Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

Why not?

The scientific background question does pertain to the 'expirement.' We don't know how much expirence you have in a laboratory environment, or what kind of physics or mathematics you know.
If you don't like it, feel free not to participate in this experiment.

[Buckwheatjones]

She's not going to send someone the photo file - she sells that photo and gives the proceeds to a charity. If she just sent anyone the photo file, that wouldn't be possible.

Well, that and no photographer is going to give out copies of their digital files. That's why I said "ask her for the information." She might abhor killtown, but if he made amends on his site and asked her for the information (time stamp) she might provide the time of the capture. It might not be conclusive, but you get as close as you can by making all efforts to get the best information you can.

[rwguinn]

1) I'm only answering questions that are relevant to this thread/experiment.

2) plausible for this experiment based on your estimates.

3) at the conclusion of this experiment.

4) Well here they are...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e913b9093c6.jpghttp://img205.imageshack.us/img205/867/b52xeg8.jpg
UA175 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X2F5fdSF90
More 175 crash vid: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
B-52 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c

Which one is more like 93's?

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.

6) too bad.

7) Sure.
1. With your background, for you to determine relevance is like asking a blind man to pick the green baloon.
2. Whose estimates?
3. What experiment? I haven't even see a working hypothosis that stays constant for more than 1 post...
4. And you accused someone of "Photoshopping" He!!- I can do better than that.
5.:jaw-dropp
6. The truth hurts, does it not
7. lost cause

[Killtown]

Reminder, current estimates:


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

[Bandersnatch]

If you don't like it, feel free not to participate in this experiment.

Why is this question so difficult to answer? Would you do so on another thread?

[Killtown]

Why is this question so difficult to answer? Would you do so on another thread?
Feel free to start another thread if you want, but please stop stalling up this thread.

[Pardalis]

Killtown, will you carry on with your freaking experiment allready?

[R.Mackey]

1) I'm only answering questions that are relevant to this thread/experiment.
Those you have "ignored" asked a multitude of relevant questions. Another lie for you.

2) plausible for this experiment based on your estimates.
I'll accept that. It means that, in order for you to deny that the smoke plume was consistently sized in real life, you must describe why real life differs from this experiment. Until then, your default position is that it is plausible. As it should be.

3) at the conclusion of this experiment.
This experiment is over! You accepted that plume size was acceptable. We're all in agreement. Now, what have you got?


4) Well here they are...

[couple of videos that aren't Flight 93 deleted]
Which one is more like 93's?
Who cares? Which is more like you, a fungus or a pencil sharpener? Neither is a good model. You've introduced a classic False Dilemma. Let it go.

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.
You may think of it that way, but you're wrong. It's more like wearing headphones in class. You haven't established that their complaints about your argument were invalid. If you had, I might have some sympathy.

6) too bad.
Not a very compelling argument.

7) Sure.
Even if I was lying, which I'm not, you could still learn from what I have to say. Give it a try.

Science succeeds because we don't care who says it, or why, we only consider the value of their arguments themselves. Not even the conclusions sometimes, just the arguments. Show us your arguments. Show us your work. Ignoring and posting random videos is counter-productive.

[Beleth]

And yet I've been rule8slapping him left and right and I can't seem to make the A-List. What's your secret?
Beats me. Maybe it's my adept use of the :notm smiley.

[Dr Richard]

Perhaps this was still too difficult and involved technical data and terminology.

Let us try another one:

In the peer-reviewed, published scientific papers I have quoted, and given you the references for, wind velocity is an important factor.

2. (a) Do you agree that wind velocity is an important variable when determining the plume size?

(b) Do you agree that we need to know what the wind velocity was to calculate plume size?

Hi Killtown, are you ignoring me?

Please do not tell me I'm on your ignore list! Could you answer the questions about wind velocity? I think they would be easy enough to answer.

To help you, my answers would be (a) Yes and (b) Yes

My justification for saying so would be the papers I quoted.

[Mr. Skinny]

wing size + aircraft speed = fuel splatter size

125 feet + 580 MPH = 705 feet :jaw-dropp
Can't be right. Everyone knows you have to use feet on both sides of the equation to get an answer in feet.

125 feet + 580 miles (* 5,280 feet/mile to convert to feet) per hour = x feet.

So, the true answer would be:

125 feet + 3,062,400 ft per hr = 3,0625,25 feet.

In other words, a rather large fireball. :)

[Bandersnatch]

Feel free to start another thread if you want, but please stop stalling up this thread.

Would you answer in the thread?

[Beleth]

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.
Uh huh. Problem is, you're center stage in a Town Hall-style debate, and the people you describe as "hungry and tired little kids" are actually the above-average-intelligence inhabitants of this e-town you asked to vote in your poll. You remember, the poll you opened this thread with?

The plugs in your ears are music to mine.

[Killtown]

Would you answer in the thread?
Start one and find out. Last word on this.

[Killtown]

Hi Killtown, are you ignoring me?

Please do not tell me I'm on your ignore list! Could you answer the questions about wind velocity? I think they would be easy enough to answer.

To help you, my answers would be (a) Yes and (b) Yes

My justification for saying so would be the papers I quoted.
You guys have establisted your plume size estimates, so time to move on.

[Killtown]

Here are your current estimates...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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


If nobody objects, we'll move on to our next step.

What is you min/max range of how long it took from when 93 crashed until Val snapped her photo?

[Dog Town]

My ignore list: Arkan_Wolfshade, Beleth, Belz, CurtC, defaultdotxbe, Dog Town, ghost707, Huntsman, kookbreaker, LashL, Mancman, MortFurd, Pardalis, rwguinn, Skibum, Stellafane, Sword_Of_Truth, Wyn, Yoink

Cool,.. your sig is now somewhat factual, I think progress is being made here!
Not sure I care, but It's a start!
DT

[Yoink]

Anyone not on KT's ignore list care to see if it is worth drawing his attention to these videos: link1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUXQL8-CQg)and link2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bvjpqvtYE).

The first one (you have to go a ways in) shows the crash of a plane MUCH smaller than the 757. It's taking off from an airshow, so I assume it's not carrying a full load of fuel, but who the heck knows. It seems possibly useful in that it shows the rapid formation of a very large smoke cloud above the treeline behind which the plane crashes--you will note if you look closely that for a brief interval the cloud floats free from any "tail" beneath it (although one emerges later and rejoins the mushroom head above it).

The second one shows a simulated bombing run at an airshow (it's a "recreation" of Pearl Harbor). According to some other site I ran across these "bombs" are actually fuel-based (I don't know what kind). What it might be worth KT's while studying is that the mushroom clouds continue to expand for a long time after the charge detonates, that the clouds lose contact with the original "stalk" of smoke and that color/form/size etc are pretty variable from explosion to explosion, despite the fact that these are all taking place on the same day, with the same atmospheric conditions etc. etc. etc.

None of this, of course, is proof of anything at all--just as none of the other photos and videos that have been the sum total of KT's "research" to this point prove anything at all. Has there ever been such a wealth of considered argument levied against such a flimsy "case"?

[Killtown]

Who cares?
Because soon you guys are going to have to explain how all the fuel burned off to create the "short pulse" plume in Val's photo.

[Dr Richard]

Here are your current estimates...

[snip]

If nobody objects, we'll move on to our next step.

What is you min/max range of how long it took from when 93 crashed until Val snapped her photo?


I object, KT!

we are still discussing how the variables you keep on posting affect plume size.

DOES WIND SPEED AFFECT PLUME SIZE?

[R.Mackey]

Out of curiosity, did anyone ever give an estimate of "minimum plume size?" I seem to recall seeing theoretical maximums, and measured inferences of expected size, but I don't think anyone ever claimed a minimum.

For timing, I'd estimate between 10 and 60 seconds. Minimum likely time = 7 seconds (time for sound impact to reach Val) + 5 seconds (claimed minimum time to get her camera into action). Expected time is higher. This is a loose estimate, particularly on the upper end.

Killtown, feel free to take issue with these assumptions, but you can't replace anything unless you give a reason why. Show your work, remember?

[R.Mackey]

Because soon you guys are going to have to explain how all the fuel burned off to create the "short pulse" plume in Val's photo.
Um... fire?

If you have a point, please make it...

[Spindrift]

I've read through 40-some odd pages of posts and I'd like to get some clarification from Killtown if I could:

You keep calling this an experiment. Being a layman, I thought an experiment was something you tried out and tested. And that experimental results need to be reproducible to be valid.

So how are you conducting an experiment? Are you creating a similar explosion under similar conditions to see what happens?

BTW: Trying to get people to say that the Flight 93 is similar to the B-52 is like comparing a bus crash with a fuel truck crash. Comparing the results may be interesting but it isn't going to reveal any pertinent information about either crash.

[Beleth]

Because soon you guys are going to have to explain how all the fuel burned off to create the "short pulse" plume in Val's photo.Oh, that's easy. The plane hit the ground.

[Dog Town]

soon you guys are going to have to explain

You use the word soon, as only a true Jamaican can!" Soon come" to them means next year, or next week, or whenever it happens! Mo Bay perhaps?
DT

[Yoink]

And yet I've been B!tchslapping him left and right and I can't seem to make the A-List. What's your secret?

Ask him how the logic of his case differs from my "proof" that he is in fact Sivan Kurzburg. You could throw in for good measure that if he can point out any significant difference in the logical structure of the arguments, I'll promise to abandon this thread for ever. Either way, you'll get added to the "Ignore" list in a shot!


I tells ya, the Mossad Elite Cover-Blowing Squad doesn't mess around!

[Stellafane]

...So how are you conducting an experiment? ...

He's conducting an experiment like I'm conducting an orchestra. Saying you're doing it doesn't make it so...except maybe in CT land.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Out of curiosity, did anyone ever give an estimate of "minimum plume size?" I seem to recall seeing theoretical maximums, and measured inferences of expected size, but I don't think anyone ever claimed a minimum.

For timing, I'd estimate between 10 and 60 seconds. Minimum likely time = 7 seconds (time for sound impact to reach Val) + 5 seconds (claimed minimum time to get her camera into action). Expected time is higher. This is a loose estimate, particularly on the upper end.

Killtown, feel free to take issue with these assumptions, but you can't replace anything unless you give a reason why. Show your work, remember?

fwiw, the numbers I was using were:
5.3 seconds absolute minimum (assuming she reacted to the shockwave in the ground from the impact (assuming it would reach her house)) (5 seconds reaction time + .3-.4 seconds shockwave travel time)
and 12.5 seconds (assuming she reacted to the sound of the crash) (5 seconds reaction time + 7.5 seconds sound travel time (assuming sea level and ~70F temp))

[Killtown]

I object, KT!

So you object to the min/max plume sizes?...

min: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
max: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

[R.Mackey]

I rejected reaction to ground shockwave because Val only reported a single boom.

Nonetheless, your perspective is also valid.

Note closely, Killtown. We both declare our assumptions, and that means we can figure out why numbers don't agree. Now continue.

ETA: Ooops, forgot Arkan was on Killtown's "Ignore" list, since according to Killtown, Arkan's comments are irrelevant. I was responding to the opinion below:
fwiw, the numbers I was using were:
5.3 seconds absolute minimum (assuming she reacted to the shockwave in the ground from the impact (assuming it would reach her house)) (5 seconds reaction time + .3-.4 seconds shockwave travel time)
and 12.5 seconds (assuming she reacted to the sound of the crash) (5 seconds reaction time + 7.5 seconds sound travel time (assuming sea level and ~70F temp))

[Killtown]

Out of curiosity, did anyone ever give an estimate of "minimum plume size?" I seem to recall seeing theoretical maximums, and measured inferences of expected size, but I don't think anyone ever claimed a minimum.

For timing, I'd estimate between 10 and 60 seconds. Minimum likely time = 7 seconds (time for sound impact to reach Val) + 5 seconds (claimed minimum time to get her camera into action). Expected time is higher. This is a loose estimate, particularly on the upper end.

Killtown, feel free to take issue with these assumptions, but you can't replace anything unless you give a reason why. Show your work, remember?
Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.

[Dr Richard]

So you object to the min/max plume sizes?...

min: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
max: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

We cannot estimate these until we know how the variables affect them

DOES WIND SPEED AFFECT PLUME SIZE?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I rejected reaction to ground shockwave because Val only reported a single boom.

...

I agree that the ground shockwave was probably not what she reacted to, but I figured I would keep the number around for reference. *shrug*

[Killtown]

Um... fire?

If you have a point, please make it...
Then we should add a min/max time it took for the min/max fuel estimates to burn off.

Should be easy if you use 175's fireball as an example, although you'll have to explain why there is no thick trail of smoke trail Val's plume.

[R.Mackey]

Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.
(sigh) Back to you, again, Killtown. Where did you get this number?

Where you got it from, was it identified as a minimum estimate, or a likely estimate?

[Buckwheatjones]

Ask him how the logic of his case differs from my "proof" that he is in fact Sivan Kurzburg. You could throw in for good measure that if he can point out any significant difference in the logical structure of the arguments, I'll promise to abandon this thread for ever. Either way, you'll get added to the "Ignore" list in a shot!


I tells ya, the Mossad Elite Cover-Blowing Squad doesn't mess around!

Ok. I'll give it a shot. Hey, killtown...Yoink says if I post this I'll get Ignored. So here goes!

[R.Mackey]

Then we should add a min/max time it took for the min/max fuel estimates to burn off.

Should be easy if you use 175's fireball as an example, although you'll have to explain why there is no thick trail of smoke trail Val's plume.
I don't use 175 as an example, for reasons already stated. It's a bad model.

The speed of a flame front in aersolized fuel is something that we can compute. I welcome you to give it a try. You will find -- if you do it right -- that it is very fast. The time added will be negligible.

[Yoink]

you'll have to explain why there is no thick trail of smoke trail Val's plume.
Looks like my videos (see above #1776) might be of some use here. ETA: At the very least he'll have to explain the absence of the "thick trail of smoke" in each case--given that he holds that all fuel-based explosions are alike.

ETA: I'm on ignore, so if you think it might be helpful to show these to KT, please do so: don't bother acknowledging me as the source, though, because he'll probably ignore the videos in that case.

[Buckwheatjones]

Moreover, a fireball creates an updraft which pulls air into it and accelerates the burning of the fuel vapor, according to my engineer. This could account for the rapid cookoff of the fireball.

[Wyn]

Originally Posted by Buckwheatjones

And yet I've been B!tchslapping him left and right and I can't seem to make the A-List. What's your secret?

Pick out something amazingly stupid he's said (I know, but just pick one) and keep asking him the same questions about it over and over.

I kept asking him how much Jet B fuel was carried in a MOAB because he's been using the MOAB plume as an example of the 93 crash. Einstein here thinks a 200,000 + pound airplane with 60,000 +/- pounds of Jet B will have the same plume as a 20,000 pound high explosive bomb.

My question was this: How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

Keep asking him something similar, hell, you can even use that, and you'll soon find yourself on the A list!

[Killtown]

We cannot estimate these until we know how the variables affect them

DOES WIND SPEED AFFECT PLUME SIZE?
Don't bother asking me these questions, I'm not the one determining YOUR estimates. YOU guys are.

[Killtown]

(sigh) Back to you, again, Killtown. Where did you get this number?

Where you got it from, was it identified as a minimum estimate, or a likely estimate?
I got it from one of you guys. Feel free to change any of your estimates at anytime before I ask you guys at the end to make a final concur to all your estimates.


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

[Yoink]

I'm not the one determining YOUR estimates. YOU guys are.
"I'm ignorant and don't understand objections to my position: therefore my position is sound!"

Wouldn't it loverly if the world actually worked that way? What argument wouldn't you win? "I don't understand your fancy legal arguments, therefore I don't have to pay taxes. Suck it, government!"

[Beleth]

Then we should add a min/max time it took for the min/max fuel estimates to burn off.
Okay.

Min time if all fuel was aerosolized: .001 seconds
Max time: oh, I can safely say that the picture was taken within 5 minutes of the crash, so 5 minutes.

SWAGs both of them, but there you are.

[Killtown]

I don't use 175 as an example, for reasons already stated. It's a bad model.

The speed of a flame front in aersolized fuel is something that we can compute. I welcome you to give it a try. You will find -- if you do it right -- that it is very fast. The time added will be negligible.
so it's more how the explosion of the MOAB blast looked like?

[Killtown]

Just occured to me, should we estimate the temperature of the explosion?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just occured to me, should we estimate the temperature of the explosion?

:hb:

[gumboot]

Okay I'll play his silly game...

Minimum time, crash to photo - Arkan's 5.3 seconds (ground transmission of impact + Val's 5 second reaction)

Maximum time, crash to photo - about a minute, simply because I know from personal experience humans are hopeless at estimating time.

-Andrew

[Dr Richard]

Just occured to me, should we estimate the temperature of the explosion?

Ahem.

Did this "just occur" to you having read the papers I posted where temperature is a variable?????

Killtown, I'm impressed!

We are making progress again.

But, before we move onto calculations about variable temperature gradients above complex fluid dynamic systems,

...

...

do you agree that windspeed is important in determining plume size?

[R.Mackey]

I got it from one of you guys. Feel free to change any of your estimates at anytime before I ask you guys at the end to make a final concur to all your estimates.
Answer the questions, Killtown.

1. Who did you get it from?

2. Was it presented as a "minimum estimate," or did you make that up?

[CurtC]

Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.
Do you mean the smoke cloud in Val's photo? We already measured that as 600 to 650 meters.

Oh, but I'm being ignored.

[R.Mackey]

so it's more how the explosion of the MOAB blast looked like?
NO. A large area of aerosolized jet fuel, ignited, is in no way similar to 20,000 pounds of high explosive, concentrated at a point and detonated.

I've already explained this to you as well. You have not presented any models that are even close to our situation.

[gumboot]

This has been bugging me for a while now...


Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)


Killtown do you see a problem with the bolded figures above?

-Andrew

[ghost707]

[JARRING CHORD]

[The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain [Palin] enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles [Jones] has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang [Gilliam] is just Cardinal Fang]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

[The Inquisition exits]

Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals burst in]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Cardinal Biggles] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
Biggles: What?
Ximinez: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'
Biggles: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that...

[Ximinez bundles the cardinals outside again]

Chapman: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals enter]

Biggles: Er.... Nobody...um....
Ximinez: Expects...
Biggles: Expects... Nobody expects the...um...the Spanish...um...
Ximinez: Inquisition.
Biggles: I know, I know! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
Ximinez: Our chief weapons are...
Biggles: Our chief weapons are...um...er...
Ximinez: Surprise...
Biggles: Surprise and --
Ximinez: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! ... our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church. 'My old man said follow the--'
Biggles: That's enough.
[To Cleveland] Now, how do you plead?
Clevelnd: We're innocent.
Ximinez: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[Killtown]

K, any objections?...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
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 (9 1/2 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

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

[Killtown]

Ahem.

1) Did this "just occur" to you having read the papers I posted where temperature is a variable?????

Killtown, I'm impressed!

We are making progress again.

But, before we move onto calculations about variable temperature gradients above complex fluid dynamic systems,

2) do you agree that windspeed is important in determining plume size?
1) Yes.

2) Sure. what's your min/max for windspeed?

reports vary from 9 to 25 knots SE

[Killtown]

Answer the questions, Killtown.

1. Who did you get it from?

2. Was it presented as a "minimum estimate," or did you make that up?
1) Can't remember. I update as I go.

2) feel free to change it if you feel I made it up.

[Dr Richard]

1) Yes.

2) Sure. what's your min/max for windspeed?

reports vary from 9 to 25 knots SE

Cool, very good.

Now, your case rests on comparing the plume size in Val's photo to that where the B-52 bomber crashed.

We have agreed that the windspeed is important in determining plume size.

What was the windspeed when your B-52 bomber crashed?

Source please....

[Killtown]

NO. A large area of aerosolized jet fuel, ignited, is in no way similar to 20,000 pounds of high explosive, concentrated at a point and detonated.

I've already explained this to you as well. You have not presented any models that are even close to our situation.
Ok, let's move on from this then. What are the min/max fireball temps?

[R.Mackey]

1) Can't remember. I update as I go.

2) feel free to change it if you feel I made it up.
Then do some fact checking. Your standards for investigational integrity are apalling -- as we already knew from your website.

You'd be better off to consider heat if you want to derive more about the fireball. It won't have the same temperature in all points, or at all times. Temperature at the center might be quite high. At the edges, it'll never get higher than the ignition temperature -- as this defines the edges.

[Killtown]

This has been bugging me for a while now...



Killtown do you see a problem with the bolded figures above?

-Andrew
9 1/2?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This has been bugging me for a while now...



Killtown do you see a problem with the bolded figures above?

-Andrew

Oooh! Me! Me!

6.5 football fields = 594.36 meters
9.5 football fields = 868.68 meters
and 10 football fields = 914.40 meters? (assuming that 1 football field = 100 yards)

ETA: of course, an American footbal field is 109.7 m (including endzones) so a closer value would be:
5.47
7.84
and 9.12 football fields.

[gumboot]

1) Yes.

2) Sure. what's your min/max for windspeed?

reports vary from 9 to 25 knots SE


Actually the FDR reported 25 kt W, and IIRC PM reported it as 9 kt NW.

(I am assuming you in America also identify winds by the direction they are coming FROM?)

-Andrew

[Yoink]

Maybe Killtown plays Canadian Football?

[Dr Richard]

Oooh! Me! Me!

6.5 football fields = 594.36 meters
9.5 football fields = 868.68 meters
and 10 football fields = 914.40 meters? (assuming that 1 football field = 100 yards)

Remember Killtown's calculator broke about 500 posts back...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Maybe Killtown plays Canadian Football?

Canadian "Field: Canadian: 110 yards x 65 yards with 20 yards end zones" 100 m

US "The game is played on a rectangular field 160 feet wide and 360 feet long with a 10 yard end zone designated at each end of the field." 109.7 m
(w/end zone)

91.4 m
(w/o end zone)

European (aka Soccer): The length of a full-size soccer pitch must be between 100 yards (90 metres) and 130 yards (120 metres) and the width between 50 yards (45 metres) and 100 yards (90 metres).

Rugby: * The field of play: The area that is in the centre of the ground is the field of play, which measures no more than 100 metres long by no more than 70 metres wide.

* The playing area: Encompassing the in-goal areas as well as the field of play is the playing area. The playing area is defined by posts flying flags; the posts are at least 1.2 metres in height.

* The in-goal areas: At each end of the playing area are the in-goal areas, which must be between 10 and 22 metres in length and 70 metres in width.

Aussie Rules football: Playing area of oval shape. Between 135 and 185 metres in length and 110 and 155 metres in width. (NFC suggests ideal dimensions are 165m length by 135m width.)

:P

[Yoink]

Actually the FDR reported 25 kt W, and IIRC PM reported it as 9 kt NW.

I know KT won't have bothered to do this research: does anybody know where the weather-station would have been that recorded the average wind speed for that day? It's not impossible that you could still find online the full records for that day (max, min, ave). Of course, if the weather station isn't all that close to the crash site, the info would be largely useless. KT seems to have always assumed that windspeed is uniform at all times and all places covered by the weather forecast. As a sailor, I can certainly tell him that a gust of 25kt on a day with an average windspeed of 9kts is entirely possible. It is also impossible to know how the direction of the wind might have varied through the day (and moment to moment) as well. Wind direction is incredibly local--if the topography has any significant variations at all--for miles around--it is perfecty possible that the crash site could have experienced wind conditions dramatically different from those recorded at the area weather-station.

[Dog Town]

Maybe Killtown plays Canadian Football?
Maybe he means width of the field. Can is wider! Same lenght though,I think!

edit:Thanks Gum, got it!

[Killtown]

1) Your standards for investigational integrity are apalling

2) You'd be better off to consider heat if you want to derive more about the fireball. It won't have the same temperature in all points, or at all times. Temperature at the center might be quite high. At the edges, it'll never get higher than the ignition temperature -- as this defines the edges.
1) You mean like when I repost your current estimates on almost every page and asks if anybody objects to them?

2) Just come up with an average.

[Killtown]

Now, your case rests on comparing the plume size in Val's photo to that where the B-52 bomber crashed.

No.

[Dr Richard]

I know KT won't have bothered to do this research: does anybody know where the weather-station would have been that recorded the average wind speed for that day? It's not impossible that you could still find online the full records for that day (max, min, ave). Of course, if the weather station isn't all that close to the crash site, the info would be largely useless. KT seems to have always assumed that windspeed is uniform at all times and all places covered by the weather forecast. As a sailor, I can certainly tell him that a gust of 25kt on a day with an average windspeed of 9kts is entirely possible. It is also impossible to know how the direction of the wind might have varied through the day (and moment to moment) as well. Wind direction is incredibly local--if the topography has any significant variations at all--for miles around--it is perfecty possible that the crash site could have experienced wind conditions dramatically different from those recorded at the area weather-station.

Hi Yoink

You are indeed correct, windspeed could vary a lot and the mathmatical models used to calculate plume drift in oil spills take this into account with calculations around the standard deviation of wind velocity at a given time, which gives a statistical approximation for the range of values of windspeed given a measured number.

Variation with height is also very important and we may get to this eventually.

In the meantime, I am interested to know what value for windspeed Killtown has for when his beloved B-52 bomber crashed.

[gumboot]

I know KT won't have bothered to do this research: does anybody know where the weather-station would have been that recorded the average wind speed for that day?


The only thing I have is this (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.html) reference in the local Newspaper in an article about the debris field from the crash.

Late yesterday afternoon, however, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said experts from the National Transportation Safety Board had checked weather reports and determined that lightweight materials might well have traveled over the mountain by a southwest wind that reached a speed of 9 knots.

-Andrew

[Dr Richard]

No.

erm... yes (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/93-plume-comparison.jpg)

[R.Mackey]

1) You mean like when I repost your current estimates on almost every page and asks if anybody objects to them?

2) Just come up with an average.
1) Yes, exactly! I think you made up a minimum estimate, and then claimed you got it from us. If not, show me where you got it. It's in this thread. It's your monomaniacal focus. It shouldn't be a hard thing for you to do.

2) Average in time, space, by mass, isobaric..? What endpoints would you use? There is no simple "average." It'd be like me asking what the average speed of your car is.

[gumboot]

Just for the record, my main concern with Killtown's "football field" measure was the lack of consistancy - for example 600m as 6 1/2 fields, whilst 1000m was 10 fields.

And then more insanity with 860m being 9 1/2!

Perhaps he used a different football field for each measure?

-Andrew

[Killtown]

New estimates...


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
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 (6 1/2 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
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 (9 1/2 football fields)
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

[Yoink]

Now, your case rests on comparing the plume size in Val's photo to that where the B-52 bomber crashed.

I think you'll find that his case rests on "forensics." Oh, and "calculations."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just for the record, my main concern with Killtown's "football field" measure was the lack of consistancy - for example 600m as 6 1/2 fields, whilst 1000m was 10 fields.

And then more insanity with 860m being 9 1/2!

Perhaps he used a different football field for each measure?

-Andrew

It's worse now. He has 1000m = 11 fbf, when it should be (including endzones) 9.12 fbf

[Killtown]

1) I think you made up a minimum estimate, and then claimed you got it from us. If not, show me where you got it.

2) Average in time, space, by mass, isobaric..? What endpoints would you use? There is no simple "average." It'd be like me asking what the average speed of your car is.
1) Pretend I did, you guys had ample opportunities to object to this min when I reposted and asked for objections.

So if you have a problem with it, tell me your estimate you'd like me to replace it with.

2) How about the lowest temp we'll use for your min and the highest for you max?

[Dr Richard]

I think you'll find that his case rests on "forensics." Oh, and "calculations."

Indeed, but at his calculator is broken (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1858670#post1858670) we only have forensics left.

I am attempting a forensic analysis of his B-52 crash picture so that we can progress to a forensic analysis of Val's picture.

Why stall, Killtown?

Easy question surely?

What was the windspeed when the B-52 bomber crashed?

[R.Mackey]

1) Pretend I did, you guys had ample opportunities to object to this min when I reposted and asked for objections.
Sure.

Now you pretend that I took advantage of the ample opportunity, and I did object. I then asked you to verify it and show me where it came from.

Now pretend you actually followed through instead of being too lazy to read your own thread.

Where did you get that number? I didn't watch you get it, so only you know the answer. Only you can tell us. So do it already. Sheesh!!

[Bandersnatch]

Killtown: Please Click Me. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1864175#post1864175)

[Beleth]

1) Pretend I did, you guys had ample opportunities to object to this min when I reposted and asked for objections.
Tell you what. When I specifically agree with your estimates, I will post saying so. Until then, treat every non-response from me after you post your estimates to be an objection.

Understood and agreed?

[Killtown]

Sure.

Now you pretend that I took advantage of the ample opportunity, and I did object. I then asked you to verify it and show me where it came from.

Now pretend you actually followed through instead of being too lazy to read your own thread.

Where did you get that number? I didn't watch you get it, so only you know the answer. Only you can tell us. So do it already. Sheesh!!
Jeez...


Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.
Do you mean the smoke cloud in Val's photo? We already measured that as 600 to 650 meters.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1864051#post1864051

[rwguinn]

Hi Yoink

You are indeed correct, windspeed could vary a lot and the mathmatical models used to calculate plume drift in oil spills take this into account with calculations around the standard deviation of wind velocity at a given time, which gives a statistical approximation for the range of values of windspeed given a measured number.

Variation with height is also very important and we may get to this eventually.

In the meantime, I am interested to know what value for windspeed Killtown has for when his beloved B-52 bomber crashed.
And don't forget that his beloved B-52 crashed from a stalled condition at low altitude, vs a high-speed impact>400kt.

[Killtown]

New estimates. Any objections?


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
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: 5.3 sec
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: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

[Matthew Best]

How did you manage to read Curt C's post, when you're ignoring Curt C?

[R.Mackey]

Jeez...



Would you like to change the min plume size? If so, please post you min estimates.

Do you mean the smoke cloud in Val's photo? We already measured that as 600 to 650 meters.

Thank you.

This confirms my suspicion, that you are, once again, attepting to deceive.

This is an estimate of likely smoke plume width based on observation. NOT minimum based on theoretical limits.

Do you understand the difference? I specifically warned you to make sure you had this straight, and you didn't.

Fix your charts. This would go much faster if you simply showed your work without being asked, or produced it when asked without drama.

[rwguinn]

New estimates. Any objections?


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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
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: 5.3 sec
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: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

All kinds of them, but you're not listening.
Fireball size--at what time after impact? initial size or at time=T?
Your original argument was that it was in the wrong place WRT the house and the crater. When simple trigonometry showed you to be incorrect (lying), you go off on this "experiment" stuff- all of which is irrelevant.
Nor is the B-52 of any particular relevance. All the data and all the calculations point to the hypothesis of "The cloud shown in the picture is from Flight 93's crash of September 11, 2001" being the correct one.

[Killtown]

Thank you.

This confirms my suspicion, that you are, once again, attepting to deceive.

This is an estimate of likely smoke plume width based on observation. NOT minimum based on theoretical limits.

Do you understand the difference? I specifically warned you to make sure you had this straight, and you didn't.

Fix your charts. This would go much faster if you simply showed your work without being asked, or produced it when asked without drama.
Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.

[Dr Richard]

Why stall, Killtown?

Easy question surely?

What was the windspeed when the B-52 bomber crashed?

bump for Killtowns benefit

[Yoink]

This would go much faster if you simply showed your work without being asked, or produced it when asked without drama.

True, but that would assume he actually has "work" to show.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.

I believe this translates into, "No, he does not understand the difference."

[Senor_Pointy]

Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.

Perhaps instead of repost this statement endlessly, you could simply quote the posts where they made these estimates. That'd be a simple and easy proof of it, and then you could get on to answering some actual questions.


(Of course, that's assuming these posts exist)

[R.Mackey]

Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.
We did. You misinterpreted them. That's why I objected.

Now then, do you understand the difference between an expected size from observation, and a theoretical lower bound? Yes, or no?

[Killtown]

We did. You misinterpreted them. That's why I objected.

Now then, do you understand the difference between an expected size from observation, and a theoretical lower bound? Yes, or no?
Let's make life simple, post your min plume width at the time of Val's photo and let's move on.

Be back in a while.

[gumboot]

Let's make life simple, post your min plume width at the time of Val's photo and let's move on.


Killtown, we have MEASURED the approximate width of the plume using vectors and trig, and based on the distance from Val's house to the crash site. Why on earth would we need a maximum or minimum?

-Andrew

[Dr Richard]

Be back in a while.

Dear Killtown, alas, GMT+1 will not allow me to ask this question much longer before I fall asleep at my keyboard.

You have agreed that windspeed is important when determining plume size.

What was the windspeed when the B-52 bomber crashed?

Apologies for shouting, its getting late...

[R.Mackey]

Let's make life simple, post your min plume width at the time of Val's photo and let's move on.

Be back in a while.
Make it even simpler, answer my "yes or no" question.

There's little point in me giving you a number if you don't know what it means, now is there?

[Mercutio]

Killtown, we have MEASURED the approximate width of the plume using vectors and trig, and based on the distance from Val's house to the crash site. Why on earth would we need a maximum or minimum?

-Andrew

In KT's defense, a max or min could be useful to him, if the approximate width we calculated using vectors and trig actually fell outside the range bounded by those numbers. That would allow him (and lead us) to reject the official story.

If he actually understands that, it would explain his reticence to include more relevant variables; the fewer the variables, the narrower the range. But the ranges already on the table seem to easily include Val's pic as fitting the official story, so there is nothing to lose in adding the other variables that actually do make a difference. He still cannot reject the null, but at least he will have a more accurate picture of reality.

[R.Mackey]

In KT's defense, a max or min could be useful to him, if the approximate width we calculated using vectors and trig actually fell outside the range bounded by those numbers. That would allow him (and lead us) to reject the official story.

If he actually understands that, it would explain his reticence to include more relevant variables; the fewer the variables, the narrower the range. But the ranges already on the table seem to easily include Val's pic as fitting the official story, so there is nothing to lose in adding the other variables that actually do make a difference. He still cannot reject the null, but at least he will have a more accurate picture of reality.
Agreed. But he is attempting -- whether a deliberate act of misinformation, or yet another example of sheer naivete, who can tell -- to mix up the observation with the theoretical lower bound.

If he does that, then when we measure, we'll find that -- surprise! -- it's at the very bottom of the "expected" scale. If it wasn't for the reasoning error, this would be grounds to question more thoroughly. Killtown would be faced instead with the fact that, instead of (as he originally claimed) the plume was too big, but that it was too small. Rather a large intellectual leap, but nothing beyond what Killtown has exhibited to date.

In any case, let's just correct this error before it goes any further. We must not mix predictions of theory with the observation, because we need to test the observation against the theory. If we blend these by mistake, then we cannot conduct our test.

ETA: Missed a word. Grammar bad.

[Mercutio]

Agreed. But he is attempting -- whether a deliberate act of misinformation, or yet another example of sheer naivete, who can tell -- to mix up the observation with the theoretical lower bound.
[snip]

This is precisely why I have been asking him to state his null hypothesis. I want to see that he knows what he is doing.

[Gravy]

Killtown, don't you have to prove a theory first, before you make any kind of accusations, and put them on a web page?

Bump for Killtown.

[Gravy]

Still making my way through this mess. Bump for Killtown.

Then we are done with this one, too. You have not rejected the official version based on plume color, and now you have not rejected the official version based on plume size.

Do you have anything more?

[Gravy]

Well, that and no photographer is going to give out copies of their digital files. That's why I said "ask her for the information." She might abhor killtown, but if he made amends on his site and asked her for the information (time stamp) she might provide the time of the capture. It might not be conclusive, but you get as close as you can by making all efforts to get the best information you can.
That isn't relevant today, because there's no way to tell how accurate the camera's clock was. However, no matter what time (or day, or year) the clock showed at the time of the photo, the FBI agents could have calculated the elapsed time between the photo and the time shown on the camera's clock when they examined it. Assuming the battery hadn't been removed or the time reset, subtracting the elapsed time from the real time would give the photo's actual time to the second.

[Regnad Kcin]

Killtown:

I'll ask for the fourth time: What do you do for a living?

A fairly easy-to-answer question, you'll have to agree.

[Matthew Best]

I'm afraid I already know the answer:

"It's not relevant to the experiment we're currently doing."

[Pardalis]

Well he's not in any kind of scientifical field. That we know for sure.

He's not in any communication spheres either, which involve computer graphics and cameras.

I'm pretty sure he's not into law, philosophy, ethics, logic and any other human studies.

I don't get the feeling he's a history buff.

Let's see what else...

[Killtown]

All this time and you guys couldn't fill in your blanks?

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
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: 5.3 sec
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: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

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

[Pardalis]

Maybe he's an accountant...

[Killtown]

Dear Killtown, alas, GMT+1 will not allow me to ask this question much longer before I fall asleep at my keyboard.

You have agreed that windspeed is important when determining plume size.

What was the windspeed when the B-52 bomber crashed?

Apologies for shouting, its getting late...
Rich, last time on this, I showed the B-52 to give everybody an idea what a fireball from a large plane crash would look like. It was for REFERENCE. We are done with it. move on.

Why don't you figure and average min/max temps of the fireball?

[Gravy]

Killtown, your blog states that the only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if the plume was digitally inserted ("Photoshopped").

What analysis have you done to determine this? If none, will you immediately retract your allegations and insinuations about her, and issue an apology?

[Killtown]

Killtown, your blog states that the only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if the plume was digitally inserted ("Photoshopped").

What analysis have you done to determine this? If none, will you immediately retract your allegations and insinuations about her, and issue an apology?
for the thousandth time, we'll discuss this AFTER the experiment is over.

[Regnad Kcin]

And for the fifth time:

What do you do for a living?

[gumboot]

Killtown, can you PLEASE just pretend we all agree and GET ON WITH IT. This is the most painful thread I have ever witnessed.

-Andrew

[Killtown]

And for the fifth time:

What do you do for a living?
I don't give out personal information. I'm not going to ask about your personal life, don't ask about mine. last words on this. move on.

[Matthew Best]

I don't give out personal information.

Scared of something?

[Killtown]

Scared of something?
stop being rude.

[Gravy]

for the thousandth time, we'll discuss this AFTER the experiment is over.
The thousandth time? I haven't seen you discuss this once.

As you said, you're not doing an experiment. You're waiting for others to provide you with numbers, because you think they should.

While you wait, answer the question:

Your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if the plume was Photoshopped.

What analysis have you done to determine if the plume was Photoshopped? If none, will you immediately make a retraction and apology?

[Killtown]

Killtown, can you PLEASE just pretend we all agree and GET ON WITH IT. This is the most painful thread I have ever witnessed.

-Andrew
fireball min/max temps, then we are pretty much done before I'll make some diagrams of your estimates so we can judge the results.

One thing, your "crash to photo" times aren't going to work for your min. I can switch the times around, but they still won't work.

[gumboot]

fireball min/max temps, then we are pretty much done before I'll make some diagrams of your estimates so we can judge the results.

One thing, your "crash to photo" times aren't going to work for your min. I can switch the times around, but they still won't work.


Will the temperatures affect these diagrams you're going to make?

-Andrew

[Killtown]

Will the temperatures affect these diagrams you're going to make?

-Andrew
won't temperature affect how fast the plumes rise to be carried by the winds?

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't give out personal information. I'm not going to ask about your personal life, don't ask about mine. last words on this. move on.Friend, most any private investigator or intelligence service could determine who you are, complete with your history, with a few keystroke, never mind track you day and night if they so desired.

I don't care about who you are personally. I ask what you do for a living to better determine your qualification(s) to be engaged in a debate for which you are in every way technically ill-equipped.

[gumboot]

won't temperature affect how fast the plumes rise to be carried by the winds?

I'm not asking how the temperature will affect the plumes. I am asking how they will affect your drawings.

-Andrew

[Killtown]

Friend, most any private investigator or intelligence service could determine who you are, complete with your history, with a few keystroke, never mind track you day and night if they so desired.

I don't care about who you are personally. I ask what you do for a living to better determine your qualification(s) to be engaged in a debate for which you are in every way technically ill-equipped.
I'm a shepherd. I herd sheep.

[Killtown]

I'm not asking how the temperature will affect the plumes. I am asking how they will affect your drawings.

-Andrew
well if temperature could affect how fast the plume formed and rose up in the air for the wind to carry, this will affect the diagrams because I plan to list the times your min and max plumes had to travel to line up correctly.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm a shepherd. I herd sheep.That's fascinating. Is your expertise in that line of work a significant reason why you are having such great difficulty with matters of a technical nature, as evidenced by this thread?

[Killtown]

That's fascinating. Is your expertise in that line of work a significant reason why you are having such great difficulty with matters of a technical nature, as evidenced by this thread?
The only difficulties on this thread is you guys coming up with YOUR estimates.

Do you concur with the latest estimates?

[Dr Richard]

Rich, last time on this, I showed the B-52 to give everybody an idea what a fireball from a large plane crash would look like. It was for REFERENCE. We are done with it. move on.


I can't move on from this when this statement is on your blog: (after all, this is what your sig tells people to look at...)


Here is an example of what a smoke plume from a real plane crash would have looked like if it came from the alleged Flight 93 crash site, about 1.5 miles away from where this photo was taken

Given that

1) you have admitted that windspeed is important in determining plume size formation

2) you have no idea what the windspeed was when the B-52 plume formed

HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS COMPARISON?

[Killtown]

Given that

1) you have admitted that windspeed is important in determining plume size formation

2) you have no idea what the windspeed was when the B-52 plume formed

HOW CAN YOU MAKE THIS COMPARISON?
Everything discussed on this thread right now is about the experiment. If you don't want to contribute to this experiment, please hold your questions till afterward.

[Gravy]

Your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt is if the plume was Photoshopped.

What analysis have you done to determine if the plume was Photoshopped? If none, will you immediately make a retraction and apology?

[Dr Richard]

Everything discussed on this thread right now is about the experiment. If you don't want to contribute to this experiment, please hold your questions till afterward.

(Killtown ducks the question)

Killtown, have you not seen yet that your "experiment" is doomed never to be completed as it stands?

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

You have no idea how they interact.

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.

You have no idea of the windspeed gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance

If you have somewhere you are going with this, then get there. You will not get us to agree a min-max plume size with your inadequate set of variables beforehand because, as I have stated, you have not taken into account all of the possible variables.

[MortFurd]

(Killtown ducks the question)

Killtown, have you not seen yet that your "experiment" is doomed never to be completed as it stands?

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

You have no idea how they interact.

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.

You have no idea of the windspeed gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance

If you have somewhere you are going with this, then get there. You will not get us to agree a min-max plume size with your inadequate set of variables beforehand because, as I have stated, you have not taken into account all of the possible variables.
And if he were to somehow miraculously acquire the information, he has proven himself incapable of doing the mathematics involved in reducing the raw data to an answer.

It's been a long time since I saw anyone try to add feet and miles per hour.

[rwguinn]

(Killtown ducks the question)

Killtown, have you not seen yet that your "experiment" is doomed never to be completed as it stands?

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

You have no idea how they interact.

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.

You have no idea of the windspeed gradient above a large fire generated by a plane crash, and you have no way of calculating it for this instance

If you have somewhere you are going with this, then get there. You will not get us to agree a min-max plume size with your inadequate set of variables beforehand because, as I have stated, you have not taken into account all of the possible variables.

Um... Doc:
The "plume" size was measured from the photo. We know what it was (I'm not digging back to find it, so if whomever did the trig will repeat it, I'd appreciate it)

[MortFurd]

Um... Doc:
The "plume" size was measured from the photo. We know what it was (I'm not digging back to find it, so if whomever did the trig will repeat it, I'd appreciate it)
Yep. The apparent size was measured/calculated some time back. One of Killtown's claims is that it is too big, though, so he needs to calculate how big it "ought" to be. That's what Doc was on about.

It's hard keeping all of this straight after nearly 50 pages of foot dragging and "I'm trying to prove you guy's theory" from Killtown.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Um... Doc:
The "plume" size was measured from the photo. We know what it was (I'm not digging back to find it, so if whomever did the trig will repeat it, I'd appreciate it)

CurtC did the trig based on my measurements from Val's house, to the white barn, the white barn to the red barn, and the red barn to Val's house. His calculations were within .01 of my measurements on google earth.

[Buckwheatjones]

I don't give out personal information. I'm not going to ask about your personal life, don't ask about mine. last words on this. move on.

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

[MortFurd]

Hi, Buckwheat. Are you still trying to get on Killtown's ignore list?

If so, just remind him in size 7 red text that we don't have a theory and that he should be proving his.

He put me on ignore with in seconds of that.

[Belz...]

Did I just see Killtown actually give in to reality? :eek:

Uh-oh. I think we're about to lose Pardalis, here.

[Dr Richard]

Yep. The apparent size was measured/calculated some time back. One of Killtown's claims is that it is too big, though, so he needs to calculate how big it "ought" to be. That's what Doc was on about.

It's hard keeping all of this straight after nearly 50 pages of foot dragging and "I'm trying to prove you guy's theory" from Killtown.


Thanks, this is part of what I was trying to drive at.

Killtown's remaining theory rests on his assertion that the plume size in Val's photo is too big.

He rests this on two elements:

1. A picture captured from a crashing B-52 bomber produced a plume he thinks is much smaller that the one shown in the picture.

This is an obvious fallacy to most people but KT himself, who does not seem to appreciate the many differences in conditions between the two crashes. He has now conceded that knowing the windspeed is important for working out how big the plume should be. What he does not seem to know is what the windspeed was at the time of this crash, proving that making comaprisons is indeed invalid. I was hoping that he'd be able to appreciate this point.

2. Lines drawn on Google Earth maps apparently showing that the plume would be very large (2200ft IIRC) if Val's photo is consistent with the official version of events.

Many people have pointed out that
(a) the plume will have drifted
(b) the plume drifted at an angle to Val's POV
(c) drawing the lines differently on Google Earth even by a few pixels gives wildly different answers for the plume in the picture; other's estimates have put the plume size at between 400-600m diameter
(d) this size is entirely consistent with the rough estimates produced by many
others including myself

Killtown cannot disprove these estimates for the reasons I have given. In fact, the more I have read up on this, the more I am convinced that making any sort of estimate of plume size based on the known crash conditions is impossible.

And, of course, comparing photos from various crashes even more so.

I know buckwheatjones posted expert opinion on this, too.

So I have a sinking feeling that soon we will be back to lines on Google Earth.

[Hutch]

*sigh*

Face facts folks; Killtown will continue to troll until he gets his "facts" from us (which are estimates based on the variables we do know and by some pretty good math by the members). He will then do some "interesting" (read: ridiculous) calculations to dazzle and amaze us on how impossible this was and that we are all wrong, ha ha ha...

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.

KT, I provide this as a factoid; I have serious doubts you can use it efficiency or effectively, but we shall see.

Press on.

[Dr Richard]

*sigh*

Face facts folks; Killtown will continue to troll until he gets his "facts" from us (which are estimates based on the variables we do know and by some pretty good math by the members). He will then do some "interesting" (read: ridiculous) calculations to dazzle and amaze us on how impossible this was and that we are all wrong, ha ha ha...

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.

KT, I provide this as a factoid; I have serious doubts you can use it efficiency or effectively, but we shall see.

Press on.

Hutch, I hope you are prepared for the consequences...

Reference (http://www.nci.org/a/atactbl.htm)


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).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

*sigh*

Face facts folks; Killtown will continue to troll until he gets his "facts" from us (which are estimates based on the variables we do know and by some pretty good math by the members). He will then do some "interesting" (read: ridiculous) calculations to dazzle and amaze us on how impossible this was and that we are all wrong, ha ha ha...

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.

KT, I provide this as a factoid; I have serious doubts you can use it efficiency or effectively, but we shall see.

Press on.

For my own edification (since KT has me on Ignore), doesn't the autoignition temp represent the point at which spontaneous combustion occurs? And would this be different if there was an ignition source, such as an electrical spark igniting fumes?

[Buckwheatjones]

That isn't relevant today, because there's no way to tell how accurate the camera's clock was. However, no matter what time (or day, or year) the clock showed at the time of the photo, the FBI agents could have calculated the elapsed time between the photo and the time shown on the camera's clock when they examined it. Assuming the battery hadn't been removed or the time reset, subtracting the elapsed time from the real time would give the photo's actual time to the second.

I guess that's true. Sometimes the time stamps aren't accurate, but short of that -- at this point (not if the FBI did this or if the FBI did that back then) -- that probably doesn't leave us with a conclusive way to determine when the photo was shot.

In 2001, The agents would have needed to show up and among other things besides checking the time stamp on the file, verify that the camera's internal clock was accurate. If she dropped the camera and the battery fell out, that is probably immaterial. Most of these cameras have a battery built into their motherboards that operate independently of the one you have to buy at Walgreens now and then just so you don't have to reset the clock all the time.

[Buckwheatjones]

Hi, Buckwheat. Are you still trying to get on Killtown's ignore list?

If so, just remind him in size 7 red text that we don't have a theory and that he should be proving his.

He put me on ignore with in seconds of that.
Hi Mort!

WE DON'T HAVE A THEORY!

OK. Back to normal. Let's see if that did it.

[DavidJames]

Hi Mort!

WE DON'T HAVE A THEORY!

OK. Back to normal. Let's see if that did it.KT - if you disagree, please provide a link to the Theory you claim We have

[Dave_46]

for the thousandth time, we'll discuss this AFTER the experiment is over.

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 617

Arithmetic isn't a strong point is it?

[CurtC]

In 2001, The agents would have needed to show up and among other things besides checking the time stamp on the file, verify that the camera's internal clock was accurate.
They would have simply had to compare the camera's time setting to the standard to get its offset, then add that offset to the time stamp of the photo. A camera clock won't drift more than a couple of seconds per day, so had they done that right away, they could know the image time very accurately. Without that calibration reference, there is absolutely no way that the time stamp would tell us anything. Of course, unless she set the camera to UTC time when she bought it - I routinely do stuff like that, but I realize most people, especially in non-technical fields, don't.

It would have been nice if the FBI investigators had actually determined the time stamp and camera's offset, but they apparently didn't, not knowing that there would be crazy people five years later making claims that the photo was faked.

About the smoke cloud size - using Google Earth, I feel pretty good that it was max 650m (assuming it drifted due South from the crash site), probably more like 600m (if it drifted Southeast). Val's estimate of the time had to be wrong, so depending on how long it took, the cloud could be much closer to the camera. The 600m number assumes less than a minute. If it really took her much longer than she remembers, that cloud could actually be much closer, and therefore smaller. If she actually took the photo five or six minutes later, the cloud could even be where Killtown claimed, less than a mile from her, and only 200m.

There is no way to tell from this one photo, unless we know when it was taken exactly, and I'm afraid that information is forever lost.

[Buckwheatjones]

They would have simply had to compare the camera's time setting to the standard to get its offset, then add that offset to the time stamp of the photo. A camera clock won't drift more than a couple of seconds per day, so had they done that right away, they could know the image time very accurately. Without that calibration reference, there is absolutely no way that the time stamp would tell us anything.
There is no way to tell from this one photo, unless we know when it was taken exactly, and I'm afraid that information is forever lost.

You're probably right.

[Belz...]

1) Well if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but flood this thread with non-relevant and insulting posts, that number goes down a lot.

Translation : "Well, if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but oppose my far-fetched opinions, that number goes down a lot."

[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, (http://www.911myths.com/autopilot_AA77_UA93-study.pdf) 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 (http://www.nci.org/a/atactbl.htm)


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...:mad:

[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, (http://www.911myths.com/autopilot_AA77_UA93-study.pdf) 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!!!!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Buckwheatjones, could you check back with your engineer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1851329#post1851329) and see what his/her opinion on the new lower value for gallons on board relative to plume size be? Before we were estimating 7800-10000 gallons iirc.

ETA: And would somebody not on ignore please correct KT's assertion that 1000m = 11 football fields, when it is 9.12-9.5 football fields in length (depending on if you count endzones or not)

[Gravy]

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

Have at it...

Stop stalling, Killtown. The faster you get done with this, the faster you can make amends to Val McClatchey. Remember, this has nothing to do with your criteria for her guilt. You ONLY based that on whether the photo was Photoshopped. You owe her an apology NOW.

Stop stalling and DO IT.

[Gravy]

Killtown, Arkan points out that you still haven't corrected your "football field" measrements.

[kevin]

The FDR would have indicated a fuel dump or malfunction.

Yeah, I didn't think there was, just saying it was possible. Was the pilot still a terrorist at the time of the crash? Certainly no incentive to dump fuel there....

[Killtown]

Stop stalling and DO IT.
No.

[rwguinn]

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...:mad:

you will note, however, that he has the minimum fireball size lumped with the maximum time 'till picture, along with minimum wind speed and fuel load and oblique Wind direction.
Unless he plans on a Monte-Carlo study of all this (Which should yield about 81 different answers), the whole bloody thing is an exercise in ridiculous.

[Blue Mountain]

That isn't relevant today, because there's no way to tell how accurate the camera's clock was. However, no matter what time (or day, or year) the clock showed at the time of the photo, the FBI agents could have calculated the elapsed time between the photo and the time shown on the camera's clock when they examined it. Assuming the battery hadn't been removed or the time reset, subtracting the elapsed time from the real time would give the photo's actual time to the second.

In addition, do we know the exact time--to the second--of the jet's impact? Yes, that's probably on the flight data recorder, but how are those clocks calibrated? And do they drift appreciably?

[Dog Town]

Unless he plans on a Monte-Carlo study of all this (Which should yield about 81 different answers), the whole bloody thing is an exercise in ridiculous.

This whole thing is not as it appears! He has wasted to much time on this!
He has yet to show his motives to be pure! The twist has yet to be seen!

[Gravy]

No.
Well, there we have it. Killtown refuses to continue, and he refuses to apologize.

What do you call someone like that, Killtown? PM me and I'll tell you what we call them in Brooklyn.

[rwguinn]

No.
so he admits he's stalling.
[gomerpyle} Well GOO--llll-eeee. Sur-Prize, Sur-Prize![/gomerpyle]

[Gravy]

you will note, however, that he has the minimum fireball size lumped with the maximum time 'till picture, along with minimum wind speed and fuel load and oblique Wind direction.
Unless he plans on a Monte-Carlo study of all this (Which should yield about 81 different answers), the whole bloody thing is an exercise in ridiculous.
None of that matters to him, because he never intended to do an analysis in the first place.

[Killtown]

Well, there we have it. Killtown refuses to continue, and he refuses to apologize.

What do you call someone like that, Killtown? PM me and I'll tell you what we call them in Brooklyn.
The experiments not over and with your latest GREAT find that puts the fuel MUCH, MUCH lower, looks like YOU GUYS are going to have to do the apologizing soon!

:D

[Gravy]

The experiments not over and with your latest GREAT find that puts the fuel MUCH, MUCH lower, looks like YOU GUYS are going to have to do the apologizing soon!

:D
So, you are going to do the calculations?

[Killtown]

So, you are going to do the calculations?
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!

:)

[Dr Richard]

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

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

-snip-

Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min

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

-snip-

Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec


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

Killtown, why does the minimum plume size have a longer time interval than the maximum?

[Dr Richard]

The experiments not over and with your latest GREAT find that puts the fuel MUCH, MUCH lower, looks like YOU GUYS are going to have to do the apologizing soon!

:D

Killtown, why does the amount of fuel on the plane affect the plume size?

What is the mathmatical relationship between plume size and fuel?

[mortimer]

So since killtown has decided he's not going to perform the calculations, I decided to go ahead and do them, using the same forensics and calculations killtown has used. Results:

min expected plume size: about 5 football fields
max expected plume size: 15.243 football fields, about

so, get on with your apology to Val, killtown!

[Killtown]

Killtown, why does the minimum plume size have a longer time interval than the maximum?
Think.

[Killtown]

Killtown, why does the amount of fuel on the plane affect the plume size?

What is the mathmatical relationship between plume size and fuel?
Ask Buchwheatjones.

[Dr Richard]

Think.

I would rather you explained it please.

[Dr Richard]

Ask Buchwheatjones.

No, I am asking you. You are the one who was pleased by the fuel result?

Why?

You obviously think it makes the plume size smaller.

Why?

[Gravy]

You trust me to do calculations for YOUR guys estimates? I think I know the answer to that.
I demand that you do the calculations, or admit that you're not capable.

Let's go, chief. Stop stalling.

[Hellbound]

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!

:)

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.

[Killtown]

Man, you guys are in sheer PANIC mode! Better send for reinforcements!

[Killtown]

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

:D

[twinstead]

Man, you guys are in sheer PANIC mode! Better send for reinforcements!

LOL...all your base belong to us...

[Dr Richard]

I demand that you do the calculations, or admit that you're not capable.

Let's go, chief. Stop stalling.

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
Has the equations for 1 psi overpressure damage area and energy output. Not one-to-one to the plume by any stretch, but may come in handy.

[Gravy]

Man, you guys are in sheer PANIC mode! Better send for reinforcements!
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.

[Killtown]

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

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

[Killtown]

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?

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

[Gravy]

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

Apologize to Val McClatchey now, Killtown.

[Gravy]

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
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.

[Killtown]

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

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

[Gravy]

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.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

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

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

[Hellbound]

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

[Gravy]

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
Sounds good. Let 'er rip, Killtown. What? You refuse?

Are you a creep, Killtown? If not, prove it.

[Hellbound]

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%


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.

[Wyn]

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

:D

How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1866305#post1866305) (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...

:D

[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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1866305#post1866305) (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...

:D
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!

:D

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUXQL8-CQg)
Link 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bvjpqvtYE)

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?

[Dr Richard]

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

Ok then killtown, and everyone else, how about we run with:



Your minimum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: 400m
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 400m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

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

Your maximum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 70%
Fireball temp: 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 1000m
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

Killtown, if you disagree with this, please EXPLAIN WHY

Note - assumed fireball size = plume size. Someone else please feel free to correct, but I cannot see how it affects smoke plume size myself...

[Dog Town]

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.

From Gravy. I concur!

[Dr Richard]

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUXQL8-CQg)
Link 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bvjpqvtYE)

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?

Nice work Yoink.

[Killtown]

Link 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-bvjpqvtYE)

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?
Hey, looks just like Val's plume. Thanks!

:D

[Killtown]

Ok, here are you new figures....


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Unknown constants:

Ambient temperature
Wind direction
Plume color

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 400m - 1,000m
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 400m - 1000m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 60 sec

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

[Hellbound]

Ok then killtown, and everyone else, how about we run with:



Your minimum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: 400m
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 400m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

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

Your maximum estimates:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 70%
Fireball temp: 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 1000m
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m
Crash to photo time lapse: 1min

Killtown, if you disagree with this, please EXPLAIN WHY

Note - assumed fireball size = plume size. Someone else please feel free to correct, but I cannot see how it affects smoke plume size myself...

Your peak fireball widths are way too high :) Fireball size would be roughly equal to the size of the column, not the upper cloud (the "stem" of the mushroom).

[Yoink]

Hey, looks just like Val's plume. Thanks!

Yes, it is fuel exploding. It's not surprising that it looks like Val's plume. The plume that resulted from an explosion. Of fuel. :rolleyes:

[Hellbound]

Yes, it is fuel exploding. It's not surprising that it looks like Val's plume. The plume that resulted from an explosion. Of fuel. :rolleyes:

Yeah, talk about a smoking gun.

Unfortunately, the smoking gun is a toy pistol in the fireplace...

[Dr Richard]

Your peak fireball widths are way too high :) Fireball size would be roughly equal to the size of the column, not the upper cloud (the "stem" of the mushroom).

Fair point. Just wanted to get things going...

[Yoink]

By the way, Killtown, did you follow my explanation about the relationship between the volume of a sphere and its width? I'd be happy to diagram it out for you. Or does it just go into that long list of things that you call "waaaaaaaaaaaay too complicated" because you either A) don't understand them or B) find them irreconcileable with your half-assed "theory"?

P.S. Now that you have show over and over and over again for 50 pages that you have no evidence whatsoever in support of your claims, don't you think it's about time that you apologized to Val McClatchey for making these unsupported, scurrilous and clearly illegal allegations against her? You will only feel more bitter shame the longer you put off making that apology.

[Dr Richard]

Oops. Just noticed Killtown doing a little more "creative" accounting. At the top of this page he had % fuel burned on impact at 95% and has now downrated it to 70%.

I think we are doing KT a disservice.

I think he DOES have some form of calculation and is frantically reworking it with every post and trying to slip his changes in unnoticed so that when we finally agree to his doctored set of variables, he will sudddenly and miraculously publish his "proof".

Unless of course this was fourth genuine mistake mistake this evening, Killtown, in which case I retract the above observation wholeheartedly and unreservedly.

[Killtown]

Ok, how about these....


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 860m <<< old figures
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ok, how about these....


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 860m <<< old figures
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

How can the max plume size be less than the max fireball size?

[Killtown]

How can the max plume size be less than the max fireball size?
What part of "old figures" do you not understand?

Feel free to post you new estimates.

[Yoink]

Ok, how about these....


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 860m <<< old figures
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

Where do you get 30-70% fuel burn rate? Why couldn't 99% of the fuel burn?

Also, putting in the observed plume size as a "variable" in an equation that is supposed to generate the range of possible plume sizes is hilarious stupid.

[Dr Richard]

Plume size: 600m - 700m

How long is the football field when the goalposts shift so fast?

[Wyn]

Ok, how about these....

How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

[Dog Town]

How long is the football field when the goalposts shift so fast?
My production staff is laughing at me, laughing. That one got me good. Almost coke soaked my laptop!

[Gravy]

How long is the football field when the goalposts shift so fast?
A classic.

[Gravy]

2000. Only Killtown could have predicted the odds on that.