Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Dr Richard]

I know KT won't have bothered to do this research: does anybody know where the weather-station would have been that recorded the average wind speed for that day? It's not impossible that you could still find online the full records for that day (max, min, ave). Of course, if the weather station isn't all that close to the crash site, the info would be largely useless. KT seems to have always assumed that windspeed is uniform at all times and all places covered by the weather forecast. As a sailor, I can certainly tell him that a gust of 25kt on a day with an average windspeed of 9kts is entirely possible. It is also impossible to know how the direction of the wind might have varied through the day (and moment to moment) as well. Wind direction is incredibly local--if the topography has any significant variations at all--for miles around--it is perfecty possible that the crash site could have experienced wind conditions dramatically different from those recorded at the area weather-station.

Hi Yoink

You are indeed correct, windspeed could vary a lot and the mathmatical models used to calculate plume drift in oil spills take this into account with calculations around the standard deviation of wind velocity at a given time, which gives a statistical approximation for the range of values of windspeed given a measured number.

Variation with height is also very important and we may get to this eventually.

In the meantime, I am interested to know what value for windspeed Killtown has for when his beloved B-52 bomber crashed.

 

[gumboot]

I know KT won't have bothered to do this research: does anybody know where the weather-station would have been that recorded the average wind speed for that day?

The only thing I have is this reference in the local Newspaper in an article about the debris field from the crash.

Late yesterday afternoon, however, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said experts from the National Transportation Safety Board had checked weather reports and determined that lightweight materials might well have traveled over the mountain by a southwest wind that reached a speed of 9 knots.

-Andrew

 

[Dr Richard]

No.

erm... yes

 

[R.Mackey]

1) You mean like when I repost your current estimates on almost every page and asks if anybody objects to them?

2) Just come up with an average.

1) Yes, exactly! I think you made up a minimum estimate, and then claimed you got it from us. If not, show me where you got it. It's in this thread. It's your monomaniacal focus. It shouldn't be a hard thing for you to do.

2) Average in time, space, by mass, isobaric..? What endpoints would you use? There is no simple "average." It'd be like me asking what the average speed of your car is.

 

[gumboot]

Just for the record, my main concern with Killtown's "football field" measure was the lack of consistancy - for example 600m as 6 1/2 fields, whilst 1000m was 10 fields.

And then more insanity with 860m being 9 1/2!

Perhaps he used a different football field for each measure?

-Andrew

 

[Killtown]

New estimates...


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

 

[Yoink]

Now, your case rests on comparing the plume size in Val's photo to that where the B-52 bomber crashed.

I think you'll find that his case rests on "forensics." Oh, and "calculations."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just for the record, my main concern with Killtown's "football field" measure was the lack of consistancy - for example 600m as 6 1/2 fields, whilst 1000m was 10 fields.

And then more insanity with 860m being 9 1/2!

Perhaps he used a different football field for each measure?

-Andrew

It's worse now. He has 1000m = 11 fbf, when it should be (including endzones) 9.12 fbf

 

[Killtown]

1) I think you made up a minimum estimate, and then claimed you got it from us. If not, show me where you got it.

2) Average in time, space, by mass, isobaric..? What endpoints would you use? There is no simple "average." It'd be like me asking what the average speed of your car is.

1) Pretend I did, you guys had ample opportunities to object to this min when I reposted and asked for objections.

So if you have a problem with it, tell me your estimate you'd like me to replace it with.

2) How about the lowest temp we'll use for your min and the highest for you max?

 

[Dr Richard]

I think you'll find that his case rests on "forensics." Oh, and "calculations."

Indeed, but at his calculator is broken we only have forensics left.

I am attempting a forensic analysis of his B-52 crash picture so that we can progress to a forensic analysis of Val's picture.

Why stall, Killtown?

Easy question surely?

What was the windspeed when the B-52 bomber crashed?

 

[R.Mackey]

1) Pretend I did, you guys had ample opportunities to object to this min when I reposted and asked for objections.

Sure.

Now you pretend that I took advantage of the ample opportunity, and I did object. I then asked you to verify it and show me where it came from.

Now pretend you actually followed through instead of being too lazy to read your own thread.

Where did you get that number? I didn't watch you get it, so only you know the answer. Only you can tell us. So do it already. Sheesh!!

 

[Bandersnatch]

Killtown: Please Click Me.

 

[Beleth]

1) Pretend I did, you guys had ample opportunities to object to this min when I reposted and asked for objections.

Tell you what. When I specifically agree with your estimates, I will post saying so. Until then, treat every non-response from me after you post your estimates to be an objection.

Understood and agreed?

 

[Killtown]

Sure.

Now you pretend that I took advantage of the ample opportunity, and I did object. I then asked you to verify it and show me where it came from.

Now pretend you actually followed through instead of being too lazy to read your own thread.

Where did you get that number? I didn't watch you get it, so only you know the answer. Only you can tell us. So do it already. Sheesh!!

Jeez...

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

Do you mean the smoke cloud in Val's photo? We already measured that as 600 to 650 meters.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1864051#post1864051

 

[rwguinn]

Hi Yoink

You are indeed correct, windspeed could vary a lot and the mathmatical models used to calculate plume drift in oil spills take this into account with calculations around the standard deviation of wind velocity at a given time, which gives a statistical approximation for the range of values of windspeed given a measured number.

Variation with height is also very important and we may get to this eventually.

In the meantime, I am interested to know what value for windspeed Killtown has for when his beloved B-52 bomber crashed.

And don't forget that his beloved B-52 crashed from a stalled condition at low altitude, vs a high-speed impact>400kt.

 

[Killtown]

New estimates. Any objections?


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (about 6 1/2 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (about 9 1/2 football fields)
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (about 11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

 

[Matthew Best]

How did you manage to read Curt C's post, when you're ignoring Curt C?

 

[R.Mackey]

Jeez...

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

Do you mean the smoke cloud in Val's photo? We already measured that as 600 to 650 meters.

Thank you.

This confirms my suspicion, that you are, once again, attepting to deceive.

This is an estimate of likely smoke plume width based on observation. NOT minimum based on theoretical limits.

Do you understand the difference? I specifically warned you to make sure you had this straight, and you didn't.

Fix your charts. This would go much faster if you simply showed your work without being asked, or produced it when asked without drama.

 

[rwguinn]

New estimates. Any objections?


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (about 6 1/2 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (about 9 1/2 football fields)
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (about 11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

All kinds of them, but you're not listening.
Fireball size--at what time after impact? initial size or at time=T?
Your original argument was that it was in the wrong place WRT the house and the crater. When simple trigonometry showed you to be incorrect (lying), you go off on this "experiment" stuff- all of which is irrelevant.
Nor is the B-52 of any particular relevance. All the data and all the calculations point to the hypothesis of "The cloud shown in the picture is from Flight 93's crash of September 11, 2001" being the correct one.

 

[Killtown]

Thank you.

This confirms my suspicion, that you are, once again, attepting to deceive.

This is an estimate of likely smoke plume width based on observation. NOT minimum based on theoretical limits.

Do you understand the difference? I specifically warned you to make sure you had this straight, and you didn't.

Fix your charts. This would go much faster if you simply showed your work without being asked, or produced it when asked without drama.

Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.