Re: Question about FAEs

From: Dan Bloomquist (EXTRApublic21_at_lakeweb.com)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:01:34 GMT

Bill Ward wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:56:16 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
> <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I started out thinking it would be easy to debunk conspiracy theories
>>about 9/11. But I seem to be having troubles.
>>
>>Here is another one of my troubles. Everyone will remember the videos of
>>the second plane hitting the trade towers. What some folks may not have
>>seen was that the fuselage of the plane had gone all the way through the
>>building:
>>
>>http://lakeweb.com/F77/images/f175-1.jpg
>>
>>Background:
>>The ABC footage shows twelve frames for the length of the plane to pass
>>into the building. Unless they were using 60 frames/second equipment,
>>(and that is possible), the velocity was 450fps, 300mph. (A 767 is 180
>>feet long.)
>>
>>I did some research on FAEs, (Fuel Air Explosions), and I may have some
>>of it wrong. But if the fuel is kerosene I've found that it needs to be
>>well atomized, ( less than .1mm droplets? ), and doesn't have a great
>>margin for the fuel air ratio.
>>
>>---
>>So there would likely be a shallow zone for an FAE in the building. But
>>here is the confusing part. The fuselage has come out of the building by
>>some 50 feet intact. I can come up with no mechanism that would disperse
>>fuel forward in the fuselage, much less perfectly. If what explodes the
>>fuselage were part of the building explosion, there should be no delay
>>of several frames between events. The fuselage disappears in a white hot
>>explosion yet the main body of the explosion in the building doesn't
>>even break windows on the other half of the building.
>>
>
>
> Dan, I think the trick in a FAE is to achieve detonation
> (shock wave propagation) rather than simple deflagration
> (burning).
>
> That requires dispersion of some quantity of the fuel at a
> detonable A/F ratio before any stray ignition can occur, and
> only then the initiation of a shock wave in the mixture.
>
> In a crash, the fuel would most likely be ignited by the
> impact energy before dispersion could take place,
> immediately burning the fuel before a detonable mixture
> could form.

It doesn't look like, at least the fuselage, has slowed much. So I would
have to say the ignition came from sparks. If the velocity was 450 fps,
I get a temp rise of 130f for water, so four times that for aluminum. (I
don't have the specific heat for kerosene but imagine it would be higher
than aluminum.) I'll have to confirm the velocity. But the kinetic
energy of any mass that contributes to the explosion would have to come
to a complete stop in the building. Apparently, only the wings could
have possibly contributed. That KE would go primarily into heating and
if there isn't enough heat, no contribution to an explosion.

>
> I would speculate the white flash is from the Al and Mg
> alloys oxidizing, the camera imaging array overloading, or
> both.

If it is that the fuselage suddenly burns, that not only requires a
mechanism but a lot of oxygen. the fuselage clearly disperse,
completely, in a few frames. I've looked at all the video I could find.

>
> I don't see how a FAE could have taken place at all, so the
> intact windows are not too surprising.

I had always assumed it was a FAE. But now I'm with you.

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Ward

Best, Dan. 

-- 
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about FAEs
    ... But if the fuel is kerosene I've found that it needs to be ... >>So there would likely be a shallow zone for an FAE in the building. ... The fuselage has come out of the building by ... >>fuselage were part of the building explosion, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Question about FAEs
    ... But if the fuel is kerosene I've found that it needs to be ... >So there would likely be a shallow zone for an FAE in the building. ... The fuselage has come out of the building by ... >fuselage were part of the building explosion, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Question about FAEs
    ... But if the fuel is kerosene I've found that it needs to be ... >So there would likely be a shallow zone for an FAE in the building. ... The fuselage has come out of the building by ... >fuselage were part of the building explosion, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Question about FAEs
    ... Bill Ward wrote: ... Without a FAE ... burning fuel can create an explosion. ... I guess there is no way to know if this is actually the fuselage. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Question about FAEs
    ... let's look at "conspiracy theories" in general. ... The fuselage has come out of the building by ... > fuselage were part of the building explosion, ... to produce and ignite some quantity of aluminum shavings following the ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)