would you even suspect this example is close to our problem? The mechanics are totally different.
I categorically reject this example, and shame on you for altering pictures to mislead. Now explain why my maximum value is too big, and where your new value came from.
1) Eyeball. If you'd like to show your guess, please save that pic, shrink to what size you think and post so we can compare.
2) Wingspan is 56m and fireball width looks only 2x wider. the fireball width is probably 1 1/2 football field lengths max.
3) so this B-52 was going min what, 150mph? so if that was going 580mph wouldn't the fireball only be 5.8 football field lengths?
4) Have you noticed that NOT ONE person was concured with your max yet?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Killtown, just pretend we're not here. You've been shown the path to enlightenment. Do your work, and when it's done to your satisfaction, post it.
Will you do that now? Yes or no?
Useless. You don't know the geometry of the shot. You never will.
Again, useless. I'll bet they zoomed out while it was progressing. Fireball could have been wider but obscured by ground effect. You don't know how long the fireball was. This is hardly a solid measurement.
"5.8 football fields" is pretty darn close to my theoretical upper limit of 554 meters, so, yeah. Thanks for verifying my conclusion.
Wrongo. You got an even higher estimate of 700m. That's another lie you've told.
Besides, I don't care. Anyone can argue with it. But they must EXPLAIN WHY, because gut feelings don't cut it. That goes double for you.
Now stop stalling and explain! It's a learning process, don't fear it.
I don't know. How big is that? I don't see a ruler anywhere...
And also don't confuse the initial spread of the fireball with the overall appearance. Higher speed should lead to a bigger flash, wider ignition, but not as dense. You're showing a picture of a very low speed crash, so basically a big, slow deflagration. Not at all what Flight 93 probably experienced.
But in terms of horizontal spread, sure. 500 knots is ruddy fast. It'd splat all over the place.
Now explain why you object to my reasoning. I've already explained four times why this pictorial analysis is hopeless.
School's out, Killtown
Well, I must take my leave of you and the JREF Forum for a while, probably won't be back until Monday and maybe not then. You are undoubtedly the most difficult, bizarre person I've ever tried to explain anything to. In particular, most people with off-beat theories just can't wait to tell me why they believe something. But in your case, I literally have tried to drag your opinions from you, yet you guard them jealously, refusing to explain anything unless everyone agrees with you first.
Learning is a two-way process. It is not like watching movies. Share your feelings if you ever want to get anywhere.
Take a break from this topic. Start thinking about it. Spend some time in the sun, just musing.
After that, I have a homework assignment for you, as follows:
In the meantime, I repeat, you absolutely owe Val an apology.
May the morrow find you with an open mind, humble and ready to learn.
Well, I must take my leave of you and the JREF Forum for a while, probably won't be back until Monday and maybe not then. You are undoubtedly the most difficult, bizarre person I've ever tried to explain anything to. In particular, most people with off-beat theories just can't wait to tell me why they believe something. But in your case, I literally have tried to drag your opinions from you, yet you guard them jealously, refusing to explain anything unless everyone agrees with you first.
Learning is a two-way process. It is not like watching movies. Share your feelings if you ever want to get anywhere.
Take a break from this topic. Start thinking about it. Spend some time in the sun, just musing.
After that, I have a homework assignment for you, as follows:
In the meantime, I repeat, you absolutely owe Val an apology.
May the morrow find you with an open mind, humble and ready to learn.
Alright, here's the B-52 scaled with the MOAB explosion at roughly the size of 5 football fields comparatively:
It doesn't have to be absolutely scaled to perfection because isn't it obvious the fireball is just a tad big for the tiny B-52 to have made going 580mph w/ 10,000 gals of fuel?
It doesn't have to be absolutely scaled to perfection because isn't it obvious the fireball is just a tad big for the tiny B-52 to have made going 580mph w/ 10,000 gals of fuel?
Last edited:
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
Well, mister killtown has PM'd me three times tonight saying in each one "We need your input, Buck!" So for some reason my thoughts now seem to be very important to him. No idea why.
Anyway, I've been on here reading several pages of Drupal posts and that takes time. What I sum up is this:
The size of the cloud is determined by the width of the fireball. So killtown has been trying to make that determination based on what seems reasonable to him. First, to what effect the volume of the fireball has on the resultant cloud is something I cannot determine. He says he calculated the radius of the blast by using the burn marks on the trees and the pit of the crash as his references.
Question. If the trees got burned, wasn't there a fire? If the stack of explosives created the cloud, then doesn't that mean we had two blasts? If we had two blasts, then we had two clouds. Nobody witnessed this?
If killtown is saying the burn marks resulted in the a fireball that was the wrong size for the cloud, that sounds like a de facto admission that some detonation occurred at the crash site, but I don't think he's realized what this means to his argument. And it means we've got two separate instances of an explosion, one of which nobody heard, felt or saw.
But if he says 93 didn't crash at the site because it would not have produced a fireball sufficient for the size of the cloud, then he is back to his "ordnance" argument. Then, if ordnance was the cause of Val's cloud, no blast occurred at the crash site. And if that's true how did the trees get burned?
So now we are back to the issue of the fireball. Lots of discussion on here about the width of the ball being determined by wingspan, but I don't know for a fact that this is true. I think that's a big assumption to base everything else on, but it could be true. Or it could not. The only way to know if this fireball thing is at all helpful to killtown is to again consult someone who knows about these things.
I'll contact someone to see if there is:
* a way to reverse engineer the size of the fireball by the only evidence we have (the size of the cloud in the photo)
* a way to determine if fireballs develop randomly every time or if they follow a pattern.
* and given the numbers that have been speculated about on here are sufficient enough to determine the qualities of the fireball.
But first I want to know something from killtown: If it's determined that you are unable to conclusively prove your argument that the cloud was too big for the explosion of Flight 93 will you publish on line that, on your blogsite, that the claims you've made are unsubstantiated and apologize to Ms. McClatchey? And that there is no proof, because you haven't been able to prove them, regardless of whether or not you still FEEL that they are true?
First, let me remind you that you have come to me for my input. Three times just tonight. So if you don't respond to what I've written here, EVERYBODY is going to see this as a big Dodge. And if you respond to me in part, but not the part about apologizing to Ms. McClatchey, they will also see that as a Dodge and it will be a de facto admission of a bankruptcy of your integrity.
Anyway, I've been on here reading several pages of Drupal posts and that takes time. What I sum up is this:
The size of the cloud is determined by the width of the fireball. So killtown has been trying to make that determination based on what seems reasonable to him. First, to what effect the volume of the fireball has on the resultant cloud is something I cannot determine. He says he calculated the radius of the blast by using the burn marks on the trees and the pit of the crash as his references.
Question. If the trees got burned, wasn't there a fire? If the stack of explosives created the cloud, then doesn't that mean we had two blasts? If we had two blasts, then we had two clouds. Nobody witnessed this?
If killtown is saying the burn marks resulted in the a fireball that was the wrong size for the cloud, that sounds like a de facto admission that some detonation occurred at the crash site, but I don't think he's realized what this means to his argument. And it means we've got two separate instances of an explosion, one of which nobody heard, felt or saw.
But if he says 93 didn't crash at the site because it would not have produced a fireball sufficient for the size of the cloud, then he is back to his "ordnance" argument. Then, if ordnance was the cause of Val's cloud, no blast occurred at the crash site. And if that's true how did the trees get burned?
So now we are back to the issue of the fireball. Lots of discussion on here about the width of the ball being determined by wingspan, but I don't know for a fact that this is true. I think that's a big assumption to base everything else on, but it could be true. Or it could not. The only way to know if this fireball thing is at all helpful to killtown is to again consult someone who knows about these things.
I'll contact someone to see if there is:
* a way to reverse engineer the size of the fireball by the only evidence we have (the size of the cloud in the photo)
* a way to determine if fireballs develop randomly every time or if they follow a pattern.
* and given the numbers that have been speculated about on here are sufficient enough to determine the qualities of the fireball.
But first I want to know something from killtown: If it's determined that you are unable to conclusively prove your argument that the cloud was too big for the explosion of Flight 93 will you publish on line that, on your blogsite, that the claims you've made are unsubstantiated and apologize to Ms. McClatchey? And that there is no proof, because you haven't been able to prove them, regardless of whether or not you still FEEL that they are true?
First, let me remind you that you have come to me for my input. Three times just tonight. So if you don't respond to what I've written here, EVERYBODY is going to see this as a big Dodge. And if you respond to me in part, but not the part about apologizing to Ms. McClatchey, they will also see that as a Dodge and it will be a de facto admission of a bankruptcy of your integrity.
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
By the way, a B-52 carries 46,000 gallons of fuel. Not 10,000. Using a B-52 groundlooping is not an apt parallel to a 757 augering in at 40 degrees.
Killtown, do you realise how ridiculous your analysis is?
Buck, your making things waaaaaaaaaay too complicated than they need to be.
Just want to know if you concur with these estimates for your guys theory...
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: 40 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 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft
--------------------------------
Just want to know if you concur with these estimates for your guys theory...
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: 40 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 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft
--------------------------------
- Status