question about fireball

[k-robjoe]

About the explosion when the plane hit WTC 2 :
Does anyone know if this estimation is (anywhere close to) correct?

"The smoke cloud has almost the form of a perfect ball with a diameter of at least 150 m and a volume of minimum 1,800,000 cubic metres. 1 cubic metre kerosene causes when burned ca 10,000 cubic metres smoke gases. Therefore about 180 cubic metres kerosine would have been necessary to cause such a smoke cloud. The maximum load of kerosine on a Boeing 767-200 ER is 90 cubic metres for a flight of 12,000 km."
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate33.htm

( The quote must be viewed in connection with this : http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html )

[pw]

1. tinfoil

About the only thing that's close to accurate is the fuel capacity of the plane. The rest of it assumes, among other things, that a visual estimate of fireball size is accurate, that none of the smoke was mixed with air, that no other substances contributed to the fireball, that none of the volume was occupied by non-gaseous objects such as building parts, that the fireball contained uniformly thick smoke throughout its volume, and so forth.

[Ready4Change]

2. More

That the fireball, as viewed from below, was totally spherical in shape. I imagine that being squeezed out between floors as it was, that the fireball was a flattened sphere, which would reduce it's volume quite a bit.

[On the Road]

3. This Type of Argument is Difficult to Judge

and for that reason I don't think think it makes a persuasive case. There are too many factors that could influence the appearance of the fireball, and there's no way to empirically test them after the fact.

The visual evidence of the strange bulges on the second WTC plane are much more striking.

On Edit: BTW, that's a new site for me. It has some good stuff. I'm particularly interested in the Spanish newpaper analysis. I have an open mind about what happenned, but in Eurpoe you're not considered a lunatic for asking questions.

[Phil_Jayhan]

4. My guess is this missile played a part

I guess we can do all the math and ciphering we want to and ignore the obvious physical evidence and proofs supplied by unbiased video cameras as ribofunk said;

But the above picture is a picture of the missile which shot out of that 'bump' on the bottom about 1/3 of a second before impact; That still shot is a picture of the missile punching through the building at the same time as the cockpit, about 5-10 feet to the right of it.

Heres that same pic with 0 brightness, 100% contrast;



It burnt hot.

And heres a picture of that same picture with 180 hue;



It burns bright as well;

Heres the video those were taken from;

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane.closeup.wmv

And another example from another angle;

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane2.swf

And a picture of the in flight missile before it hits the tower, flying along side the 767; Notice the bright orange ball to the right of the aircraft hasn't occured yet; Because the missile, obviously from this pic hasn't hit yet.



cheers~
pj :P

[Phil_Jayhan]

5. LA Times missile ignition animated gif

And heres an animated gif, still running off the LA Times server, showing clearly in the third fram, the missile ignition taking place inside that 'bump' on the bottom. (missile canapoy/pod to hid full ignition)



pj :)

[Bolo Boffin]

7. There's no missile in the third frame of this video

What are you talking about?

[demodewd]

10. re: missile ignition

You're claiming that the white areas in the third flame is proof of a missile igniting? Caused by heat? :smoke:

[Bolo Boffin]

6. You said "shot out of that bump"

Heh-heh. Heheheheh. heheh.

No, what really makes me laugh is the last picture, in which the missile hasn't "hit" yet. Maybe that picture just didn't get a Photoshopped "hot spot" added to it. "Unbiased video camera," my ass.

[Phil_Jayhan]

9. No photoshop

Its just been slowed down; This is the video shot from the czech helicopter news crew at the WTC that day; If you would like the full unedited, full speed video, I'll put it online, but its a large file;

http://www.letsroll911.org/secondplane.wmv

cheers~
pj :P

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Okay...

I don't see a full speed video in that link, PJ. However, the frame-by-frame is very illuminating.

Number one, the image is cropped, unless you're saying that the "czech helicopter crew" zoomed in on the precise location of the impact before the plane got there. So right off the bat, the image has been altered. There's a high degree of fuzziness as well, evidence that the image has been resized. That's two alterations to this video file.

Number two: Since the frames are going slowly, I'd advise anyone who takes the time to download the file (I have cable modem, and the wait's not even ten seconds) to watch the length of the plane enter the frame. What's not clear because of the fuzziness of the still becomes crystal in the video feed - the moment of that bright hot light is the moment of impact. From the still picture, you might conclude that the plane hadn't quite hit the building yet, but the video playback is slow enough to visually measure the distance between nose and building. The bright spot is a small explosion as the nose of the plane is crashing into the building.

No missile popping out from some mysterious bulge (which is actually the standard joint between wing and body of the plane). Just the plane hitting the building.

But thanks for playing.

[Phil_Jayhan]

12. Bolob-Heres the source file

And if you just do closeups, and slow it down, this is all there.

http://www.letsroll911.org/TTVideo02.wmv

or this one; Been so long; http://www.letsroll911.org/TTVideo05.wmv

This video contains what could cause all of this talk and chatter of conspiracy bloom into a full investigation and impeachment and more. Seriously, you would never see it unless you slowed it down and did a frame by frame; This is good stuff.

Above is the original sourcefile; And below is what you get when you slow it down and enlarge it; No cropping.

Czech Video slowed down and enlarged


cheers~
pj :)

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Which bears out what I'm saying

The first link you give is the original video file. The second has a slower version of the impact, cropped down and pixelilated beyond recognition of any detail. The third is the extremely slow version that you posted before, still as cropped and fuzzy.

Now watch the plane enter the frame in the third link (the extremely slow one). The frames move slow enough that as the plane jumps forward frame by frame, you can guess where the nose will be in the next frame, because the plane's traveling at a constant rate of speed. On the frame of the weird bright spot, it's clear that the nose has just pushed its way into the building. That bright spot, then is some small explosion that occured as the plane impacted.

It's not a missile.

[demodewd]

14. No matter.

I've looked at the ghostplane footage a hundred times and it is very difficult to determine if the nose begins to penetrate before the flare.Or vice versa. It is obvious that the nose is intact when it exits the building. So much for your "small explosion" theory IMHP.Even the wings slice through the building with minimal resistance. No flares there.The bright spot either is created just prior to the missile's entry or in conjuction with plane's entry. No matter.All to insure a spontaneous explosion of a 767-300? carrying a copious copious amount of jet fuel.

It is not a small explosion we see as the nose meets builing.

[k-robjoe]

15. magic missile?

A missile shooting out from underneath the plane, then stopping in midair, and moving up to take a position at level with the middle (vertically) of the plane?

[k-robjoe]

16. OK

OK. I had a look at your video clips, and admit I got that all wrong.
But another thing struck me. You write that the white spot on this pic :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x7924#7997 (post# 49)
is the same as the orange spot.
It can not be. It must be a reflection from the building in front.
Because the plane is in this pic too far from the building. You can tell that it is still too far from the building because it is too far to the left.

[Phil_Jayhan]

17. k-robjoe

I was mistaken at the time; Everyone makes mistake when trying to figure the unknown; I have since found out why I was wrong about that 'white spot' on the building;

Fisrt off, it moves; And you will see that in a second; It starts out on the left hand side of the Tower, all the way to the left, then dances around a little and moves to the center as the plane approaches;

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/jones.htm

See the white spot now moving? I found this after an earlier challenge to my white spot idea, and found this after hours of searching this one idea..

It's a laser light; Pointed from a laser targeting rifle; And the source of the laser is apparent in all pictures with the white spot; It is obvious the laser light is coming from that buildings rooftop in the Towers reflection;

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/pavel.htm

and finally ABS's shot of the missile; Slowed down of course so it can be seen; Remember it all happened in about 1/3rd of a second;

Easy to miss, impossible to see.

cheers~
pj :P

Remember, I don't subscribe to Rosalee's ghost plane theory but don't discount all her excellent work cause of that. Her video's are excellent and show us all what it looked like on 911 in slow motion;

Thanks to Rosalee for this, the webfairy! :)

cheers~
pj :)

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3

[k-robjoe]

8. 50%?

How much of the kerosine went into the fireball?
I have heard, about 50%
Quite a bit went down the elevator shafts and caused explosions on underground floors.
And quite a bit burned inside the building, where the plane hit.
So if we say about 50% went into the fireball, that would be no more than 45 cubic metres.
But according to the quote, it would take 180 cubic metres of kerosine to make such a fireball.

I agree that it is hard to estimate how big the fireball is, but the gap between 45 cubic metres and 180 cubic metres is like, almost 1/4 . So even if we say that their estimate is twice as high as it should be, we still have a big problem.

That is, assuming that their "equation" is correct: "1 cubic metre kerosene causes when burned ca 10,000 cubic metres smoke gases."

Does anyone know where they have this from? And if it´s correct?

[Phil_Jayhan]

18. more than 50% k-robjoe

Check out this photo;

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/wtx.bmp

There is actually more fireball in this picture than there should be. something is adding to this fire; but my guess is 70% of the fuel would have been burnt off in this fireball;


but what?

cheer~
pj :)

[k-robjoe]

19. add up

> but what?

Simply that it doesn´t add up. Huge explosions on underground floors, from burning kerosine coming down the shafts, explosion in the lobby, from the same, the gigantic fireball, and fires big enough to bring the building down. It just does not add up.
And if these guys (the quote in original post) are right, then all the kerosine in the plane would hardly be enough even for the fireball.
So was the plane loaded with explosives?
A look at the pics at the bottom of this site, http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html , and the question becomes very real.