Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Yoink]

Like Hutch, I think it's probably time to give KT some numbers and let him hang himself with some pathetically inadequate attempt to "prove" something from them.

To that end, isn't the "minimum" size simply 0? That is, isn't there some possibility, however remote, that the plane could crash in such a way as to send up no fireball whatsoever? For example, if the pilots had dumped fuel inadvertently (or advertently)--if that is possible--or if the plane had sprung a fuel-line leak etc. etc. I mean, from the point of view of his "experiment" is there anything wrong with simply taking 0 for the minimum temperature, size of cloud etc? Then, perhaps, we could move on.

The only limit case for his purposes, really, is the maximum, after all. He wants to show that the cloud is "too big"--so he's really only interested in the maxima.

 

[kevin]

For example, if the pilots had dumped fuel inadvertently (or advertently)--if that is possible--or if the plane had sprung a fuel-line leak etc. etc.

I believe planes that need to make an emergency landing, but have full tanks, will dump fuel into the ocean (assuming there is one nearby and the emergency is of a nature that allows them to do so). Can't remember where I heard that, but I think it was for a plane that had it's landing gear stuck.

 

[Gravy]

I believe planes that need to make an emergency landing, but have full tanks, will dump fuel into the ocean (assuming there is one nearby and the emergency is of a nature that allows them to do so). Can't remember where I heard that, but I think it was for a plane that had it's landing gear stuck.

The FDR would have indicated a fuel dump or malfunction.

 

[Beleth]

The only limit case for his purposes, really, is the maximum, after all. He wants to show that the cloud is "too big"--so he's really only interested in the maxima.

I also predict that he will confuse "minima and maxima" with "things leading to the smallest plume and things leading to the biggest plume". For instance, I would guess that the smallest fuel consumption time would lead to the biggest plume.

 

[Gravy]

The FDR would have indicated a fuel dump or malfunction.

Wow. Speak of the devil, Mike Williams of 911myths.com just posted the FDR data he recieved via FOIA request. On page 8 of this document, it says that flight 93 had 37,500 lbs of fuel on board at impact.

 

[Killtown]

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

2) 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.

1) I have your min/mix fireball size and your min/mix plume size, so that's really all I need. It's just a fun experiment. don't have a cow.

2) Well I've been asking for the min/max temps. what are they?

 

[Killtown]

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

I've never given out any of her personal information that wasn't already public on numerous websites.

 

[Killtown]

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.

See, now that's what I'm talking about...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
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: 1 min
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: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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

 

[Killtown]

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).

Finally we are getting somewhere...


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
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: 1 min
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: 1,316C(2,400F)
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: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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

 

[Hutch]

Alright, KT, you have all your factors; now dazzle us with your brilliant analysis.

So help me, if the next step of "His" experiment is to ask "Us" to do the math/calculations for him I will be ending up on his ignore list...

 

[Killtown]

Wow. Speak of the devil, Mike Williams of 911myths.com just posted the FDR data he recieved via FOIA request. On page 8 of this document, it says that flight 93 had 37,500 lbs of fuel on board at impact.

Ok, looks like we are going to have to do some MAJOR changes.

Refigure your plume sizes now!

And approx how many gallons would 37,500 lbs be?

 

[Gravy]

Ok, looks like we are going to have to do some MAJOR changes.

Refigure your plume sizes now!

And approx how many gallons would 37,500 lbs be?

Get to work Killtown. The answers are all in this thread.

Then get on to apologizing to Val McClatchey. ASAP, Killtown.

 

[Yoink]

flight 93 had 37,500 lbs of fuel on board at impact.

Does anyone know the specific gravity of jet-fuel? For gasoline this would give a figure of 6,147 gallons of fuel (according to a quick'n'dirty googling: I'm no expert on any of this). Might be worth factoring in.

 

[Gravy]

I ask that all forum members let Killtown proceed on his own from here.

 

[Yoink]

The thing that is kinda sad and also kinda hilarious about this is that you just know that KT's "calculations" are going to be along the lines of "well, I looked at Google Earth and it turned out that this looked just WAY too big, so I rescaled...." or "but it doesn't matter how big you say the cloud could have been because why doesn't it have a tail?"

I mean, the guy is obviously innumerate, so all this shuffling of numbers is clearly beside the point.

 

[Killtown]

Here's something I found real quick (don't say I never tried to help you guys out)..

Avgas (100-130 or 100-130LL) weight is calculated at 6 pounds per gallon; Jet A (jet fuel) at 6.84 pounds per gallon.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/fuelconsumpgphcalc.html

So 5,482 gals aboard 93?

 

[Yoink]

I ask that all forum members let Killtown proceed on his own from here.

Gravy, most of us are on ignore--so there's only a few of you who can affect his "calculations" one way or the other. Still--I think it would be worth giving him the lbs--gallons conversion if someone can do it accurately. Otherwise he'll just make a big song and dance about it later if he discovers that it's a slightly lower figure than anyone has been estimating so far.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, most of us are on ignore--so there's only a few of you who can affect his "calculations" one way or the other. Still--I think it would be worth giving him the lbs--gallons conversion if someone can do it accurately. Otherwise he'll just make a big song and dance about it later if he discovers that it's a slightly lower figure than anyone has been estimating so far.

The conversion rate was published here already. All he has to do is find it. Killtown's a resourceful guy. Let's not baby him.

 

[Yoink]

So 5,482 gals aboard 93?

Hey, waddya know? He got his calculator repaired!

 

[Killtown]

Ok, you guys are going to have to do some MAJOR reconfiguring.

Have at it...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
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: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Fireball temp: 1,316C(2,400F)
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: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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


PS - Thanks Gravy for this GREAT find!!!!