chran
Muse
No. And my concern is that we have no basis for estimating those numbers.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
A very good start. I would recommend changing your blog immediately, though, as you are only beginning the proof process, and have in no way supported the things you already claim there. If it turns out you do demonstrate that the standard story is impossible, you can put everything back up, and add an "I told you so". As of now, though, since you are still asking other people's permission to do your own calculations, it is apparent that your claims are not yet supported.
Given that you have said that you would apologize if you were wrong, don't you think that to be consistent you should not make claims until you can show you are right?
And what claims have I made?
Focal length wouldn't matter because the object in focus (the plume) would still line up with the same details (red/white barn, etc).
Ok, we are at a stand still until enough of you concur, or you over-rule chran's complaint.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
We've been at a standstill from the beginning, because you don't know how to evaluate the numbers (as you've admitted), your statements show that you are not objective nor concerned about "truth" ("I'll take that, that supports my theory!"), we have no real idea of the validity of any of the numbers (besides impact speed and angle from the FDR, the rest is guesswork), and whatever your "experiment" shows will have no bearing on what actually occurred.
If you want to show something, take the numbers and run. Waiting for everyone here to agree is just a stalling tactic, that's getting very old. Figure your own numbers (after all, you've already done the analysis, right? You wouldn't make accusations without proof, right?), show your method, and post your methodology and results. Really, we don't need you to do the math for "our theory", as you call it. We would like to see you do the math for yours.
chran
Muse
Ummm, you have been told this repeatedly over 35 pages. Why do you suddenly start caring now?
But we are proving YOUR guy's theory now. Shall I start a new thread about this?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Because it gives him another excuse to stall, while going back to the nuthouse to tell everyone he's "got those OTCers stumped".
If you just take reality, and turn it 90 degrees or so, it all makes sense
chran
Muse
Of course!Because it gives him another excuse to stall, while going back to the nuthouse to tell everyone he's "got those OTCers stumped".
If you just take reality, and turn it 90 degrees or so, it all makes sense
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Let me try this in a way that might actually cause you to read it...
No, You are not proving our theory.
You are not proving anything, except how little you actually know about math, physics, forensics, photography, explosion dynamics, logic, and evidence.
The numbers you want us to agree on are, at best, guesses based on guesses. None of use are explosion modellers, none of us has experience in aircraft crash reconstruction. I have some experience with explosives, but I do not stand behind the validity of my figures except within an order of magnitude; I simply do not know enough about the dynamics of a crash.
However, I DO know enough basic physics to understand that a 600 foot diameter damage area does not mean a 600' smoke cloud. As would anyone who had two brain cells to rub together and spark an idea.
If you want to prove something, determine your numbers, show your work, and prove to us that the cloud was too big/too small/too purple/too square/too whatever.
You've yet to show that it's anything other than what it appears to be.
You've been unable to show how you worked out the map angles, nopr included your margin of error. You have not answered concerns about your estimation of the plume size in the photo. You have not shown any reason that the plume is too large, too small, too close, too far, or anything in-between. Your methodology is non-existent, your assumptions purely imaginary, and your conclusions based in ignorance.
IN other words, you've shown nothing but baseless allegations.
Quite frankly, you're getting tiresome. Either take the numbers and GET THE HE|| ON WITH IT, or shut up and go elsewhere.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
LOL
What experiment?
An experiment actually involves setting up conditions and observing something happen. You're just participating in mental masturbation with no purpose.
Fine, then.
Kindly remove all of my numbers from your estimates.
And what claims do you think I've made in there?
He's just trolling, no one is that dense.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
There was a formula on Wiki for Thermobaric overpressure calculation (Thermobaric=FAE). However, I wasn't sure enough to use it, as I did a calc based on a 75lb. FAE and got an answer that was something like 20 kilometers, so apparently I did something wrong
Oh, that was it!
Yeah I calculated it out for your value of 51,000lbs and got 4.9 million km
Although that is for 1 psi overpressure, which probably is not even worth considering... I wonder what the formula would be for 90 psi (approx guaranteed fatal).
Anyway... funnily enough NIST have already done what we're kind of trying to do.
In this report they do a simple model to calculate how much fuel was burned off in the fireballs created when UA175 hit the South Tower.
I can't make much sense of it - as you'd expect it is INCREDIBLY technical - demonstrating the insanity of what Killtown is attempting here.
However, it is worth nothing that for an estimated burn of 1600kg of fuel (out of an estimated fuel load of 28,000kg) they produced (by my reading) a total spherical fireball radius of 70m after 2.5 seconds - or 140m across.
Now, if we're saying 51,000lbs of fuel on UA93 - that is 23,000kg.
Now, to compare this to our theoretical fireball we have to calculate spherical volume of the fireball first.
I just want to reiterate this is an appalingly shoddy calculation, given the enormous assumptions I am making, however given it is based very roughly on the NIST calculations, I figure it is better than anything Killtown has thrown up.
So for the UA175 fireball r = 70m
[latex]$$V = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$V = \frac{4}{3}\pi 70^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$V = 1,436,755.04m^3$$[/latex]
Working backwards...
If volume for 1600kg = 1.4 million m^3
Purely throwing out an even-ratio calculation, a fireball consuming Killtown's 75% (17,250kg) and 95% (21,850kg) will have volumes of about 15 million m^3 and 19 million m^3.
Someone let me know if this is wrong...
[latex]$$V = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$V\div\frac{4}{3} = \pi r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$V\div\frac{4}{3}\div\pi = r^3$$[/latex]
So for the first example (75% burn)
[latex]$$15,000,000\div\frac{4}{3}\div\pi = r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$3,580,986 = r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$r = 152.99m$$[/latex]
So a fireball 306m across.
Or for 95% burn:
[latex]$$19,000,000\div\frac{4}{3}\div\pi = r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$4,535,915.878 = r^3$$[/latex]
[latex]$$r = 165.534m$$[/latex]
So a fireball 331m across.
Now it is important to note, in each of these cases, that the NIST calculation was only until the point where the fireballs began to rise. They continued to expand after this, and expanded even further as the fires died out and the mushroom cloud formed.
So could a 330m initial fireball produce a 600m across mushroom cloud?
Well, for comparison the Tsar Bomba - the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated - had a fireball about 8-9km across, and produced a mushroom cloud 30 - 40km across. Bear in mind, despite the differing weapon, the basic physics involved in each is the same - all mushroom clouds form the same way.
Based on this very incredibly extremely rough example, you'd be looking at, easily, 1100 - 1650m across for a mushroom cloud from a 330m across fireball (and remember, based on UA175, the fireball would have reached BIGGER than 330m).
Now, I just want to stress, because it is incredibly important, that all of these calculations are INSANELY loose. A multitude of factors come into play at each step.
I have simply used a single example of a high speed airliner impact and resulting fireball, and applied the most loose interpretation of that data (and frankly, I could easily have interpreted it wrong!) scaled up to the percentage of fuel Killtown is proposing was burned in the crash of UA93.
This is not real science at all. But it at least has semi-stable foundations. I feel more comfortable with MY calculation than with Killtown's "looks about the right size".
-Andrew
- Status