PDA

View Full Version : Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 12:57 PM
you guys are a joke! You guys insisted that 93's crash made a HUGE monsterous hot fireball that in turn made a HUGE monsterous smoke plume that's seen in Val's photo, now you are all BACKTRACKING and saying, "well, well, not all plane crashes burn the grass."! Frickin pathetic!

Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 12:58 PM
No, it BLOWS TO BITS your guy's claim the crash made a monsterous hot fireball that made a monsterious plume that is seen in Val's photo.

Please guys, save yourself anymore embarrasment and just admit there is no way Val's plume could have been caused by 93 crashing!

wow.

Killtowns logic:

assertion 1. the crater is defined by the area of burnt grass
assertion 2. there is no burnt grass ouside the crater
assertion 3. a fireball from the plane crash would burn grass ouside the crater

conclusion: the crater was therefore not caused by the plane crash

well, I'm convinced.

shame we had to wait 2600+ posts for that gem of deductive reasoning

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:00 PM
Killtown,

Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:01 PM
you guys are a joke! You guys insisted that 93's crash made a HUGE monsterous hot fireball that in turn made a HUGE monsterous smoke plume that's seen in Val's photo, now you are all BACKTRACKING and saying, "well, well, not all plane crashes burn the grass."! Frickin pathetic!

Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.

No, Killtown, we argued that it could have made a huge, hot fireball. We also argued that it could have made a small, relatively cool fireball. IF you could answer the questions I've asked, we could actually move beyond your childish namecalling and you might learn a bit of something.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:01 PM
JREFers:

"Flight 93 crashed going 580mph and created an intensely hot fireball bigger than a football field"

Fireball temp max: 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width max: 184m(200yrd)

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

"But it didn't burn the grass around the crater"

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_stahl.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_forbes.jpg

:D

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:02 PM
JREFers:

"Flight 93 crashed going 580mph and created an intensely hot fireball bigger than a football field"

Strawman. We simply argued the possibility was there.

Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 01:06 PM
Funny, I showed you guys a B-52 crash and you said, "oh, that's nothing like the Flight 93 crash," but now you guys are starting to compare the same kinds of "UNRELATED" crashes!!!

LoL!!!

Maybe somebody would like to explain their Flight 93 crash theory again?!

Hi Killtown, this is Rudimentary Logic calling. Why do you shun me? Why won't you return my calls? I know I'm a bit of a downer at times--always pointing out that this doesn't make sense or that that is a non-sequitur, but still, baby, if you stick with me we can really go places.

You see, honey, let Ms. Logic just explain something to you: the difference between "some" and "all." I know, I know, they are both words for quantities, so why should any of us care about more subtle differences than that? I'm making it waaaaaayyyyyy too complicated for you, ain't I, sugar?

Let me do my best to keep it simple:

If you say "all swans are white" then I only need to find one black swan, and I've proven you wrong.

If you claim, however, that "some swans are black" then it doesn't matter how many photographs of white swans I provide for you, that doesn't prove you wrong. You're now the only one who needs to find a single photograph of a black swan, and you've proven your case.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

When you say "ALL plane crashes produce massive fireballs that leave lingering fires on the ground underneath them" you're not the one who only has to produce one photograph to prove your case. It's the people who disagree with you who only have to produce one photograph to disprove it.

Similarly, if the people you're arguing with are saying "someareoplanes can crash and produce a fireball that does not spread along the ground but moves rapidly upwards into the air" you can't disprove that by producing one photo of a plane that didn't. They can prove it (just like the swans, baby) by producing any photos of planes that crashed, burned, and did not scorch the earth around the crash site.

Any chance you followed any of that, KT? Or is Rudimentary Logic dead to you now?

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 01:07 PM
you guys are a joke! You guys insisted that 93's crash made a HUGE monsterous hot fireball that in turn made a HUGE monsterous smoke plume that's seen in Val's photo, now you are all BACKTRACKING and saying, "well, well, not all plane crashes burn the grass."! Frickin pathetic!

Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.

Killtown, could a I just check your current position:

1. You have admitted that you previous assertions on smoke plume colour are wrong
2. You have admitted your previous assertions about the size of the plume based on Val's photo and google earth maps are wrong
3. Your entire case now rests on the fact that you have a picture of some unburnt grass taken at an unspecified point after the crash?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:11 PM
wow.
conclusion: the crater was therefore not caused by the plane crash

Not necessarily, it just means that YOUR GUY'S fireball estimates have been DISPROVEN!

If a 757 crashed there, it burrowed underground along with MOST of the 5,500 gals of fuel thereby DISPROVING it could have caused the 6-7 FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH smoke plume seen in Val's photo.

Just concede to that.

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 01:12 PM
Not necessarily, it just means that YOUR GUY'S fireball estimates have been DISPROVEN!

If a 757 crashed there, it burrowed underground along with MOST of the 5,500 gals of fuel thereby DISPROVING it could have caused the 6-7 FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH smoke plume seen in Val's photo.

Just concede to that.

Do you concede the first points I made about the crater then? I'd be grateful if you could draw on the photo you have provided where you think the crater is.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:12 PM
Strawman. We simply argued the possibility was there.
You do remember what this thread was about right? It was to prove or disprove Val's plume came from 93 crashing or something else.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:13 PM
Not necessarily, it just means that YOUR GUY'S fireball estimates have been DISPROVEN!

If a 757 crashed there, it burrowed underground along with MOST of the 5,500 gals of fuel thereby DISPROVING it could have caused the 6-7 FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH smoke plume seen in Val's photo.

Just concede to that.

We can't concede to that, because you don't present an accurate argument.

Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:14 PM
You do remember what this thread was about right? It was to prove or disprove Val's plume came from 93 crashing or something else.

You do understand what a strawman is, right? Find me the place where anyone said it could only be a large, hot fireball.

and

Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 01:16 PM
Not necessarily, it just means that YOUR GUY'S fireball estimates have been DISPROVEN!

If a 757 crashed there, it burrowed underground along with MOST of the 5,500 gals of fuel thereby DISPROVING it could have caused the 6-7 FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH smoke plume seen in Val's photo.

Just concede to that.

KT, I'd be happy to "concede to that" if you would mount an actual argument for your case. Show me your calculations about the size of the fireball. Show me a fireball of X minimum size is necessary to produce the cloud in the McClatchey photograph. Show me that it is impossible for a fireball of that size to form from an accident of this kind that does not burn the ground directly underneath it.

Please try to understand that a photograph of a B-52 crashing under completely different circumstances is about as useful to your argument as a photograph of a duck. Now: what evidence to you have for either of the two key elements in your argument above?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:16 PM
When you say "ALL plane crashes produce massive fireballs that leave lingering fires on the ground underneath them"
To bad that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying YOUR plane crash theory that YOU GUYS say caused a HUGE FIREBALL that was EXTREMELY HOT couldn't have done what you guys claimed it did!

Not even your MINIMUM estimates would be consistent with the crater area and then be able to produce Val's MONSTEROUS plume!

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:17 PM
To bad that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying YOUR plane crash theory that YOU GUYS say caused a HUGE FIREBALL that was EXTREMELY HOT couldn't have done what you guys claimed it did!

Not even your MINIMUM estimates would be consistent with the crater area and then be able to produce Val's MONSTEROUS plume!

You do understand what a strawman is, right? Find me the place where anyone said it could only be a large, hot fireball.

and

Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:19 PM
2. You have admitted your previous assertions about the size of the plume based on Val's photo and google earth maps are wrong
3. Your entire case now rests on the fact that you have a picture of some unburnt grass taken at an unspecified point after the crash?
2) No I haven't, YOU guys said it was wrong.

3) Unspecified point after the crash? LoL! Are suggesting burnt grass can "unburn" itself given time? LoL!!!!!

The photo was one of the FIRST photos take after the crash.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:20 PM
2) No I haven't, YOU guys said it was wrong.

3) Unspecified point after the crash? LoL! Are suggesting burnt grass can "unburn" itself given time? LoL!!!!!

The photo was one of the FIRST photos take after the crash.

Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:21 PM
Find me the place where anyone said it could only be a large, hot fireball.
Your MINIMUM fireball size would have burned a LARGE area of grass around the crater!!!

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 01:22 PM
KT, why don't you answer Huntsman's questions? Why don't you tell him what your "gut" tells you about each of these things? You think that what your "gut" tells you is good enough evidence to permit you to make vile slanderous accusations against some poor woman who never did anything to hurt you--why isn't your "gut" good enough to give you the answers to Huntsman's questions?

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 01:22 PM
To bad that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying YOUR plane crash theory that YOU GUYS say caused a HUGE FIREBALL that was EXTREMELY HOT couldn't have done what you guys claimed it did!

Not even your MINIMUM estimates would be consistent with the crater area and then be able to produce Val's MONSTEROUS plume!

Let us pause a moment, and contemplate the fact the Ignorance is a curable disease, if caught in the early stages.
We don't know why ignorance grows and chokes out the light of intellegence and promise, only that it happens. Someday, perhaps, we will know the answer, but that doesn't help us with this lost mind and soul.
Let us bow our heads and grieve at the los of Killtown to the cancerous stupidity that has engulfed him, and go in with our lives, hoping that we might save others who have not slipped down that slippery slope int pure insanity.
Amen.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:23 PM
Your MINIMUM fireball size would have burned a LARGE area of grass around the crater!!!

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:24 PM
Let us pause a moment, and contemplate the fact the Ignorance is a curable disease, if caught in the early stages.
We don't know why ignorance grows and chokes out the light of intellegence and promise, only that it happens. Someday, perhaps, we will know the answer, but that doesn't help us with this lost mind and soul.
Let us bow our heads and grieve at the los of Killtown to the cancerous stupidity that has engulfed him, and go in with our lives, hoping that we might save others who have not slipped down that slippery slope int pure insanity.
Amen.
Look, unburnt grass right up against the crater!

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_stahl.jpg

Kinda hard to explain that when the fireball YOU GUYS claim was BIGGER than the size of the crater!

BOOM!

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

:D

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:26 PM
1) If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

2) If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

3) If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

4) Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

1,2,3,4) And this has to do with a liquid jetfuel fire how?

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:26 PM
Look, unburnt grass right up against the crater!

Kinda hard to explain that when the fireball YOU GUYS claim was BIGGER than the size of the crater!

BOOM!

:D

Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

As to what it has to do with the crash, I'm getting there. The fact that you have to ask this shows me that the questions really need an answer and you really don't understand heat and temperature, or blast.

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 01:27 PM
Your MINIMUM fireball size would have burned a LARGE area of grass around the crater!!!

What is your proof of this claim? How have established that all fireballs always burn everything that is combustible directly beneath them?

I know that you think it's enoug to roll your eyes at this, KT, and to say "that's just obvious"--but think about this for a moment: weren't you just a teensy, weensy bit surprised to read that there was a lot of combustible material almost directly beneath the atom bomb at Hiroshima that wasn't burned? What would have seemed "obvious" to you about that? Wouldn't you have thought it "obvious" that the bomb would burn everything that was combustible close to ground zero? If you're wrong about that "obvious" thing, why aren't you wrong about this one?

Please note, I'm not saying that the Hiroshima case proves you wrong about the photo. Heck, for all I know the photo is proof that the McClatchey photograph is a fraud. The problem is that you're just pointing to the evidence and saying "see, it's obvious" without saying how you've arrived at your position. If all you've got is "my gut tells me its obvious" then all you've got is what you've always shown yourself to have throughout all these pages: nothing.

23rd August 2006, 01:27 PM
you guys are a joke! You guys insisted that 93's crash made a HUGE monsterous hot fireball that in turn made a HUGE monsterous smoke plume that's seen in Val's photo, now you are all BACKTRACKING and saying, "well, well, not all plane crashes burn the grass."! Frickin pathetic!

Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.

False dichotomy. Please show where the grass must be burnt if a fireball is present. Remember, show your work.

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 01:27 PM
Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

As to what it has to do with the crash, I'm getting there.

23rd August 2006, 01:28 PM
1,2,3,4) And this has to do with a liquid jetfuel fire how?

Answer the questions and you'll find out.

23rd August 2006, 01:29 PM
Look, unburnt grass right up against the crater!

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_stahl.jpg

Kinda hard to explain that when the fireball YOU GUYS claim was BIGGER than the size of the crater!

BOOM!

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

:D

Please demonstrate conclusively that the above pictured explosion is the only viable fireball that could have occurred at the Flight 93 crashsite.

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 01:30 PM
you guys are a joke! You guys insisted that 93's crash made a HUGE monsterous hot fireball that in turn made a HUGE monsterous smoke plume that's seen in Val's photo, now you are all BACKTRACKING and saying, "well, well, not all plane crashes burn the grass."! Frickin pathetic!

Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.

Looks like he's starting to implode, guys. Keep up the good work.

Now. Killtown. You're trying to achieve synchronicity between your use of photographs and ours, but the points we're making are different so your parallel is not apt.

Your attempt to use a photo of a B-52 crashing at a different angle, different speed, carrying 4-5x more fuel to illustrate a hypothetical blast where fuel spilled rather than atomized just didn't.....Fly.

My purpose is to simply show that Aircrash in close proximity to Grass or Snow doesn't always mean the Burnng of Grass or the Melting of Snow.

Your use of photos was to draw together a collection of diverse elements to illustrate a specific point and was flawed.

My use of photos is to point out a general fact that planes crash sometimes and the stuff around them doesn't always get cooked.

Now move on. What else have you got?

ghost707
23rd August 2006, 01:34 PM
Looks like he's starting to implode, guys. Keep up the good work.

Now. Killtown. You're trying to achieve synchronicity between your use of photographs and ours, but the points we're making are different so your parallel is not apt.

Your attempt to use a photo of a B-52 crashing at a different angle, different speed, carrying 4-5x more fuel to illustrate a hypothetical blast where fuel spilled rather than atomized just didn't.....Fly.

My purpose is to simply show that Aircrash in close proximity to Grass or Snow doesn't always mean the Burnng of Grass or the Melting of Snow.

Your use of photos was to draw together a collection of diverse elements to illustrate a specific point and was flawed.

My use of photos is to point out a general fact that planes crash sometimes and the stuff around them doesn't always get cooked.

Now move on. What else have you got?

Not so fast Buckwheat......................................... ......................

killtown has convinced me that he has never gone to high school. That has to count for something.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:36 PM
You like how are "KLOWNED" your asses?!!!!!

:D

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 01:37 PM
Killtown, I know you deal with pictures better than words and maths.

Think of the following diagram where the fireball is the red circle and the ground the black line.

Which picture do you think represents what happened when flight 93 hit the ground?

Why do you think that?

As as aside, you still haven't told us where you think the crater is in the picture you keep showing us. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_854244ecbc62b2a12.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1115)

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:38 PM
You like how are "KLOWNED" your asses?!!!!!

:D

So if we're "Klowned" thatmeans your argument is sound, and will stand up to scrutiny, right? It's correct, so we shouldn't be able to disprove it, yes?

Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:38 PM
Heck, for all I know the photo is proof that the McClatchey photograph is a fraud.
Yeah, you guys better HOPE it is and that the gov't had NOTHING to do with it (which nobody is going to believe!).

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:39 PM
Yeah, you guys better HOPE it is and that the gov't had NOTHING to do with it (which nobody is going to believe!).

Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:42 PM
Please demonstrate conclusively that the above pictured explosion is the only viable fireball that could have occurred at the Flight 93 crashsite.
I tell you what, why don't YOU guys show ME a how Flight 93's explosion on the ground looked like.

Right now YOUR guys theory is what is in DOUBT!

23rd August 2006, 01:44 PM
I tell you what, why don't YOU guys show ME a how Flight 93's explosion on the ground looked like.

Right now YOUR guys theory is what is in DOUBT!

We have already show educated guesses. Justify you implication that the picture you referenced is the only possible fireball that could have occurred at the Flight 93 crash site. If you can not do so, then you can not account other "forms" of fireballs that have already been listed in this thread.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:44 PM
My use of photos is to point out a general fact that planes crash sometimes and the stuff around them doesn't always get cooked.
I agree cause THOSE crashes were NO WHERE near what YOU GUYS say the Flight 93 crash was like!

Ok, you guys need to prove YOUR case, cause right now you don't have much of one to explain how 93's crash caused the huge plume in Val's photo.

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 01:45 PM
Not so fast Buckwheat......................................... ......................

killtown has convinced me that he has never gone to high school. That has to count for something.

Well, the world needs ditch diggers too, I suppose.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:46 PM
I agree cause THOSE crashes were NO WHERE near what YOU GUYS say the Flight 93 crash was like!

Ok, you guys need to prove YOUR case, cause right now you don't have much of one to explain how 93's crash caused the huge plume in Val's photo.

Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 01:46 PM
...or muckrakers.

Hellbound
23rd August 2006, 01:48 PM
I'm close to heading out, so I leave it to others to carry on the argument. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this (it's all cake, after all).

Google images could also find some good photos to illustrate the "grenade trench" idea, I'm sure.

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 01:48 PM
I agree cause THOSE crashes were NO WHERE near what YOU GUYS say the Flight 93 crash was like!

Ok, you guys need to prove YOUR case, cause right now you don't have much of one to explain how 93's crash caused the huge plume in Val's photo.

If you really believe that then you haven't been reading. Now. What have you got besides,

"The cloud just LOOKS too big," and "The grass LOOKS too green?"

23rd August 2006, 01:48 PM
I agree cause THOSE crashes were NO WHERE near what YOU GUYS say the Flight 93 crash was like!

Ok, you guys need to prove YOUR case, cause right now you don't have much of one to explain how 93's crash caused the huge plume in Val's photo.

Are you claiming that those crashes do not demonstrate fires intense enough to damage the fuselage, but that do not damage the surrounding vegetation?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:48 PM
Which picture do you think represents what happened when flight 93 hit the ground?

this picture:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

Which has the SAME fireball characteristics as a SIMILAR crash of that day:

http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_6_A/0197743/html/WTC%20FIRE%20CRASH.jpg

Please guys, quit beating a dead horse. your theory has been DEBUNKED. Regardless as to whether 93 crashed there, just admit its crash COULD NOT have produced that MONSTEROUS plume seen in Val's pic!

Class
23rd August 2006, 01:49 PM
Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

23rd August 2006, 01:49 PM
I'm close to heading out, so I leave it to others to carry on the argument. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this (it's all cake, after all).

Google images could also find some good photos to illustrate the "grenade trench" idea, I'm sure.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:50 PM
We have already show educated guesses. Justify you implication that the picture you referenced is the only possible fireball that could have occurred at the Flight 93 crash site. If you can not do so, then you can not account other "forms" of fireballs that have already been listed in this thread.
Well show me YOUR fireball then. It's up to YOU guys to prove YOUR claims.

23rd August 2006, 01:51 PM
this picture:

Which has the SAME fireball characteristics as a SIMILAR crash of that day:

Please guys, quit beating a dead horse. your theory has been DEBUNKED. Regardless as to whether 93 crashed there, just admit its crash COULD NOT have produced that MONSTEROUS plume seen in Val's pic!

Answer Dr. Richard's question. Which of the three in his example do you feel most represents what happened in Shanksville?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:51 PM
If you really believe that then you haven't been reading. Now. What have you got besides,

"The cloud just LOOKS too big," and "The grass LOOKS too green?"

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 01:52 PM
Answer Dr. Richard's question. Which of the three in his example do you feel most represents what happened in Shanksville?
I don't think 93's fireball made a perfect circle. LoL!

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 01:54 PM
Prove YOUR theory.Please provide the quote along with the specific link to where anyone defined a theory.

23rd August 2006, 01:55 PM
I don't think 93's fireball made a perfect circle. LoL!

Which of the three is closest?

You are the one making the claim. You are claiming that no fireball with characteristics within the estimated parameters could have occurred without burning the grass. Prove it. Using a picture is not proof.

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 01:56 PM
Well show me YOUR fireball then. It's up to YOU guys to prove YOUR claims.
WE...Don't...Propose...
A..
Theory...

You do.
And the preponderence of evidence in no way supports your conjecture.

chran
23rd August 2006, 01:57 PM
Your MINIMUM fireball size would have burned a LARGE area of grass around the crater!!! It would?

And no, don't show me that *********** B-52 again.

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 01:58 PM

:jaw-dropp Killtown, I wonder if you could give us a rough estimate of how many times we would need to repeat to you that WE. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. THEORY. before it might begin to sink in? 1000? 40,000? 1,000,000?

YOU have a theory. You think that the McClatchey photograph is fraudulent. Your evidence for this is, in toto: "It doesn't look right to me." (Did I miss anything out from your complex argument?)

Now, please provide some proof for your theory, or we will have to reject it. In rejecting your theory, we are not "voting for" any other theory, we are simply saying that your theory has been proven to be inadequate.

fsol
23rd August 2006, 01:59 PM
I'm close to heading out, so I leave it to others to carry on the argument. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this (it's all cake, after all).

Google images could also find some good photos to illustrate the "grenade trench" idea, I'm sure.

I wonder if killtown thinks it possible to snuff out a candle flame with your bare fingers without getting burnt? Because candle flames have a peak temperature of about 1400C afterall and that is fairly warm...

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 02:03 PM

Well. I provided photos for anyone with eyes to see. Makes little difference to me if you buy into it or not.

Anybody else on here can see that when planes crash, the ground around them doesn't always burn up. You can't figure that out, I guess that's just where you are in life. Sun rise in the west for you, too?

Dave_46
23rd August 2006, 02:03 PM
Folks.

Why do you keep on replying to Killtown's inane posts?

Dave

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:06 PM
Which of the three is closest?

You are the one making the claim. You are claiming that no fireball with characteristics within the estimated parameters could have occurred without burning the grass. Prove it. Using a picture is not proof.
this one is the closest:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg
http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_6_A/0197743/html/WTC%20FIRE%20CRASH.jpg

If you disagree 93 made a fireball like the SIMILAR ones above, then please by all means show me an example of what kind of fireball 93 made.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:08 PM
WE. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. THEORY.
Yes you guys do. Your THEORY is that Val's plume was caused by 93 crashing.

Dog Town
23rd August 2006, 02:08 PM
You like how are "KLOWNED" your asses?!!!!!

You know, the sad thing is here is, he is right. People trying their best to teach you(some who are now eligeable for Saint Hood)something about real life critical thinking. So yes , as I believed all along, you were Klowning around. Your absurd fascination with, what you think, instead of math, logic, etc..., is pathetic. You are a waste of these good folk's time. You are a lepper go back and marvel with the kiddies at LC. You can paint yourself as another false Idol, god knows they need it. I see you as a Golden Klown!

Ketyk
23rd August 2006, 02:09 PM
Why do you keep on replying to Killtown's inane posts?

That's easy. Because if we don't, who will.

Dog Town
23rd August 2006, 02:12 PM
One thing I am sure of now! KC has never tried to build a fire!

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 02:14 PM

"The fireball created in the epicenter of the explosion is warmed up to a high temperature. The increased pressure expands it and the buoyancy force pushes it upward. Fission products (e.g. 90Sr) being inside of the fireball are also lifted to high altitudes. The air under the fireball cools down and it becomes compressed under the atmospheric pressure around. Thus, the stem of the nuclear mushroom is created, and the air is sucked into its bottom. This air rises above the fireball, cools down and sinks forming the convective cells, which look like a cap of a mushroom."

It's from here (http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=967546427&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=967546427.pdf) (a pdf file, I warn you). It is describing a nuclear explosion, to be sure, but it describes precisely the "cool air beneath hot, rising fireball" mechanism that I hypothesized before.

Unless you want us to continue to think you are a complete coward give me your reasons for dismissing the hypothesis that this is what happened in the case of Flight 93. (No, not that an atomic bomb went off--I don't want a stupid flippant answer: tell me why a similar effect could not have happened from aerosolized fuel ignited by the crash of Flight 93)? Or are you too scared to actually defend your "argument"?

davefoc
23rd August 2006, 02:16 PM
Is there a brief summary of this thread someplace in the 51 pages?

If not could somebody summarize killtown's theory and what the opposing view is?

From what I can tell somebody allegedly took a picture of smoke emanating from the flight 93 crash.

The center of the smoke column (derived by taking into account the white and red barns) isn't exactly on top of the hole caused by the flight 93 crash.

In addition there has been a claim that the look of the smoke is not right for an airplane crash.

So Killtown believes the photo was faked? For what purpose does Killtown believe the photo was faked?

No doubt I am confused, please feel free to mock me for that or my laziness in not going through the preceding 51 pages to develop a better understanding of this thread. And, as always, please feel free to mock me for any spelling or grammatical errors.

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 02:18 PM
Yes you guys do. Your THEORY is that Val's plume was caused by 93 crashing.

Sigh. That is not our "theory." That is our "null hypothesis." For the moment, that is the only thing that we have any evidence available to suggest. We do not hold that this has been "proven" to be the case, we hold simply that nothing we have so far seen is inconsistent with this being the case.

Certainly your obsessive posting of that photo of a slow-speed crash of a B-52 is not changing anybody's mind about anything. It just keeps proving over, and over, and over, and over again that you wouldn't be able to make the debate team at the Special Olympics.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:23 PM
Certainly your obsessive posting of that photo of a slow-speed crash of a B-52 is not changing anybody's mind about anything.
Is this a "slow moving" plane crash?...

http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_6_A/0197743/html/WTC%20FIRE%20CRASH.jpg

Doesn't the fireball look like this?...

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 02:24 PM
Is there a brief summary of this thread someplace in the 51 pages?

If not could somebody summarize killtown's theory and what the opposing view is?

From what I can tell somebody allegedly took a picture of smoke emanating from the flight 93 crash.

The center of the smoke column (derived by taking into account the white and red barns) isn't exactly on top of the hole caused by the flight 93 crash.

In addition there has been a claim that the look of the smoke is not right for an airplane crash.

So Killtown believes the photo was faked? For what purpose does Killtown believe the photo was faked?

No doubt I am confused, please feel free to mock me for that or my laziness in not going through the preceding 51 pages to develop a better understanding of this thread. And, as always, please feel free to mock me for any spelling or grammatical errors.

Davefoc, if you haven't followed this from the beginning, believe me, it's not worth your while getting into it now. I'm honestly not sure why I'm still persisting. I think it's that weird frustration you have when you're dealing with a malfunctioning computer or something. You know it is supposed to do X when you push that button, but it just won't. You keep pushing the button anyway, stupidly assuming that eventually it will do what it is supposed to do.

Similarly, I keep thinking "even Killtown can't be that obtuse, even he must eventually realize that he has made not one single substantive argument in this entire thread"--but he just keeps on coming back with his blue-screen-of-death-ultra-stupidity: "I pwned you, you can't deal with my B-52 Kung-Fu! Now I'll show you my photoshopped version, Crane Style! Hi-ya!"

I guess it's the weird fascination that someone can be intelligent enough to write in (mostly) complete sentences, but so monumentally incapable of following even the most simple precepts of argumentative logic.

chran
23rd August 2006, 02:27 PM
Is this a "slow moving" plane crash?...

http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_6_A/0197743/html/WTC%20FIRE%20CRASH.jpg

Doesn't the fireball look like this?...

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

Are you an idiot? I'm actually asking ...

The first picture does indeed show a fast moving plane crash.

The second picture DOES NOT show a fast moving plane crash (you remember the video, right?).

So, why do they look the same?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:28 PM
Are you an idiot? I'm actually asking ...

The first picture does indeed show a fast moving plane crash.

The second picture DOES NOT show a fast moving plane crash (you remember the video, right?).

So, why do they look the same?
So you saying the fireballs are completely different?

Matthew Best
23rd August 2006, 02:30 PM
I think it might be approaching time for someone to post that photo of Edna Cintron to show that a huge fireball can happen and yet not burn everything right next to it.

Hutch
23rd August 2006, 02:30 PM
Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?

C'mon, Deadburg, just four yes or no questions and we all know how much you like asking questions.

I'm rather disappointed, that was the best you could do...but then, perhaps I was expecting to much.

chran
23rd August 2006, 02:32 PM
So you saying the fireballs are completely different? Answer my question.

23rd August 2006, 02:34 PM
For those using critical thinking skills; as a coworker kindly pointed out to me, since the plane was coming in on a 40 degree angle, there is not reason to expect a symmetrical burn radius centered around the crater.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:35 PM
I did, I asked how his questions are relavent to a liquid jetfuel fire.

23rd August 2006, 02:37 PM
I did, I asked how his questions are relavent to a liquid jetfuel fire.

Answer them and you will find out. If you can pull that kind of crap, so can we.

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 02:38 PM
this one is the closest:

(Killtown produces a COMPOSITE photo made up of a PHOTOSHOPPED, RESIZED, ROTATED, DIFFERENT PLANE at a DIFFERENT SPEED and ANGLE OF DESCENT, stuck on top of a different picture)

(Killtown produces a picture of an airplane crashing into a building)

1. Killtown, why do you think your manipulated composite picture has any validity?

2. How much grass got burnt in the second picture you keep on showing? How does this picture advance your argument? I am intrigued.

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 02:41 PM
Killtown, I know you deal with pictures better than words and maths.

Think of the following diagram where the fireball is the red circle and the ground the black line.

Which picture do you think best represents what happened when flight 93 hit the ground?

Why do you think that?

As as aside, you still haven't told us where you think the crater is in the picture you keep showing us. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_854244ecbc62b2a12.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1115)

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:41 PM
For those using critical thinking skills; as a coworker kindly pointed out to me, since the plane was coming in on a 40 degree angle, there is not reason to expect a symmetrical burn radius centered around the crater.
Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory, which there is not...
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wf.jpg
(lower left corner is trajectory path)

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wdr.jpg
(upper left corner is trajectory path)

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 02:42 PM
Do you concede the first points I made about the crater then? I'd be grateful if you could draw on the photo you have provided where you think the crater is.

still waiting for this as well

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 02:43 PM
I did, I asked how his questions are relavent to a liquid jetfuel fire.This was his response to your questionAs to what it has to do with the crash, I'm getting there. The fact that you have to ask this shows me that the questions really need an answer and you really don't understand heat and temperature, or blast.Now answer the questions

23rd August 2006, 02:44 PM
Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory, which there is not...
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wf.jpg
(lower left corner is trajectory path)

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wdr.jpg
(upper left corner is trajectory path)

Please provide evidence of the orientation of the pictures and the direction of flight.

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 02:44 PM
Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory,...Please show your analysis proving this statement.

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 02:44 PM
Is this a "slow moving" plane crash?...

http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_6_A/0197743/html/WTC%20FIRE%20CRASH.jpg

Doesn't the fireball look like this?...

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

Killtown, your "looks like" standard for crash forensics is not, perhaps, quite as rigorous as we need. The moon "looks like" a balloon--that doesn't mean that the moon is a balloon.

The first photograph certainly shows a fast moving plane crash. Please notice where the bulk of the fireball is situated with reference to the impact point. Please also look at this photograph (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/40secondsafter_plane.jpg). Now explain to me why, on your theory, the outer skin of the WTC shows no signs of blackening or smoke damage below the impact point. You know that there was an explosion there, you claim that all explosions must burn everything directly below them, so how is this not a counter-instance?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:45 PM
He's creating a strawman arguement. Your guys estimated fireball WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT to the photo graphic evidence of the crash scene. PERIOD.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:46 PM
Please provide evidence of the orientation of the pictures and the direction of flight.
I tell you what, show me ANY fireball path in those aerial photos!

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:50 PM
The first photograph certainly shows a fast moving plane crash. Please notice where the bulk of the fireball is situated with reference to the impact point. Please also look at this photograph (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/40secondsafter_plane.jpg). Now explain to me why, on your theory, the outer skin of the WTC shows no signs of blackening or smoke damage below the impact point. You know that there was an explosion there, you claim that all explosions must burn everything directly below them, so how is this not a counter-instance?
Cause the fireball went THROUGH the building?

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 02:50 PM
For those using critical thinking skills; as a coworker kindly pointed out to me, since the plane was coming in on a 40 degree angle, there is not reason to expect a symmetrical burn radius centered around the crater.

Or that the plane was intact when it hit the ground?

Or that the fuel spead onto the ground and then ignited?

Or that the fuel was not aerosolised first, thrown into the air and then ignited?

Or that the fireball did not behave as Yoink posted?

etc

etc

The problem is that Killtown still thinks we have a theory we have to prove, rather than proving anything himself.

His whole argument is one of personal incredulity with not one shred of real evidence.

I admit I was wrong when I thought he had some genuine maths that he thought proved his case.

From experience with the ID brigade, once you get to the "but I cannot see how it could have happened, so it didn't" level of non-debate, there is no way of changing someone's mind.

I suspect this is due to an inherent defect in the one advancing the argument from ignorance.

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 02:50 PM
He's creating a strawman arguement. Your guys estimated fireball WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT to the photo graphic evidence of the crash scene. PERIOD.He created no strawman. He asked questions, why are you afraid to answer the questions?

23rd August 2006, 02:51 PM
I tell you what, show me ANY fireball path in those aerial photos!

Howabout two higher-res, wider angle photos:
http://usinfo.state.gov/photogallery/show.php?size=350x350&album_name=%2Fnineeleven%2Fpenn&obj_name=5987206.jpg

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 02:52 PM
Or that the fuel was not aerosolised first, thrown into the air and then ignited?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 02:52 PM
He's creating a strawman arguement. Your guys estimated fireball WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT to the photo graphic evidence of the crash scene. PERIOD.

Give us some kind of argument to support this claim. You could say "macaroni WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT with cheese" but it wouldn't make it so, would it? What gives you reason to think that the minimum estimated fireball is inconsistent with the unburnt grass observed at the crash scene? If I said that the unscorched side of the WTC building in the photo I linked to is INCONSISTENT with a fireball-explosion having occurred there shortly before, would you say that I was right and discount the photographic evidence that we have of that explosion? Or would you say "well, we need to know more about the nature of such explosions"? Why?

23rd August 2006, 02:53 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

Attack the argument, not the person. If you continue slinging personal attacks I will start reporting posts.

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 02:54 PM
Cause the fireball went THROUGH the building?

Please look at your own photograph again. You will see TWO fireballs--one in front of the impact site, and one out the side of the building.

ETA: Or, if you prefer, look at this photograph (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/sth/st_hit8.jpg). This is the fireball you prefer--the one you think is exactly the same as the B-52 one. Notice again--immedately after the fireball disperses--that there is substantial blackening on the building ABOVE the exit hole in the building, but no blackening below. Please give us your theory that explains this. Or tell us if you now hold these photos also to be photoshopped?

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 02:55 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!I don't think you understand what Dr Richard's comment means, if not, don't be embarrased to ask. If you disagree with the comment, why not provide an intellgent rebuttal, instead of that unhelpful comment?

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 03:05 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

Point 2. Why did you not laugh at the other questions?

Point 3. Why did you not answer the other questions?

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 03:07 PM
I'm going to take issue with the observation that half the fuel would be buried into the ground. I don't think this is right. The percentage of what went up as opposed to down is going to be far higher in favor of aerosolization.

Here's why:

I hope that ridculously long link works because it shows the fuel tank layout for the 757. As you can see most of the fuel is carried in the wings. The center tank's girth expands out past the wingroots almost to the engine nacelles. When the plane hit, I would think the first thing to go would be the wings and the gas. They're going to overstress and snap off right away rather than get buried into the ground. As for the centerline tank, it's going to going to rupture on either side of the roots when the wings go, and send the gas the same way as everything else. Up.

In particular, if you can stop laughing, what is your argument against this post? You never laughed or commented on it previously.

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 03:08 PM
Good points. I was thinking about that, which was the only thing that kept me from being firm on a 50% figure. So 70% would be a not-unrealistic average; a sphere centered 20m or so above the ground, at the point where the wings snap off and the tanks rupture. I'll go with that :)

Also never laughed at this.

Or objected to it.

gumboot
23rd August 2006, 03:20 PM
Do we know from what direction the impact occurred?

According to the FDR the aircraft's heading was 180 degrees, so directly south. Which means it impacted from the north. Bear in mind it was in a 150 degree turn to starboard so it was probably more of a NW approach.

-Andrew

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 03:22 PM
So, Killtown, now that you're "big surprise" has been thoroughly demolished, are you going to apologize to Val McClatchey like you promised?

Math Maniac
23rd August 2006, 03:27 PM
I have been reading this forum for a while now and I would like to point out that the recently reseased video of the Ukraine plane crash seems to me (untrained eyes) to match fairly closely with the "supposedly" faked/doctored/etc. Flight 93 photo presented in the opening post.

Other thoughts? Are my eyes playing tricks?

Dog Town
23rd August 2006, 03:33 PM
apologize to Val McClatchey like you promised?
I got a 50\$ US says no ***** way.
Welcome Math, love Goldies, and Coney Islander in your Hood!

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 03:47 PM
I agree Buck, I agree! It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the grass to be UNBURNT around the crater if the fireball was even the min size and temp you guys claimed!!!

Fireball temp: 240C(464F)
Peak fireball width: 50m(164ft)

:D

Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/forestfires/1)

Dry grass ignites at 525F (http://www.amfed.org/a_safetyEFMLS.htm)

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

Dr Richard
23rd August 2006, 03:52 PM
Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/forestfires/1)

Dry grass ignites at 525F (http://www.amfed.org/a_safetyEFMLS.htm)

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

Yeah, yeah, I know, he'll go on to invent another minimum and go on to fraw some new google earth maps.

When he does, you can always talk about temperature gradients in aerosolised burning jet fuel clouds that are being blown away from the crash site area in question by winds of up to 25knots.

Or any of the other unanswered questions he refuses address because he cannot.

Luckily, I'm off to a music festival tomorrow and won't have to watch the thread slide further into the pit of Killtown's personal ignorance and incredulity.

Been fun guys, thanks!

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 04:01 PM
Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/forestfires/1)

Dry grass ignites at 525F (http://www.amfed.org/a_safetyEFMLS.htm)

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

Ouch. KT--your credibility called, it wants you to stop trampling all over it.

So...now will you apologize to the poor woman whose life you so thoughtlessly set about wrecking?

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 04:04 PM
Think he finally quit, or his Mom told him ne needed to get off that damned computer and get some fresh air?

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 04:08 PM
Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/forestfires/1)

Dry grass ignites at 525F (http://www.amfed.org/a_safetyEFMLS.htm)

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.Ok...Put on your CT hat (it's the one made of tinfoil, over there in the corner)...go ahead now and put it on.

Now...Go to the link regarding the ignition temp of dry grass....

Tell me what in that link proves the story is a disinfo plant by the perps.

Thanks, our next lesson will be on chemtrails.

23rd August 2006, 04:30 PM
Ok...Put on your CT hat (it's the one made of tinfoil, over there in the corner)...go ahead now and put it on.

Now...Go to the link regarding the ignition temp of dry grass....

Tell me what in that link proves the story is a disinfo plant by the perps.

Thanks, our next lesson will be on chemtrails.

Erm, the EFMLS is the Eastern Federation of Mineralogical and Lapidary Societies, and they wanted the gold under WTC?

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 04:34 PM
Erm, the EFMLS is the Eastern Federation of Mineralogical and Lapidary Societies, and they wanted the gold under WTC?whoa there partner, that's way over my tinfoil capped head. You're making things way more complicated then they need be :D

23rd August 2006, 04:38 PM
whoa there partner, that's way over my tinfoil capped head. You're making things way more complicated then they need be :D

Amateur. :p

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 04:42 PM
Amateur. :pHey! There weren't any pictures, gimmee a break ;)

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 04:58 PM
I think it might be approaching time for someone to post that photo of Edna Cintron to show that a huge fireball can happen and yet not burn everything right next to it.
I have it handy, but I'm not giving Killtown another chance to mock a victim. Forty victims in Shanksville is plenty for him to giggle over.

LashL
23rd August 2006, 05:02 PM
The patience and level headedness displayed by some of the members here (Arkan, Huntsman, Gravy, etc.) in dealing with this guy has GOT to be supernatural on some level.

Any chance that would qualify me for the million bucks?

Yes, it's amazing, really. 60 pages of KT nonsense and zero KT facts or evidence, and still, such patience and rational posts from so many fine skeptics here.

Kudos to those of you who exhibit such fortitude.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 05:05 PM
Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory, which there is not...
There IS a burn mark in the direction of the trajectory (from right to left in the photo. The left side at ground level is charred and the right isn't.)

But you haven't paid any attention to the past 58 pages if you claim there has to be a "massive" burn mark there.

Can you think of some variables that would affect such a burn mark? Hint: they're printed in a few hundred posts in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ebe8a15f2fc.jpg

ghost707
23rd August 2006, 05:08 PM
I think killtown should take his "evidence" to the NTSB.

Oops, sorry, I forgot the NTSB is in on the conspiracy.

Never mind.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 05:54 PM
Killtown: "Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory, which there is not..."

For Killtown, because he likes visuals.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee5fd5ffdd.jpg

Wrong again, Killtown.

Yoink
23rd August 2006, 06:02 PM
For Killtown, because he likes visuals.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee5fd5ffdd.jpg

Yes, interesting to note that this tends to confirm the idea of a fireball that rose rapidly and did little burning at ground level (perhaps because of the underdraft theory I've suggested--perhaps for some other reason). The higher things (trees) are badly burned in the area where the fireball would have "blossomed" (so to speak), the ground in the corresponding area opposite that burned semi-circle of trees doesn't seem necessarily heavily burned (though it is hard to tell from this photo).

In any case, this photo dispels any remaining mystery as to the unburned grass stems in KT's photo--it's clear the fireball developed ahead of the crash site. One more nail in the coffin of KT's long-dead argument.

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 06:23 PM
Ok...Put on your CT hat (it's the one made of tinfoil, over there in the corner)...go ahead now and put it on.

Now...Go to the link regarding the ignition temp of dry grass....

Tell me what in that link proves the story is a disinfo plant by the perps.

Thanks, our next lesson will be on chemtrails.Man, you guys were punk'd, pwnd, owned, and neener neener'd.

First, the entry on dry grass was submitted in Oct 2001. Posted within a month of 9/11, clearly posted as a quick cover in case a brave troother like KT would ever break this op wide open.

More subtle, yet just as damning is the author, one Bill Klose. Do you think for a minute the fact that his name is so close to JREF "critical thinker" Bob Klase, is a just a coincidence, you suckers.

Beleth
23rd August 2006, 07:05 PM
More subtle, yet just as damning is the author, one Bill Klose. Do you think for a minute the fact that his name is so close to JREF "critical thinker" Bob Klase, is a just a coincidence, you suckers.
By that logic, you are both King of Israel and one of Jesus' disciples.

And must be, what, 3000 years old or so.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 07:09 PM
I had the photographer facing in the wrong direction in the cabin photo above. The correct position is below, looking towards the lake.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ed099b32e47.jpg

Garage
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ed099b60c73.jpg

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 07:10 PM
By that logic, you are both King of Israel and one of Jesus' disciples.

And must be, what, 3000 years old or so.Getting out of bed in the morning, I feel that old.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 07:26 PM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ebe8a15f2fc.jpg
Nice burn marks the grass outside the crash. Wait?

:D

23rd August 2006, 07:48 PM
Nice burn marks the grass outside the crash. Wait?

:D

Stop being intentionally obtuse. No matter which side of the fence someone falls on this issue, it should be a serious matter. Regardless of your conclusions on th evidence, the fact that you are making light of this on a consistant basis speaks volumes.

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 08:02 PM
Stop being intentionally obtuse. No matter which side of the fence someone falls on this issue, it should be a serious matter. Regardless of your conclusions on th evidence, the fact that you are making light of this on a consistant basis speaks volumes.

What more do you expect from someone who pulls the wings off butterflies?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 08:04 PM
Evidence is clear, Val's plume too big to have originated from crash spot:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2352/plumeanalysis1000ftsmdj4.gif
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

The plume in my analysis is VERY GENEROUS in size (about 2 football lengths wide) and as seen from the crater photos, NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_stahl.jpg

Here is what the fireball from 93 crash would have looked like:

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg

Wake up.

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 08:15 PM
Evidence is clear, Val's plume too big to have originated from crash spot

Here is what the fireball from 93 crash would have looked like:

Wake up.You have no evidence, you've done no analysis, you only look at pictures and guess.

Please comment on the ignition points listed earlier.
Please comment on the pictures Gravy posted earlier.

23rd August 2006, 08:15 PM
Evidence is clear, Val's plume too big to have originated from crash spot:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

The plume in my analysis is VERY GENEROUS in size (about 2 football lengths wide) and as seen from the crater photos, NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed:

Here is what the fireball from 93 crash would have looked like:

Wake up.

I really can't think of a better way of saying this; your evidence, argument, and presentation suck (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php).

Go do some reading and come back when you can make an argument using rational logic, and scientific methodology.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Logical fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html
A Guide to Fallacies

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/fallacies.html
Classic Fallacies

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Fallacies

http://www.junkscience.com/
JunkScience.com -- Main Page

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Introduction to the Scientific Method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
The scientific method

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 08:22 PM
You have no evidence, you've done no analysis, you only look at pictures
I thought you just said I have no evidence and done no analysis?

:confused:

:D

The plume is too big. Only YOU guys are going to by your "magic fireball" to create a 6-7 football field length plume!

:boggled:

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 08:29 PM
I thought you just said I have no evidence and done no analysis?Exactly, looking selectively at pictures is not analysis. The plume is too big.Show your evidence and analysis to support this claim.

Please comment on the ignition points listed earlier.
Please comment on the pictures Gravy posted earlier.

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 08:35 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

The psychosis deepens....

Tell me, killtown. Why do you think the fuel could not have atomized and sprayed up and away from the ground?

Skibum
23rd August 2006, 08:35 PM
NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed

I think you are correct by saying this. The fireball actually happened just to the south of the impact crater. As has been said before the angle of the impact allowed the fuel to be scattered in the direction of the flight path, causing the woods and grass to catch fire beyond the crater.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg

CurtC
23rd August 2006, 08:37 PM
This thread is hard to keep up with, but I think it's time that I get back to my point about where the dirt from the crater ended up.

Has everyone seen Sandia Labs' test of crashing an F-4 into a concrete wall at 480 mph?

Here's a hi-res photo (2.1 MB) (http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg)
Here's a lower-res photo of the same thing. (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_3.jpg)

See that blast of very small debris coming out of the crash? Some of that is pulverized concrete, some of it is airplane pieces. Even though the motion of the plane was into the wall, there is still a large amount of debris blasted away from the wall, back in the direction that the plane came from. In fact, just about every ounce of the plane would have been blasted backwards, some at very high speed. And fuel onboard (there was no fuel in this test) would have been carried with the blast debris, back in the direction the plane came from.

Now the wall that it hit is harder than the ground was in Pennsylvania, but at 500 mph, the ground still didn't "give" very much. There would be a large amount of debris blasted up out of the ground, and most of the plane pieces, and much of the fuel, would be in that blast (not a blast due to fuel exploding, just due to the kinetic energy as in the F-4 test). The plane would be ripped to shreds and scattered in the surrounding area, as you can see from the debris around the crater, and the debris that covered the house and garage. The fuel that got entrained in this blast would have quickly mixed with the air, providing for a quick burn (not at all like the B-52 crash), and a burn that was up off the ground, in the surrounding air. The fact that it would have burned quickly, then rose, is consistent with the neaby grass that's not scorched.

And that's where the dirt from the crater went - it was blasted out by the impact, and is scattered, with the plane debris, in the surrounding area.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 08:42 PM
All done then, Killtown?

Your conclusion, after 60 pages, is that you guess that flight 93's fireball should have looked like a slow-speed B-52 crash, and that you guess that flight 93's fireball should have burned the grass behind the direction of its 580 mph impact.

You've obviously been hard at work. Please show the calculations that support your guesses.

Remind us all again what your "experiment" consisted of? Oh, I don't mean again. Tell us for the first time.

Of course, none of that matters at all in terms of you accusing Val McClatchey of fraud. Because,

1) You already admitted that the plane crashed there. Remember goading us to observe the wing and tail impressions?

2) Since your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt was if the photo was digitally altered, and you have never done an analysis to determine that, you need to do the only decent thing and apologize to that 9/11 victim who you have deliberately harmed without cause.

Now that we're done. I request that you answer my questions about the eyewitness accounts of the crash, as you said you would, as well as the question about why feces on the graves of flight 93 victims is funny.

You're not going to be a coward about that, as you were when you promised answer my questions, then ran away with your tail beneath your legs when I asked them, are you?

You haven't done so yet, but you still have a chance to show a shred of decency and credibility.

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 08:44 PM
I thought you just said I have no evidence and done no analysis?

:confused:

:D

The plume is too big. Only YOU guys are going to by your "magic fireball" to create a 6-7 football field length plume!

:boggled:
In my chosen field of work, I occasionally observe "That doesn't look right"--and people listen. 35 years of experience does that--you gain credibility.
So then we run numbers. Geometry, Matrix Algebra, Stress and dynamic analysis--all that rotten stupid numbers stuff.
About 40% of the time, I have a valid point, and we modify things. 20% or so of the time, someone has had a really clever idea that nobody else though of-and it will work.
The rest of the time, it is generally a mis-communication type of thing,or I was wrong, or a misunderstanding on my part. We go on.
You need credibility to get people to listen, you need the back-up analysis to prove your point, and you need to admit you were mistaken, or even flat wrong.
Klownmurderer has no credibility whatsoever

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 08:45 PM
Show your evidence and analysis to support this claim.
I just did. I can't help it if you are blind.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 08:47 PM
The psychosis deepens....

Tell me, killtown. Why do you think the fuel could not have atomized and sprayed up and away from the ground?
Show me where that's EVER happened before in a plane crash!!!

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 08:48 PM
I just did. I can't help it if you are blind.

absolutely stupid, or insane. Possibly both.

LOOK AT THIS
http://www.rapp.org/archives/2004/01/thunderbird_crash/
note the lack of fire on the ground, and the plume size.
The F-16 carries 1/10 the fuel involved in flt 93. Note the size of the smole, and the short duration of the fire.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 08:50 PM
I think you are correct by saying this. The fireball actually happened just to the south of the impact crater. As has been said before the angle of the impact allowed the fuel to be scattered in the direction of the flight path, causing the woods and grass to catch fire beyond the crater.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg
You have a small section of forest burnt at on odd angle from the trajectory. Regardless of whether 93 did it or not, 93 DID NOT CREATE the massive fireball needed to make your 6-7 football length PLUME!!!

Plume comparison.... http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4601/plumecomparisonns0.gif

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 08:55 PM
Show me where that's EVER happened before in a plane crash!!!

You don't know?

Let me put this another way...you know for a fact that this has never occurred in the history of aviation before? If you are going to contend that this could not possibly happen, you'd better consult a physicist to make sure that that it could not before you make that claim. If the aluminum in an airplane hitting the ground comes apart and goes back up into the air as debris, don't you think the fuel is going to travel in the same direction in little bitty particles?

UP?

Killtown: See My Blog

Buckwheat Jones: Pull My Finger

:D

rwguinn
23rd August 2006, 08:56 PM
You have a small section of forest burnt at on odd angle from the trajectory. Regardless of whether 93 did it or not, 93 DID NOT CREATE the massive fireball needed to make your 6-7 football length PLUME!!!

Plume comparison.... http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4601/plumecomparisonns0.gif

http://www.rapp.org/archives/2004/01/thunderbird_crash/

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 08:58 PM
You have a small section of forest burnt at on odd angle from the trajectory.

A small secton? What's your measurement of its size? Odd angle? And the large area of blackened grass in front of the crater, and the discolored secton of grass to the southeast of that? What do you make of those?

Get to it, Killtown. The longer you keep up your despicable stalliing, the harder it's going to be to apologize.

LashL
23rd August 2006, 09:00 PM
I just did.

You did no such thing. You've been asked for 60 pages now to do so, and still you have nothing but "I think it's too big."

Good god, what a waste of time and bandwidth.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:00 PM
This thread is hard to keep up with, but I think it's time that I get back to my point about where the dirt from the crater ended up.

Has everyone seen Sandia Labs' test of crashing an F-4 into a concrete wall at 480 mph?

Here's a hi-res photo (2.1 MB) (http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg)
Here's a lower-res photo of the same thing. (http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/f4_3.jpg)

See that blast of very small debris coming out of the crash? Some of that is pulverized concrete, some of it is airplane pieces. Even though the motion of the plane was into the wall, there is still a large amount of debris blasted away from the wall, back in the direction that the plane came from. In fact, just about every ounce of the plane would have been blasted backwards, some at very high speed. And fuel onboard (there was no fuel in this test) would have been carried with the blast debris, back in the direction the plane came from.

Now the wall that it hit is harder than the ground was in Pennsylvania, but at 500 mph, the ground still didn't "give" very much. There would be a large amount of debris blasted up out of the ground, and most of the plane pieces, and much of the fuel, would be in that blast (not a blast due to fuel exploding, just due to the kinetic energy as in the F-4 test). The plane would be ripped to shreds and scattered in the surrounding area, as you can see from the debris around the crater, and the debris that covered the house and garage. The fuel that got entrained in this blast would have quickly mixed with the air, providing for a quick burn (not at all like the B-52 crash), and a burn that was up off the ground, in the surrounding air. The fact that it would have burned quickly, then rose, is consistent with the neaby grass that's not scorched.

And that's where the dirt from the crater went - it was blasted out by the impact, and is scattered, with the plane debris, in the surrounding area.
LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do you get you information???

Nothing scattered around the crater. Only in and around the forest section.

And the plane was said to have, oh how did they put it?...

"The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground."

"The plane pitched, then rolled, belly up. It hit nose-first, like a lawn dart. It disintegrated, digging more than 30 feet into the earth, which was spongy from the old mine work."

"The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater."

"The strip mine is composed of very soft black soil, and searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater."

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/articles.html

Beleth
23rd August 2006, 09:01 PM
Evidence is clear, Val's plume too big to have originated from crash spot:
What was the wind speed at the time of the crash?

How much time elapsed between the crash and the time Ms. McClatchey took the picture?

What other factors go in to your determination of a "realistic" plume size?

Hey, if you're going back to Page 1, I will too.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 09:03 PM
Show me where that's EVER happened before in a plane crash!!!

Killtown, do you have, or have you ever seen, video of another 757 that nosedived into soft ground at 580 mph? Yes or no.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:04 PM
absolutely stupid, or insane. Possibly both.

LOOK AT THIS
http://www.rapp.org/archives/2004/01/thunderbird_crash/
note the lack of fire on the ground, and the plume size.
The F-16 carries 1/10 the fuel involved in flt 93. Note the size of the smole, and the short duration of the fire.
Oh yeah, those 2 crashes were similar.

:rolleyes:

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 09:06 PM
Oh yeah, those 2 crashes were similar.

:rolleyes:oh and your B52 crash and 93 were similar.

Please comment on the ignition points listed earlier.
Please comment on the pictures Gravy posted earlier.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:06 PM
Killtown, do you have, or have you ever seen, video of another 757 that nosedived into soft ground at 580 mph? Yes or no.
It should have looked like this...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/danang-crash.jpg

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:09 PM
oh and your B52 crash and 93 were similar.

Actually more similar than not. They both crashed at similar angles, jet fuel poured out on fire, plume formed.

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 09:11 PM
Actually more similar than not.
Explain your analysis which show the similarities and account for (with details) what the differences would make.

...jet fuel poured out on fire...evidence please.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 09:14 PM
I should have looked like this...

Yes or no, Killtown: do you have, or have you ever seen, video of another 757 that nosedived into soft ground at 580 mph?

Yes or no?

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 09:17 PM
Nothing scattered around the crater. Only in and around the forest section.

Killtown, why do you lie about the events of 9/11?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ed2721842f5.jpg

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:17 PM
Here's Heinz Stadium (Pittsburgh Steelers) added side-by-side next to the crash site and in Val's plume range for comparison...

http://www.skylinepictures.com/Smith_Heinz_Field_p21_large.jpg

Put's things in perspective, huh?

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:19 PM
Killtown, why do you lie about the events of 9/11?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ed2721842f5.jpg
when was that photo taken?

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 09:20 PM
when was that photo taken?
It's from your website, same as the other aerial photos from the helicopter. You tell me.

Wyn
23rd August 2006, 09:22 PM
NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed:

How do you know that?

When you light a fire in a charcoal grill, does the grass around it get singed? If so, why, if not why not?

DavidJames
23rd August 2006, 09:24 PM
Here's Heinz Stadium (Pittsburgh Steelers) added side-by-side next to the crash site and in Val's plume range for comparison...

Put's things in perspective, huh? You claim to be making your analysis by looking at pictures.

It would be helpful for me to know what education or practical experience you have which enables you to make such analysis.

Wyn
23rd August 2006, 09:30 PM
You claim to be making your analysis by looking at pictures.

It would be helpful for me to know what education or practical experience you have which enables you to make such analysis.

I think he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!!

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 09:34 PM
killtown: "NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed"

Wrong. I've even gone so far as to present to you a picture of a crash on Snow. Snow, killtown. Right around the debris. Didn't melt. It was still Snow.

Dead issue. What else have you got? Go....

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 09:39 PM
killtown: "NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed"

Wrong. I've even gone so far as to present to you a picture of a crash on Snow. Snow, killtown. Right around the debris. Didn't melt. It was still Snow.

Dead issue. What else have you got? Go....
apples and oranges.

give it up. I blew away your "magic explosion" theory. admit defeat and ask questions to our gov't where did the plume come from because we all know now it didn't come from the crash.

Wyn
23rd August 2006, 09:41 PM
apples and oranges.

give it up. I blew away your "magic explosion" theory. admit defeat and ask questions to our gov't where did the plume come from because we all know now it didn't come from the crash.

When you light a fire in a charcoal grill, does the grass around it get singed? If so, why, if not why not?

gumboot
23rd August 2006, 09:49 PM
Here's Heinz Stadium (Pittsburgh Steelers) added side-by-side next to the crash site and in Val's plume range for comparison...
Put's things in perspective, huh?

Killtown, what is your obsession with football fields? Is that the only way you can actually relate to distance?

-Andrew

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 09:51 PM
apples and oranges.

give it up. I blew away your "magic explosion" theory. admit defeat and ask questions to our gov't where did the plume come from because we all know now it didn't come from the crash.

You know you're talking to a Loser when all you get is...."Did Not."

Then explain your apples and oranges theory, boy. Plane crashes. Stuff around it doesn't necessarily have to get all burned up. You've seen the photos. You lose. Move on. What else you got?

23rd August 2006, 09:51 PM
It's always a grass thing w/KC! He thinks the Pentagon lawn was super dooper
secret turff! I think you smoke too much bad grass! You are consistant! I will give ya that. Are you a gardener by chance?Why, he's a shepherd. He said so himself. And I can't imagine he would ever lie.

Say, Killtown, do your ewes tend to be a little on edge when you're around? If y'know what I mean...

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 09:52 PM

1) Your only published criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt was if the photo had been manipulated to insert the plume.

3) You do not possess a high-resolution copy of the photo.

4) You have no basis for determining if the photo was digitally altered.

5) The FBI said the photo is authentic.

6) After 60 pages of instructions, advice, examples, math, physics, and even expert opinion, your conclusion about the size of the plume is based on your opinion that it should have looked like the crash of entirely different planes under entirely different circumstances.

7) If you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit, you would prefer that your standards of proof be used against you, rather than the current U.S. legal standards.

8) You believe that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

9) It is wrong to needlessly cause pain to people.

10) According to your own criteria, you have not shown Val McClatchey to be guilty of anything.

Please do the right thing and answer true or false to these statements.

Buckwheatjones
23rd August 2006, 09:58 PM
BTW, what happened to your Big Experiment, killtown? Where was the "Aha!" moment? Didn't pan out so you've reverted to this grass thing? I have lots of photos of plane crashes where the grass is green. Posted some of them. Got an answer for those? Or just more, "Did Nots?"

Dog Town
23rd August 2006, 09:58 PM
Doooh! I should have known! He's a Steeler fan too boot!(this come'n from a Never Die Cowboys Fan)!

LashL
23rd August 2006, 10:20 PM
apples and oranges.

give it up. I blew away your "magic explosion" theory. admit defeat and ask questions to our gov't where did the plume come from because we all know now it didn't come from the crash.

I see we are back at page one again, with still not a single scrap of facts or evidence from Killtown.

SezMe
23rd August 2006, 10:39 PM
I second someone else's analysis several pages ago. KillTown has no analytical skills, no knowledge of physics, no mathematical (even arithmetical) skills and, worst of all, no idea of his own limitations. So he looks at a picture and thinks "that looks funny - it can't be right". That's it. That is the sum total of his analysis. And, as noted, the worst part is that he cannot see how utterly pathetic the whole thing is.

I hope he goes away soon.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 10:56 PM
I second someone else's analysis several pages ago. KillTown has no analytical skills, no knowledge of physics, no mathematical (even arithmetical) skills and, worst of all, no idea of his own limitations. So he looks at a picture and thinks "that looks funny - it can't be right". That's it. That is the sum total of his analysis. And, as noted, the worst part is that he cannot see how utterly pathetic the whole thing is.

I hope he goes away soon.

Earlier:

Yeah, I would have expected more fire damage around the impact site itself.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 10:57 PM
5) The FBI said the photo is authentic.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

What did you expect them to say, "Yep, we doctored it"?!!!!!!!!!!

23rd August 2006, 11:09 PM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg

Cabin East of crash site (NW corner of building) PT A
40 02 59.66 N
78 54 13.46 W
elev 2381 ft

Cabin East of crash site (SW corner of building) PT B
40 02 59.40 N
78 54 13.44 W
elev 2378 ft

Whitish circular impression in NW corner of pic (southern most point)
40 03 04.65 N
78 54 20.08 W
elev 2378 ft

Whitish circular impression in NW corner of pic (eastern most point)
40 03 04.85 N
78 54 19.61 W
elev 2382 ft

Approx center of crater PT C
40 03 02.80 N
78 54 17.56 W
elev 2388 ft

Approx distance from A to C: 136.91 m
Approx distance from B to C: 143.10 m
Approx distance from A to B: 8.16 m
Approx distance from C, due south, to be perpendicular with B: 104.77 m
Approx distance from C, due south, to be perpendicular with A: 96.67 m

Ms. McClatchey's house (NW corner) PT D
40 03 00.29 N, 78 52 28.16 W

Distance from D to C: 2591.37 m

White barn (SW tip) PT E
40 03 00.41 N
78 52 34.66 W

Distance from D to E: 153.96 m
Distance from E to C: 2437.44 m

Red barn (NE tip) PT F
40 02 58.24 N
78 52 41.97 W

Distance from D to F: 333.05 m
Distance from F to C: 2267.62 m
Distance from E to F: 185.55 m

Extend a vector from D, through E, ending perpendicular to C. The end point is PT G, the vector is V1.
Extend a vector from D, through F, ending perpendicular to C. The end point is PT H, the vector is V2.
Extend a vector from G to H. This vector is V3.

Length V1: 2593.18 m
Length V2: 2631.18 m
Length V3: 606.33 m

NE tip of Burn crater from jpg: 40 03 02.58N, 78 54 14.05 W elev 2393 ft PT J

Approx distance from C to J: 83.23 m
Approx distance from H to J: 122.68 m

Approx area of C-H-J: 1/2(b*h) => 1/2(96.67*122.68) = 5935.26 m^2
This is the approx burn area visible in the jpg. This area is all south and east of the crater. This is consistent with the impact direction of NW->SE

Crater area in picture and Google Earth has a diameter of ~23.5 m.
Approx area of crater = 2pi*r^2 => 2*pi*(1/2*23.5)^2 => 2*pi*11.75^2 = 2*pi*138.0625 = 867.47 m^2

Given a maximum estimated plume horizontal diameter of 606.33 m, the approx area the plume would cover = 2pi*r^2 => 2*pi*(1/2*303.16)^2 => 2*pi*151.58^2 => 2*pi*22976.4964 = 144365.58 m^2

Now. We have an aircraft coming from the NWN impacting at a 40 degree angle. The crater expands S-SE-E from the point of impact to do the angle of attack; damaging an area ~867.47 m^2 in size. Continuing outward on a S-SE-E direction is an area of burning covering an additional 5067.79 m^2 (burn area of 5935.26 m^2 - crater area of 867.47 m^2)

Now, KT, what you utterly fail to do on your diagram (well, besides show any work) is highlight what the burn area was, for a sense of scale. I've taken the liberty of doing so for you:

To summarize:
1) a) The burn area is consistent with relation to the crater, the direction of impact, and the wind direction.
1) b) Given that the impact was at a 40 degree angle, it is reasonable to expect the burn area to be non-symmetric. This is consistent with the evidence.
1) c) Unless there was fuel on the surface of the grass, and thus igniting the grass via direct flame; the temperature of the fireball is insufficient to spontaneously ignite the grass.
1) d) Given 1c, we would expect grass to be burnt in the direction that the fuel from the ruptured tanks would travel, from NW to SE. This is consistent with the evidence.
1) e) Examples have been provided earlier in this thread showing that, even a jet fuel fire, burning on a stationary fuselage, will not necessarily damage vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the wreckage.
2) The debris field is consistent with relation to the creater, the direction of impact, and the wind direction.
3) The crater, burn area, and debris field are within the angle of view of the picture.

If you choose to address these points, do so using the same level of transparency and detail. If, instead you want to use pictures and your opinion on said pictures, then let me preemptively say stfu.

Gravy
23rd August 2006, 11:16 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

What did you expect them to say, "Yep, we doctored it"?!!!!!!!!!!
No, Killtown, they could have said, "We found evidence that the photo is not authentic."

It is deeply disturbing that you find the events of 9/11 so amusing.

ghost707
23rd August 2006, 11:19 PM
Arkan_Wolfshade, that is one of the best posts I have seen on this site.

Just Excellent!

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 11:40 PM
No, Killtown, they could have said, "We found evidence that the photo is not authentic."
Yeah, they come in her house, give her a load of bull that they see debris shooting out of the plume, take her memory card (and her hard drive as the video dipicts) back with them. You really believe if the photo is ever found out to be a fake that the FBI didn't have a hand in it?

I hope you are not THAT stupid.

23rd August 2006, 11:51 PM
Killtown:

Do you have one of those shepherd's crooks? I think they're badass.

Killtown
23rd August 2006, 11:57 PM
1) Now, KT, what you utterly fail to do on your diagram (well, besides show any work)
2) is highlight what the burn area was, for a sense of scale.

To summarize:
1) a) The burn area is consistent with relation to the crater, the direction of impact, and the wind direction.
1) b) Given that the impact was at a 40 degree angle, it is reasonable to expect the burn area to be non-symmetric. This is consistent with the evidence.
1) c) Unless there was fuel on the surface of the grass, and thus igniting the grass via direct flame; the temperature of the fireball is insufficient to spontaneously ignite the grass.
1) d) Given 1c, we would expect grass to be burnt in the direction that the fuel from the ruptured tanks would travel, from NW to SE. This is consistent with the evidence.
1) e) Examples have been provided earlier in this thread showing that, even a jet fuel fire, burning on a stationary fuselage, will not necessarily damage vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the wreckage.
2) The debris field is consistent with relation to the creater, the direction of impact, and the wind direction.
3) The crater, burn area, and debris field are within the angle of view of the picture.

1) Lie #1
2) Lie #2 (I showed you the burn area on my other diagrams marked with the orange "explosion" icon.)
1 a) Wrong, the burnt forest section is at an inconsistent angle.
b) "40 deg" is reported. they can report anything, doctor graphs, etc. the crater looks as if it was a "nearly 90 deg" dive than a 40 deg, or there would be "ripples" of dirt around the SE part of the crater where the plane moved the dirt underneath.
c) fuel SHOULD HAVE BEEN on the grass outside the crater unless it went underground
d) the grass is not burnt there. get some glasses...
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wf.jpg
(lower left corner is where the jet fuel should have scorched if the fuel spilled in the trajectory direction.)
e) if the fireball engulfed it, it should have, especially as "hot" as you guys claimed 93 could have been.
2) wrong, debris was thrown off to the plane's right side.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/debris-path.jpg
3) :confused:

Taarkin
24th August 2006, 12:03 AM
If the crater and plume were caused by government-planted ordinance, why didn't it burn the grass? Unless not all explosions burn all nearby grass. :idea:

gumboot
24th August 2006, 12:14 AM
Cabin East of crash site (NW corner of building) PT A
40 02 59.66 N
78 54 13.46 W
elev 2381 ft

Cabin East of crash site (SW corner of building) PT B
40 02 59.40 N
78 54 13.44 W
elev 2378 ft

Whitish circular impression in NW corner of pic (southern most point)
40 03 04.65 N
78 54 20.08 W
elev 2378 ft

Whitish circular impression in NW corner of pic (eastern most point)
40 03 04.85 N
78 54 19.61 W
elev 2382 ft

Approx center of crater PT C
40 03 02.80 N
78 54 17.56 W
elev 2388 ft

Excellent post! The elevation is very interesting - I didn't realise the photo was taken at such high altitude. That actually changes things a lot!

-Andrew

Killtown
24th August 2006, 12:28 AM
If the crater and plume were caused by government-planted ordinance, why didn't it burn the grass? Unless not all explosions burn all nearby grass. :idea:
Who said the crater was caused by an ordnance? :confused:

Did A&E crash a loaded 757 to make this crater for there movie?...

http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/images/photogallery/photogallery_flight93_15.jpg

http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/images/photogallery/photogallery_flight93_14.jpg

http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/f93_photo_gallery.jsp

Killtown
24th August 2006, 12:30 AM
That actually changes things a lot!
-Andrew
Yeah, like NO WAY IN HELL a plane crash from that spot could have caused Val's ENORMOUS plume when NO ENORMOUS fireball was created at the crash spot!

gumboot
24th August 2006, 12:34 AM
Yeah, like NO WAY IN HELL a plane crash from that spot could have caused Val's ENORMOUS plume when NO ENORMOUS fireball was created at the crash spot!

No.

Higher altitude means thinner air. Thinner air means distant features (especially large ones) appear much closer.

-Andrew

Belz...
24th August 2006, 04:54 AM
Yeah, nice unburnt grass there! Sure held up nice to your guy's MONSTEROUS HOT FIREBALL!!!

Well, I suppose ignorance is a good shield in your case, Killclown. I guess admitting your mistake was too much for you. Something snapped and you've convinced yourself using yet another hole in your knowledge.

Brainache
24th August 2006, 05:31 AM
Hmm if this was the LC forum how long would the mods have put up with KT's "disruptive" behaviour?

I notice since he has been banned at LC a few of them have said that the real Killtown was replaced with a government agent several months ago and that's why he wouldn't give them his home number and address.

Do they really think that the evil gubmint agent couldn't give them a number and just pretend to be Killtown?

If Killtown actually showed any signs of being a reasonable human being I might feel sorry for him, but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely.

24th August 2006, 05:48 AM
1) Lie #1

Provide evidence and/or logical reasoning or retract this claim.

2) Lie #2 (I showed you the burn area on my other diagrams marked with the orange "explosion" icon.)

I made it very clear with image I was dealing with, but since you brought it up.
1) You explosion icon is centered on the crater and is symmetrical around it. Please provide evidence that this is representative of the crash and that my assertion that it would assymetrical is wrong.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

1 a) Wrong, the burnt forest section is at an inconsistent angle.

Saying "[w]rong" is not evidence. Provide evidence or retract this claim.

b) "40 deg" is reported. they can report anything, doctor graphs, etc.
the crater looks as if it was a "nearly 90 deg" dive than a 40 deg, or there would be "ripples" of dirt around the SE part of the crater where the plane moved the dirt underneath.

If you feel the 40 degree is erroneous then provide evidence showing such. Saying "looks as if" or "there would be" (without substantiating evidence) is not evidence supporting your claim. Provide evidence or retract this claim.

c) fuel SHOULD HAVE BEEN on the grass outside the crater unless it went underground

The ground in my area marked as burned shows this. For the other areas around the crater where the fuel would not have spilled, the fireball itself would have likely been insufficient to spontaneously ignite the grass.

d) the grass is not burnt there. get some glasses...

You have intentionally chosen the lowest resolution picture available to support your claim. Allow me to report other pictures that show this one to be of sufficiently low resolution so as to cause loss of image quality:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg
http://usinfo.state.gov/photogallery/show.php?size=350x350&album_name=%2Fnineeleven%2Fpenn&obj_name=5987206.jpg
http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters_molt/3132233352.jpg
http://www.bartcop.com/fl93-2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wf.jpg
(lower left corner is where the jet fuel should have scorched if the fuel spilled in the trajectory direction.)

It has already been determined from the FDR that the plane impacted from a NWN direction, which means the ejected material would travel SES. The picture you provide has no indication of orientation. This makes it quite difficult to assertain if it is consistent with our expectations. Additionally, the low-res quality of the image will cause data loss.

e) if the fireball engulfed it, it should have, especially as "hot" as you guys claimed 93 could have been.

Please show where the other examples provided had to occur at a lower temperature.

2) wrong, debris was thrown off to the plane's right side.
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/debris-path.jpg

Please provide corroborating evidence beyond a graphic to support this assertion.

3) :confused:
It means, based upon my revised image, that the smoke plume didn't have to drift off of the crater, only that it had to form asymmetrically to appear as it does in the picture. Given the wind direction that day, it is consistent with the picture.

As an aside, I would also recommend looking here http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm

Gravy
24th August 2006, 05:55 AM
Killtown has this posted on the flight 93 photos/maps/graphics page of his website. If this had been posted on page 1 of this thread, we would have known just what we were up against.

Matthew Best
24th August 2006, 06:05 AM
I know it's not right to laugh when we're discussing something so dreadful, but that is hilarious.

I may have to revise my estimation of Killtown's age down a few years after seeing that.

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 06:10 AM
THAT'S his analysis?

Large pieces should be left, regardless of speed of impact?

Okay then.

580 mph equates to 850 feet/second. This is comparable to the muzzle velocity of a pistol. Flight 93 hit the ground at a rate of speed higher than the muzzle velocity of a .45 caliber round.

It's not uncommon for a solid lead, copper jacketed .45 caliber round to fragment upon impact, even with softer ground. Now imagine if the bullet, instead of being solid, was a framework of aluminum covered with with a thin skin.

Still think there should be large pieces?

Wyn
24th August 2006, 06:11 AM
Who said the crater was caused by an ordnance? :confused:

Did A&E crash a loaded 757 to make this crater for there movie?...

You're kidding, right? You're actually using a TV movie as your "proof"?

Hutch
24th August 2006, 06:12 AM
Excellent Post, Arkan, and the best KT could respond was "Nah, no it isn't!! why? Because I say so!"

KT, I have a quote in my sig that I rather like. From the same source I offer one for your consideration.

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

Gravy
24th August 2006, 06:23 AM
1 a) Wrong, the burnt forest section is at an inconsistent angle.
False. You neglect to consider the large scorched area and debris scatter in the field. You see broken and charred trees and assume that was the only area affected by the fireball. You are dead wrong, as I've already demonstrated.

b) "40 deg" is reported. they can report anything, doctor graphs, etc. the crater looks as if it was a "nearly 90 deg" dive than a 40 deg, or there would be "ripples" of dirt around the SE part of the crater where the plane moved the dirt underneath.
Your evidence that the FDR data was tampered with?

90 degrees? Then why is nearly all of the debris scattered in one direction?

There is a large mound of dirt in the direction of travel. There is no such mound in the opposite direction. Again, you are dead wrong.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ebe8a15f2fc.jpg

c) fuel SHOULD HAVE BEEN on the grass outside the crater unless it went underground
The fuel, like the debris, went in the direction of travel – at eight hundred and fifty-one feet per second.

d) the grass is not burnt there. get some glasses...
The grass and dirt is charred over a wide area in the direction of travel. as I've already demonstrated. Stop lying.

(lower left corner is where the jet fuel should have scorched if the fuel spilled in the trajectory direction.)
It did, as has already been demonstrated. Stop lying.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ec13c57554f.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ecf837e692b.jpg

e) if the fireball engulfed it, it should have, especially as "hot" as you guys claimed 93 could have been.
Who said the fireball engulfed the area opposite the direction of travel? You made that up. Killtown, why do you make things up about 9/11?

2) wrong, debris was thrown off to the plane's right side.
Debris was thrown in the direction of travel. Where was that large engine part found away from the wreckage, Killtown? Off to the right? Nope.

Why do you lie about the events of 9/11? Why aren't you man enough to apologize to Val McClatchey?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ed2721842f5.jpg

Gravy
24th August 2006, 06:26 AM
Time to be a man and face the tough questions, Killtown. This will only take you a minute or two. No excuses. No shirking your responsibility to the victims you've deliberately harmed.

1) Your only published criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt was if the photo had been manipulated to insert the plume.

3) You do not possess a high-resolution copy of the photo.

4) You have no basis for determining if the photo was digitally altered.

5) The FBI said the photo is authentic.

6) After 60 pages of instructions, advice, examples, math, physics, and even expert opinion, your conclusion about the size of the plume is based on your opinion that it should have looked like the crash of entirely different planes under entirely different circumstances.

7) If you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit, you would prefer that your standards of proof be used against you, rather than the current U.S. legal standards.

8) You believe that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

9) It is wrong to needlessly cause pain to people.

10) According to your own criteria, you have not shown Val McClatchey to be guilty of anything.

Please do the right thing and answer true or false to these statements.

Gravy
24th August 2006, 06:30 AM
THAT'S his analysis?

Large pieces should be left, regardless of speed of impact?

Okay then.

580 mph equates to 850 feet/second. This is comparable to the muzzle velocity of a pistol. Flight 93 hit the ground at a rate of speed higher than the muzzle velocity of a .45 caliber round.

It's not uncommon for a solid lead, copper jacketed .45 caliber round to fragment upon impact, even with softer ground. Now imagine if the bullet, instead of being solid, was a framework of aluminum covered with with a thin skin.

Still think there should be large pieces?
Great analogy, Huntsman.

Btw, I don't think Killtown drew that picture. It may have been that idiot "Spooky." But he's got it on his website amongst actual evidence.

LashL
24th August 2006, 06:32 AM
Killtown has this posted on the flight 93 photos/maps/graphics page of his website. If this had been posted on page 1 of this thread, we would have known just what we were up against.

LOL - I recognize that. Killtown got that from that whacko who thinks that burning a cup of kerosene in a rabbit cage for 10 minutes and then photographing his foot on top of it is scientific proof that the WTC towers could not possibly have been brought down by large airplanes crashing into them and the subsequent damage and fires.

I kid you not.

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 06:34 AM
Besides, Killtown, you're missing a big part of what we were saying.

Show me one place where we claimed the fireball had to be "hot". We argued that it could have been, which is true, but not that it had to be. In any case, none of us are experts, and our estimates were guesses (as we repeatedly tried to tell you).

Also the fireball size we gave a range on, and you insist on using the high end of the range we produced. Most of us agreed it could well be on the low end of that.

IN any case, assuming the fuel was aerosolized into the air on impact (as we've contended would happen), read a bit from the wiki article on Thermobaric weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric)
Fuel-air explosives disperse an aerosol cloud of fuel which is ignited by an embedded detonator to produce an explosion. The rapidly expanding wave front due to overpressure flattens all objects within close proximity of the epicenter of the aerosol fuel cloud, and produces debilitating damage well beyond the flattened area. The main destructive force of FAE is high pressure. More importantly, the duration of the overpressure gives it an edge over conventional explosives and makes fuel-air explosives useful against soft targets such as minefields, armored vehicles, aircraft parked in the open, and bunkers.

High pressure. Not heat.

Vapor cloud explosion modeling historically has been subject to large uncertainties resulting from inadequate understanding of deflagrative effects. According to current single-degree of freedom models, blast damage/injury can be represented by Pressure-Impulse (P-I) diagrams, which include the effects of overpressure, dynamic pressure, impulse, and pulse duration. The peak overpressure and duration are used to calculate the impulse from shock waves. Even some advanced explosion models ignore the effects of blast wave reflection off structures, which can produce misleading results over- or under-estimating the vulnerability of a structure. Sophisticated software used to produce three-dimensional models of the effects of vapor cloud explosions allows the evaluation of damage experienced by each structure within a facility as a result of a primary explosion and any accompanying secondary explosions produced by vapor clouds.

And this is what we've been trying to point out since you started your "experiment", which contained a total of 0 calculations, 0 formulas, 0 applied physics, and 0 knowledge. You just had us make some guesses (which we acknowledged as such) and made your own assumptions.

LashL
24th August 2006, 06:35 AM
Btw, I don't think Killtown drew that picture. It may have been that idiot "Spooky." But he's got it on his website amongst actual evidence.

Yes, that's the guy, "spooked911" or something like that. He calls himself a "scientist".

:D

Belz...
24th August 2006, 07:02 AM
Well show me YOUR fireball then. It's up to YOU guys to prove YOUR claims.

For the 6701th time, we don't HAVE A THEORY.

Belz...
24th August 2006, 07:04 AM
I wonder if killtown thinks it possible to snuff out a candle flame with your bare fingers without getting burnt? Because candle flames have a peak temperature of about 1400C afterall and that is fairly warm...

I'd like you to answer this, Killclown.

Is this a "slow moving" plane crash?...

Oh, so now all plane crashes are alike, again ?

Belz...
24th August 2006, 07:06 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

You're LAPI-ing again, Killclown.

Belz...
24th August 2006, 07:10 AM
I thought you just said I have no evidence and done no analysis?

:confused:

:D

The plume is too big. Only YOU guys are going to by your "magic fireball" to create a 6-7 football field length plume!

:boggled:

Perhaps you'd care to look at Gravy's picture, again.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1870829&postcount=2369

Belz...
24th August 2006, 07:13 AM
You have a small section of forest burnt at on odd angle from the trajectory. Regardless of whether 93 did it or not, 93 DID NOT CREATE the massive fireball needed to make your 6-7 football length PLUME!!!

I thought you said you knew that clouds expand...

Buckwheatjones
24th August 2006, 08:13 AM
Killtown has this posted on the flight 93 photos/maps/graphics page of his website. If this had been posted on page 1 of this thread, we would have known just what we were up against.

?

THIS is what we've been dealing with for two weeks? The guy who drew this thing is is the same guy we've been taking seriously for so long? I'm sorry. The only time I've ever seen imagery of an air crash, the pieces are scattered all around like busted china. I can't recall ever seeing them unscrew a fuselage out of the ground that looked like a giant accordion, except in CartoonWorld.

What sort of idiot could possibly think that a plane hitting the ground would not shed its wings immediately, but rather, that they would burrow themselves into the earth? They would have to be made of cast iron.

Gentlemen, I suggest we all step back and reconsider a few things. A boy who draws a cartoon like that as a serious effort to portray what happened at Shanksville, not just for the coloring book qualities of the sketch, but for the Looney Toon aspect of what happens to an airplane when it hits the ground, is a buffoon. Pure. Simple. We are going round and round the tree of reason, logic and science with a primate that has a bad theory in one hand, a banana in the other, and an armored skull three feet thick.

He came on here to persuade in his favor and has miserably, miserably failed. He has been shown over and over again that his theory is riddled with holes, and is either too impaired or too obstinant to admit when he is beaten.

Well, gentlemen. He has been beaten. The Tote Board shows he has been mopped up by a vote of 92%. No one here is buying his Load, but in his own mind he has "blown us away" with his inherently ridiculous cartoon and ideas. It doesn't matter if the rest of us are on here or not (recall the ignore list), because he is not listening to anybody but himself.

Trying to make killtown accept that his theory is bad is like trying to teach a duck to speak English. Neither is likely to happen. Ever. I am waiting for some figures to come in and when they do I'm going to post them and go.

That cartoon....I can't believe that freakin' cartoon.

"This is what would really happen to an airplane nosediving into the ground, Guys! It would accordion up with the tail sticking out of the ground, Guys!. Please take me seriously, Guys!"

24th August 2006, 08:31 AM
Random educated guess as to who voted "no" on the poll:
Killtown
Childlike Empress
geggy
Christopher7
ChuckSheen
thesyntaxera
Christophera

Hellbound
24th August 2006, 08:32 AM
Christophera

Buckwheatjones
24th August 2006, 08:33 AM
Random educated guess as to who voted "no" on the poll:
Killtown
Childlike Empress
geggy
Christoper7
ChuckSheen
thesyntaxera
?

Wrong.

Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown

24th August 2006, 08:34 AM
Wrong.

Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown
Killtown

Only if he has sock puppets, which is a suspendable offense.

Buckwheatjones
24th August 2006, 08:59 AM
Only if he has sock puppets, which is a suspendable offense.

Well, I guess the admins would have to dig into his application to find that out, I haven't seen one post going killtowns way since I came on board around page 11 or something like that. I'd imagine those 8, if they stuck around for what happened later, kicked themselves they couldn't change their vote and left.

This guy is a bottomless pit of ignorance and I don't think the light of day will ever see a retraction by him. That cartoon? Did you see that? Amazing. Anyone who would believe a plane crash should have the tail sticking out of the ground like a Lawn Dart is never going to accept that photographic evidence that Grass or Snow don't always burn up in the wreckage or any other point anyone on here makes.

I'm not sure this thread any longer has a reason to be except to slap around our resident monkey.

Pardalis
24th August 2006, 09:00 AM
Killtown has this posted on the flight 93 photos/maps/graphics page of his website. If this had been posted on page 1 of this thread, we would have known just what we were up against.

Killtown, you have been an insult to every person of every field of expertise since you started to post.

Now you have insulted illustrators. :mad:

24th August 2006, 09:10 AM
Well, I guess the admins would have to dig into his application to find that out, I haven't seen one post going killtowns way since I came on board around page 11 or something like that. I'd imagine those 8, if they stuck around for what happened later, kicked themselves they couldn't change their vote and left.

This guy is a bottomless pit of ignorance and I don't think the light of day will ever see a retraction by him. That cartoon? Did you see that? Amazing. Anyone who would believe a plane crash should have the tail sticking out of the ground like a Lawn Dart is never going to accept that photographic evidence that Grass or Snow don't always burn up in the wreckage or any other point anyone on here makes.

I'm not sure this thread any longer has a reason to be except to slap around our resident monkey.

I'm not sure. It seems to be a trend on the JREF forums, as least, that the CTists don't support each other in their respective threads. Geggy doesn't post in Christophera's thread and vice versa. CE does post in others' threads, but they don't post in hers.

Belz...
24th August 2006, 09:10 AM
Great analogy, Huntsman.

Btw, I don't think Killtown drew that picture. It may have been that idiot "Spooky." But he's got it on his website amongst actual evidence.

Maybe I could draw a sketch showing smaller pieces spreading around in the direction of the plane's trajectory. Maybe that'll help him out.

ETA: And I also notice Killtown thinks planes are either made of cardboard or adamantium.

Pardalis
24th August 2006, 09:13 AM
I'm not sure. It seems to be a trend on the JREF forums, as least, that the CTists don't support each other in their respective threads. Geggy doesn't post in Christophera's thread and vice versa. CE does post in others' threads, but they don't post in hers.

I get the feeling Childlike Empress is not a complete CTist, I don't think she even has a theory. She doesn't want the official story to be true, for some reason.

Yoink
24th August 2006, 09:40 AM
O.K., it's clearly time to quit this thread for good. If KT is going to just keep sticking his fingers in his ears and going "la la la la la la la I can't heaaaaar you" in the face of stunningly detailed work like Arkan_Wolfshade's there's simply no hope. He's going to continue with his shameful lies no matter what.

One question, though, for Killtown before I go: you've clearly faced some extremely carefully thought-out objections to your argument on this thread. You appear to think that you have vanquished them with your argument. Don't you think you should provide a prominent link to this thread on your website, then? You know--if you really believe that you have disproven our arguments, wouldn't you like people who visit your blog to see that even powerful skeptical minds like those at the JREF site are incapable (in your view) of knocking holes in your theory?

If you don't put up such a link, of course, it will be proof that you are A) aware in your heart of hearts that your theory got demolished over and over and over again and B) that you are a cowardly little weasel.

Bye bye, Killtown. Remember, one day you will hang your head in shame at your behaviour throughout this whole affair. For you sake, I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

24th August 2006, 09:46 AM
I've followed this thread since it started and I would just like you commend you all (except Killtown) on you knowledge, logic, and your patience. Frankly I'm sickened by Killtown's beliefs. I'm just so tired of all of these 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have several family members who believe them. They remind me of my son in first grade, doing math "my way". It took forever to make him understand that his way was the wrong way.

Belz...
24th August 2006, 09:49 AM
I've followed this thread since it started and I would just like you commend you all (except Killtown) on you knowledge, logic, and your patience. Frankly I'm sickened by Killtown's beliefs. I'm just so tired of all of these 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have several family members who believe them. They remind me of my son in first grade, doing math "my way". It took forever to make him understand that his way was the wrong way.

But that was all for naught once his brain snapped and he reverted to his LAPI mode.

ETA: I mean, Killtown. Skipped a part, there!

Graham2001
24th August 2006, 09:57 AM
Sorry to be somewhat sarcastic, but am I right in guessing, that there is no evidence that the Killtown on this thread was replaced by a Government Agent to discredit the 'Truth' movement by proposing nonsense.

But then, Govenment Agents only operate on 'Truth' movement boards, don't they....

Buckwheatjones
24th August 2006, 09:58 AM
I've followed this thread since it started and I would just like you commend you all (except Killtown) on you knowledge, logic, and your patience. Frankly I'm sickened by Killtown's beliefs. I'm just so tired of all of these 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have several family members who believe them. They remind me of my son in first grade, doing math "my way". It took forever to make him understand that his way was the wrong way.

Thanks very much for the thoughtful post. I think one element I, (and maybe for some of the others) am here is to eradicate any doubt about this. It's not nearly so important to get killtown to face up to the truth as it is to appeal to other readers on here that he's wrong and the conspiracy theory re: Flt 93 is not particularly credible. In fact the more outrageous his claims get, the more he makes the point for us. It's good to know that some people reading on here, such as yourself, can pick up on this and easily separate the wheat from the chaff.

Thanks again.

Buck

Cuddles
24th August 2006, 10:06 AM
Maybe I could draw a sketch showing smaller pieces spreading around in the direction of the plane's trajectory. Maybe that'll help him out.

ETA: And I also notice Killtown thinks planes are either made of cardboard or adamantium.

I'd assume cardboard. Otherwise they'd be too heavy to stay in the air. And no, boats aren't made of metal either.

realitybites
24th August 2006, 10:19 AM
Sorry to be somewhat sarcastic, but am I right in guessing, that there is no evidence that the Killtown on this thread was replaced by a Government Agent to discredit the 'Truth' movement by proposing nonsense.

But then, Govenment Agents only operate on 'Truth' movement boards, don't they....
Oh for eff's sake. FINE! Yes, I offed Killtown and replaced him.... Well okay, "off" is a bit harsh. I just abducted him, tied him up in the basement and haven't fed him in two and a half months. So... he's probably at least a little light-headed by now.

Damn, you guys are good. Forced me to Valerie Plame myself.

Kudos!

24th August 2006, 10:20 AM
Thanks all for the kind words, but all I've been doing is building upon what others have already done the legwork on. I'm just greatful that we have the minds that we do here at JREF so I can learn something.

24th August 2006, 10:20 AM
Thank you for the nice welcome. Buck, I really appreciate what you're trying to do. I wish I could get some of my family to read this thread but at this point, I know they wouldn't even if I asked them to. They want to believe in these things for some reason. I research as much as I can so that if the subject comes up, I might get a few words in. But recently, I don't get to talk at all, they start shouting immediately. I see the same behavior by CT'ist on the internet.

realitybites
24th August 2006, 10:22 AM
Thank you for the nice welcome. Buck, I really appreciate what you're trying to do. I wish I could get some of my family to read this thread but at this point, I know they wouldn't even if I asked them to. They want to believe in these things for some reason. I research as much as I can so that if the subject comes up, I might get a few words in. But recently, I don't get to talk at all, they start shouting immediately. I see the same behavior by CT'ist on the internet.
TxLady, if you want shouting, next time you're in NYC, make a little pilgrimage to the WTC site some Saturday afternoon. And bring a video camera.

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 10:32 AM
This has never been an experiment! Well, not on KC's part! It seems to me that it all boils down to KC's nonsense that he has directed towards Val. I won't lie. The first time I saw that pic, I thought it could have been fake, for severeal reasons! The diff is, I knew that I didn't know all the variables involved. KC has been shown upclose he knows even less. His belief is all he has, no facts. None of us will ever know if that pic is real for sure w/out being able to investigate the original,or a high res copy! But by doing real reseach and math you can atleast show that it is possible , if not likely. K Clown it is time to be a man! APOLOGISE TO VAL!!!!!!

DT

Buckwheatjones
24th August 2006, 10:46 AM
Thank you for the nice welcome. Buck, I really appreciate what you're trying to do. I wish I could get some of my family to read this thread but at this point, I know they wouldn't even if I asked them to. They want to believe in these things for some reason. I research as much as I can so that if the subject comes up, I might get a few words in. But recently, I don't get to talk at all, they start shouting immediately. I see the same behavior by CT'ist on the internet.

You might want to bookmark some of the work ARkan did on the previous page, I think it was. Guys like him, Dr. Richard, Gumboot, Gravy, Yoink (and the list goes on and on) have really done a lot of the heavy lifting here.

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 10:47 AM
I don't get to talk at all, they start shouting immediately. I see the same behavior by CT'ist on the internet.

IT'S CALLED ALL CAPS! WHEN YOU SEE THIS, YOU KNOW THEY ARE SHOUTING AT THEIR COMPUTER SCREEN! Annoying, but funny!

DT

24th August 2006, 10:50 AM
Realitybites, I'm positive you're right about that. I'd actually love to do that sometime, I've never been to NYC. But I've seen the pictures of Gravy and Abby there and what they had to deal with.
Dog Town, I agree. I never saw this as a serious experiment. It's reminded me throughout of my now 18 yo son trying to convince me of something. He loves to debate, but the end result he wants is for me to agree with him. If I don't, something is wrong with my reasoning. He's never wrong. lol

jhunter1163
24th August 2006, 11:21 AM

If you haven't looked at Gravy's "Loose Change Viewer's Guide", you should do so, and have any members of your family who aren't too far gone look at it too. It's a comprehensive, point-by-point destruction of every theory presented in the movie. It's long but well worth the read.

(edit) The link is in Gravy's sig.

realitybites
24th August 2006, 11:30 AM
Realitybites, I'm positive you're right about that. I'd actually love to do that sometime, I've never been to NYC. But I've seen the pictures of Gravy and Abby there and what they had to deal with.
Dog Town, I agree. I never saw this as a serious experiment. It's reminded me throughout of my now 18 yo son trying to convince me of something. He loves to debate, but the end result he wants is for me to agree with him. If I don't, something is wrong with my reasoning. He's never wrong. lol
I think Gravy posted an image of me with them there that same day. I foolishly approved said image before viewing it.

If you come across it, I'm the one with a ridiculously retarded look on his face.

Skibum
24th August 2006, 11:33 AM
I'm the one with a ridiculously retarded look on his face.

So you fit in with the CTers, they all seem to have "retarded" looks on their faces.

realitybites
24th August 2006, 11:36 AM
So you fit in with the CTers, they all seem to have "retarded" looks on their faces.
It's a survival strategy I picked up from watching the Discovery channel years ago.

"Blending into my surroundings"

24th August 2006, 11:41 AM
Yes, I've read the Loose Change Viewer's Guide and watched all of the Screw Loose Change videos. I've bookmarked every site I've found so far from here and from Screw Loose Change.
Since the family members who believe these things are my mother and sister (along with her entire family) there isn't much I can do to get them to look at this. I've tried before and they don't want to hear it. I wouldn't count them as truly deep into the conspiracy theories, just misinformed and unwilling to find out what the truth really is. They aren't very internet savy and would rather listen to rumors.

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 11:41 AM
If you come across it, I'm the one with a ridiculously retarded look on his face.
Been awhile since I saw those pics, on Abby's blog. Were you the one wearing the choker?

Dave_46
24th August 2006, 11:55 AM
For the 6701th time, we don't HAVE A THEORY.

Belz...

I've told you a million times not to exeggerate.

Dave

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 11:56 AM
I've told you a million times not to exeggerate.
I think he might have been lowball'en that one.Belz that is.

Belz...
24th August 2006, 12:08 PM
Belz...

I've told you a million times not to exeggerate.

Dave

I'm skeptical of your ability to count.

Why don't you post your estimate, and we can proceed with an experiment, k ?

SezMe
24th August 2006, 12:08 PM
Earlier:
Yes, Killtown, I did say I expected more burning than that shown in your picture. But then Gravy and others cited EVIDENCE that such burning would not necessarily be the case. azaal (sp?) in particular, linked to a very telling picture showing portions of a downed plane sitting in undisturbed, green grass.

This EVIDENCE convinced me that my expectations were wrong. Or, let me put it more baldly: I was wrong. By the evidence. I learned. I changed my opinion.

Got the program, Killtown? Now, tell me something about the crash that you have learned from this discussion.

KingMerv00
24th August 2006, 12:52 PM
Belz...

I've told you a million times not to exeggerate.

Dave

Wow...a MILLION times huh?

(I'm guessing this was a clever joke. I'm just pointing it out.)

Killtown
24th August 2006, 12:55 PM
No.

Higher altitude means thinner air. Thinner air means distant features (especially large ones) appear much closer.

-Andrew
"appear" much closer. I PROVED the distance of it and that the plume HAD to be about 670m/2200ft across.

Dog Town
24th August 2006, 12:56 PM
Game On!

CurtC
24th August 2006, 01:05 PM
I PROVED the distance of it and that the plume HAD to be about 670m/2200ft across.
I must have missed that proof, that or your definition of "proof" is wildly different from mine.

I measured it carefully on Google Earth, and it looks like, based on my guess of how far away the cloud likely is, that it would be right around 600 m wide. However, I noted that the width you measure depends on how far away you assume it to be. How far away you assume it to be is dependent on assumptions about the wind speed at that height, and especially the time between the crash and the photo.

We don't know the time at all, so the only thing I can say with confidence is that the cloud is very probably less than 650 m wide.

24th August 2006, 01:08 PM
Yes, I've read the Loose Change Viewer's Guide and watched all of the Screw Loose Change videos. I've bookmarked every site I've found so far from here and from Screw Loose Change.
Since the family members who believe these things are my mother and sister (along with her entire family) there isn't much I can do to get them to look at this. I've tried before and they don't want to hear it. I wouldn't count them as truly deep into the conspiracy theories, just misinformed and unwilling to find out what the truth really is. They aren't very internet savy and would rather listen to rumors.You might try this experiment:

Casually mention that there is a group of people who believe the Earth is flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society). If a relative of yours skoffs (let's hope!), ask them why. Then gently move them through the process of belief vs. evidence.

If you need to burst their 9/11 "inside job" bubble directly, there are ways to do that, too. But it's more effective for your student to do the work of discovering logic themselves that they might better retain the method.

Welcome to the forum.

Killtown
24th August 2006, 01:15 PM
1) Provide evidence and/or logical reasoning or retract this claim.
2) I made it very clear with image I was dealing with
3) Saying "[w]rong" is not evidence. Provide evidence or retract this claim.
4) If you feel the 40 degree is erroneous then provide evidence showing such. Saying "looks as if" or "there would be" (without substantiating evidence) is not evidence supporting your claim. Provide evidence or retract this claim.
5) the fireball itself would have likely been insufficient to spontaneously ignite the grass.
6) You have intentionally chosen the lowest resolution picture available to support your claim. Allow me to report other pictures that show this one to be of sufficiently low resolution so as to cause loss of image quality:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg
http://usinfo.state.gov/photogallery/show.php?size=350x350&album_name=%2Fnineeleven%2Fpenn&obj_name=5987206.jpg
http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters_molt/3132233352.jpg
http://www.bartcop.com/fl93-2.jpg
7) The picture you provide has no indication of orientation. This makes it quite difficult to assertain if it is consistent with our expectations.
8) Please show where the other examples provided had to occur at a lower temperature.
9) Please provide corroborating evidence beyond a graphic to support this assertion.
10) It means, based upon my revised image, that the smoke plume didn't have to drift off of the crater, only that it had to form asymmetrically to appear as it does in the picture. Given the wind direction that day, it is consistent with the picture.

1) No, YOU made the claim first. YOU need to prove your claim.
2) Taking a photo out of context is lying.
3) I did with my Popular Mechanics map.
4) I did provide evidence and reasons why. I can't help it if that's not good enough for you (cause obviously NOTHING is good enough for skeptics.)
5) LoL!!!
6) Oh yeah, THOSE pics were much, much clearer. :rolleyes:
7) Look at the arrows.
8) :confused:
9) All of the crater and grass pics show no debris. Debris is only seen in forest pics.
10) It means your plume was NOT BIG ENOUGH to appear so big in Val's pic.

Pardalis
24th August 2006, 01:15 PM
Casually mention that there is a group of people who believe the Earth is flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society).

Oh my god! :jaw-dropp

Killtown
24th August 2006, 01:17 PM
Killtown has this posted on the flight 93 photos/maps/graphics page of his website. If this had been posted on page 1 of this thread, we would have known just what we were up against.

And I bet you think I drew that, huh?

Killtown
24th August 2006, 01:18 PM
You're kidding, right? You're actually using a TV movie as your "proof"?
Just showing you craters can be made without the use of airplanes, or ordnance.

24th August 2006, 01:19 PM
Oh my god! :jaw-droppYeah, our shepherd-boy can only dream of being on one of the big-league woo teams like the Flatters.

Killtown
24th August 2006, 01:23 PM
It did, as has already been demonstrated. Stop lying.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ec13c57554f.jpg