Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

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?

Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.

 

[Dr Richard]

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)

We cannot estimate these until we know how the variables affect them

DOES WIND SPEED AFFECT PLUME SIZE?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

...

I agree that the ground shockwave was probably not what she reacted to, but I figured I would keep the number around for reference. *shrug*

 

[Killtown]

Um... fire?

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

Then we should add a min/max time it took for the min/max fuel estimates to burn off.

Should be easy if you use 175's fireball as an example, although you'll have to explain why there is no thick trail of smoke trail Val's plume.

 

[R.Mackey]

Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.

(sigh) Back to you, again, Killtown. Where did you get this number?

Where you got it from, was it identified as a minimum estimate, or a likely estimate?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

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!

Ok. I'll give it a shot. Hey, killtown...Yoink says if I post this I'll get Ignored. So here goes!

 

[R.Mackey]

Then we should add a min/max time it took for the min/max fuel estimates to burn off.

Should be easy if you use 175's fireball as an example, although you'll have to explain why there is no thick trail of smoke trail Val's plume.

I don't use 175 as an example, for reasons already stated. It's a bad model.

The speed of a flame front in aersolized fuel is something that we can compute. I welcome you to give it a try. You will find -- if you do it right -- that it is very fast. The time added will be negligible.

 

[Yoink]

you'll have to explain why there is no thick trail of smoke trail Val's plume.

Looks like my videos (see above #1776) might be of some use here. ETA: At the very least he'll have to explain the absence of the "thick trail of smoke" in each case--given that he holds that all fuel-based explosions are alike.

ETA: I'm on ignore, so if you think it might be helpful to show these to KT, please do so: don't bother acknowledging me as the source, though, because he'll probably ignore the videos in that case.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Moreover, a fireball creates an updraft which pulls air into it and accelerates the burning of the fuel vapor, according to my engineer. This could account for the rapid cookoff of the fireball.

 

[Wyn]

Originally Posted by Buckwheatjones

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?

Pick out something amazingly stupid he's said (I know, but just pick one) and keep asking him the same questions about it over and over.

I kept asking him how much Jet B fuel was carried in a MOAB because he's been using the MOAB plume as an example of the 93 crash. Einstein here thinks a 200,000 + pound airplane with 60,000 +/- pounds of Jet B will have the same plume as a 20,000 pound high explosive bomb.

My question was this: How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

Keep asking him something similar, hell, you can even use that, and you'll soon find yourself on the A list!

 

[Killtown]

We cannot estimate these until we know how the variables affect them

DOES WIND SPEED AFFECT PLUME SIZE?

Don't bother asking me these questions, I'm not the one determining YOUR estimates. YOU guys are.

 

[Killtown]

(sigh) Back to you, again, Killtown. Where did you get this number?

Where you got it from, was it identified as a minimum estimate, or a likely estimate?

I got it from one of you guys. Feel free to change any of your estimates at anytime before I ask you guys at the end to make a final concur to all your 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

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

 

[Yoink]

I'm not the one determining YOUR estimates. YOU guys are.

"I'm ignorant and don't understand objections to my position: therefore my position is sound!"

Wouldn't it loverly if the world actually worked that way? What argument wouldn't you win? "I don't understand your fancy legal arguments, therefore I don't have to pay taxes. Suck it, government!"

 

[Beleth]

Then we should add a min/max time it took for the min/max fuel estimates to burn off.

Okay.

Min time if all fuel was aerosolized: .001 seconds
Max time: oh, I can safely say that the picture was taken within 5 minutes of the crash, so 5 minutes.

SWAGs both of them, but there you are.

 

[Killtown]

I don't use 175 as an example, for reasons already stated. It's a bad model.

The speed of a flame front in aersolized fuel is something that we can compute. I welcome you to give it a try. You will find -- if you do it right -- that it is very fast. The time added will be negligible.

so it's more how the explosion of the MOAB blast looked like?

 

[Killtown]

Just occured to me, should we estimate the temperature of the explosion?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just occured to me, should we estimate the temperature of the explosion?

 

[gumboot]

Okay I'll play his silly game...

Minimum time, crash to photo - Arkan's 5.3 seconds (ground transmission of impact + Val's 5 second reaction)

Maximum time, crash to photo - about a minute, simply because I know from personal experience humans are hopeless at estimating time.

-Andrew

 

[Dr Richard]

Just occured to me, should we estimate the temperature of the explosion?

Ahem.

Did this "just occur" to you having read the papers I posted where temperature is a variable?????

Killtown, I'm impressed!

We are making progress again.

But, before we move onto calculations about variable temperature gradients above complex fluid dynamic systems,

...

...

do you agree that windspeed is important in determining plume size?

 

[R.Mackey]

I got it from one of you guys. Feel free to change any of your estimates at anytime before I ask you guys at the end to make a final concur to all your estimates.

Answer the questions, Killtown.

1. Who did you get it from?

2. Was it presented as a "minimum estimate," or did you make that up?