Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Gravy]

Your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if the plume was Photoshopped.

What analysis have you done to determine if the plume was Photoshopped? If none, will you immediately make a retraction and apology?

 

[Dr Richard]

Everything discussed on this thread right now is about the experiment. If you don't want to contribute to this experiment, please hold your questions till afterward.

(Killtown ducks the question)

Killtown, have you not seen yet that your "experiment" is doomed never to be completed as it stands?

You have no idea of the variables involved in predicting the smoke plume size.

You have no idea how they interact.

You have no idea of the temperature gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance.

You have no idea of the windspeed gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance

If you have somewhere you are going with this, then get there. You will not get us to agree a min-max plume size with your inadequate set of variables beforehand because, as I have stated, you have not taken into account all of the possible variables.

 

[MortFurd]

(Killtown ducks the question)

Killtown, have you not seen yet that your "experiment" is doomed never to be completed as it stands?

You have no idea of the variables involved in predicting the smoke plume size.

You have no idea how they interact.

You have no idea of the temperature gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance.

You have no idea of the windspeed gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance

If you have somewhere you are going with this, then get there. You will not get us to agree a min-max plume size with your inadequate set of variables beforehand because, as I have stated, you have not taken into account all of the possible variables.

And if he were to somehow miraculously acquire the information, he has proven himself incapable of doing the mathematics involved in reducing the raw data to an answer.

It's been a long time since I saw anyone try to add feet and miles per hour.

 

[rwguinn]

(Killtown ducks the question)

Killtown, have you not seen yet that your "experiment" is doomed never to be completed as it stands?

You have no idea of the variables involved in predicting the smoke plume size.

You have no idea how they interact.

You have no idea of the temperature gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance.

You have no idea of the windspeed gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance

If you have somewhere you are going with this, then get there. You will not get us to agree a min-max plume size with your inadequate set of variables beforehand because, as I have stated, you have not taken into account all of the possible variables.

Um... Doc:
The "plume" size was measured from the photo. We know what it was (I'm not digging back to find it, so if whomever did the trig will repeat it, I'd appreciate it)

 

[MortFurd]

Um... Doc:
The "plume" size was measured from the photo. We know what it was (I'm not digging back to find it, so if whomever did the trig will repeat it, I'd appreciate it)

Yep. The apparent size was measured/calculated some time back. One of Killtown's claims is that it is too big, though, so he needs to calculate how big it "ought" to be. That's what Doc was on about.

It's hard keeping all of this straight after nearly 50 pages of foot dragging and "I'm trying to prove you guy's theory" from Killtown.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Um... Doc:
The "plume" size was measured from the photo. We know what it was (I'm not digging back to find it, so if whomever did the trig will repeat it, I'd appreciate it)

CurtC did the trig based on my measurements from Val's house, to the white barn, the white barn to the red barn, and the red barn to Val's house. His calculations were within .01 of my measurements on google earth.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

I don't give out personal information. I'm not going to ask about your personal life, don't ask about mine. last words on this. move on.

As a matter of fact you do give out personal information. Val could attest to that.

 

[MortFurd]

Hi, Buckwheat. Are you still trying to get on Killtown's ignore list?

If so, just remind him in size 7 red text that we don't have a theory and that he should be proving his.

He put me on ignore with in seconds of that.

 

[Belz...]

Did I just see Killtown actually give in to reality?

Uh-oh. I think we're about to lose Pardalis, here.

 

[Dr Richard]

Yep. The apparent size was measured/calculated some time back. One of Killtown's claims is that it is too big, though, so he needs to calculate how big it "ought" to be. That's what Doc was on about.

It's hard keeping all of this straight after nearly 50 pages of foot dragging and "I'm trying to prove you guy's theory" from Killtown.

Thanks, this is part of what I was trying to drive at.

Killtown's remaining theory rests on his assertion that the plume size in Val's photo is too big.

He rests this on two elements:

1. A picture captured from a crashing B-52 bomber produced a plume he thinks is much smaller that the one shown in the picture.

This is an obvious fallacy to most people but KT himself, who does not seem to appreciate the many differences in conditions between the two crashes. He has now conceded that knowing the windspeed is important for working out how big the plume should be. What he does not seem to know is what the windspeed was at the time of this crash, proving that making comaprisons is indeed invalid. I was hoping that he'd be able to appreciate this point.

2. Lines drawn on Google Earth maps apparently showing that the plume would be very large (2200ft IIRC) if Val's photo is consistent with the official version of events.

Many people have pointed out that
(a) the plume will have drifted
(b) the plume drifted at an angle to Val's POV
(c) drawing the lines differently on Google Earth even by a few pixels gives wildly different answers for the plume in the picture; other's estimates have put the plume size at between 400-600m diameter
(d) this size is entirely consistent with the rough estimates produced by many
others including myself

Killtown cannot disprove these estimates for the reasons I have given. In fact, the more I have read up on this, the more I am convinced that making any sort of estimate of plume size based on the known crash conditions is impossible.

And, of course, comparing photos from various crashes even more so.

I know buckwheatjones posted expert opinion on this, too.

So I have a sinking feeling that soon we will be back to lines on Google Earth.

 

[Hutch]

*sigh*

Face facts folks; Killtown will continue to troll until he gets his "facts" from us (which are estimates based on the variables we do know and by some pretty good math by the members). He will then do some "interesting" (read: ridiculous) calculations to dazzle and amaze us on how impossible this was and that we are all wrong, ha ha ha...

But given that the only way this thread will ever end is by giving accurate data and seeing where he goes with it (into the dumpster, I presume), the AutoIgnition Temperature for Jet A Fuel is 240C (464F). So since you need that temperature to auto-ignite, I will take that as the minimum.

Maximum; I could find nothing in the scientific literature in the short time I browsed, perhaps one of the other members can dig that out.

KT, I provide this as a factoid; I have serious doubts you can use it efficiency or effectively, but we shall see.

Press on.

 

[Dr Richard]

*sigh*

Face facts folks; Killtown will continue to troll until he gets his "facts" from us (which are estimates based on the variables we do know and by some pretty good math by the members). He will then do some "interesting" (read: ridiculous) calculations to dazzle and amaze us on how impossible this was and that we are all wrong, ha ha ha...

But given that the only way this thread will ever end is by giving accurate data and seeing where he goes with it (into the dumpster, I presume), the AutoIgnition Temperature for Jet A Fuel is 240C (464F). So since you need that temperature to auto-ignite, I will take that as the minimum.

Maximum; I could find nothing in the scientific literature in the short time I browsed, perhaps one of the other members can dig that out.

KT, I provide this as a factoid; I have serious doubts you can use it efficiency or effectively, but we shall see.

Press on.

Hutch, I hope you are prepared for the consequences...

Reference


Gives max temp of JP-4 or -5 fuel fire at 2400degF

Puts max temp at 1316degC. For a pure jet fuel fire, no consideration of other bits of burning debris etc.

(Converted for KTs benefit).

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

*sigh*

Face facts folks; Killtown will continue to troll until he gets his "facts" from us (which are estimates based on the variables we do know and by some pretty good math by the members). He will then do some "interesting" (read: ridiculous) calculations to dazzle and amaze us on how impossible this was and that we are all wrong, ha ha ha...

But given that the only way this thread will ever end is by giving accurate data and seeing where he goes with it (into the dumpster, I presume), the AutoIgnition Temperature for Jet A Fuel is 240C (464F). So since you need that temperature to auto-ignite, I will take that as the minimum.

Maximum; I could find nothing in the scientific literature in the short time I browsed, perhaps one of the other members can dig that out.

KT, I provide this as a factoid; I have serious doubts you can use it efficiency or effectively, but we shall see.

Press on.

For my own edification (since KT has me on Ignore), doesn't the autoignition temp represent the point at which spontaneous combustion occurs? And would this be different if there was an ignition source, such as an electrical spark igniting fumes?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

That isn't relevant today, because there's no way to tell how accurate the camera's clock was. However, no matter what time (or day, or year) the clock showed at the time of the photo, the FBI agents could have calculated the elapsed time between the photo and the time shown on the camera's clock when they examined it. Assuming the battery hadn't been removed or the time reset, subtracting the elapsed time from the real time would give the photo's actual time to the second.

I guess that's true. Sometimes the time stamps aren't accurate, but short of that -- at this point (not if the FBI did this or if the FBI did that back then) -- that probably doesn't leave us with a conclusive way to determine when the photo was shot.

In 2001, The agents would have needed to show up and among other things besides checking the time stamp on the file, verify that the camera's internal clock was accurate. If she dropped the camera and the battery fell out, that is probably immaterial. Most of these cameras have a battery built into their motherboards that operate independently of the one you have to buy at Walgreens now and then just so you don't have to reset the clock all the time.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Hi, Buckwheat. Are you still trying to get on Killtown's ignore list?

If so, just remind him in size 7 red text that we don't have a theory and that he should be proving his.

He put me on ignore with in seconds of that.

Hi Mort!

WE DON'T HAVE A THEORY!

OK. Back to normal. Let's see if that did it.

 

[DavidJames]

Hi Mort!

WE DON'T HAVE A THEORY!

OK. Back to normal. Let's see if that did it.

KT - if you disagree, please provide a link to the Theory you claim We have

 

[Dave_46]

for the thousandth time, we'll discuss this AFTER the experiment is over.

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 617

Arithmetic isn't a strong point is it?

 

[CurtC]

In 2001, The agents would have needed to show up and among other things besides checking the time stamp on the file, verify that the camera's internal clock was accurate.

They would have simply had to compare the camera's time setting to the standard to get its offset, then add that offset to the time stamp of the photo. A camera clock won't drift more than a couple of seconds per day, so had they done that right away, they could know the image time very accurately. Without that calibration reference, there is absolutely no way that the time stamp would tell us anything. Of course, unless she set the camera to UTC time when she bought it - I routinely do stuff like that, but I realize most people, especially in non-technical fields, don't.

It would have been nice if the FBI investigators had actually determined the time stamp and camera's offset, but they apparently didn't, not knowing that there would be crazy people five years later making claims that the photo was faked.

About the smoke cloud size - using Google Earth, I feel pretty good that it was max 650m (assuming it drifted due South from the crash site), probably more like 600m (if it drifted Southeast). Val's estimate of the time had to be wrong, so depending on how long it took, the cloud could be much closer to the camera. The 600m number assumes less than a minute. If it really took her much longer than she remembers, that cloud could actually be much closer, and therefore smaller. If she actually took the photo five or six minutes later, the cloud could even be where Killtown claimed, less than a mile from her, and only 200m.

There is no way to tell from this one photo, unless we know when it was taken exactly, and I'm afraid that information is forever lost.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

They would have simply had to compare the camera's time setting to the standard to get its offset, then add that offset to the time stamp of the photo. A camera clock won't drift more than a couple of seconds per day, so had they done that right away, they could know the image time very accurately. Without that calibration reference, there is absolutely no way that the time stamp would tell us anything.
There is no way to tell from this one photo, unless we know when it was taken exactly, and I'm afraid that information is forever lost.

You're probably right.

 

[Belz...]

1) Well if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but flood this thread with non-relevant and insulting posts, that number goes down a lot.

Translation : "Well, if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but oppose my far-fetched opinions, that number goes down a lot."