Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Mr. Skinny]

wing size + aircraft speed = fuel splatter size

125 feet + 580 MPH = 705 feet

Can't be right. Everyone knows you have to use feet on both sides of the equation to get an answer in feet.

125 feet + 580 miles (* 5,280 feet/mile to convert to feet) per hour = x feet.

So, the true answer would be:

125 feet + 3,062,400 ft per hr = 3,0625,25 feet.

In other words, a rather large fireball.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Feel free to start another thread if you want, but please stop stalling up this thread.

Would you answer in the thread?

 

[Beleth]

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.

Uh huh. Problem is, you're center stage in a Town Hall-style debate, and the people you describe as "hungry and tired little kids" are actually the above-average-intelligence inhabitants of this e-town you asked to vote in your poll. You remember, the poll you opened this thread with?

The plugs in your ears are music to mine.

 

[Killtown]

Would you answer in the thread?

Start one and find out. Last word on this.

 

[Killtown]

Hi Killtown, are you ignoring me?

Please do not tell me I'm on your ignore list! Could you answer the questions about wind velocity? I think they would be easy enough to answer.

To help you, my answers would be (a) Yes and (b) Yes

My justification for saying so would be the papers I quoted.

You guys have establisted your plume size estimates, so time to move on.

 

[Killtown]

Here are your current estimates...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------


If nobody objects, we'll move on to our next step.

What is you min/max range of how long it took from when 93 crashed until Val snapped her photo?

 

[Dog Town]

My ignore list: Arkan_Wolfshade, Beleth, Belz, CurtC, defaultdotxbe, Dog Town, ghost707, Huntsman, kookbreaker, LashL, Mancman, MortFurd, Pardalis, rwguinn, Skibum, Stellafane, Sword_Of_Truth, Wyn, Yoink

Cool,.. your sig is now somewhat factual, I think progress is being made here!
Not sure I care, but It's a start!
DT

 

[Yoink]

Anyone not on KT's ignore list care to see if it is worth drawing his attention to these videos: link1 and link2.

The first one (you have to go a ways in) shows the crash of a plane MUCH smaller than the 757. It's taking off from an airshow, so I assume it's not carrying a full load of fuel, but who the heck knows. It seems possibly useful in that it shows the rapid formation of a very large smoke cloud above the treeline behind which the plane crashes--you will note if you look closely that for a brief interval the cloud floats free from any "tail" beneath it (although one emerges later and rejoins the mushroom head above it).

The second one shows a simulated bombing run at an airshow (it's a "recreation" of Pearl Harbor). According to some other site I ran across these "bombs" are actually fuel-based (I don't know what kind). What it might be worth KT's while studying is that the mushroom clouds continue to expand for a long time after the charge detonates, that the clouds lose contact with the original "stalk" of smoke and that color/form/size etc are pretty variable from explosion to explosion, despite the fact that these are all taking place on the same day, with the same atmospheric conditions etc. etc. etc.

None of this, of course, is proof of anything at all--just as none of the other photos and videos that have been the sum total of KT's "research" to this point prove anything at all. Has there ever been such a wealth of considered argument levied against such a flimsy "case"?

 

[Killtown]

Who cares?

Because soon you guys are going to have to explain how all the fuel burned off to create the "short pulse" plume in Val's photo.

 

[Dr Richard]

Here are your current estimates...

[snip]

If nobody objects, we'll move on to our next step.

What is you min/max range of how long it took from when 93 crashed until Val snapped her photo?

I object, KT!

we are still discussing how the variables you keep on posting affect plume size.

DOES WIND SPEED AFFECT PLUME SIZE?

 

[R.Mackey]

Out of curiosity, did anyone ever give an estimate of "minimum plume size?" I seem to recall seeing theoretical maximums, and measured inferences of expected size, but I don't think anyone ever claimed a minimum.

For timing, I'd estimate between 10 and 60 seconds. Minimum likely time = 7 seconds (time for sound impact to reach Val) + 5 seconds (claimed minimum time to get her camera into action). Expected time is higher. This is a loose estimate, particularly on the upper end.

Killtown, feel free to take issue with these assumptions, but you can't replace anything unless you give a reason why. Show your work, remember?

 

[R.Mackey]

Because soon you guys are going to have to explain how all the fuel burned off to create the "short pulse" plume in Val's photo.

Um... fire?

If you have a point, please make it...

 

[Spindrift]

I've read through 40-some odd pages of posts and I'd like to get some clarification from Killtown if I could:

You keep calling this an experiment. Being a layman, I thought an experiment was something you tried out and tested. And that experimental results need to be reproducible to be valid.

So how are you conducting an experiment? Are you creating a similar explosion under similar conditions to see what happens?

BTW: Trying to get people to say that the Flight 93 is similar to the B-52 is like comparing a bus crash with a fuel truck crash. Comparing the results may be interesting but it isn't going to reveal any pertinent information about either crash.

 

[Beleth]

Because soon you guys are going to have to explain how all the fuel burned off to create the "short pulse" plume in Val's photo.

Oh, that's easy. The plane hit the ground.

 

[Dog Town]

soon you guys are going to have to explain

You use the word soon, as only a true Jamaican can!" Soon come" to them means next year, or next week, or whenever it happens! Mo Bay perhaps?
DT

 

[Yoink]

And yet I've been B!tchslapping him left and right and I can't seem to make the A-List. What's your secret?

Ask him how the logic of his case differs from my "proof" that he is in fact Sivan Kurzburg. You could throw in for good measure that if he can point out any significant difference in the logical structure of the arguments, I'll promise to abandon this thread for ever. Either way, you'll get added to the "Ignore" list in a shot!


I tells ya, the Mossad Elite Cover-Blowing Squad doesn't mess around!

 

[Stellafane]

...So how are you conducting an experiment? ...

He's conducting an experiment like I'm conducting an orchestra. Saying you're doing it doesn't make it so...except maybe in CT land.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Out of curiosity, did anyone ever give an estimate of "minimum plume size?" I seem to recall seeing theoretical maximums, and measured inferences of expected size, but I don't think anyone ever claimed a minimum.

For timing, I'd estimate between 10 and 60 seconds. Minimum likely time = 7 seconds (time for sound impact to reach Val) + 5 seconds (claimed minimum time to get her camera into action). Expected time is higher. This is a loose estimate, particularly on the upper end.

Killtown, feel free to take issue with these assumptions, but you can't replace anything unless you give a reason why. Show your work, remember?

fwiw, the numbers I was using were:
5.3 seconds absolute minimum (assuming she reacted to the shockwave in the ground from the impact (assuming it would reach her house)) (5 seconds reaction time + .3-.4 seconds shockwave travel time)
and 12.5 seconds (assuming she reacted to the sound of the crash) (5 seconds reaction time + 7.5 seconds sound travel time (assuming sea level and ~70F temp))

 

[Killtown]

I object, KT!

So you object to the min/max plume sizes?...

min: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
max: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

 

[R.Mackey]

I rejected reaction to ground shockwave because Val only reported a single boom.

Nonetheless, your perspective is also valid.

Note closely, Killtown. We both declare our assumptions, and that means we can figure out why numbers don't agree. Now continue.

ETA: Ooops, forgot Arkan was on Killtown's "Ignore" list, since according to Killtown, Arkan's comments are irrelevant. I was responding to the opinion below:

fwiw, the numbers I was using were:
5.3 seconds absolute minimum (assuming she reacted to the shockwave in the ground from the impact (assuming it would reach her house)) (5 seconds reaction time + .3-.4 seconds shockwave travel time)
and 12.5 seconds (assuming she reacted to the sound of the crash) (5 seconds reaction time + 7.5 seconds sound travel time (assuming sea level and ~70F temp))