Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

[RedIbis]

We have a picture of the deflagration. We also have a few (very few) analogous crashes for comparison.

And, idiotic well-poisioning aside, we also know because there was very little fuel mixed in with the ground.

There is no comparison to George W. Bush and WMDs. Unlike Iraq, we know for a fact UA 93 had tons of fuel on board at the moment of impact. We do not know how many prohibited munitions were in Iraq on the dawn of the invasion, and the answer could be quite low.

Please try not to make such foolish analogies.

Pardon my attempt at levity. We wouldn't want to lighten the mood just a tad, would we? But you confirmed my, albeit hasty assumption. You can draw a conclusion because you don't have the physical evidence for what happened to the 17 tons of fuel? And because there is nothing similar to what happened?

And please provide this "picture of the deflagration." For some reason, I expect you mean this metaphorically.

 

[R.Mackey]

Pardon my attempt at levity. We wouldn't want to lighten the mood just a tad, would we? But you confirmed my, albeit hasty assumption. You can draw a conclusion because you don't have the physical evidence for what happened to the 17 tons of fuel? And because there is nothing similar to what happened?

If you want me to lighten the mood, stop misquoting me. I said there is physical evidence, and there is something similar to what happened. There have been jetliner impacts above 200 m/s before. Not many, but there are. Nearly total fuel cook-off in every case.

And please provide this "picture of the deflagration." For some reason, I expect you mean this metaphorically.

Contact Val McClatchey for an authorized copy of the photograph in question. The crash created a very large, single, vortex ring of smoke. Exactly like we expect.

Why are you even bothering with this? I can't fathom what alternative you might possibly have -- the aircraft was actually flying with dry tanks? The fuel didn't burn at all, but was instead trucked out of the crash site intact? There was no aircraft to begin with? What are you trying to say?

 

[RedIbis]

What are you trying to say?

Tell you what, I won't drag this out. I'm not a fire scientist so I won't argue whether or not Val's photo represents proof positive to what happened to 5500 gallons of fuel. Or what soil samples reveal when all that amount of fuel slams into it.

All I'm trying to say is that if the claim is 93 crashed into that ditch, you have to have the forensic evidence to support that theory. That puff of smoke above the red barn is not comparable to the dense, black columns that have come off other plane crashes. You have to rely on an instantaneously atomized and deflagrated fuel theory to explain the lack of evidence. The same basic fuel, mind you, that survives impactng the towers and working its way all the way to the basement.

I'm not interested in alternative theories, I'm interested in the evidence that supports the initial claim. Forgive my skepticism, but I'm wary of these magic fuel theories.

 

[R.Mackey]

Tell you what, I won't drag this out. I'm not a fire scientist so I won't argue whether or not Val's photo represents proof positive to what happened to 5500 gallons of fuel. Or what soil samples reveal when all that amount of fuel slams into it.

All I'm trying to say is that if the claim is 93 crashed into that ditch, you have to have the forensic evidence to support that theory. That puff of smoke above the red barn is not comparable to the dense, black columns that have come off other plane crashes. You have to rely on an instantaneously atomized and deflagrated fuel theory to explain the lack of evidence. The same basic fuel, mind you, that survives impactng the towers and working its way all the way to the basement.

I'm not interested in alternative theories, I'm interested in the evidence that supports the initial claim. Forgive my skepticism, but I'm wary of these magic fuel theories.

You're not interested in other theories, yet you're claiming in the second paragraph -- in a cowardly and leading way -- that UA 93 didn't crash there. I'd be more respectful if you'd just come out and take a position, attempting to argue it logically, than speaking only in terms of what you aren't saying.

There is no "magic fuel theory." If you crash a plane into an enormous structure, much of the fuel will be captured, and rather than totally atomize much of it will remain liquid. If you crash a plane into a field, the fuel will not be captured, instead interacting turbulently with open air for as long as it wants, and it will be almost totally atomized. Very, very basic turbulent jet behavior.

The evidence at the WTC is that a lot of the fuel remained as liquid. People smelled it, even saw it, running all the way down to the basements. The evidence at Shanksville is the fuel burned off almost at once. It wasn't in the soil, and the photograph proves a single deflagration, which is what we expect. Not -- as you insinuate -- a lingering, dark plume which is typical of a low-speed impact that also doesn't atomize fuel on impact. The picture is totally consistent with other high-speed impacts.

There's no mystery here. I can't tell if you're honestly so confused that you can't appreciate the differences between high-speed and low-speed crashes, or crashes into a field vs. a building, or whether you're just arguing for fun.

 

[Dog Town]

That puff of smoke above the red barn is not comparable to the dense, black columns that have come off other plane crashes.

The other crashes you speak of, were burning the contents left.In other words, did not crash at all like 93. Apples and oranges.

ETA: Damn phone, to long to post. Mackey done it.

 

[Pardalis]

That puff of smoke above the red barn is not comparable to the dense, black columns that have come off other plane crashes.

Of course the big black columns were fed by the office fires that ensued, but both clouds from the impact explosions are pretty similar.

 

[Apollo20]

Et tu Mackey?

Pretty similar indeed!

 

[Pardalis]

Et tu Mackey?

Pretty similar indeed!

Tell me Dr. Genius, what's wrong with it?

 

[Apollo20]

Pardalis:

According to Mackey: "If you crash a plane into an enormous structure, much of the fuel will be captured, and rather than totally atomize much of it will remain liquid. If you crash a plane into a field, the fuel will not be captured, instead interacting turbulently with open air for as long as it wants, and it will be almost totally atomized."

Thus why would you expect the cloud from the Shanksville crash explosion to look like the clouds from the WTC 1 & 2 explosions?

And, by the way, they dont!

But perhaps to you Pardalis: "All clouds look the same!"

 

[Pardalis]

Redibis' point was that the cloud in Shanksville didn't resemble the black smoke from the towers. The cloud from flight 93 was the result of the deflagration, and the black smoke from the towers obviously from the office fire, so you can't really compare the two.

The picture of the cloud above the towers is immediately after the plane hit, so it is from the deflagration, the "fireball", and the shape isn't too much dissimilar from the one in Shanksville.

Are you a flight 93 denier as well?

 

[RedIbis]

Redibis' point was that the cloud in Shanksville didn't resemble the black smoke from the towers.

Totally incorrect. I said the puff of smoke in Shanksville is not comparable to other plane crashes. I didn't say anything about the crashes into the towers.

 

[applecorped]

Puff of smoke?

 

[Pardalis]

Totally incorrect. I said the puff of smoke in Shanksville is not comparable to other plane crashes. I didn't say anything about the crashes into the towers.

Why did you choose to answer my post?

I think R.Mackey is waiting for the answer to his question.

 

[R.Mackey]

Et tu Mackey?

Pretty similar indeed!

I don't see the problem.

We spent several weeks debating the UA 93 photograph, concluding that the cloud is perhaps 300 meters in diameter, and that the size is perfectly reasonable. The other photograph is from UA 11 and appears to be roughly 200 meters in diameter, understanding that the Towers were 64 meters across and roughly the same distance from the observer as the cloud.

UA 93 was carrying an estimated 37,500 pounds of fuel at impact, which I propose was nearly all consumed.

NIST estimated UA 11's impact fuel load at 66,100 pounds, from NCSTAR1-2B, page 171, and of that estimated that 20%, or 13,220 pounds, burned at impact. This is 35% of the fuel expected to create the UA 93 smoke ring.

To first order*, the size of the cloud scales as the cube root of the amount of fuel, so we predict the UA 93 cloud, with 2.8 times as much fuel, to be 1.4 times larger in diameter. 1.4 x 200 meters = 280 meters, in good agreement with the UA 93 picture.

Again, I don't see the problem.

*: This is true only if the cloud has uniform density -- the actual size will be a complex function of fuel distribution at ignition and local airflow. However, all we need here is to show the two clouds are reasonable when compared to assumptions of their fuel input, and this is satisfied.

 

[Apollo20]

Mackey:

This is getting way off topic (and this is after you had the temerity to warn me about staying on topic) ...... but since you raised it I fail to see how you can estimate the size of the cloud in the Shanksville photo to be 300 meters. There is no reference object at a comparable distance to the cloud (which is unknown anyway!), to compare the cloud to.

Please start a new thread or I will have to report this to the mods.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey:

This is getting way off topic (and this is after you had the temerity to warn me about staying on topic) ...... but since you raised it I fail to see how you can estimate the size of the cloud in the Shanksville photo to be 300 meters. There is no reference object at a comparable distance to the cloud (which is unknown anyway!), to compare the cloud to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1898216&postcount=2722

Our estimates put it at 581 m maximum and 263 m minimum; with an updated interpretation of the prevailing winds from the FDR rather than local weather reports, closer to the minimum figure since drift was expected to carry it closer to the observer.

Please start a new thread or I will have to report this to the mods.

Go right ahead and request the split, I have no objection at all. I also note that it was you who dived off-topic in the first place with your inaccurate summary of NIST.

 

[Major_Tom]

A20 seemed to be discussing NIST's application of the "scientific method". Seems to be on topic.

If you feel his description was inaccurate, could you please show in what way it was ncorrect?

 

[pomeroo]

Et tu Mackey?

Pretty similar indeed!

Seriously, Frank, what is happening to you?

 

[pomeroo]

Totally incorrect. I said the puff of smoke in Shanksville is not comparable to other plane crashes. I didn't say anything about the crashes into the towers.

Approximately 95% of Flight 93 was recovered. Are you arguing that your imaginary conspiracy includes the FBI?

 

[T.A.M.]

Major Tom:

Since you have returned, do you care to answer my question(s) to you (as Apollo20 seems to have me on ignore) from about a page or so back?
(post 150)

TAM