Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Killtown said:
You trust me to do calculations for YOUR guys estimates? I think I know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
I demand that you do the calculations, or admit that you're not capable.

Let's go, chief. Stop stalling.
 
Killtown said:
You trust me to do calculations for YOUR guys estimates? I think I know the answer to that.

:D

What a GREAT day it is today!

:)
Click to expand...

And this is precisely why CTers like Killtown are scum, and beneath contempt.

It's a GREAT day because he thinks he's right. Ignore the fact that being right means the government was at least an accomplice to the murder of at least hundreds of innocents; ignore whether or not we're actually getting closer to the truth. He's right, and that's all that matters.

It sickens me.
 
Gravy said:
I demand that you do the calculations, or admit that you're not capable.

Let's go, chief. Stop stalling.
Click to expand...

Ok Gravy, I will stop asking any more questions at this point until Killtown comes up with the goods.

Note his 5s fudge on the "maximum" size amongst his invented figures.

He will at some point draw the "maximum" plume size on a google earth map and claim the because of the "5s" invention the plume will not have been blown as far it should by a windspeed of 25knots.

At 13meters per second, one minute of time would give the plume 780meters of drift. Killtown does not want to take that into account when he presents his grand result, as it totally invalidates his claim of where the plume will be.

However, I will say no more for now and await...

(pause for dramatic effect well justified after almost 2000 posts)

...the experiment

Over to you, KT
 
Killtown said:
Man, you guys are in sheer PANIC mode! Better send for reinforcements!
Click to expand...
Who's in panic mode, Killtown? I see you've taken everyone off ignore. What seems to be the trouble? Why did people you deemed unworthy suddenly become worthy?

Stop stalling, chief. Get to it.
 
Here are YOUR latest figures/estimates...

-------------------------------
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: 25 kt W
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: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m(3,280ft) (about 11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------
 
Gravy said:
Who's in panic mode, Killtown? I see you've taken everyone off ignore. What seems to be the trouble? Why did people you deemed unworthy suddenly become worthy?
Click to expand...
I figure you guys need all the help you guys can get right now since you're going to have to re-calculate your fireball sizes AND plume sizes with the GREAT fuel find of yours!

:D
 
So you admit you are not capable of doing the calculations.

Apologize to Val McClatchey now, Killtown.
 
Killtown said:
I figure you guys need all the help you guys can get right now since you're going to have to re-calculate your fireball sizes AND plume sizes with the GREAT fuel find of yours!

:D
Click to expand...
Guess what, Killtown? When you have someone on ignore, they can still read and post on the thread. You didn't just "bring them back."

Apologize to Val McClatchey now.
 
Here are the new totals....


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

Factual data:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Your minimum estimates:


Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: 50m(164ft) (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
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

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

Your maximum estimates:


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: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m(3,280ft) (about 11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec

--------------------------------
 
Since you're not going to proceed, how about answering this question: what analysis have you done to determine if the photo was digitally altered?

Remember, that was your only criterion for assessing Val McClatchey's guilt or innocence.

What? You didn't do an analysis, and you have no idea how to go about it? And you've only been working with a low resolution copy from the internet?

That means you never had any basis for assessing Val McClatchey's guilt. Only a creep would fail to apologize immediately and retract his vile claims.

Are you a creep, Killtown? If not, prove it.
 
Killtown said:
Here are YOUR latest figures/estimates...

-------------------------------
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: 25 kt W
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: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m(3,280ft) (about 11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Known constants:
Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals

Unknown constants:
Ambient temperature
Wind direction
Plume color

Variables:
Fuel % burned upon impact (impact defined at <= 1 second from contact with ground): 0-100%
Fireball temp: ambient-1,316C(2,400F)+
Peak fireball width: 0-?
Windspeed: 9-25 kt
Plume size: 400-1000m +/- 10%
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3-60 seconds
 
Here are numbers I think we'll actually agree to:

Verified data:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m-700m (about 650m with a slight margin of error)
Impact Speed: Approx. 580mph
Aircraft Weight: 220,000 lbs. to 255,000 lbs.
Aircraft Structure: Primarily Aluminum.

Hypothesized Ranges:
A. Fuel % burned upon impact: 1% to 100% (likely 30% to 70%)
B. Fireball temp: 240C to 1,316C
C. Peak fireball width: varies dependent on A and B
D. Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW or 25 kt W - determination between air/ground measurements needs to be made.
E. Elapsed Time: 5s to 90s
F. Fuel tank structure and failure method
G. Method of ignition
H. Resistance and elasticity of impacted surface
I. Resistence and elasticity of the airframe
J. Abient Temperature
K. Pressure
 
Last edited:
Huntsman said:
Here are numbers I think we'll actually agree to:

Verified data:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m-700m (about 650m with a slight margin of error)

Hypothesized Ranges:
A. Fuel % burned upon impact: 1% to 100% (likely 30% to 70%)
B. Fireball temp: 240C to 1,316C
C. Peak fireball width: varies dependent on A and B
D. Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW or 25 kt W - determination between air/ground measurements needs to be made.
E. Elapsed Time: 5s to 90s
Click to expand...
Sounds good. Let 'er rip, Killtown. What? You refuse?

Are you a creep, Killtown? If not, prove it.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Wrong.

Fuel % burned upon impact (impact defined at <= 1 second from contact with ground): 0-100%
Fireball temp: ambient-1,316C(2,400F)+
Peak fireball width: 0-?
Windspeed: 9-25 kt
Plume size: 400-1000m +/- 10%
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with a few. The fireball temp ahs to be at least the ignition temp of the fuel...if it's below this temp it won't be burning, when it's above it will. So ambient isn't the minimum. It might be the minimum of the fuel cloud, but the fireball is, by definition, burning :)

Peak fireball width is something we can't currently determine, although we could run some more numbers.

Also, we have two values for windspeed, rather than a range, and uncertainty as to whether either is accurate for the specific area/time in question.

And the plume size is pretty well measured at about 650m, I think we can go 600-700 on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom