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:
Ok, since this is going nowhere, you guys estimate the min/max diameter that the explosion at impact had to be before we continue. Otherwise we're running around in circles.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, as I've already explained, and the only one running in circles is yourself.

However, as already indicated, any education is positive, so I shall answer the question anyway.

The explosion "at impact" would be sized according to the fuel distribution. At minimum, consider a case where the fuel was all contained within a volume equivalent to the wings of the aircraft. I'll let you research what the wing size is, since you need the practice. These figures are publicly available.

At maximum, consider the case where the fuel was in such a volume but scattered elastically at the moment of impact. The ground does not recoil, so the fuel can conceivably spread at the aircraft's former speed, but fanning in (potentially) all directions. The speed of the aircraft has already been presented to you from the FDR. For sake of argument, assume one second between impact and complete engulfment of the fuel (this time is an estimate, but there is absolutely no way to predict just how long it took to ignite, or where). Multiply the speed by one second, and add it to each extreme of the first calculation.

Show us your answers, and we will see if they were computed properly. Expect answers for the first on the order of 10-30 meters, and > 300 meters for the second.
 
In effort to move this experiment along, would you concede that 93's explosion was more similar to the Moav bomb video, or the B-52 crash video in how its fireball spread and began to rise up in the shape of a plume. DON'T WORRY ABOUT the size of the plume expanding after it gets higher up in the air. We'll go over that next.

Moav = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

B-52 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c
 
NO! No more videos! Neither is remotely close to our situation, as has been explained to you dozens of times!!
 
How did 93's fireball react so differently then?

The fireballs in the Moav/B-52 video are not a whole heck of a lot different. the 52 one spilled forward more where as the Moav one made more of a circle shape which I would suspect 93's would have made because it nose-dived. Agreed?
 
Last edited:
We don't have ANY video of the "fireball" of Flight 93! All we have is a single, static photo of smoke, taken an indeterminate time after the event! Your claim that it "reacted differently" is nothing but conjecture!
 
Last edited:
It looks like KT has been taking lessons from Christophera. That is to say, once you have been proven utterly wrong, start over with your original post. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Another idea to move things along. 757 wingspan is about 125ft/38m. You would all agree the fireball 93 would have made would be at least twice as wide (250ft/76m) in diameter compared to the wingspan when it hit?

I mean your min plume width is 600m and you max is 1000m, so you'll need to start explaining how such a large plume could come from a plane with only a 38m wingspan.
 
Killtown, did you take into account the focal length of Val's camera in your analysis of the plume's size? (see post #1147)
 
Killtown.

Please read this.

This briefly discusses the math needed to determine the diffusion of smoke and the change in volume.

Apparantly, you've done this calculation absed on various size fireballs (because you've "proven" that it couldn't have gotten that large), so let's see that math, please.
 
Three more pages?

Oh.

Killtown, there have been 378 posts since you started your "experiment" nearly two days ago, and you haven't taken a single step forwards.

Does that concern you?
 
Wouldn't you think that the focal length of the lens would be an important variable to consider?
 
Huntsman said:
Killtown.

Please read this.

This briefly discusses the math needed to determine the diffusion of smoke and the change in volume.

Apparantly, you've done this calculation absed on various size fireballs (because you've "proven" that it couldn't have gotten that large), so let's see that math, please.
Click to expand...
We are still working on the fireballs size. what's the minimum diameter of yours?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
It looks like KT has been taking lessons from Christophera. That is to say, once you have been proven utterly wrong, start over with your original post. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up that will save me from having to go back to the beginning and reading this entire thread.

I saw the B-52 crash but I didn't see the Empire State building in that video. Is is that due to the re-editing of Loose Change?.
 
Since we know nothing about the crash conditions, the radius of the fireball could have been anywhere from 150 feet by 30 feet (elliptically shaped, assuming all fuel stayed in the wings) to the equivalent of a 100 ton TNT blast (assuming all the fuel was aerosolized).

There's not much way to determine what extent within these bounds (with the exceptions of the extremes that can be ruled out).

I'd suggest that a two orders of maginute result could be obtained assuming a fireball of equivalent diameter to the blast pattern left on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
Another idea to move things along. 757 wingspan is about 125ft/38m. You would all agree the fireball 93 would have made would be at least twice as wide (250ft/76m) in diameter compared to the wingspan when it hit?

I mean your min plume width is 600m and you max is 1000m, so you'll need to start explaining how such a large plume could come from a plane with only a 38m wingspan.
Click to expand...
Jumping back and forth between fireball and smoke plume again, are we. Must be all that time watching videos.

Killtown, I accept your estimate of the minimum initial fireball size. Partial credit. Now please compute the maximum initial fireball size, like we discussed before. After you've done that, we can discuss how the fireball evolved. We're not ready to jump to that step yet.
 
Pardalis said:
Wouldn't you think that the focal length of the lens would be an important variable to consider?
Click to expand...
She had a "new" digital camera. My guess it would have been at most an average priced one since they were under financial constraints. She said she "didn't even aim" so that says to me that she didn't stop to focus, but just snapped the picture.

So tell me, what does that all mean to you about your focal length?
 
Huntsman said:
Since we know nothing about the crash conditions, the radius of the fireball could have been anywhere from 150 feet by 30 feet
Click to expand...
so your min fireball width when it crash was only 48m wide, but grew to the width of 600-1,000m??? :confused:
 
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