Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Flash on impact
Topic Started: Sep 22 2009, 09:50 PM (2,517 Views)
elephant room
Member Avatar

I dont even know what .vob is ... :D

I have the store bought dvd called
"9/11, filmmakers' commemorative dvd edition", 2002...

I'll go look for some you tube version that is comparable (flash size) to what i am seeing.
Edited by elephant room, Sep 22 2009, 11:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

elephant room
Sep 22 2009, 11:00 PM
I dont even know what .vob is ... :D

I have the store bought dvd called
"9/11, filmmakers' commemorative dvd edition", 2002...

I'll go look for some you tube version that is comparable (flash size) to what i am seeing.
i got one, gimme 2 seconds.

and if you browse the contents of a DVD in something like Windows Explorer, the video is stored in .vob files
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

Posted Image

it might be software issue my end - i'll find out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

looks like an interlacing issue. F***in video-issues piss me off lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
elephant room
Member Avatar

that first one is what I am seeing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

yeah, sorted, it was my video editor doing something funky - a most worrying discovery for me :S


edit.
to be precise, it was sony vegas importing the clip as interlaced and not as progressive. problem solved.
Edited by broken sticks, Sep 22 2009, 11:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
elephant room
Member Avatar

The first flash is waaaaay bigger than second,
maybe consistent wasn't the right word.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

ok, back on topic:

Posted Image

this flash looks huge, but i guess that could be a product of how bright it is, which might distort the image at this distance?

but given this is the only shot we have of it, i doubt we'll get close to approximating its position relative to the aircraft. anyone?
does a sunlight reflection account for any of this?

it also appears to be slightly towards the starboard side.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

elephant room
Sep 22 2009, 11:34 PM
The first flash is waaaaay bigger than second,
maybe consistent wasn't the right word.
right on
i didn't see this post before i posted my last one:

"this flash looks huge, but i guess that could be a product of how bright it is, which might distort the image at this distance?

but given this is the only shot we have of it, i doubt we'll get close to approximating its position relative to the aircraft. anyone?
does a sunlight reflection account for any of this?

it also appears to be slightly towards the starboard side."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
waypastvne

The main crew O2 bottle is in the electrical & equipment room, located under the floor just aft of the nose gear bulkhead. (see drawing below).This bottle is compressed to 2000 psi with pure oxygen. Thats alot of potential energy. The bottle could exit the aircraft and ignite outside Inthe case of AA11.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

or indeed the tank could hit the bulkhead causing it to explode.

very impressed with these images, waypastvne!
although i must say i don't think it would exit the plane as you say, given its forward momentum at that speed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

It should be possible to estimate the position of the flash relative to the fuselage.
We know the frame rate of the video. The flash occurred just in the first field of that fame you posted (therefore the interlace artifact). And as far as I remember the following frame shows the much wider shadow of the wings across the north face.

Do you remember the engine threat??? - i think it was there - i thought it should be possible to get the angle of the fuselage from the angle of the sun. I was wrong because the shadow across the north face was cast by just about 2 meters of the length of the fuselage. In other words, the following frame shows the wings within 2 meters distance to the north face. The shadow works like a magnifying glass.
I didn't check it but may be the shadow of the tail gives a second "sync point" to "pull" the fuselage backwards to the point the flash occurred.

The reflection of the sun could have played a role but the south side of the south tower was still in the shadow when hit. So it seems very improbable to get two times the same phenomenon due to different causes. The brightness and size of the flash might be an issue of the video capabilities. A professional camera man would call it "the white burns out". The camera has just a small range of contrast it could handle at a time. You could close the iris for a normal exposure of the white level but the darker levels becoming much darker or black. The short flash was brighter than the actual white level could handle. It "burnt out" and may be appears much bigger than it was. (But it was definitely there.)

Btw, these burn out effect is often the cause of so called "flashes" in the smoke. Some rotating piece of metal reflected the sun just for a moment into the camera and the reflection became a big white dot while the piece of metal was too small to be visible in the smoke. A "burnt out" sky is always behind simon shacks "forgotten backdrops" and the change of the iris was sometimes interpreted as "nuclear afterglow".

...and wow, your analysis so far is the most plausible I know so far. The oxygen is a very interesting point. Sure, it played a role somehow.
May be you should have a look at that older thread "the naudet flash".
There is something about the special behavior of aluminum at (lol) 2000mph. But seriously, the oxygen could have caused a similar effect at slower speed just by igniting superheated aluminum particles. Very interesting. Do you know a chemist?

And there is another minor point to consider: If you look at the very well known F4 crash test video then you can see some similar flash but much smaller and darker. As far as I know, the F4 was filled with water and without electrical energy. So that small flash had some other source but surely it would have been capable to ignite an oxygen cloud.
Edited by achimspok, Oct 3 2009, 11:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

How about the accumulated static electricity?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
achimspok

No idea, how much static charge the plane could accumulate but in the moment of impact that charge would always take the way of less resistance. Aluminum is an electrical conductor and electrons move at the speed of light. Therefore, I wouldn't expect something like an electric arc to discharge static electricity. Even prior to the impact... The charge needs a small distance to "snap over". An electrical arc needs a little time to establish itself. The plane is very fast. It moves several meters per video frame.
I would say - its possible but imo improbable - but I'm not sure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

It was just a possibility I heard some while ago. That maybe the flash had something to do with the static electricity.
I'm not sure if it's valid or not. Just pondering everything.
Edited by RasgaSaias, Oct 3 2009, 04:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply