Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[TxLady]

That is hilarious, Regnad Kcin! I'm just....speechless. lol.
I'll have to mention it to my family next time I talk to them. I'm a terrible actress though, I think they'd catch on pretty fast. lol

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) No, YOU made the claim first. YOU need to prove your claim.

No shifting the burden. You said I was lying. Provide evidence that I was lying, or retract your claim.


2) Taking a photo out of context is lying.

How was the photo I addressed out of context?


3) I did with my Popular Mechanics map.

The PM map shows the flight trajectory as being consistent. If it is not, please show a detailed analysis of why it is not or retract your claim.


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.)

You provided opinions without substantiating evidence. That is not evidence.


5) LoL!!!

Dry grass ignites at 525F (http://www.amfed.org/a_safetyEFMLS.htm) http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870554#post1870554


6) Oh yeah, THOSE pics were much, much clearer. :rolleyes:

Sarcasm is not evidence. If you intepret the pictures differently, then spell it out clearly and provide substantiating evidence to support your analysis.


7) Look at the arrows.

There are no arrows on the crash picture, only on the PM map. Please provide evidence that the orientation of the picture is the same as the PM map.


8) :confused:

I said, "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."
To which you responded, "e) if the fireball engulfed it, it should have, especially as "hot" as you guys claimed 93 could have been."
The only way for this to be true, and is what you imply in your statement, is if the fireballs in the referenced pictures were at a lower temperature than that of Flight 93. Provide evidence that this must be the case for the referenced photos or retract your claim.


9) All of the crater and grass pics show no debris. Debris is only seen in forest pics.

[URL="http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ec13c57554f.jpg"]This pic, along with others, shows the debris field surrounding the crater and extending into the trees./URL] If you intepret the pictures differently, then spell it out clearly and provide substantiating evidence to support your analysis.


10) It means your plume was NOT BIG ENOUGH to appear so big in Val's pic.
Without showing your work/math/etc, this is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion from you. Show your work, or retract your claim.

[Killtown]

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) IN any case, assuming the fuel was aerosolized into the air on impact (as we've contended would happen)
1) Oh, so now the fireball was colder? Nice change after I showed you guys the absurdity that there was a fireball coming out of the crater.

2) Even a small fireball would have singed the grass growing along the crater's edge.

3) LoL! What a joke. So the 5,500 gallons bounced off the ground, aerozolized, ignited, and didn't burn the grass!!! :boggled:

[Pardalis]

2) Taking a photo out of context is lying.

That's freaking thick of you to say.

WHAT ABOUT YOUR PICS OF THE B-52 AND ALL THE OTHER CRAPPY COMPARISONS YOU HAVE PLASTERED YOUR CRAPPY BLOG WITH?

Pathetic.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) Oh, so now the fireball was colder? Nice change after I showed you guys the absurdity that there was a fireball coming out of the crater.

Strawman fallacy (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man)


2) Even a small fireball would have singed the grass growing along the crater's edge.

Unsubstantiated opinion. Show your supporting evidence or retract this claim.


3) LoL! What a joke. So the 5,500 gallons bounced off the ground, aerozolized, ignited, and didn't burn the grass!!! :boggled:
Strawman fallacy (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man)

[Killtown]

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.
They should you crashes that were like comparing apples and oranges. I should you guys pics that showed the grass wasn't burnt along the crater's edge and anywhere around the crater.

So either the fuel went underground, it was magic fuel, or there was NO JETFUEL THERE EVER!

[Pardalis]

Killtown, could you answer my question please?

Holywood can make alot of things. But usually people get hired to do that, usually large crews of people, with permits from the city, and usually it takes more than a day to set up.

So how come when 9/11 unfolded and the images of the crash of flight 93 were broadcasted nobody said: "Didn't we do that? Pennsylvania? Hey, I think that's our work!"

How come nobody has spoken out? How come they built this crater without anyone noticing it in the neighbourhood?

[Killtown]

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.

So what is your proof?
That the plume couldn't not have grown that big based on the amount of alleged fuel and the lack of explosion damage immidiately outside the crater.

My plume estimate is even far-fetched in generosity to the plumes big size! But even with my more realistic size then you guys, it PROVES it couldn't have gotten to the place that it would needed to be in the short amount of time that could have elapsed between the explosion and Val taking the photo.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They should you crashes that were like comparing apples and oranges. I should you guys pics that showed the grass wasn't burnt along the crater's edge and anywhere around the crater.

So either the fuel went underground, it was magic fuel, or there was NO JETFUEL THERE EVER!

False (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) dilemma (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#false_dilemma)

[Killtown]

How come nobody has spoken out?
Why would the conspirators speak out?

[Pardalis]

So are you saying that the entire town of Shanksville is in on it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That the plume couldn't not have grown that big based on the amount of alleged fuel and the lack of explosion damage immidiately outside the crater.

Opinion without logic proof.


My plume estimate is even far-fetched in generosity to the plumes big size! But even with my more realistic size then you guys, it PROVES it couldn't have gotten to the place that it would needed to be in the short amount of time that could have elapsed between the explosion and Val taking the photo.
Actually, all of our estimates show it to be perfectly within the parameters. If you feel the rate of expansion of the plume was insufficient to reach the estimated width then please, by all means, show your work; or else retract this claim.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why would the conspirators speak out?

Why would none of them?

[Ravenwood]

Not to be crude, but if the administration could not keep presidential BJ's a secret, what makes you think a conspiracy of this magnitude will be covered up...

[Killtown]

So are you saying that the entire town of Shanksville is in on it?
Man you are dumb.

Do not use insults.

[Hellbound]

1) Oh, so now the fireball was colder? Nice change after I showed you guys the absurdity that there was a fireball coming out of the crater.

2) Even a small fireball would have singed the grass growing along the crater's edge.

3) LoL! What a joke. So the 5,500 gallons bounced off the ground, aerozolized, ignited, and didn't burn the grass!!! :boggled:

1) We gave you a range, from the ignition temp of jet fuel to a high end figure. FOr a fast fireball, it actually won't get much above the ignition temp because it burns off too quickly. We gave you a range, but I don't recall ever specifying a likelyhood of any temp in that range. You're committing a strawman (and showing your ignorance) by insisiting it had to be at a high temp.

2) Prove it. This didn't happen with many other plane crashes.

When you put your hand in something that's 500 degrees, will you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper or dry grass in somethin that's 500 degrees, will it catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" in military bunkers?

3) Partially correct. I have two theories, but I'm not an expert either. One, if the ignition was almost instantaneous because of the speed of impact, the fireball started before the fuel sprayed, and would have burned off in the air (before falling onto the ground below). The other way, the fuel could have sprayed out a good distance, but the ignited fuel is pushed out just like the rest, making it in a ring around the impact area.

Personally, I think my second idea is more likely. It would be interesting to do some splash tests. Throw a water ballon into a small hole, at high speed and an appropriate angle, and see how the water sprays and what it hits. Have to be scaled, of course. Consider how it's often the front seat on a log ride that gets the least water.

[Pardalis]

Man you are dumb.

You would probably want to rephrase that, inversely.

[rwguinn]

Man you are dumb.
Do I sense Panic in klow's answers lately?
Maybe his mommy found out what he's been doing slandering people?

[Killtown]

Not to be crude, but if the administration could not keep presidential BJ's a secret, what makes you think a conspiracy of this magnitude will be covered up...
Did it ever occur to you that the powers that be wanted to out Clinton with that to humiliate him, so he would "get in line"? Why do you think he's best buds with Bush Sr (Mr. Ex-CIA director) these days?

[Pardalis]

Killtown, how would an hollywood-style crew get to build this crater without anyone noticing it in Shanksville?

[Killtown]

Killtown, how would an hollywood-style crew get to build this crater without anyone noticing it in Shanksville?
Who would have noticed it?

[Ravenwood]

To quote one of the regulars over at BAUT "How nice it must be to live a life unburdened by reality..."

[Pardalis]

Who would have noticed it?

Now who's playing dumb? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't you think that creating this fake crashing site require alot of people, resources and time?

This is not the middle of the desert, it's an inhabitated town!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Did it ever occur to you that the powers that be wanted to out Clinton with that to humiliate him, so he would "get in line"? Why do you think he's best buds with Bush Sr (Mr. Ex-CIA director) these days?
Evidence? Or is the just another ungrounded assertion?



Killtown, how would an hollywood-style crew get to build this crater without anyone noticing it in Shanksville?
Who would have noticed it?
The people that drove on Skyline (irrc) Rd.

[TxLady]

Killtown, why did you come to these forums? And why do you visit the many other forums that don't agree with you? Did you think they would see that you are the superior intellect and bow down to worship you?
The people here used knowlege and logic to debate you and were incredibly kind and patient trying to educate you. Do you really think that you are advancing your cause here? I suspect I know the answer to these questions.
I think you not only owe Val an apology but also the people here, whose time you wasted.

[CurtC]

That the plume couldn't not have grown that big based on the amount of alleged fuel and the lack of explosion damage immidiately outside the crater.
How big? I've said that the smoke cloud is less than 650 m. Maybe it's 100 m, as far as we know.

But even with my more realistic size then you guys, it PROVES it couldn't have gotten to the place that it would needed to be in the short amount of time that could have elapsed between the explosion and Val taking the photo.
How much time could have elapsed? I have no idea, so what are you basing your information on? As far as I know, it could have been anywhere from a few seconds to ten minutes.

If you're going to claim this is your proof, you need to know these two things. But you don't, and neither do we.

Shall I contact Val and let her know that she should expect an apology soon?

[mrfreeze]

Killtown, why did you come to these forums? And why do you visit the many other forums that don't agree with you? Did you think they would see that you are the superior intellect and bow down to worship you?
The people here used knowlege and logic to debate you and were incredibly kind and patient trying to educate you. Do you really think that you are advancing your cause here? I suspect I know the answer to these questions.
I think you not only owe Val an apology but also the people here, whose time you wasted.

Honestly I think most of us would agree that it isn't that bad having him here. Without someone with an opposing viewpoint to argue with, things get stagnant and it just turns into a giant back patting operation. Either that, or you wind up like the loosers and turn on each other.

[Pardalis]

Honestly I think most of us would agree that it isn't that bad having him here. Without someone with an opposing viewpoint to argue with, things get stagnant and it just turns into a giant back patting operation..

Also, some lurkers out there who are still on the fence about this issue might read Killtown's insane arguments and say: "Oh my god! This is what I believed in?"

[TxLady]

I didn't mean to imply that any of you wasted your time. I do agree that this thread will be a good place for people who are confused or unsure.

[Pardalis]

I didn't mean to imply that any of you wasted your time.

Of course you didn't. :)

And you're right, Killtown owes us an apology, for insulting our intelligence.

[stickin_damud]

Hi, everyone. Stick here, coming in from RightNation. (hi, Buckwheatjones!).

Anyway, after reading most of this entertaining thread, I am just a bit curious as to what Killtown here really believes happened that day, not only in Shanksville, but also the Pentagon and the WTC. Care to go into more detail, KT? Don't tell me to go to your blog, I like things summarized in a form that gets to the bottom without reading the whole painful encyclopedia.

I know you have tried to cast doubt on what really happened and advance your convoluted conspiracy, but put yourself and your "reputation" on the line and tell us what you believe happened. Don't hold back, now, afterall you are right, aren't you?

And since we seem to be stuck on burned grass, or lack thereof, I would just like to emphasize a point that has been made about fire. Fire can only burn with the presence of oxygen. When that fireball ignited, nearly all the oxygen in that immediate area would have been consumed instantly (the torus effect, drawing all the oxygen up and away from the ground) limiting the burn of things on the ground AHEAD OF THE IMPACT PATH, NOT BEHIND IT (which is why some things in the immediate area remained unburned, as in the A-bomb example). I suspect that some amount of fuel did splash forward which in fact started the trees on fire. Living in the NW, I can tell you how dry the tinder gets below forests and lightning strikes take thousands and thousands of acres of timber every year at this time (which we are now about 2.5 weeks before 9/11). It wouldn't take much (assuming there was tinder beneath the trees) to get those trees burning. And since we have a short-term 'oxygen vacuum' at the ignition area, we all know nature abhors [sp?] a vacuum. This would pull air in from surrounding areas including the oxygen rich air which stays somewhat trapped in forests giving the fuel needed to sustain said fire (blow on a campfire sometime, seems to help, not hurt the fire's ability to burn). I'm just stating that it makes sense (read: it is reasonable to observe) that the trees in line with the impact would engulf in flames the way it did and the grass behind the impact would remain intact, unburned.

Anyway, without being the best at putting my thoughts into words I thought I'd chime in. Nice to read all the well thought out and well reasoned responses to our paranoid friend here.

One last comment: I wonder how someone who spends so much time on a computer and evidently relating life to video games and television shows ever gets out in the real world to experience real life? It is just an observation.

[Gravy]

Time to be a man and face the tough questions, Killtown. This will only take ten seconds.

No excuses. No shirking your responsibility to the victims you've deliberately harmed.

I've reduced them to two for your answering ease. Please stop running away and face these questions, which your behavior has raised.

Please answer these statements with "true" or "false."

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

2) You did not have access to the original image or memory card.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hi, everyone. Stick here, coming in from RightNation. (hi, Buckwheatjones!).

Anyway, after reading most of this entertaining thread, I am just a bit curious as to what Killtown here really believes happened that day, not only in Shanksville, but also the Pentagon and the WTC. Care to go into more detail, KT? Don't tell me to go to your blog, I like things summarized in a form that gets to the bottom without reading the whole painful encyclopedia.

I know you have tried to cast doubt on what really happened and advance your convoluted conspiracy, but put yourself and your "reputation" on the line and tell us what you believe happened. Don't hold back, now, afterall you are right, aren't you?

And since we seem to be stuck on burned grass, or lack thereof, I would just like to emphasize a point that has been made about fire. Fire can only burn with the presence of oxygen. When that fireball ignited, nearly all the oxygen in that immediate area would have been consumed instantly (the torus effect, drawing all the oxygen up and away from the ground) limiting the burn of things on the ground AHEAD OF THE IMPACT PATH, NOT BEHIND IT (which is why some things in the immediate area remained unburned, as in the A-bomb example). I suspect that some amount of fuel did splash forward which in fact started the trees on fire. Living in the NW, I can tell you how dry the tinder gets below forests and lightning strikes take thousands and thousands of acres of timber every year at this time (which we are now about 2.5 weeks before 9/11). It wouldn't take much (assuming there was tinder beneath the trees) to get those trees burning. And since we have a short-term 'oxygen vacuum' at the ignition area, we all know nature abhors [sp?] a vacuum. This would pull air in from surrounding areas including the oxygen rich air which stays somewhat trapped in forests giving the fuel needed to sustain said fire (blow on a campfire sometime, seems to help, not hurt the fire's ability to burn). I'm just stating that it makes sense (read: it is reasonable to observe) that the trees in line with the impact would engulf in flames the way it did and the grass behind the impact would remain intact, unburned.

Anyway, without being the best at putting my thoughts into words I thought I'd chime in. Nice to read all the well thought out and well reasoned responses to our paranoid friend here.

One last comment: I wonder how someone who spends so much time on a computer and evidently relating life to video games and television shows ever gets out in the real world to experience real life? It is just an observation.

Welcome to the forums Stick and, may I add, a most excellent first post.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums Stick and, may I add, a most excellent first post.
Seconded. Welcome, Stick.

[milesalpha]

Did it ever occur to you that the powers that be wanted to out Clinton with that to humiliate him, so he would "get in line"? Why do you think he's best buds with Bush Sr (Mr. Ex-CIA director) these days?

Why would it be impossible to be friends with someone who has different political views? Many of my friends don't come anywhere near my odd little political spectrum. They include delusional types who think that Stephen Harper is a real Canadian and Brian Mulroney was a great Prime Minister. Also a couple who are still Bush fans. I have even made friends with Montreal Canadiens' fans, who come close to the anti-christ in some ways. I have argued 9/11 with many people who I would happily share a beer with (well, I don't drink, make that a joint). They enjoyed a discussion but don't live and die on some narrow view of politics.
Finally, if the "powers that be" are so powerful why are Bush and the Republicans falling so dramatically on the American political scene? Why is a Democratic (right-wingers in any other nation) victory in the coming elections becoming more plausible on a daily basis? Why are the members of the current presidential administration not being mentioned as potential presidential candidates (beyond Rice, whose stock has plummeted since her early mention) in 2008? If the Bush administration becomes as much of an anchor around the neck of Republicans for years to come as it appears it might, don't the "powers that be" become rather ineffectual?


Sorry for the small political rant in a science thread.

[R.Mackey]

1) Oh, so now the fireball was colder? Nice change after I showed you guys the absurdity that there was a fireball coming out of the crater.

2) Even a small fireball would have singed the grass growing along the crater's edge.

3) LoL! What a joke. So the 5,500 gallons bounced off the ground, aerozolized, ignited, and didn't burn the grass!!! :boggled:
So, after nearly fifty pages of going on and on about your "plume calculation" -- and not even delivering an argument, let alone a calculation -- you shift gears to some weird theory about dry grass.

Wouldn't you like to know, before posting and erasing any doubt, whether you know what the heck you're talking about? I mean, we've already learned that you can't even add two measurements properly, shouldn't you be a bit more careful?

Since it seems only shiny objects and pictures get your attention, here's a picture for you:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_919344ee598732365.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1127)
(Note to moderators: Picture appears courtesy of NASA for educational purposes only. Picture is posted in accordance with NASA Copyright Guidelines (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/policies.html#Guidelines).)

The tile being held is heated to 1260 oC, or 2300 oF, yet the engineer's hands do not instantly burst into flames, blister, or even become uncomfortable.

In your world view, this is impossible! So How Can This Be?? :eek: Can you figure it out?

If you're ever going to learn anything, Killtown, you're first going to have to abandon the notion that you know more than everybody else in the world. In the fields of physics and mathematics, you are perhaps the least educated person on this entire forum. Don't keep making the same mistakes. Ask for help, and listen for a change.

[Buckwheatjones]

Hey the StickMan's in here! Hi Stick, how's it going. You may have noticed that killtown's not gotten any smarter since he ran away from RightNation after he got spanked.

Great first post. Welcome to the land of the frustrated thinkers and one obstinant Bimbo.

[Buckwheatjones]

Killtown, why did you come to these forums? And why do you visit the many other forums that don't agree with you? Did you think they would see that you are the superior intellect and bow down to worship you?
The people here used knowlege and logic to debate you and were incredibly kind and patient trying to educate you. Do you really think that you are advancing your cause here? I suspect I know the answer to these questions.
I think you not only owe Val an apology but also the people here, whose time you wasted.

Killtown has come on here to change minds, but failed. Look at the scoreboard. He's lost big. That was his whole point....to present a crackpot theory and win people over. Not to educate. Not to present an idea and see if it flies, but to present his theory and then try to convince a bunch of critical thinkers it was valid.

But he failed. No one is buying this load that he's been carrying around in his shorts for two weeks because smart people know what poo smells like and no amount of weak-minded argument can convince us that it's a rose.

Whether killtown still believes in the magic of his FantasyWorld is of no consequence because his purpose on here has dismally, miserably failed.

And we're all laughing at him.

[stickin_damud]

BWJ, thanks for the pleasantries. I am glad you have come back and are active again. You are one of the posters I try and keep up with over there. Don't know how much time I will spend here, but I can tell this is a place where anyone can learn...well, almost anyone.

I happen to be an Industrial Engineer of 18 years, if anyone is interested. I am no astrophysicist, but we IE have pretty open minds, question much and offer solutions or possibilities when given the chance.

Folks like KT are most intriguing. What is concerning is that there are probably many more like him out there. We have lots of work to do here, don't we?

Bimbo!?!!?! Haven't had the pleasure, yet... to whom are you referring?

[Buckwheatjones]

Bimbo!?!!?! Haven't had the pleasure, yet... to whom are you referring?

Killtown.

:D

[ghost707]

Killtown is in his backyard re-creating flight 93 with balsa wood and gasoline.
He should be back any minute with the results.......ie:

"The airplane only broke into 3 pieces!"

"The gasoline that I poured on the grass and lit on fire burned the grass!"

"I proved you guys wrong!"

Etc. etc. ad infinitum. ad nausium.

[Killtown]

As soon as someone can tell me how your plane did this to form your monsterous plume:

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

And yet didn't burn the grass growing up against the crater:

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

I'm all ears.



PS - "Peak fireball width: 50m(164ft) - 184m(200yrd)"

:D

[Regnad Kcin]

Shepherd Boy:

Ever wonder why people can walk across hot coals without burning their feet?

[fsol]

Killtown: You have yet to show that the grass was burnt all around any crater in the case of the B52 crash...you haven't even shown any evidence of a crater in the case of the B52 crash. As far as you know the grass wasn't burnt then either.

[Killtown]

It's amazing to me that JREFers don't think a jetfuel explosion that engulfs grass won't burn it!

:jaw-dropp

[R.Mackey]

What's the matter, Stalltown? Didn't like my picture, or couldn't comprehend it?

[Regnad Kcin]

It's amazing to me that someone can be so ignorant of physics.

(Inane smilie as are so cherished by CTers not posted.)

[fsol]

It's amazing to me that JREFers don't think a jetfuel explosion that engulfs grass won't burn it!

:jaw-dropp

Here is an experiment you can do at home. Take a candle. Light it. Snuff it out using your fingers. Now, the candle flame has a peak temperature of about 1400C, yet it is possible to do the above without burning your fingers. Can you think of any reason why that might be so?

[Killtown]

Real plane crashes:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041128/041128_jetcrash_ebersol9p.hmedium.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/danang-crash.jpg
http://www.davezilla.com/archives/crash.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.net/english/doc/2005-11/09/xin_3911020915172591940713.jpg

Fake ones:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/757-crater-scale_small.jpg
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/crater-stahl.jpg

And fake plume:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2352/plumeanalysis1000ftsmdj4.gif

Learn the truth:

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

And be sure to...

[R.Mackey]

Did you ever see one of those movies, where the previews looked so exciting and interesting, but then when you saw the movie, all the good parts were already in the previews, and the stuff in the middle was just a bunch of crap, like with stupid dialogue written by some hack, no plot, nothing but a bunch of cliches? Did you?

I hate that.

[stickin_damud]

...and yet very nearby the impact site, there were charred trees. What caused the trees to burn, KT? Do you think it takes more energy to burn thick, living tree trunks down site from a plane crash or grass up site from it? Where did the grass go that was in the crater? Did it burn up or not and what proof do you have that it did or didn't? Did you ever visit the crash site of this or any other plane crash in person? (I know, that would mean you have to leave your mommy's basement, but I have to ask.)

[Killtown]

Smoking gun pic.

Notice that not only the grass around the crater is not singed and is free of plane debris, but notice the dirt on the left side is not charred from any type of explosion/fire and notice the left side dirt looks older than the darker turned dirt on the right side where a 100 ton 757 supposedly burrowed down in with 5,500 gals of fuel on board:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/crater-epa2.jpg
http://www.epa.gov/region7/news_events/events/proceedings/lepc-terc_conference_august2005/Plenary/flight93.pdf

[chacal]

Killtown, Can I ask how old are you, or in which age group you are. I can't believe any grownup could be so monumentally stupid as you. You are like a child who refuses to believe there's no santaclaus. So how old are you?

Thankyou

[Killtown]

Killtown, Can I ask how old are you, or in which age group you are. I can't believe any grownup could be so monumentally stupid as you. You are like a child who refuses to believe there's no santaclaus. So how old are you?

Thankyou
You know you are winning a debate when others are forced to result to insults and personal attacks!

Ironic you ask me how old I am! :D

[R.Mackey]

It would be funny, except those appear to be the only things to which you will respond. You have totally withdrawn from every other possible debate.

Ergo, you are losing the debate, by your own reasoning.

If you want a chance at "winning," which by the way escaped you over 40 pages ago, the least you can do is respond to the reasonable questions offered.

Or climb back up on your cross, if you prefer. Makes no difference at this point.

[ghost707]

Post #2549..picture #4...green grass all around that aircraft.
Killtown, you really should look at your material before you post it.
You just disproved your own theory.

[chacal]

You know you are winning a debate when others are forced to result to insults and personal attacks!

Ironic you ask me how old I am! :D


Yeah, well I'm at late twenties. You?

[Killtown]

It would be funny, except those appear to be the only things to which you will respond. You have totally withdrawn from every other possible debate.

Ergo, you are losing the debate, by your own reasoning.

If you want a chance at "winning," which by the way escaped you over 40 pages ago, the least you can do is respond to the reasonable questions offered.

Or climb back up on your cross, if you prefer. Makes no difference at this point.
Hi, I'm R.Mackey. I think plane crashes that create huge explosions like this:

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

can do it without charring the immediate area outside its crater like this:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg

[Killtown]

Post #2549..picture #4...green grass all around that aircraft.
Killtown, you really should look at your material before you post it.
You just disproved your own theory.
Um, no it didn't. Notice the explosion and continuing fire there? You think the grass underneath that explosion will still be green when the fire burns out?

[ghost707]

Um, no it didn't. Notice the explosion and continuing fire there? You think the grass underneath that explosion will still be green when the fire burns out?

Sorry killtown, doesn't change the fact that there is alot of green grass around that accident.

Bet you wished you hadn't posted that pic.

[R.Mackey]

Hi, I'm R.Mackey.
You know you're winning the debate when your opponent reverts to mimicry at a Kindergarten level.

Killtown, please read back the definition of "Irony," would you?

I think plane crashes that create huge explosions like this:
Imbecile, that is the wrong aircraft, at the wrong speed, wrong crash angle, four times the fuel load, and besides, you doctored the photo by rotating it. I seem to recall telling you this over 20 pages ago.

[Unscaled and unmeasured fiery crash picture deleted]
Funny, I thought you argued for pages and pages, and on your website, that there was no "huge explosion." I thought your whole case, and the basis for your criminal harrassment of Val, was that the explosion had to be too small to match her picture.

can do it without charring the immediate area outside its crater like this: [Impact area photo, taken from unknown aspect and distance, deleted]
Rather amusing from a scientific illiterate who can't distinguish between "temperature" and "heat." You might want to turn in your FAA Incident Inspector's badge, tough guy.

Killtown, if that's the best you've got, I pity you.

[Killtown]

Sorry killtown, doesn't change the fact that there is alot of green grass around that accident.

Bet you wished you hadn't posted that pic.
K, since you don't understand it, let me walk you through it.

You guys said 93's fireball was 4-15x wider than the crater.

Crash scene photos show no fire damage immediately outside the crater. Only a small section of forest at an awkward angle got singed.

The crash scene photos show that the fireball didn't exceed the crater, but somehow part of the fireball jump out of the crater, over some grass and a road, and landed in some trees at an awkward angle.

I.E. totally inconsistent with a fireball of the size you guys suggested.

[ghost707]

Sorry killtown, doesn't change the fact that there is alot of green grass around that accident.

Bet you wished you hadn't posted that pic.

[Killtown]

Sorry killtown, doesn't change the fact that there is alot of green grass around that accident.
And your point?

[ghost707]

And your point?

You defeated yourself.

You lose.

I mean just look at all that green grass!

[Killtown]

You defeated yourself.

You lose.

I mean just look at all that green grass!
You mean the green grass that wasn't engulfed by the fireball like all the grass around the Shanksville crater?

[ghost707]

You mean the green grass that wasn't engulfed by the fireball like all the grass around the Shanksville crater?

Just look at all that green grass killtown, isn't it beautiful!

The truth shall set you free!

[Killtown]

Just look at all that green grass killtown, isn't it beautiful!

The truth shall set you free!
Yes, just like the beautiful hemlock around the Shanks crater that didn't get engulfed by a fireball!

[R.Mackey]

Glad you two agree.

The ghost has you, Killtown. Your own image demonstrates that aircraft crashes and fires do not always destroy foliage very far from the point of impact. Hang it up.

[Killtown]

Glad you two agree.

The ghost has you, Killtown. Your own image demonstrates that aircraft crashes and fires do not always destroy foliage very far from the point of impact. Hang it up.
Are you that dense? Where did I say fireballs from plane crashes would scorch grass that it didn't engulf???

[R.Mackey]

In other words, you're claiming that the fireball, on impact, of the photo that ghost707 is referring to, was smaller than the fire shown in the image. Much smaller than the plane itself. The fuel would have to pour out beyond this initial event, flowing past the initial scorch boundaries, and only then ignite, since the grass clearly runs right up to the smoky fire.

ETA: In summary, hardly a relevant plane crash. Not to mention unlikely.

Having nothing more than a single, unannotated still photo, I would be utterly fascinated to see the mental gymnastics you performed to decide that.

[Gravy]

Real plane crashes:
Fake ones:
And fake plume:
Learn the truth:
And be sure to...

Killtown, you're on this AGAIN?

What part of 580 mph at a 40 degree angle don't you understand?

Oh, I forgot. You don't understand any part of that.

Why do you keep showing a photo of the area near the wingtip, and not all the other photos that show scorch marks and debris in the direction of travel?

Your methods are, once again, dishonest.

[Cuddles]

Where can I find that popcorn smily? It seems somehow appropriate at this point.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

KT,

Since you appear to have chosen not to address any of my counter-points, I will take that as implicit retraction of you claims.

That being the case, you are not back to stating opinions based upon photos. Please provide supporting evidence that these opinions are representative of the facts.

[Belz...]

"appear" much closer. I PROVED the distance of it and that the plume HAD to be about 670m/2200ft across.

It's funny how you use that word.

[Belz...]

2) Taking a photo out of context is lying.

No, it's not.

2) Even a small fireball would have singed the grass growing along the crater's edge.

Hey! I can make up stuff, too...

So either the fuel went underground, it was magic fuel, or there was NO JETFUEL THERE EVER!

...not as much as you, however.

Why would the conspirators speak out?

Because REAL conspirators frequently do.

Did it ever occur to you that the powers that be wanted to out Clinton with that to humiliate him, so he would "get in line"? Why do you think he's best buds with Bush Sr (Mr. Ex-CIA director) these days?

Woah. Where did THAT come from ?

[Belz...]

One last comment: I wonder how someone who spends so much time on a computer and evidently relating life to video games and television shows ever gets out in the real world to experience real life? It is just an observation.

Oh, yes. I relate life to video games and movies but I'm very much aware of the real world, and far TOO much aware of Killclown's world.

[Belz...]

As soon as someone can tell me how your plane did this to form your monsterous plume:

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

And yet didn't burn the grass growing up against the crater:

Similar crashes, really ?

Hi, I'm R.Mackey. I think plane crashes that create huge explosions like this:

can do it without charring the immediate area outside its crater like this:

Interesting. And yet you're the only one here who thinks the B-52 crash bears any similarity (besides actually crashing) with U93.

[Belz...]

You guys said 93's fireball was 4-15x wider than the crater.

I.E. totally inconsistent with a fireball of the size you guys suggested.

You didn't read the part about the a-bomb, did you ?

Are you that dense? Where did I say fireballs from plane crashes would scorch grass that it didn't engulf???

Well, that's the whole point. It DIDN'T engulf the grass. You DO know how fireballs behave, don't you ?

[Hutch]

Well, that's the whole point. It DIDN'T engulf the grass. You DO know how fireballs behave, don't you ?


DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner,folks. KluelessTown has no math and no physics and has no idea how fluids react when they hit the ground at 550MPH+ in a disintegrating tank assembly. I at least know enough to say I do not have the higher-level physics to determine the exact pattern, but I have enough brains to know that when you drive fluids into the ground at high speeds, much of it will splatter into the air, at a vector away from the ground, and the ignition/heat will also be driven upwards by the vector and intake of Oxygen. And this was a complex reaction.

But not to ol'KT, nosiree. He's got pictures! Hes got opinions! He's got "I don't thing so"! I mean, what are Math and Physics next to those formidable tools?

Incredible. KT, you might as well start a thread on your 'No-planes at the WTC' therory, you cannot possibly reclaim the slightest shread of plausability on this topic.

Ignorance is often seen on the surface; but stupidity goes right to the Frontal Lobes...

[The_Fire]

DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner,folks. KluelessTown has no math and no physics and has no idea how fluids react when they hit the ground at 550MPH+ in a disintegrating tank assembly. I at least know enough to say I do not have the higher-level physics to determine the exact pattern, but I have enough brains to know that when you drive fluids into the ground at high speeds, much of it will splatter into the air, at a vector away from the ground, and the ignition/heat will also be driven upwards by the vector and intake of Oxygen. And this was a complex reaction.

But not to ol'KT, nosiree. He's got pictures! Hes got opinions! He's got "I don't thing so"! I mean, what are Math and Physics next to those formidable tools?

Incredible. KT, you might as well start a thread on your 'No-planes at the WTC' therory, you cannot possibly reclaim the slightest shread of plausability on this topic.

Ignorance is often seen on the surface; but stupidity goes right to the Frontal Lobes...

On drop behaviour in regards to dirt;

Here (http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/5/8)

5 minutes of google,....

[Gravy]

You mean the green grass that wasn't engulfed by the fireball like all the grass around the Shanksville crater?
I want to be sure I have this right. You claim that nothing was singed or charred on the south/southeast area beyond the crater. Is that correct?

And you haven't answered my two simple questions about the McClatchey photo:

1) Your only stated criterion for her possible guilt was if the photo was Photoshopped. True or false?

2) You had no access to the original file, memory card, or any high-res version of the photo. True or false?

Stop running and answer these simple questions.

[gumboot]

Killtown,

I know you have trouble dealing with things that are not pictures, so I have a present for you. I apologise for the poor quality, but I had limited resources, and even more limited skills.

Before you read any further, please be aware....

30 minutes ago I stepped out of the cinema after watching United 93. The significance of Val's photo is thus fresh on my mind.

Please consider the two following photos. I have one question to ask you for each one. Please answer honestly and promptly, without unecessary additional commentary.

Photo One:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef5076dc30.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1133)

Now. Killtown.

1.) Do the dimensions for this crash look realistic to you?
a) Yes
b) No

Photo Two:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef54c10875.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1134)

Again,

1.) Do the dimensions for this crash look realistic to you?
a) Yes
b) No

Please provide an answer for both questions. Then we can proceed.

-Andrew

ETA. If you find the pictures a little small KT, click on them to load larger versions.

[Hellbound]

It's amazing to me that JREFers don't think a jetfuel explosion that engulfs grass won't burn it!

:jaw-dropp

And you've yet to show it was engulfed, which is pretty much the point at this time.

ETA:

GReat pics, gumboot. I was thinking of doing something similar, but hadn't gotten to it yet :)

[gumboot]

GReat pics, gumboot. I was thinking of doing something similar, but hadn't gotten to it yet :)


:) For everyone else... just so you know what my point is...

The original photo is taken at about the same altitude as Val's photo was taken, in very similar weather conditions, at the same time of year (though obviously in entirely different countries!).

In both instances the "crash site" is 2.5km from the photo origin point - the same distance as from Val's house to the crash site of UA93.

The fireballs, smoke, and aircraft in each photograph are to scale (as much as realistically possible).

The smoke cloud for UA93 is adjusted to 575m, and the fireball (taken from the impact fireball of UA175) is roughly 150m across. Obviously the fireball will continue to expand well past this size.

For the UA93 photo I have also placed the aircraft at the approximate angle of impact, and as indicated, shown it's position at 1 second before impact (to give an idea of its speed).

The B-52 smoke plume and fireball scale are based on the wingspan of the B-52. I calculated a maximum fireball width of 4x the aircraft's wingspan, however as this is a maximum, for the sake of this exercise I have gone with roughly 3x wingspan - or 170m.

Pay particular attention to three aspects of this photo:
1) Notice how near in the photograph the impact is located - because Val's photo is on flat ground the event appears "over the horizon" and this distorts the apparant distance.
2) Note that both mushroom clouds are approximately the same size.
3) Note the deceptive appearance of the fireballs - UA93 has an "airbourne" fireball, and as such appears to be much smaller, although it is only 16% narrower than the B-52 fireball.

Also note the deception you get with a thin-air photograph - the mountain peaks are almost 3x as far away as the Chateau (visible as three small white dots just appearing above the ridge beneath the arrow).

-Andrew

[stickin_damud]

Killtown, you're on this AGAIN?

What part of 580 mph at a 40 degree angle don't you understand?

Oh, I forgot. You don't understand any part of that.

Why do you keep showing a photo of the area near the wingtip, and not all the other photos that show scorch marks and debris in the direction of travel?

Your methods are, once again, dishonest.

Yes, how many times now has he/she/it referenced the part of the crater where the part of the wing which carries no fuel some how miraculously has no burning effect as a result. Killtown, the angle of impact and speed have everything to do with how the crater was formed and how the fuel behaved, but you incessantly keep trying to draw equal conclusions from completely unequal crash conditions of other planes. That's intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant. You really should apologize to Val. She has done NOTHING to you.

[stickin_damud]

Well, KT, I see your No votes have been stuck on 8 for days and days. Seems you've convinced no one after thousands of posts that you 'theory' has any merit. Your 8 believers seem to have given up supporting you, if they really exist at all. Telling, no?

[Gravy]

K, since you don't understand it, let me walk you through it.

You guys said 93's fireball was 4-15x wider than the crater.

Crash scene photos show no fire damage immediately outside the crater. Only a small section of forest at an awkward angle got singed.

The crash scene photos show that the fireball didn't exceed the crater, but somehow part of the fireball jump out of the crater, over some grass and a road, and landed in some trees at an awkward angle.

I.E. totally inconsistent with a fireball of the size you guys suggested.

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ef003c49c05.jpg

Notice that because of the peculiar color cast of the photo, the charred areas appear in shades of purple. If we select a mid-range purple in that area and convert to black & white, here's what we get:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ef07fc55f53.jpg

Killtown, you got some 'splainin to do!

[Wyn]

Let's not forget Killtwn's version of events...:D

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/WynB/KilltownFlt93Explanation.jpg

[Belz...]

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ef003c49c05.jpg

Honestly, I don't know how why Killtown doesn't see the obvious fireball patten on that picture.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Honestly, I don't know how why Killtown doesn't see the obvious fireball patten on that picture.

Now, now, that was 911spook. KT just decided to host it on his site.

[stickin_damud]

Hiya, Wyn! Yeah, that one cracks me up big time. I love the words "should be" and "probably". Some real expert opinion there. Notice all the math and physics he uses to support his assertions in the diagrams? Er, wait. There isn't any. It's amazing that the fact that a mostly hollow airplane weighing at least, what 25 tons?, traveling about 580 mph laden with around 5500 gallons of fuel will likely behave escapes his superior mind. Earth to Killtown, come in Killtown. This is your brain speaking. Please come home, I miss you.

[KingMerv00]

Hiya, Wyn! Yeah, that one cracks me up big time. I love the words "should be" and "probably". Some real expert opinion there. Notice all the math and physics he uses to support his assertions in the diagrams? Er, wait. There isn't any. It's amazing that the fact that a mostly hollow airplane weighing at least, what 25 tons?, traveling about 580 mph laden with around 5500 gallons of fuel will likely behave escapes his superior mind. Earth to Killtown, come in Killtown. This is your brain speaking. Please come home, I miss you.

Worse than that. I'm not sure of the exact weight but I think it was something like 70 tons. When empty.

Edit: Looked it up.

http://www.zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20Boeing%20757-200.htm

Empty = about 68-69 tons
Maximum takeoff weight = about 127 tons

[Hellbound]

From Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html):

Maximum Takeoff Weight 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)

THey don't give empty weigh there. But you can go into the detailed info found here (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec2.pdf) to find it (page 3).

Spec Operating Empty Weight: 128,380 lbs to 136,940 lbs. (64 to 68 tons).

[stickin_damud]

Worse than that. I'm not sure of the exact weight but I think it was something like 70 tons. When empty.

Thank you. I wasn't sure, but was GUESSING low to be safe. I ADMIT it. (Killtown, can you hear me?) I know some of the big airliners (777) can weigh over 500,000 pounds loaded and the 757 THAT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE THAT DAY had to be somewhat less. I don't think it takes away from my point: that's a whole lotta inertia and it would be practically impossible to predict EXACTLY how the impact would play out. What we can do is look at what happened and reason if it is possible and/or likely.

Can someone smarter than me perhaps explain all the vectors that are in play at the impact point. We have 3D position, then we have velocity vectors in 3 dimensions and also acceleration vectors in 3 dimensions, correct? It seems to me that UA93 was in the middle of a barrel roll at impact and that it is likely that one of the wing tips (the easterly one that KT keeps showing the unburnt grass around) hit first. IF this is the case (keeping in mind this all happens in less than a second) the plane would sort of roll as it disintegrates. When I look at where the trees burned up, it seems very likely the result of a roll component at impact combined with the aerosolization of the fuel which gave us the HUGE fireball. Some of the sprayed fuel sets the trees on fire, the rest ignites immediately and completely giving us Val's plume.

[stickin_damud]

Null hypothesis is: UA93 crashed in Shanksville field on 9/11/01
KT hypothesis: no, it didn't.

Fine and dandy. But it is not enough to say "it didn't happen that way". We would all like to know what you believe DID happen that day. How is the gov't involved? Any launching of missiles? How many people were involved in staging your version of events? Etc, etc.

I am DYING to know your version of events in Pennsylvania that day, KT.

[KingMerv00]

Thank you. I wasn't sure, but was GUESSING low to be safe. I ADMIT it. (Killtown, can you hear me?) I know some of the big airliners (777) can weigh over 500,000 pounds loaded and the 757 THAT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE THAT DAY had to be somewhat less. I don't think it takes away from my point: that's a whole lotta inertia and it would be practically impossible to predict EXACTLY how the impact would play out. What we can do is look at what happened and reason if it is possible and/or likely.

I knew you were guessing. You made that very clear. You said:

"... mostly hollow airplane weighing at least, what 25 tons?"

You made your inexperience clear, took a guess, and happened to be wrong. No big deal. Before I looked it up, I had no friggin clue what a Boeing 757-200 weighed. Now I do. I probably would have guessed wrong too.

This is just a good example of how human intuition can be wrong. Killtown does not understand that. He thinks if it sounds reasonable then it must be true. He doesn't do the work necessary to confirm or reject his ideas. Willful ignorance.

KT, the self proclaimed crash expert.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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


Notice that because of the peculiar color cast of the photo, the charred areas appear in shades of purple. If we select a mid-range purple in that area and convert to black & white, here's what we get:


Killtown, you got some 'splainin to do!

Similarly, check it out under color inversion:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/grass_color_inversion.jpg

[Taarkin]

notice the left side dirt looks older than the darker turned dirt on the right side
There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world to respond to this.

[stickin_damud]

I knew you were guessing. You made that very clear. You said:

"... mostly hollow airplane weighing at least, what 25 tons?"

You made your inexperience clear, took a guess, and happened to be wrong. No big deal. Before I looked it up, I had no friggin clue what a Boeing 757-200 weighed. Now I do. I probably would have guessed wrong too.

This is just a good example of how human intuition can be wrong. Killtown does not understand that. He thinks if it sounds reasonable then it must be true. He doesn't do the work necessary to confirm or reject his ideas. Willful ignorance.

KT, the self proclaimed crash expert.

Thanks again, KingMerv and you too, Huntsman. Yeah, it's called keeping an open mind and knowing when you are making educated guesses and stating so, just plain guessing based on intuition, or just plain rectal extraction (credit to the author on that one). And then there's the just plain old ridiculous "I'm right, you're wrong, nanner, nanner" stuff my 6 and 4 year old kids use. I expect that from kids, not from adults having intelectual discussion.

Excuse me while I shamelessly pile up posts.

[stickin_damud]

There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world to respond to this.

LOL!!! That one I missed. But didn't you know some dirt is older than others. It takes a keen eye to recognize the old dirt from the REALLY, REALLY old dirt....in a photo no less.

[Hellbound]

No prob.

I had found that data before, because I wanted to see about calculating the kinetic energy of the impact...but I figured it wouldn't make a dent in KT's claims so I didn't bother with the math :)

[DavidJames]

There aren't enough laughing dogs in the world to respond to this.
It's comments like those you quoted that that are moving me from alternating laughing and being angry at him to feeling sorry and pity.

The boy is clearly a legend in his own mind but is hopelessly intellectually immature. He has no education (or at least doesn't use it) and lacks basic logic skills. Like many other CTers, he has no clue what he's really saying nor it's impact or ramifications. Life for him plays out like a video game or movie. With them, he can master all there is to know by watching and playing them over and over again. No research, no analysis necessary, it's no more complex then pixels on a monitor.

[Buckwheatjones]

Let's not forget Killtwn's version of events...:D

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/WynB/KilltownFlt93Explanation.jpg

I like the way in A) The plane breaks into parts and in B) the plane is back together again and mashed into the earth. Presumably somewhere between A and B (I guess A and a half), the parts bounced off the ground, reassembled themselves, backed up a little to regain velocity, and then slammed themselves into the ground.

I liked that. I liked that part a lot.

[Buckwheatjones]

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ef003c49c05.jpg

Notice that because of the peculiar color cast of the photo, the charred areas appear in shades of purple. If we select a mid-range purple in that area and convert to black & white, here's what we get:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ef07fc55f53.jpg

Killtown, you got some 'splainin to do!

Wolfy, do you have a measurement on this?

[Skibum]

I think it supposed to be a multiple choice question, what do you think happened A or B.

I pick C.

[Yoink]

I checked out of this a while ago, but I'm just popping back in to say thanks to Gumboot, Arkan_Wolfshade, Gravy and R. Mackey for continuing to smack Killtown's pathetic arguments around. I do think it serves a purpose, even though it's a little like watching a six-year old arguing physics with Einstein.

I do have a question about the crash, actually for those who've been following these crackpot theories for longer than I have: when the conspiracy nuts go on about how far down the investigators had to dig for "buried" parts of the plane are they making those figures up entirely or what? I find it hard to imagine that large parts of the plane would have been "buried" in any normal sense of that word (i.e., actually tunnelling into the earth like lawn darts). The plane would be like a big alloy balloon slamming into the earth--it would pop like a balloon, I'd have thought, rather than tunnel in (although, obviously, denser pieces of the plane could detach from the body and burrow down; I wouldn't have thought something as large as an engine would--but that's just a guess).

On the other hand, I can imagine that at the moment of impact it would send a large amount of
dirt would have been flung up into the air, only to rain down on the crash site immediately afterwards. Could that be what "buried" parts of the plane? And could that also account for some of the "blurring" of what might otherwise be a more clearly defined "charred area" under the initial fireball?

[KingMerv00]

I like the way in A) The plane breaks into parts and in B) the plane is back together again and mashed into the earth. Presumably somewhere between A and B (I guess A and a half), the parts bounced off the ground, reassembled themselves, backed up a little to regain velocity, and then slammed themselves into the ground.

I liked that. I liked that part a lot.

I don't think A and B were meant to be in sequence. I think they are alternative ideas. In Killtown's opinion the plane should have been:

A) Cystalline?- The 757 absorbs the kinetic energy of a nosedive by breaking into huge identifiable chunks. The plane is brittle but for some reason, its components (the wings, the cockpit, etc.) are not. Sort of like breaking a cue ball by throwing it at a brick wall.

B) Hard nosed with a fuselage of jelly - The tip of the plane is strong enough to survive impact and burrow underground but the rest of the plane accordian-collapses like Roadrunner cartoon.

The only two options. Period. I base this on absolutely nothing.

[Hellbound]

A) Cystalline?- The 757 absorbs the kinetic energy of a nosedive by breaking into huge identifiable chunks. The plane is brittle but for some reason, its components (the wings, the cockpit, etc.) are not. Sort of like breaking a cue ball by throwing it at a brick wall.

No, idiot!

THe plane breaks up, right? Those pieces are only falling 40 or fifty feet!!! There's no WAY they'd blow into a million pieces!!! They're already off the plane, so they aren't going 580 mph any more, they're just falling!!!one!!!!111!1!!!1eleven!!!\

:D

[KingMerv00]

No, idiot!

THe plane breaks up, right? Those pieces are only falling 40 or fifty feet!!! There's no WAY they'd blow into a million pieces!!! They're already off the plane, so they aren't going 580 mph any more, they're just falling!!!one!!!!111!1!!!1eleven!!!\

:D

Well let's do a REAL experiment Killtown. Get into an elevator, destroy the emergency brakes and cut the cable. Wait till you get to the 1st floor and then jump. Report back to me.

[R.Mackey]

I do have a question about the crash, actually for those who've been following these crackpot theories for longer than I have: when the conspiracy nuts go on about how far down the investigators had to dig for "buried" parts of the plane are they making those figures up entirely or what? I find it hard to imagine that large parts of the plane would have been "buried" in any normal sense of that word (i.e., actually tunnelling into the earth like lawn darts). The plane would be like a big alloy balloon slamming into the earth--it would pop like a balloon, I'd have thought, rather than tunnel in (although, obviously, denser pieces of the plane could detach from the body and burrow down; I wouldn't have thought something as large as an engine would--but that's just a guess).

On the other hand, I can imagine that at the moment of impact it would send a large amount of dirt would have been flung up into the air, only to rain down on the crash site immediately afterwards. Could that be what "buried" parts of the plane? And could that also account for some of the "blurring" of what might otherwise be a more clearly defined "charred area" under the initial fireball?
Keep in mind that the "burrowed" parts didn't burrow that far. Engine cores, for instance, are actually quite dense and -- if you blow off the N1 and N2 rotor vanes -- pretty narrow in cross section. And as far as we can tell without a proper reference, they didn't penetrate further than 15 feet. The Black Boxes (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/black-box6.htm), which are a bit bigger than lunchboxes, are pretty dense (about 16 pounds) (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914blackbox0914p3.asp) owing to their armor steel housing. They are located in the tail of the aircraft, thus would fall through the remains of the fuselage into the deepest part of the crater on impact and keep moving. These were found (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-flight93-pg,0,2993172.photogallery?coll=ny-top-headlines)at a depth of about 25 feet if memory serves.

Remember that the impact point for Flight 93 was landfill on an old mine, so relatively loose dirt. This is about as good as conditions will get for ground penetration. On harder-packed or rocky terrain, you'd probably still see a few pieces bury themselves. But even if you hit water at that angle and velocity, the results would be shattering.

It's quite likely that a lot of dirt was thrown up on impact, and a good bit of it must have fallen back onto the impact point. But probably not more than a foot, at the outside, I'd guess. More likely the original crater walls collapsed inwards to give you some of those burial depths. This is all guesswork, though, and modeling this would be nearly impossible.

Incidentally, there are other witness accounts that are consistent with a nearly completely aersolized fuel deflagration on impact:
Carol Delasko, who works at the marina, said she saw a light cloud that stretched several hundred feet across rising about 200 feet into the air moments after the crash.

"It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up and it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti."

When it got to Terry Lowery's 65-acre farm, about three-quarters of a mile away, "it just looked like it was raining down," Lowery said.

"Paper, insulation and mail -- I picked a bunch up," he said.
(from http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914p2.asp) And before Killtown says some crap along the lines of "There's no raining confetti in Val's photo! Consp!R@(33!!", these are very small pieces we're talking about, below the threshold of resolution of her camera.

I'm still waiting to see anything whatsoever, besides the ravings of a scientifically ignorant malefactor, that's inconsistent with Val's photo.

[Wyn]

Hiya, Wyn! Yeah, that one cracks me up big time. I love the words "should be" and "probably". Some real expert opinion there. Notice all the math and physics he uses to support his assertions in the diagrams? Er, wait. There isn't any. It's amazing that the fact that a mostly hollow airplane weighing at least, what 25 tons?, traveling about 580 mph laden with around 5500 gallons of fuel will likely behave escapes his superior mind. Earth to Killtown, come in Killtown. This is your brain speaking. Please come home, I miss you.

Hayadoin Stick? I'm over here watching these guys skin Killtwn. He's dead, but doesn't know it yet!

Yeah, that drawing is a hoot. As soon as the nose hits the ground, the tail is not going 580 MPH anymore and just breaks off and falls gently to the ground!

[Buckwheatjones]

Thank you. I wasn't sure, but was GUESSING low to be safe. I ADMIT it. (Killtown, can you hear me?) I know some of the big airliners (777) can weigh over 500,000 pounds loaded and the 757 THAT CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE THAT DAY had to be somewhat less. I don't think it takes away from my point: that's a whole lotta inertia and it would be practically impossible to predict EXACTLY how the impact would play out. What we can do is look at what happened and reason if it is possible and/or likely.

Can someone smarter than me perhaps explain all the vectors that are in play at the impact point. We have 3D position, then we have velocity vectors in 3 dimensions and also acceleration vectors in 3 dimensions, correct? It seems to me that UA93 was in the middle of a barrel roll at impact and that it is likely that one of the wing tips (the easterly one that KT keeps showing the unburnt grass around) hit first. IF this is the case (keeping in mind this all happens in less than a second) the plane would sort of roll as it disintegrates. When I look at where the trees burned up, it seems very likely the result of a roll component at impact combined with the aerosolization of the fuel which gave us the HUGE fireball. Some of the sprayed fuel sets the trees on fire, the rest ignites immediately and completely giving us Val's plume.

Stick, that's a good point about the roll and how it might have affected the direction the fuel could have gone. Just another variable that has to go into this complicated issue.

[Yoink]

Keep in mind that the "burrowed" parts didn't burrow that far. Engine cores, for instance, are actually quite dense and -- if you blow off the N1 and N2 rotor vanes -- pretty narrow in cross section. And as far as we can tell without a proper reference, they didn't penetrate further than 15 feet. The Black Boxes (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/black-box6.htm), which are a bit bigger than lunchboxes, are pretty dense (about 16 pounds) (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914blackbox0914p3.asp) owing to their armor steel housing. They are located in the tail of the aircraft, thus would fall through the remains of the fuselage into the deepest part of the crater on impact and keep moving. These were found (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-flight93-pg,0,2993172.photogallery?coll=ny-top-headlines)at a depth of about 25 feet if memory serves.

(Preface: Killtown, please take note--this is how grown-ups approach a problem that initially puzzles them: they assume that they don't know everything involved and they seek out rational explanations. They don't say "I don't understand this, therefore it is obviously false!!!" If they did that, we'd all still believe that the sun circled around the earth.)

R. Mackey--thanks for that reply. I have to say that even with loosely packed landfill soil, and even at that speed I'm finding it difficult to picture the FDRs penetrating twenty-five feet of soil. Is that figure firm? Does anyone have a reference for it? There's relatively little mass in one of those FDRs: even at 580mph I wouldn't expect it to "burrow" more than a few feet into even loosely packed soil. Ever watch a pile-driver at work?

None of this, of course, helps the conspiracy nuts: why would anyone "faking" the crash site bury the FDRs so deep? Why wouldn't they burn the grass all around it (the way Hollywood obviously did for their recreation: they know what uninformed people "think" a crash site should be like)? But still, it strikes me as weird. Either the 25' figure is wrong or my "gut feelings" about this aren't worth zilch.

One thing's for sure: if they 25' figure is right, then the forces involved in that crash are simply staggering: the kind of thing that could only be accurately modeled by childlike pen drawings of cartoon planes.

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey--thanks for that reply. I have to say that even with loosely packed landfill soil, and even at that speed I'm finding it difficult to picture the FDRs penetrating twenty-five feet of soil. Is that figure firm? Does anyone have a reference for it? There's relatively little mass in one of those FDRs: even at 580mph I wouldn't expect it to "burrow" more than a few feet into even loosely packed soil. Ever watch a pile-driver at work?

...One thing's for sure: if they 25' figure is right, then the forces involved in that crash are simply staggering: the kind of thing that could only be accurately modeled by childlike pen drawings of cartoon planes.
It's claimed in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93#.22Black_Box.22_recorder s), haven't found the original reference but I've seen it elsewhere before.

But remember, this doesn't mean the FDRs tunneled through 25 feet of undisturbed earth. They were at the tail of the plane. The fuselage tore a good sized hole, shredding themselves as they went, and the FDR fell into that hole. They may not have by themselves tunneled far at all. They've also got more mass than you may appreciate.

Nonetheless, the forces involved in this crash are staggering. A rough estimate of the energy released from impact alone -- not including the fuel, just kinetic energy -- is equivalent to 1,580 kg of TNT. Sobering thought.

[Wyn]

I found a super secret picture of Killtwn and some more of his drawings.....

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/WynB/WileE.jpg

[The_Fire]

Just to point out how WRONG guestimates can be:

from http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101
Weights http://g.airliners.net/graphics/clear.gif Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb).


And that, kiddies, is why proper research is important. BTW: It took one google with this site coming up as no. 1.........

[Buckwheatjones]

I don't think A and B were meant to be in sequence. I think they are alternative ideas. In Killtown's opinion the plane should have been:

A) Cystalline?- The 757 absorbs the kinetic energy of a nosedive by breaking into huge identifiable chunks. The plane is brittle but for some reason, its components (the wings, the cockpit, etc.) are not. Sort of like breaking a cue ball by throwing it at a brick wall.

B) Hard nosed with a fuselage of jelly - The tip of the plane is strong enough to survive impact and burrow underground but the rest of the plane accordian-collapses like Roadrunner cartoon.

The only two options. Period. I base this on absolutely nothing.

Ok. I can see it that way. The type "What should have happened" looks like a statement rather than a question, since no question mark's present. As in Here's What Should Have Happened: A, then B.

Well, we know he's pulling for B, and keeps repeating the information that "the fuselage was buried 15 feet into the ground," etc. to back up his claim that whole plane, wings and all got planted with the tail sticking out like a Lawn Dart.

Except he also believes that no plane at all crashed there, so I guess what they dug out of the ground was yesterday's garbage. But it's just interesting to note that killtown is the only one on here who can possibly believe plane crashes occur this way, intact and compressed accordion-style.

Odd.

Killtown....What color is the sky in your world?

[KingMerv00]

Except he also believes that no plane at all crashed there, so I guess what they dug out of the ground was yesterday's garbage.

Yesterday's garbage has windows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P200061.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/P200061.jpg/776px-P200061.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/P200061.jpg)

[Yoink]

It's claimed in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93#.22Black_Box.22_recorder s), haven't found the original reference but I've seen it elsewhere before.

But remember, this doesn't mean the FDRs tunneled through 25 feet of undisturbed earth. They were at the tail of the plane. The fuselage tore a good sized hole, shredding themselves as they went, and the FDR fell into that hole. They may not have by themselves tunneled far at all. They've also got more mass than you may appreciate.

Nonetheless, the forces involved in this crash are staggering. A rough estimate of the energy released from impact alone -- not including the fuel, just kinetic energy -- is equivalent to 1,580 kg of TNT. Sobering thought.

Yes, there's a bit difference between "25' below the original surface level of the field" and "25' below the point where we started digging." As to them having "more mass" than I figure: I think you mean that they are "denser" than I figure (i.e., not just "more mass" but "more mass per cubic inch"). But even if I assumed they had the density of solid lead, I'm still not picturing them getting far into the soil. I did a little googling and found that a bullet will penetrate about 16 inches into dry sand at maximum. I don't know if you can scale that up for the FDR, but I'd be interested in the maths that shows a radically different result.

If I had a suspicion about all this it would be that the 25' figure was the total depth to which they were required to dig away the site to make sure that they got everything, and that this figure got attached to the FDRs by the press because it's a dramatic number ("Wow, they buried that far!").

Obviously, though, I could be utterly wrong on every count.

[KingMerv00]

Yes, there's a bit difference between "25' below the original surface level of the field" and "25' below the point where we started digging." As to them having "more mass" than I figure: I think you mean that they are "denser" than I figure (i.e., not just "more mass" but "more mass per cubic inch"). But even if I assumed they had the density of solid lead, I'm still not picturing them getting far into the soil. I did a little googling and found that a bullet will penetrate about 16 inches into dry sand at maximum. I don't know if you can scale that up for the FDR, but I'd be interested in the maths that shows a radically different result.

If I had a suspicion about all this it would be that the 25' figure was the total depth to which they were required to dig away the site to make sure that they got everything, and that this figure got attached to the FDRs by the press because it's a dramatic number ("Wow, they buried that far!").

Obviously, though, I could be utterly wrong on every count.

Killtown, take note. See how Yoink isn't certain? Notice that the search for more evidence is ongoing?

Follow suit.

[Buckwheatjones]

Yesterday's garbage has windows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P200061.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/P200061.jpg/776px-P200061.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/P200061.jpg)

I guess killtown has to address that.

If 93 was faked, did they just dump a bunch of plane parts into a hole? Surely there was debris, but if you're killtown you just decide the debris is planted and from some aircraft boneyard.

I'm wondering if there the serial numbers of the engines at the site were checked to verify that they were from the 757 going by Flt 93 that day. Suppose they do this as a matter of practice in all crash investigations?

[KingMerv00]

I guess killtown has to address that.

If 93 was faked, did they just dump a bunch of plane parts into a hole? Surely there was debris, but if you're killtown you just decide the debris is planted and from some aircraft boneyard.

I'm wondering if there the serial numbers of the engines at the site were checked to verify that they were from the 757 going by Flt 93 that day. Suppose they do this as a matter of practice in all crash investigations?


And for the love God WHY? Why fake a plane crash? If they had the power to fake a crash, they could've just sabotaged a 757 before takeoff. Fewer people would be involved and it still looks like a terrorist attack.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And for the love God WHY? Why fake a plane crash? If you have the power to fake one. Surely it would be easier just to sabotage one before takeoff. Fewer people involved and it still looks like a terrorist attack.

But, the villains always make the plan too complicated. How else are the underdog, no-one-believes-them heroes supposed to win?

[R.Mackey]

I think you mean that they are "denser" than I figure (i.e., not just "more mass" but "more mass per cubic inch"). But even if I assumed they had the density of solid lead, I'm still not picturing them getting far into the soil. I did a little googling and found that a bullet will penetrate about 16 inches into dry sand at maximum. I don't know if you can scale that up for the FDR, but I'd be interested in the maths that shows a radically different result.

If I had a suspicion about all this it would be that the 25' figure was the total depth to which they were required to dig away the site to make sure that they got everything, and that this figure got attached to the FDRs by the press because it's a dramatic number ("Wow, they buried that far!").
No, I really did mean "more mass." A lead bullet won't penetrate more than 16 inches, perhaps, but a lead cannonball fired with the exact same muzzle velocity will go quite a bit further than that.

When the projectile (in this case, a Flight Data Recorder) plows through a yielding solid (in this case, dirt), it's more of a drag effect, with the surface area rather than the volume determining how quickly kinetic energy is dissipated. As objects scale up, the volume (scales as the third power of diameter) grows faster than the surface area (scales as the second power), so a scaled-up object will experience less resistance per unit mass, and thus penetrate farther.

To put hard numbers on it, take a real FDR, assume it's a cube 20 cm on a side, and weighs 8 kilograms total. Its volume is 20cm x 20cm x 20cm = 8,000 cubic centimeters, thus it has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter.

Now scale that FDR down to dollhouse proportions, 1cm on a side, but with the same density. You have an FDR with volume 1cm x 1cm x 1cm = 1 cubic centimeter, and thus weighs 1 gram.

Now accelerate both to the impact speed, roughly 260 meters per second. Which one will penetrate farther? Well, the mini-FDR has only 1cm x 1cm of cross-sectional area, or 1 square centimeter, through which you're pushing 1 gram x (260 meters / second)2 of kinetic energy, or 67.6 Joules. That's 67.6 Joules of energy per square centimeter of crater to dissipate in the dirt.

The big FDR has an area of 20cm x 20cm = 400 square centimeters, so it makes a hole 400 times bigger. But its energy is 8,000 grams x (260 meters / second)2 of kinetic energy, or 540,800 Joules. That's 1,352 Joules per square centimeter of crater. Consequently, it tunnels a lot farther.

Hope that made sense. Yes, it is more complex than that, since we don't punch a square hole in the ground, and the FDR will deform as well, but the basic concept is correct.

Also, it isn't clear just how they measured recovery depth. It could have been 25 feet below the level plain, but only a couple of feet below the bottom of the crater. We really need a more detailed report to investigate much further.

ETA: Grammar c.f. further/farther. If it's a distance, it's "farther." Otherwise, it's "further." I knew that before I posted, honest.

[Yoink]

No, I really did mean "more mass." A lead bullet won't penetrate more than 16 inches, perhaps, but a lead cannonball fired with the exact same muzzle velocity will go quite a bit further than that.

When the projectile (in this case, a Flight Data Recorder) plows through a yielding solid (in this case, dirt), it's more of a drag effect, with the surface area rather than the volume determining how quickly kinetic energy is dissipated. As objects scale up, the volume (scales as the third power of diameter) grows faster than the surface area (scales as the second power), so a scaled-up object will experience less resistance per unit mass, and thus penetrate farther.

To put hard numbers on it, take a real FDR, assume it's a cube 20 cm on a side, and weighs 8 kilograms total. Its volume is 20cm x 20cm x 20cm = 8,000 cubic centimeters, thus it has a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter.

Now scale that FDR down to dollhouse proportions, 1cm on a side, but with the same density. You have an FDR with volume 1cm x 1cm x 1cm = 1 cubic centimeter, and thus weighs 1 gram.

Now accelerate both to the impact speed, roughly 260 meters per second. Which one will penetrate farther? Well, the mini-FDR has only 1cm x 1cm of cross-sectional area, or 1 square centimeter, through which you're pushing 1 gram x (260 meters / second)2 of kinetic energy, or 67.6 Joules. That's 67.6 Joules of energy per square centimeter of crater to dissipate in the dirt.

The big FDR has an area of 20cm x 20cm = 400 square centimeters, so it makes a hole 400 times bigger. But its energy is 8,000 grams x (260 meters / second)2 of kinetic energy, or 540,800 Joules. That's 1,352 Joules per square centimeter of crater. Consequently, it tunnels a lot farther.

Hope that made sense. Yes, it is more complex than that, since we don't punch a square hole in the ground, and the FDR will deform as well, but the basic concept is correct.

Also, it isn't clear just how they measured recovery depth. It could have been 25 feet below the level plain, but only a couple of feet below the bottom of the crater. We really need a more detailed report to investigate much further.

ETA: Grammar c.f. further/farther. If it's a distance, it's "farther." Otherwise, it's "further." I knew that before I posted, honest.

R. Mackey, you're making this waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too complicated. Don't make me resort to forensics and draw a picture of an FDR bouncing off the ground.

And remember, I still have the "ha ha ha" big gun in reserve!

[KingMerv00]

R. Mackey, you're making this waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too complicated. Don't make me resort to forensics and draw a picture of an FDR bouncing off the ground.

And remember, I still have the "ha ha ha" big gun in reserve!

OOOH! Can I draw the one where is crumples like a beer can?

[MortFurd]

Guys, we may be fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
It appears that Killtown may not be the originator of the diagrams. (http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4358&sid=c07456a25f153eb1092c28f43ab3c6d2)

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey, you're making this waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too complicated. Don't make me resort to forensics and draw a picture of an FDR bouncing off the ground.

And remember, I still have the "ha ha ha" big gun in reserve!
Bring it. :D

Incidentally, I tried to use roughly correct numbers for the real FDR. I don't have any blueprints, but the dimensions and weight are about correct. The density I computed, 1 gram per CC, is the density of water. This is probably not an accident -- you'd want them to float if possible. If I read up on them more, I'd probably find that this is a design goal of real FDRs.

I just thought that was interesting. Carry on.

[KingMerv00]

Guys, we may be fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
It appears that Killtown may not be the originator of the diagrams. (http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4358&sid=c07456a25f153eb1092c28f43ab3c6d2)

So he pulled all of that out of someone else's rectum? Eww...

Maybe that is why he doesn't know anything about the "math" involved.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Guys, we may be fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
It appears that Killtown may not be the originator of the diagrams. (http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4358&sid=c07456a25f153eb1092c28f43ab3c6d2)

Someone want to invite him over here to defend his claim?

eta: he has the crater in the wrong spot, he has it further north than it actually was.

[Buckwheatjones]

And for the love God WHY? Why fake a plane crash? If they had the power to fake a crash, they could've just sabotaged a 757 before takeoff. Fewer people would be involved and it still looks like a terrorist attack.

Don't even know if he's pondered that. He may have expended his braintrust on this cloud matter.

But why go to the trouble of creating a bogus photo if you, the government, aren't going to use it as any sort of official record? In all the time since this happened, this is the first time I've seen this photo. Heard others make similar comments. Why go to lots of trouble to fake this and then fall down on the PR end?

[KingMerv00]

Don't even know if he's pondered that. He may have expended his braintrust on this cloud matter.

But why go to the trouble of creating a bogus photo if you, the government, aren't going to use it as any sort of official record? In all the time since this happened, this is the first time I've seen this photo. Heard others make similar comments. Why go to lots of trouble to fake this and then fall down on the PR end?

The more I think about this the sadder I get. Here is the thought process:

1) The photo is doctored or merely the result of a fake plane crash (ordinance).

2) Therefore United Flight 93 never existed or never crashed.

Ok Killtown...where the hell is the plane?

Edit: Did David Copperfield vanish it? With a name like Copperfield, he might be Jewish. Zionist conspiracy perhaps?

[Buckwheatjones]

The more I think about this the sadder I get. He is the thought process:

1) The photo is doctored or merely the result of a fake plane crash (ordinance).

2) Therefore United Flight 93 never existed or never crashed.

Ok Killtown...where the hell is the plane?

Where the hell are the people?

[KingMerv00]

Where the hell are the people?

Where the hell is my patience for these jerkwads?

[TxLady]

Ah, Mortfurd, I as going to post something about that, ;;I read it a couple of days ago.
KingMerv, post the one where the plane crumples like a beer can and the explosion occurs undergound, then the plume erupts in the magical world at the center of the earth! See, I put on a tin foil hat this morning, but alas I had to throw it away, it so messed up my hair.
Serously, you're all doing a good job and I'm thankful.
I'm sad about his thought processes too. I can imagine one of my sons telling me they believe like that and how disappointed I would be. One son insisted he was a vampire for a while, lol.

[Pardalis]

Real plane crashes:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041128/041128_jetcrash_ebersol9p.hmedium.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/danang-crash.jpg
http://www.davezilla.com/archives/crash.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.net/english/doc/2005-11/09/xin_3911020915172591940713.jpg

Fake ones:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/757-crater-scale_small.jpg
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/crater-stahl.jpg

And fake plume:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2352/plumeanalysis1000ftsmdj4.gif

Learn the truth:

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

And be sure to...

2) Taking a photo out of context is lying.

:rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

I mean just look at all that green grass!

Oh my god! Paul Greengrass directed the movie "United 93"...

:boxedin: conspiracy...

[Buckwheatjones]

Oh my god! Paul Greengrass directed the movie "United 93"...

:boxedin: conspiracy...

Conspiracy.....I knew it!

[TxLady]

And the name of the one who made Killtown's graphics is mentioned in Scary Movie 4! or 3 or whatever the last one was. I wonder what that means?!?

[Belz...]

:rolleyes:

Thanks, Pardalis. I needed that.

[Gravy]

Killtown, I see you haven't retracted your remarks about Val McClatchey. When will you be doing so and issuing an apology to her?

[LashL]

Where the hell are the people?

According to the makers of LC: "the people are secondary"

(I guess that is why they, and other CTers of their ilk, have no compunctions about spitting on the graves of those who died on 9/11)

[Pardalis]

People? Nah... Why bother with them? Conspiracies work so much better without people involved.

ETA: A plane crash in Pennsylvania? Nah, just ask two guys to fake it with a shuvel...
A building collapse? Nah, just ask Dennis to put some explosives inside on weekends...

Geez

[simakperrce]

I seriously doubt that the image was retouched. Killtown on his blog stated that because the cloud was against a clear blue sky, it would have been easier to fake in the cloud. That's indicative of his ignorance right there because the opposite is more than true. I started retouching professionally in 1995 and have been doing it as a day job ever since.
Shopping in something like this, without leaving footprints, is next to impossible. so if kt is too lazy to buy a picture and have someone qualified to examine it, then you have to give the image the benefit of the doubt and presume it to be real.

Buck, not to side with KT but just to clarify: Why should pasting a cloud on a clear, evenly structured and more or less monochromatic background be "next to impossible"? And what footprints would you leave?

Again, I am not asking because I want to provoke, or because I doubt your post-processing experience, but I had my share of Photoshopping and I cannot really say that I would wholeheartedly undersign this claim, especially since most (all?) of the copies you find of this pic are most likely downsamples of the original.

Edit1: I DO however think that it would be bordering on the impossible to find a smoke cloud which would have the exact same light conditions and shadow patterns present at the location at that time

Edit2: I do not think the photo is a fake and I think the cloud was produced by the crash of UA93

[simakperrce]

One thing, which is not really important, but curious nonetheless: Why did she apparently shoot only one photo?

[jhunter1163]

Simak:

I had heard that after shooting the single pic, she dropped the camera. Rather than pick it up and take more pics, she called the cops.

[Yoink]

One thing, which is not really important, but curious nonetheless: Why did she apparently shoot only one photo?

I thought about that, too, but when you stop to think it is one of those (many) things that only gets to seem "suspicious" when you start to treat everything in the CT's paranoid way.

Think about it: you're watching the Twin Towers burning on TV--you've no idea what the extent of this disaster is going to be (you don't know if there are more targets, more planes etc.). Suddenly there's an almighty explosion outside your house!!

To me the remarkable thing is that she stopped to take a photo at all. Wouldn't your first thought be a mixture of "I need to find out what the f*ck just happened" and "God I hope nothing happened to my husband at the sawmill"?

CT clowns like KT, of course, see no problem in being simultaneously suspicious that "only one" photo was taken AND that she took a photo at all ("the camera was just sitting there. How conveeeenient.")

[Belz...]

CT clowns like KT, of course, see no problem in being simultaneously suspicious that "only one" photo was taken AND that she took a photo at all ("the camera was just sitting there. How conveeeenient.")

It seems the minds of CTers has something in common: the need to find suspicious things, never mind the fact that they're contradictory. I suppose it goes with the culture and current-day litterature.

[Buckwheatjones]

Buck, not to side with KT but just to clarify: Why should pasting a cloud on a clear, evenly structured and more or less monochromatic background be "next to impossible"? And what footprints would you leave?

Again, I am not asking because I want to provoke, or because I doubt your post-processing experience, but I had my share of Photoshopping and I cannot really say that I would wholeheartedly undersign this claim, especially since most (all?) of the copies you find of this pic are most likely downsamples of the original.

Edit1: I DO however think that it would be bordering on the impossible to find a smoke cloud which would have the exact same light conditions and shadow patterns present at the location at that time

Edit2: I do not think the photo is a fake and I think the cloud was produced by the crash of UA93

Feel free to ask questions, and don't feel as though you are stepping on toes doing so. First, I had asked killtown several times to get a hi res copy of the original file for study before judging the photograph to the extent that he has, and building his on line conspiracy theory. Knowing that getting access to the file, particularly after running Val thorugh the ringer, would probably not happen, I told him to at least do the next best thing and get a copy of the photograph. While it might or might not be a quality image, it's a mistake to assume that it wouldn't be without going to the trouble of finding out.

So by basing his work on the slop that's out on the web, it short changes an issue like this especially when a trained eye is needed to determine if the photo has been retouched.

And that brings us to the image itself. I say that shopping in a cloud is next to impossible to do seamlessly because in my experience it is. And I have 11 years of 40 hour work weeks behind a computer with this so my estimation carries weight. I started out on Photoshop 2.0. Now we are up to Photoshop 9.0 (CS2).

First, pasting and fairing in an irregular shape like a cloud on a clean slate like a cloudless sky is difficult to do without leaving footprints. You could have a lot more luck doing it on a sky with clouds in the background because they would help to hide evidence of erasures around the edge of the cloud and artifacts from the original background that the pasted in cloud had once laid against.

To do it there are two ways. First would be an automatic grab using either the magic wand tool or the color range selection tool. Either way would be possible, but would leave a hard chattery edge of pixels around the perimeter of the cloud. These would have to be removed by hand either with the eraser tool or the blur tool. A trained eye could spot this method by zooming in 500% and seeing the disruption of crisp pixels where the cloud ended and the sky behind it picked up. This would further be easy to spot by viewing in the RGB channels individually. You'd also want to convert the image to Lab and view the same thing in the luminence channel. Dead giveaway.

Second, you could hard cut the plume from the original image with the lasso tool. Forget cutting around it with a clipping path. You could never do an adequate job running around such a nebulous shape as a cloud. It's just not going to look right. So you chop it out with the lasso tool, paste it into Val's shot and again you have to erase away the perimeter of the cloud to get rid of the original background, and blur the edges.

In either case, some of the edges of the cloud as pasted in are going to need to be more opaque than others because you can always see the sky behind and through the cloud. You can erase away portions of it easily enough, but again, a trained eye can spot this on a print or a hi res file.

Another test is to check the creator code in the file itself, if you can get it. Norton has a file editor feature that will give you data on the file image and if the creator code reads BIM it is a photoshop file, which would lead one to believe it had been reworked in PS. If not, it is probably legitimate.

Finally, I create aviation illustrations in Photoshop using photographs of skies and sometimes you have one you like, but want to put more clouds into a given area. I've tried pasting in lots of clouds, and it is extremely hard to do to make it look convincing. It is nearly impossible to do it without anyone looking. Anyone who knows what to look for, that is.

Hope this helps.

Buck

[apathoid]

Feel free to ask questions, and don't feel as though you are stepping on toes doing so. First, I had asked killtown several times to get a hi res copy of the original file for study before judging the photograph to the extent that he has, and building his on line conspiracy theory. Knowing that getting access to the file, particularly after running Val thorugh the ringer, would probably not happen, I told him to at least do the next best thing and get a copy of the photograph. While it might or might not be a quality image, it's a mistake to assume that it wouldn't be without going to the trouble of finding out.

So by basing his work on the slop that's out on the web, it short changes an issue like this especially when a trained eye is needed to determine if the photo has been retouched.

And that brings us to the image itself. I say that shopping in a cloud is next to impossible to do seamlessly because in my experience it is. And I have 11 years of 40 hour work weeks behind a computer with this so my estimation carries weight. I started out on Photoshop 2.0. Now we are up to Photoshop 9.0 (CS2).

First, pasting and fairing in an irregular shape like a cloud on a clean slate like a cloudless sky is difficult to do without leaving footprints. You could have a lot more luck doing it on a sky with clouds in the background because they would help to hide evidence of erasures around the edge of the cloud and artifacts from the original background that the pasted in cloud had once laid against.

To do it there are two ways. First would be an automatic grab using either the magic wand tool or the color range selection tool. Either way would be possible, but would leave a hard chattery edge of pixels around the perimeter of the cloud. These would have to be removed by hand either with the eraser tool or the blur tool. A trained eye could spot this method by zooming in 500% and seeing the disruption of crisp pixels where the cloud ended and the sky behind it picked up. This would further be easy to spot by viewing in the RGB channels individually. You'd also want to convert the image to Lab and view the same thing in the luminence channel. Dead giveaway.

Second, you could hard cut the plume from the original image with the lasso tool. Forget cutting around it with a clipping path. You could never do an adequate job running around such a nebulous shape as a cloud. It's just not going to look right. So you chop it out with the lasso tool, paste it into Val's shot and again you have to erase away the perimeter of the cloud to get rid of the original background, and blur the edges.

Hope this helps.

Buck

I do little bit of work in Photoshop as well and I completely concur especially in regard to the lasso and magic wand borders. They are very easy to spot once you zoom in and the only way to blend them is changing the RGB levels or opacity in the pasted image to match the borders, but the colors wont match eveywhere and you still need to use the blur or smudge tool to blend things out. But, as you said - that is also easy to spot once you zoom in for a close look. In addition, the photoshopping would be very easy to see by pinching the rgb levels togther to crank up the detail. You could also use the unsharp mask to find the border of the pasted image.

Vals photo has no such fingerprints at the edge of the plume. However, its marginally possible that she could pasted the sky in including the plume and blending the the treetops, which would be difficult as well...

[Buckwheatjones]

It's all about the disruption of the pixel patterns. In a pure file, the pixels will maintain their linear pattern. In a shopped file, they won't. This is one of the main things to look for.

[Buckwheatjones]

BTW, I see killtown picked up one vote. 108-9. He's gaining ground. Too bad the guy didn't see fit to come on here and lend him a hand.

[chran]

Actually, I was one of the people who voted for the cloud not being from Flight 93, but that's because I mis-read the question. It was late and what have you :p

Sorry Killtown, you're back to 8 supporters :rolleyes:

By the way, where are you?

[Belz...]

Vals photo has no such fingerprints at the edge of the plume. However, its marginally possible that she could pasted the sky in including the plume and blending the the treetops, which would be difficult as well...

You're all forgetting a very important element: Val probably had access to a super-sekrit doctoring software that is far more advanced and competent than photoshop, since it uses artificial intelligence, probably Skynet itself. It was probably develloped for years for just that picture.

Never, EVER forget Smacco's Rozar!

[Brainache]

What happened to Killtown? I'm still waiting to see what pictures that Rumple4skin character draws up for him to refute the idea of aerosolised jet fuel and momentum.
Or failing that an apology to the innocent woman he accused of being a fraud.
Do you think I should hold my breath?

[Gravy]

What happened to Killtown? I'm still waiting to see what pictures that Rumple4skin character draws up for him to refute the idea of aerosolised jet fuel and momentum.
Or failing that an apology to the innocent woman he accused of being a fraud.
Do you think I should hold my breath?
He's busy looking for a dictionary that defines "vicious coward" as "honorable person."

[Mr. Skinny]

Think about it: you're watching the Twin Towers burning on TV--you've no idea what the extent of this disaster is going to be (you don't know if there are more targets, more planes etc.). Suddenly there's an almighty explosion outside your house!!

To me the remarkable thing is that she stopped to take a photo at all. Wouldn't your first thought be a mixture of "I need to find out what the f*ck just happened" and "God I hope nothing happened to my husband at the sawmill"?
That's a good point, Yoink.

On 9/11 after being dismissed from work, I was at home watching the whole thing unfold. About an 1700 hrs a loud boom was heard and I went outside to look. My neighbor (in her 70's) also came out, as did about 10 other adults that I could see. I don't recall any of them holding a camera (still or motion).

Anyhow, my neighbor and I looked at each other and said in unison "sonic boom". She strolled back in the house, and I walked across the street to let the younger adults know what it was, in case they had never heard a sonic boom.

When I got back inside, a local TV channel was reporting "reports of an explosion at the VA hospital". A while later they reported that an F-16 had unintentionally broken the sound barrier while flying a patrol over the area.

I find it remarkable that she (Val) had the presence of mind to get even one photo.

[Belz...]

I find it remarkable that she (Val) had the presence of mind to get even one photo.

Don't say that. Now Killtown will think THAT's suspicious!

[Mr. Skinny]

Don't say that. Now Killtown will think THAT's suspicious!
Sorry. :o

Last thing KT needs is more stuff to "research". :)

[Killtown]

Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)

[Killtown]

I find it remarkable that she (Val) had the presence of mind to get even one photo.
Do you not know why Val had her digital camera "ready" by her front door?

[KingMerv00]

Do you not know why Val had her digital camera "ready" by her front door?

She is an evil government agent?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Grrr... Someone make that drek come back here and withdraw his claims. *mutter*

[Gravy]

Ah, Killtown is back.

How about finally answering these questions, Killtown, instead of running from them like you've been doing? They aren't going away, no matter how much you want them to.

1) Your only stated criterion for Val McClatchey's possible guilt was if the photo was Photoshopped. True or false?

2) You had no access to the original file, memory card, or any high-res version of the photo. True or false?

[Gravy]

Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)
I asked this before also. What part of 850 feet per second at a 40-degree angle don't you understand?

What have you missed? You missed apologizing to Val McClatchey, for one. So do it now, if you're a man. If you're not a man, continue your charade.

[Yoink]

Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)

KT, what "laws of physics" would have to have been defied. Name one; and tell us exactly why the formation of a fireball big enough to produce the plume in the McClatchey photograph would have had to have "defied" it given the available evidence.

Please note that "all airplane crashes look like slow-speed B-52 crashes" is not a "law of physics." So: what else do you have?

[Ketyk]

Me, I try to hang in the humor section, but have followed this thread.

Over the weekend CourtTV showed a documentary about the events of 9/11/2001. I must admit I cried again, as I did that day.

I've heard there are steps that people go though when suffering a loss. Right now I feel anger. It is directed everywhere, including myself. I did not know how much others hated the US. I have since spoken to as many people as possible to find out why. There are reasons.

I am angry at Killtown, because s/he has not tried to learn. Killtown has an agenda that is obvious. Killtown refuses to answer direct questions that should be easy to answer, if s/he believed what s/he wrote.

I am angry at anyone that enabled/funded/supported the killing of innocent men, women and children that day. If someone reading this wonders why the US used its military force after 9/11/2001, you have your answer. Anger. Not oil, not politics.

I am not a pacifist, nor is the US.

[R.Mackey]

Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?
I like how you, in your very first sentence back here, simultaneously (a) complain about insults and (b) insult all of us, in a single clause. You're quite a hypocrite, Killtown.

I was hoping you'd taken some time off to try to learn the fundamentals of science. Apparently I was too optimistic. If you had, you would understand that we already have such a theory, and it is captured in this very thread.

In case you feel like challenging that theory -- with something other than pictures of weapons tests -- you may begin by describing, as precisely as possible and fully referenced, the extent of burn damage at the crater. Anything less is simply hearsay and subject to your own demented imagination.

Get to work, Stalltown.

[Buckwheatjones]

Do you not know why Val had her digital camera "ready" by her front door?

What...you think this is incredible that she got off a shot? Why is it unbelievable that this is possible?

[Buckwheatjones]

Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.


;)

All this math and science coupled with sound reasoning making your head hurt?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do you not know why Val had her digital camera "ready" by her front door?

Relevance?

[CurtC]

Didn't I read that a friend of hers was going to fly by her house? I didn't pay that much attention because it didn't seem relevant. KT, is there something sinister that lies underneath that explanation?

[Yoink]

Didn't I read that a friend of hers was going to fly by her house? I didn't pay that much attention because it didn't seem relevant. KT, is there something sinister that lies underneath that explanation?

KT is happy as long as he can call something "suspicious." He doesn't care if the "suspicions" are mutually incompatible. E.g.:

It is "suspicious" that she had a camera ready: the implication being either that she was "primed" to take the photo (of a smoke cloud that really existed but wasn't from a plane) or that the photo is photoshopped (i.e., she couldn't really have made it out in time to take this photo).

It is "suspicious" that she only took one shot: this, of course, could only suggest that the photo is photoshopped (if this were a real, non-plane cloud then why wouldn't the conspirators want lots and lots of photos of it?).

It is "suspicious" that the cloud looks (to KT) like "ordnance": this, of course, implies that Val McClatchey actually did take a photo of a real cloud, and that she did have the camera to hand. Either she did this to help the conspirators (but then why only one photo? and why didn't the conspirators ever make any use of this photo?), or she is the sterling citizen who has exposed the evil conspiracy (but then we have to go back to accepting her account of having the camera ready to hand, and see taking only one photo as not being suspicious).

It is "suspicious" to KT that the cloud isn't directly over the crash site: this, to KT, suggests that the plane could not have been the origin of the cloud. Here again this "suspicion" suggests one of two possibilities: either the cloud was photoshopped or the cloud was produced by something other than a plane crash. But then we have to ask: why would Val (or the FBI or whoever) photoshop in a cloud in the "wrong" place? She knows where she lives, she knows where the crash site was relative to her house--why would she make such an obvious "error"? And if the conspirators set off some explosive device to simulate the plane crash, why wouldn't they do so at the carefully sculpted crash site? And why wouldn't this bomb have left any fragments behind, or evidence of damaged trees or burnt ground or what have you?

KT doesn't choose to pick any one of these narratives because he knows that there isn't one of them (other than the OV) that doesn't bring massive contradictions in its wake. What he doesn't realize is that saying "one of five mutually contradictory things happened) doesn't magically make the contradictions go away.

Of course, if we were to start listing the things that KT doesn't realize, we'd be here all year.

[Belz...]

Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)

Nope. No one has because that's YOUR burden, bucko.

[Belz...]

why would Val (or the FBI or whoever) photoshop in a cloud in the "wrong" place? She knows where she lives, she knows where the crash site was relative to her house--why would she make such an obvious "error"?

Why, to allow Killtown to spot the error and become a hero.

[KingMerv00]

Where are those passengers again?

How about the plane?

[Yoink]

Here's a question:

Do you guys think KT believes his own nonsense or not? I ask this, because I see a very clear pattern in his posts--especially since his "big finish" with the photograph of the unburnt grass. He only responds to questions if he thinks he has some kind of easy put-down answer to them: either a flippant eye-rolling answer or a "let me show you the B-52 again" answer. That is, none of the direct, specific "yes/no"-type questions which lead directly and obviously to show the absurdity of his "evidence" get a direct response.

It seems pretty clear to me that the difference between the sincere-but-deluded person and the "I just want to prolong my 15 minutes and I'm afraid people will laugh at me if I admit I'm wrong"-type like KT is that the former really wants to take on what seem to be the central challenges to his theory because they're so certain that they have the evidence to prove their case, while the latter only really cares about maintaining the facade of confidence. The very fact that he knows to avoid answering certain questions (like, what temperature grass burns at, or why we don't see burnt grass beside other wrecked aircraft that were engulfed in flames, or what have you) seems to me to show that he knows that he has no answer to them, and therefore shows that (at least at some level) he knows that is argument is exploded.

[Pardalis]

Do you not know why Val had her digital camera "ready" by her front door?

Pathetic. You're still trying to accuse Val of foul play? You have no more arguments (like you never had any), so is this it? Will you ever make an apology to her?

I tell you, if you ever made a public apology to her, and on your blog, you would gain all of our respects.

[KingMerv00]

I'm hoping he's not a troll for his sake. Anyone who troll-posts nearly 800 times deserves my pity.

[Ketyk]

Here's a question:
Do you guys think KT believes his own nonsense or not?

My last post here: We will never know.

Sadly this forum is not face-to-face. I've met posters here, discussed issues, and disagreed. We had a civil discussion. Killtown will never debate face-to-face. Unless s/he wants to. As far as I am concerned, anyplace, anytime.

[TxLady]

Sadly, I do think he believes it. It 's like people who are "addicted" to drama, they turn molehills into mountains. They have to have some kind of excitement in their lives, I guess. Yes, I know some people like this. lol. I think believing in this nonsense makes Kt feel special, like he's one of the only few who know the "truth". He only sees what he wants to see.

[Belz...]

...Did Killtown use an escape pod, or what ?

Ran away, did he ?

[Wyn]

...Did Killtown use an escape pod, or what ?

Ran away, did he ?

Nah, he found a new picture that "doesn't look right" so he took out his box of crayons and is making new drawings.

[Stellafane]

...Did Killtown use an escape pod, or what ?

Ran away, did he ?


Of course Killtown ran away. But that won't be the way he'll tell it. Instead, he'll tell what few followers he may have left how he schooled us all, butch-slapped us, he pwned us, etc. For CTists, it isn't about debating or even making sense. It's about posting the same stupid thing over and over long enought to get your post count up, then running away and declaring victory back in Dylan's Nursery.

Killtown, what a character...even the LC crew can't stand him.

[Gravy]

Killtown, what a character...even the LC crew can't stand him.
Like I've always said, Killtown is one of us, only less so.

[Killtown]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?

[rwguinn]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?

The same way every other high-velocity aircraft crash did it (as you were shown through various videos and photos).
your problem is that you are incapable of logical thought, and cannot differentiate betwee cause and effect. But don't feel lonely--most 8th graders have the same problem.

[R.Mackey]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?
Well, look who's back.

Why on earth would we create such a theory? That's not at all what we believe happened.

How about you read this thread, and ask for help when you can't understand it, rather than making up stuff? We're always glad to help, especially those who are complete neophytes to science, such as yourself.

[gumboot]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?


Killtown, which of the following photos looks realistic to you, and which does not?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef5076dc30.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1133)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef54c10875.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1134)

-Andrew

[Stellafane]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?

OMG! Killtown is back! I don't know whether to laugh or cry (seriously). Not sure whether or not he still has me on ignore, but could someone ask him why the LC crew think he's such a tool? Yes, I know it's technically off-topic, but I'd like to hear his explanation.

[Killtown]

Killtown, which of the following photos looks realistic to you, and which does not?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef5076dc30.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1133)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef54c10875.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1134)

-Andrew
Well I guess the 2nd one, but you'll just say I'm being biased.

I still don't get your guy's "aerosilized" theory about the fireball.

[Killtown]

but could someone ask him why the LC crew think he's such a tool?

Huh? :confused:

[R.Mackey]

Well I guess the 2nd one, but you'll just say I'm being biased.

I still don't get your guy's "aerosilized" theory about the fireball.
That's fine, since you are not an expert in any related field, it's perfectly natural for you to not understand fuel aerosolation. We can explain it to you if you would like.

Do you know what the word "volatile" means? It is central to this discussion.

[Killtown]

We can explain it to you if you would like.

Do you know what the word "volatile" means? It is central to this discussion.
Please do Mr. Obnoxious, explain to me why 93's fireball "aerosolized" when the other planes impacts didn't.

And yes.

[R.Mackey]

Please do Mr. Obnoxious, explain to me why 93's fireball "aerosolized" when the other planes impacts didn't.

And yes.
I see your manner has not improved. Not surprising, but regrettable.

Since you understand the word "volatile," maybe you'd like to explain to me how it relates to this situation? If not, I will be glad to explain. It does explain the difference in aircraft impacts, therefore I suspect you don't understand it at all.

[Killtown]

I see your manner has not improved. Not surprising, but regrettable.

Since you understand the word "volatile," maybe you'd like to explain to me how it relates to this situation? If not, I will be glad to explain. It does explain the difference in aircraft impacts, therefore I suspect you don't understand it at all.
My manner??? You gots to be kidding me. Maybe you missed yours and just about everybody else's manners toward me.

I can't explain it, so go ahead.

[gumboot]

Well I guess the 2nd one, but you'll just say I'm being biased.

I still don't get your guy's "aerosilized" theory about the fireball.


You didn't answer the question properly. We'll try again.

Does this photo look realistic to you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef5076dc30.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1133)

If you saw a similar scene played out before your eyes would you find it a possible realistic scenario? Or would you perhaps suspect you had taken some wild drugs?

And how about this one?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef54c10875.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1134)

Would you consider this scenario to be realistic?

You can say both are realistic if you like. I don't care which you think is "most" realistic, just whether you think either could be realistic AT ALL.

Thanks.

-Andrew

[Killtown]

You didn't answer the question properly. We'll try again.

Does this photo look realistic to you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef5076dc30.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1133)

If you saw a similar scene played out before your eyes would you find it a possible realistic scenario? Or would you perhaps suspect you had taken some wild drugs?

And how about this one?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1015344eef54c10875.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1134)

Would you consider this scenario to be realistic?

You can say both are realistic if you like. I don't care which you think is "most" realistic, just whether you think either could be realistic AT ALL.

Thanks.

-Andrew

The first looks like if a missile hit a tank and the tank exploded. Doesn't look like a plane crash at all.

[R.Mackey]

My manner??? You gots to be kidding me. Maybe you missed yours and just about everybody else's manners toward me.

I can't explain it, so go ahead.
Ever playing the victim, eh? If I treated you one iota as rudely as you've treated Val McClatchey, slandering her in the press so badly that the newspapers have seen fit to print her story, I might begin to have some sympathy. Go ahead and find my alleged mistreatment of you, if you feel so hurt.

Thank you for admitting that you don't understand volatility in this context. This would go much faster if you were more open about your lack of understanding, rather than us having to coax it out of you every time.

Volatility in this context means the tendency for certain chemicals -- in this case, jet fuel -- to evaporate in air. This is an important quality. It is this quality that makes it possible for gasoline to explode in glorious fireballs, as in movie props, yet also burn in a much slower, more controlled manner, as it does in your parents' automobile. Whether gasoline burns or explodes (the technical term is "deflagrates," meaning that the flame front travels slower than the speed of sound, as opposed to "detonates" where the flame front is supersonic) is a function of how well it is mixed with the air.

If you leave a quantity of jet fuel exposed to the air indefinitely, it will eventually all evaporate. But it takes a fairly long time. The reason is that only some of the fuel is exposed to the air at any one instant, the rest being surrounded by other jet fuel.

On the other hand, if you "aerosolize" the fuel, it means you are shaking the fuel and jetting it into the atmosphere, much like how an aerosol spray can converts liquid paint into an airborne suspension. In this case, the fuel is in small drops, well mixed with air, with a lot of surface area open to the air. This makes the fuel evaporate much, much faster.

This explains why the pictures you've presented of air crashes burn so very differently from Flight 93. As explained to you numerous times, the key difference is the impact speed of the aircraft. It is this speed, this kinetic energy combined with fragmentation of the fuel tanks, that determines whether the fuel is more-or-less poured onto the ground as a liquid, as in your infamous B-52 video, or whether it is streaked through the air in all directions at high speed, as in Flight 93.

In the former case, the fuel is not free to evaporate very quickly, and thus it burns. There will tend to be a dark, smoky, fuel-rich initial fireball as the evaporated fuel at the edges is consumed, followed by a lingering plume as the residual fuel, starved for oxygen, can only evaporate and burn slowly.

In the latter case, the fuel is spread over a much larger area, allowing most or even all of it to mix prior to (or during) igniton. This results in a far larger, more concussive -- but actually cooler -- fireball, with little fuel left over to form a lingering plume.

Because Flight 93 crashed so fast and so hard, it is expected that the latter case is more relevant. These crashes are also extremely unusual, which is why you've been unable to find any videos that are good models.

Do you understand? I can clarify if you still need more help.

[Killtown]

1) If I treated you one iota as rudely as you've treated Val McClatchey, slandering her in the press so badly that the newspapers have seen fit to print her story, I might begin to have some sympathy. Go ahead and find my alleged mistreatment of you, if you feel so hurt.

2) Because Flight 93 crashed so fast and so hard, it is expected that the latter case is more relevant. These crashes are also extremely unusual, which is why you've been unable to find any videos that are good models.

Do you understand? I can clarify if you still need more help.
1) Treated Val rudely? I just presented all the facts that were already in the news. I can't help it if her story stinks.

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?

[Belz...]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?

Yes.

[Belz...]

Well I guess the 2nd one, but you'll just say I'm being biased.

I still don't get your guy's "aerosilized" theory about the fireball.

Well, that explains why you don't agree with it, now, doesn't it ?

How can you claim it doesn't make sense if you don't understand it ?

Bizarre.

[R.Mackey]

1) Treated Val rudely? I just presented all the facts that were already in the news. I can't help it if her story stinks.

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?
That is a complex and malicious lie, Killtown, one that we have explained to you very, very patiently.

For those of you coming late to the party, Killtown's harrassment of Val is documented here (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm) in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Your lie is as follows:


You did not "just present facts that were already in the news." Your website focuses on your own ham-handed and stilted analysis rather than any "facts," and includes Val's personal information, speculation about her financial condition, and even her address and satellite views of her house!
You are not in a position to evaluate whether or not "her story stinks." As we have proven beyond any possible doubt, and your continued naivete confirms, you are in no way expert enough to evaluate her story. The FBI investigated and concluded it was genuine. Our experiments here, less thorough than the FBI but far more detailed than yours, are consistent with her story. Just because you don't or won't understand her story doesn't make her a cheat.
Even if the above were both false, you would still not be obligated to harrass her as you have done. For instance, I would be much, much more justified in publishing a thorough repudiation of your conduct, based on nothing more than we've read here. Val may have a civil case against you. Your thin veneer of protection is that we have more class than that, you have not volunteered your personal information (even though you feel free to distribute hers) (but I'm sure we could find it if we wanted), and there is a chance that you are a minor.


Now, then, to address the "burrowing" question.

We have asked you to demonstrate why you think the aircraft "burrowed" into the ground, presumably taking its fuel with it. If this was the case, I agree, it would be more intuitive to expect a slower, burning plume. However, going again to the speed of the crash, there is no reason to think that the aircraft burrowed intact.

From what I have seen, the densest, most well-protected parts of the aircraft were only found 15 to 25 feet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93) below the level plain. In contrast, the structure of the aircraft was shredded into mostly small debris on impact, debris which was observed by some witnesses to rain down in seconds after impact.

Aircraft fuel is mostly contained in the wings. The wings are less dense and present more surface area than the fuselage. They could not "burrow" nearly as far as the denser parts of the plane. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the fuel did not "burrow," but rather was released on impact, like an aluminum-skinned water balloon.

As I have asked before, if you have evidence that (a) the wings entered the ground intact, or (b) large quantities of aircraft fuel were found as contaminants inside the crater, please share them with us.

In the past, you have not done this, relying instead on your intuition that the fuel would bury itself. Not only is your intuition suspect, but it isn't enough. You must show that it didn't or couldn't aerosolize in order to reject my hypothesis. If you cannot, then it is a valid hypothesis, ergo you agree that our theory is possible.

Do you understand the argument above? I really would like to make sure you're keeping up at all times, since we've had to repeatedly go back and clarify in past dealings with you. Don't be afraid to ask, I will be glad to help.

[gumboot]

The first looks like if a missile hit a tank and the tank exploded. Doesn't look like a plane crash at all.


You consider the second photo to look realistic?

-Andrew

[Wyn]

Aircraft fuel is mostly contained in the wings. The wings are less dense and present more surface area than the fuselage. They could not "burrow" nearly as far as the denser parts of the plane. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the fuel did not "burrow," but rather was released on impact, like an aluminum-skinned water balloon.

Sure they would, see look at this highly scientific drawing from the Kill*own web site:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b142/WynB/KilltownFlt93Explanation.jpg

In sceanario B, you can plainly see the wings would have burrowed themselves into the ground......:D

[Belz...]

The first looks like if a missile hit a tank and the tank exploded. Doesn't look like a plane crash at all.

Expertise ? Analysis ?

If all the fuel exploded right away, it'd still look like that.

[Belz...]

Do you understand? I can clarify if you still need more help.

Very educative, Mack. Thank you.

[Belz...]

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?

First, do you understand Mack's explanation ?

Second, who said it burrowed ? As I understand it, most of the plane broke away on impact. Only the denser portions entered the earth beneath.

[R.Mackey]

Sure they would, see look at this highly scientific drawing from the Kill*own web site:

[cartoon stolen off of Killtown's refrigerator deleted]

In sceanario B, you can plainly see the wings would have burrowed themselves into the ground......:D
Let's give Killtown the opportunity to show us that he's learned more about the problem since then.

If he still holds to this theory, I'd like to know how he decided this completely asinine cartoon was a more accurate description of physics than our hypotheses. Should prove illuminating.

[rwguinn]

here's another one:
http://www.1001crash.com/telechvideo.php?video=F16_engine&lg=2
Korean F-15. It was on fire to start with, but the aerosol effect is shown quite well, and the lack of burned grass around the crater is obvious, too.

[Buckwheatjones]

1) Treated Val rudely? I just presented all the facts that were already in the news. I can't help it if her story stinks.

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?

Hey, look who found his way back.

1. No. You didn't. You presented part of the story and drew conclusions that stink, then you implicated her in a case of fraud without doing your homework. Saying that's rude would be an understatement.

2. It went SMACK! And I don't see anywhere, that's a more credible source than yourself, that says most of the plane was buried underground. Dense chunks, landing gear, black boxes, sure. But most of it was aluminum shards that blew up.

Game On.

[Dog Town]

I know this is off topic. Had to show some of KT logic here, from LC. This is a response to the wendyB post.
On average, those types of people aren't the best of friends with gay people. Perhaps he was so professional that he put his personal feelings of gay people (if they were negative) aside for his job. Perhaps your father wasn't homophobic, but that wouldn't be the norm with his kind of profile.

I ask two questions about all the passengers including your father; were they in on it, or were they chosen? With your fathers background, one can not help hold the possibility that his type fits the profile of someone who'd be in on it. That doesn't mean he WAS. It just means he fits the profile. We only know what is giving to us by the media.

If he was a good honest person who wouldn't sell out the American people as you seem to suggest, then based on his profile type, I'd have to say he was choosen to be on that flight and murdered by our gov't and I'm going to do all I can to make sure his murderers are brought to justice.

Then yet another sign of the apacolypse, from JDX...
We have/had MANY military pilots at my airline. We also have/had MANY gay flight attendants.

I havent seen ONE military pilot in all my years of flying make one remark in the cockpit, with the door closed, saying he would rather not share his airplane with someone who was gay. Its called professionalism.

Killtown, unless you can show us a degree in psychology for profiling people.. and/or many years of experience in the airlines, you have no clue how to profile such a Capt.

Prt2 JDX to wendyB
If you are not the real Wendy Burlingame, you have some serious issues and should seek help. We do have your IP address and will be pursuing to find out if in fact you are the real Wendy Burlingame.
Then KT gets it right!
Have you no shame JDX?

I swear it's like the twilightzone, with out the great intro, and music!
http://www.unipeak.com/gethtml.php?_u_r_l_=aHR0cDovL3MxNS5pbnZpc2lvbmZyZW UuY29tL0xvb3NlX0NoYW5nZV9Gb3J1bS9pbmRleC5waHA/c2hvd3RvcGljPTY1ODA=
/derail

[Regnad Kcin]

R.Mackey:

Your lengthy posts above (#2700 and 2704) are good stuff. Thanks for the effort.

[Pardalis]

R.Mackey:

Your lengthy posts above (#2700 and 2704) are good stuff. Thanks for the effort.

... and thanks R. Mackey for being so thorough and polite, I don't know how you do it.

@Killtown: you are the most despicable human being I have ever come across.

[MortFurd]

So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?

So did you ever explain why the task of faking the flight 93 crash site was given to the three stooges? If your drawing is correct, then there's an explosion on one site, a crater with debris on a second site, and a burned area on a third site. Since the conspirators were too inept to create a single, convincing crash site, then it must have been done by a bunch of bumblers. The most bumbling fools ever were the three stooges, therefore they set up the flight 93 crash site. QED.

Is that your argument, Killtown? If your "analysis" were correct, then you would have proven that the conspirators were too damned stupid to even create one fake crash site. Now how could they then turn around and be so efficient as to leave no other evidence?

[sleahead]

Then KT gets it right!

Quote:
Have you no shame JDX?

Later edited to:

mod edit : stick to topic

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Flightpath overlay onto GEPlus maps:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/shanksville_flightpath.jpg

Flightpath overlay onto GEPlus maps zoomed:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/shanksville_flightpath_14.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/shanksville_Crater_burn_debris_fiel.jpg
Smallest circle is crater. Next ring is burn area. Next ring is debris field.

Overview:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/shanksville_10309_field_of_view.jpg

Angled view from the house to the crashsite:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/Shanksville_VH_field_of_view.jpg

Closer view at the field of view at crashsite:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/shanksville_angle_field_of_view.jpg
Inner bar with line indicates approx. plume stem width.
Longer line spanning that bar and the left most, and righter bar, indicates approx. plume cap width.
Purple bar indicates field of view from house to crater.
Denser bar covering this and righter part of plume cap bar indicates field of view from house of debris field.

[Pardalis]

[kneels down before Arkan]

We're not worthy, we're not worthy!

[/stands back up and goes back to work]

[azazal]

[kneels down before Arkan]

We're not worthy, we're not worthy!

[/stands back up and goes back to work]


I think he needs to go back to his Lee Van Cleef "The Master" avatar.

Well done Arkan

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Got one more coming that I think will be of high interest.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here's KT's image, overlaid on top of my analysis:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/KT-ImageOverlay.jpg

And here is the same image, angle view, from the house:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/KT-ImageOverlayAngle.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For a sense of scale:
Working at the longitude of the crater, KT's "plume" vectors add ~171 meters of width over my estimate. (my estimate at that longitude is ~584 meters)
To look at it another way, his plume width at that longitude is ~783 meters; that's 134% larger.

That's about 10 meters of difference on the white barn, and about 5.5 meters of difference on the red barn.

The diameter to the outer ring of his "Realistic Explosion Size" is ~263 meters, and to the inner ring is ~150 meters. Consider the widest part of the debris field is ~130 meters and the widest part of the burn area is ~81 meters.

He also has the crater ~55 meters NE of actual (center to center of craters).

Since he has it marked, mid crater (mine) to closest point on the pond (where the engine was found) is 265 meters. To the center of pond, 311 meters, and to the furthest edge 381 meters. NOTE: The pond is in the middle of my estimated plume stem size. If the engine ended up there, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that other burning debris was strewn between the point of impact and there as well.

Taking his "Realistic Explosion Size" max, we have to move his "Possible Burn Mark" ~285 meters west to fit into my plume width.

[LashL]

Oh for crying out loud.

Killtown is utterly incapable of comprehending anything, I swear. Despite having his butt handed to him here on this very issue, he has just started a thread on the LC forums about this again.

Is Flight 93 Plume Photo Fake?, Val McClatchey's infamous photo

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12355

Nothing.
Sinks.
In.

[Alareth]

Oh for crying out loud.

Killtown is utterly incapable of comprehending anything, I swear. Despite having his butt handed to him here on this very issue, he has just started a thread on the LC forums about this again.



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12355

Nothing.
Sinks.
In.

Of course, he wasn't getting support here so he has to go some place that may be sympathetic to his claims.

[Regnad Kcin]

Nothing.
Sinks.
In.Pity the little children.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Have you seen the newest post on his steaming pile of drek blog? He had other CTists do their own photoshop jobs of Val's photo, a la fark or worth1000.com

[R.Mackey]

Hey Arkan:

Nice work! I particularly like the progression of crater, burn mark, debris field. Well done.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I would have one more of great interest posted, but photobucket.com is not connecting and it is too large for jref image hosting. Once photobucket comes back from its coffee break I'll get it uploaded.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here we go.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/me_popular_mechanics_overlay.jpg

Take special note of flightpath and wind direction; they are almost ideal for moving the plume into the field of view of the camera.

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, I noticed that from the beginning. Of course, the trajectory and wind could have come from anywhere, it would have simply meant Val got a different picture.

Not such a spectacular coincidence, really. It only seems that way if you start assuming that Val (and everyone else on the planet) is lying -- just for the sake of lying, I guess.

[KingMerv00]

Isn't she wrong about the direction of the plane? I'm assuming (having done no research mind you) the plane was heading at least somewhat east at the time of the crash.

[R.Mackey]

Isn't she wrong about the direction of the plane? I'm assuming (having done no research mind you) the plane was heading at least somewhat east at the time of the crash.
If you're talking about that blue arrow, I believe that is another fabrication of Killtown's. In the newspaper articles I've read, Val specified "hearing" the plane pass overhead, seeing it briefly (but not seeing it move), and never implies a direction of travel. And in any case, if she had said where she saw it moving and did indicate the blue arrow, it would also be reasonable to assume she'd made an honest mistake.

If anyone else could clarify or has conflicting information, by all means, let us know.

ETA: Clarifying what Val did and didn't say.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Even better, JohnDoh made it:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8399&st=0&#entry6154596
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/758344fe4ddd731b3.jpg

Here's the one they stole it from:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465657&caption=Map+by+International+Mapping

[Pardalis]

I just found this picture
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888645023818899cd.jpg

(http://www.wordwiseweb.com/wtc/)

Reminds you of anything Killtown?

[Blue Mountain]

I just found this picture
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888645023818899cd.jpg
(http://www.wordwiseweb.com/wtc/)
Reminds you of anything Killtown?
Great find!

[Gravy]

Great job, as always, Arkan and R.Mack! Too bad about Killtown being beyond hope, but I got a lot out of reading this thread, and I imagine that others did also.

[gumboot]

Just for everyone's info... I've received a PM from a couple of lurkers who have been following this thread and thanked us all for addressing the nonsense and providing a wealth of information.

I'm sure others have received similar PMs. So it's worth it.

-Andrew

[Brainache]

Great job, as always, Arkan and R.Mack! Too bad about Killtown being beyond hope, but I got a lot out of reading this thread, and I imagine that others did also.

I learned that trying to reason with some people is pointless. If all the evidence and analysis in this thread was not enough to convince KT how wrong he was, then nothing ever will.

I just hope like others have stated before, that one day he realises what a fool he has been and the hurt that his type of behaviour can cause.

[Buckwheatjones]

Oh for crying out loud.

Killtown is utterly incapable of comprehending anything, I swear. Despite having his butt handed to him here on this very issue, he has just started a thread on the LC forums about this again.



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12355

Nothing.
Sinks.
In.

I went over there and I don't think I saw one critical question. Just a lot of backslapping and "you da man's". killtown has some 2,500 posts there and so seems to be the local boy hero, but I guess it just goes to show that the poop floats to the top over there.

[Hellbound]

Even better, the pic he put up at loose change is one he photoshopped, not Val's actual pic (or it was last time I was able to view that thread).

And no one has mentioned that.

Not only do they not make any critical remarks, not one of them has gone to see if this is even the picture in question, or verified it's source.

[Bell]

Even better, the pic he put up at loose change is one he photoshopped, not Val's actual pic (or it was last time I was able to view that thread).

And no one has mentioned that.

Not only do they not make any critical remarks, not one of them has gone to see if this is even the picture in question, or verified it's source.

Could you please show the picture KKKilltown has Photoshoped, next to the real picture?

I have a LC account, as yet unused, but i love to use that account to show them this (and get banned, obviously).

[Hellbound]

Could you please show the picture KKKilltown has Photoshoped, next to the real picture?

I have a LC account, as yet unused, but i love to use that account to show them this (and get banned, obviously).

I can't currently, because I can't access the thread. That thread requires login now, and my account is gone :)

However, you can find Val's pic at her website (which I can't find the address of) or at this news article (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm).

I'll see if I can get into Loose Change to show the pic he has there.

[Bell]

I can't currently, because I can't access the thread. That thread requires login now, and my account is gone :)

However, you can find Val's pic at her website (which I can't find the address of) or at this post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

I'll see if I can get into Loose Change to show the pic he has there.

I think you mean the picture in KKK's thread ( s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12355 ) ? Yes, that is Photoshopped. But that was the point of that thread. KKK asked in an other thread if the nutters could come up with their own 'fake' photo. He then used that to illustrate his own lill poll to ask if the original was a fake. How sad, no?

[Hellbound]

I think you mean the picture in KKK's thread ( s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12355 ) ? Yes, that is Photoshopped. But that was the point of that thread. KKK asked in an other thread if the nutters could come up with their own 'fake' photo. He then used that to illustrate his own lill poll to ask if the original was a fake. How sad, no?

Ah, okay. You may be right, I assumed it was the same thread :) Same point stands, though, in that thread they were treating it as Val's actual photo.

[Bell]

Anyhow, I decided to troll them anyway, using the picture of the WTC crash Pardalis showed (see above). Atleast KKKilltown now has one of his 'hunt the Boeing' questions answered.

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2462&st=0&#entry7172505

[Killtown]

If anybody still wants to debate Val's Flight 93 plume photo, come on over to LC ...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx


I'm done with this forum with useless moderators.

[The_Fire]

If anybody still wants to debate Val's Flight 93 plume photo, come on over to LC ...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx


I'm done with this forum with useless moderators.

Translation: "Why don't you come over to a place where the moderators will ban anyone who doesn't agree with me on everything I say instead of this place where the principles of free speech is acutally equal to all and not just me."

[Pardalis]

Translation: "Why don't you come over to a place where the moderators will ban anyone who doesn't agree with me on everything I say instead of this place where the principles of free speech is acutally equal to all and not just me."

Congratulations Fire, you speak fluent CTist.

[The_Fire]

Congratulations Fire, you speak fluent CTist.


I know. Should I be worried? :?