Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Dr Richard]

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

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

Anyone want to play spot the difference with post 1908 (and repeated in 1920)

I am not asking any more questions so Killtown can get on with his calculations, but have you noticed how since my last post the "maximum" wind speed has sudden dropped from 25 knots to 9?

I hate smilies usually, but here goes...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

Yeah, I should have said fireball temp was "n/a or 240C-1,316C+" to account for the 0% of fuel burned variable.

 

[Killtown]

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

Ok...


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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gravy]

Anyone want to play spot the difference with post 1908 (and repeated in 1920)

I am not asking any more questions so Killtown can get on with his calculations, but have you noticed how since my last post the "maximum" wind speed has sudden dropped from 25 knots to 9?

I hate smilies usually, but here goes...

Yep. He reversed the minimum and maximum. Honest mistake, no doubt.

And he still hasn't corrected his football field figures.

 

[Gravy]

He also reversed the min and max time from crash to photo.

Honest mistake, no doubt.

 

[Yoink]

Hello Killtown, nice to know that we're all back to witness you continually failing to show even one, single, solitary piece of evidence which casts doubt upon the authenticity of the photograph.

By the way, I realize you are shuddering with glee at this slight downward revision in the fuel estimate. Unfortunately for you, your complete and utter lack of mathematical knowledge is leading you astray (one thing that is interesting here, though, is that your glee demonstrates that you were genuinely worried that you were unable to make a case against the fireball with the slightly higher fuel estimates we were originally going with).

Anyway, here's a brief explanation why 5482 gallons versus "around 7000" is hardly the "stunning blow" you seem to think it is: there is not a direct arithmetic relationship between the volume of a sphere and its width. That is, a sphere that is double the volume of another sphere is much less than double the width. When calculating explosions, you are calculating ideal "spheres" of rapidly expanding gases/shockwaves/debris fields, what have you. Put this the other way around. If you have a sphere of X gallons of fuel and halve that quantity, you haven't got near halving the radius of the sphere.

If you go back to post 291, where Buckwheatjones casually demolished your entire argument (yes, on page 8, no less), and plug the new fuel estimate into his one based on 10,000 gallons, you get this stunning difference: he estimates that the initial ball of heated aerosolized fuel had a radius of 46m. His nuclear physicist friend suggests that this would be capable of producing a cloud of almost twice the width of the one observed in the picture. ALMOST TWICE!!!

Plugging in the new numbers, I get a figure of a radius of 37.77m: that's going from 10,000gallons to 5482gallons: it makes not quite 18% difference to the crucial variable in the physicist's equation. The equation, that is, that lead to a maximum cloud size of TWICE the observed size.

So, now that your little celebration is over and you have been shown to, again, have nothing: when are you going to apologize to Val McClatchey for having so shamefully and baselessly insulted her?

 

[Killtown]

Here, fill in the blanks....


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: Approx. 500mph

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

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

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

Your minimum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: ???
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: ???
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min

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

Your maximum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 70%
Fireball temp: 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: ???
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: ???
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec

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

 

[Killtown]

Impact Speed: Approx. 500mph

What was the actual speed? We were told "580mph" by officials before...

http://killtown.911review.org/911report.html#flight93_580mph

 

[Belz...]

So 5,482 gals aboard 93?

Yeah, not one drop more. All set ?

 

[Gravy]

He still hasn't corrected the three errors we just pointed out. Sheer incompetence, no doubt, and not dishonesty.

 

[Hellbound]

I added a few more relevent unknowns in my earlier post

There might be a ballpark method of getting the fireball width-see if we can use the same methods used to estimate the plume width to estimate the width of the column leading up to it. That should give a ballpark figure of the blast radius (not nearly accurate, but probably as accurate as anything else we've been doing).

 

[Belz...]

No.

You are one sorry excuse for a human beign, Killtown. You are now retracting from your word that you'd apologise ? Have you no honour ?

 

[Hellbound]

What was the actual speed? We were told "580mph" by officials before...

http://killtown.911review.org/911report.html#flight93_580mph

THen 580 it is. I approximated because I could not recall the exact amount, and did not feel inclined to look through this thread for it. Unlike you, because I wasn't sure, I indicated that this was an approximate figure, instead of acting as if it were fact until pointed out otherwise.

 

[Killtown]

I added a few more relevent unknowns in my earlier post

Please insert your new figures in the chart.

 

[Belz...]

It's such a great day that I let everybody off my ignore list!

I concur with Huntsman. You're only concerned about beign right. The lives or deaths of thousands mean nothing to you.

 

[Hellbound]

Please insert your new figures in the chart.

You can do it yourself.* That is, assuming you can determine the values of the variables in question.

*-You know, as part of the research you should have done before accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder?

 

[Gravy]

What was the actual speed? We were told "580mph" by officials before...

http://killtown.911review.org/911report.html#flight93_580mph

Already noted in this thread, Killtown. Look it up.

How lazy and incompetent is it possible for one person to be? This certainly surpasses anything I've ever seen.

Get on with it, Killtown. You have needlessly harmed someone who was deeply affected by 9/11.

Are you a creep? Prove it.

 

[Killtown]

You can do it yourself.* That is, assuming you can determine the values of the variables in question.

*-You know, as part of the research you should have done before accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder?

I don't want to be accused of deliberately putting the wrong info in to further MY theory.

 

[Gravy]

I don't want to be accused of deliberately putting the wrong info in to further MY theory.

After 50 pages and nearly 2,000 posts, don't you think it's time you did some work, Killtown.

You have deliberately and cruelly harmed someone who was deeply affected by 9/11. Are you going to make amends, or not?

Are you a man? Prove it.

 

[Yoink]

By the way, Killtown: back when you were ignoring me I posted links to a couple of videos you might find interesting (given that videos are, for you, the gold standard of "forensic" investigation). Have a look at these:
Link 1
Link 2

Notice in the first one, that when the smoke cloud rises above the treeline (some time after the actual crash takes place) it is initially "untethered"--that is, there is clearly daylight between the "mushroom cloud" and the trees. Shortly thereafter, a trail of more smoke comes up and joins the cloud. There's no more footage after that.

Notice in the second one (which is, I gather from other sites reporting on the event, pre-planted fuel "bombs" being detonated on the ground in a simulation of the Pearl Harbor air attack) how the mushroom clouds A) never cease expanding (and expand massively relative to their initial fireballs), how they also boil up into the sky without any marked "trail" or "tether" of smoke linking them back to the ground. Finally, notice that there is some variation in the size, color, and shape of the clouds despite the fact that all these explosions have the "same" source and are all occuring in exactly the same atmospheric conditions. Any explanations?