PDA

View Full Version : Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

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

Buckwheatjones
16th August 2006, 10:27 AM
oh, lookee!
Baby is taking his ball and going home...

You know, I think we've all been duped. At first we made a blanket assumption that we're dealing with a grown-up. But after reading the "buh-bye!" thing, it's evident we've got a 6th grade girl on the line.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:28 AM
Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume?
What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?

Pardalis
16th August 2006, 10:33 AM

Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

16th August 2006, 10:34 AM
Val's House where picture was taken: VH - 40 03 00.29 N, 78 52 28.16 W
Red Barn in picture (south tip of roof): RB - 40 3 0.44 N, 78 52 34.39 W
White Barn in picture (north tip of roof): WB - 40 2 58.22 N, 78 52 42 W
Crash site: CS - 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W

Distance from VH to RB: 148 meters V1
Distance from VH to WB: 334 meters V2
Distance from VH to CS: 2421 meters V3
Distance from RB to CS: 2335 meters V4
Distance from WB to CS: 2158 meters V5
Distance from RB to WB: 193 meters V6

Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, just need some more math savvy people's input to get there.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:42 AM
Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

Pardalis
16th August 2006, 10:43 AM
Killtown, do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

mortimer
16th August 2006, 10:49 AM
What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

16th August 2006, 10:50 AM
Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

Dr Richard
16th August 2006, 11:00 AM
Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.

They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.

I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Dr Richard
16th August 2006, 11:05 AM
Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

-snip-

Which way is the wind blowing in each of the photos?

Do you deny the possibility that in picture 1 the wind may be blowing towards you? Or away from you? And you would not see the plume bending to one side?

Please, please answer as I am genuinely trying to understand how you can fail to grasp this point. Please say if this is wilful obtuseness and we can move on...

16th August 2006, 11:14 AM
Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

Those pics are enlightening. In comparison to the overlaid pic (2nd one) we can see that Val's pic is showing a plume that is asymmetric. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the plume formed in a symmetric manner initially and is being deformed by wind we would see the plume stretching in a SE direction from the crash. This is consistent with what we see in the pic given that the direction of the picture is WNW.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:17 AM
Now which plumes are being affected by wind?
Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

(scroll to bottom)
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/ordnance-blasts.html

Not to get back on topic, I posted that clip to compare the Val plume with the known jet crash plume that IS being affected by wind. But I guess we'd have to start debating what caused the plumes in the first place to debate this clip, so I guess my clip is invalid for this thread.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:19 AM
They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.

I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:21 AM
I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.
Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?

Pardalis
16th August 2006, 11:24 AM
I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

How can we hypothesize that your measurements are accurate when your haven't shown your "science" to have any credibility?

Darth Rotor
16th August 2006, 11:26 AM
Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?
Let me suggest, to aid in your understanding of a colloquialism, that the message being sent is this:

the assessment of your approach to analysis and argument in this case is being compared to garbage, which is an apt comparison in that if your analysis were thrown into a trash heap, said disposition would not result in any loss of understanding, or enlightenment, regarding the various questions surrounding the 9-11 event being discussed. The gentleman is finding your argument of low to no value, due to the weaknesses in structure and lack of rigor, not you personally, as I read his comments.

DR

bob_kark
16th August 2006, 11:28 AM
Let me make sure that I understand the point of this thread. You're attempting to determine whether or not a woman is selling a faked picture showing a smoke plume from flight 93? Who cares?

As to the claim that this was a smoke plume from ordnance, where are the witnesses in the area that heard this additional mystery exposion? Certainly someone would have heard it, seen an additional smoke plume, found it, etc...

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:34 AM
Thanks again mortimer!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10738

CurtC
16th August 2006, 11:37 AM
Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.
This better be worth it. Doing it numerically by hand, I get 32.7 meters and 74.6 meters respectively for your triangle heights.

juryjone
16th August 2006, 11:38 AM
Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

Tell me, are we supposed to believe that this "ordnance plume" shifted 90 degrees?

Shouldn't an ordnance plume be a different color?

Oh, and do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

Dr Richard
16th August 2006, 11:39 AM
Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

Cambridge dictionary:

MAINLY UK (MAINLY US garbage, US ALSO trash) waste material or unwanted or worthless things:
I forgot to put the rubbish out for collection this morning.
Put the empty box in the rubbish bin.
Take the old furniture to the rubbish dump.

2 INFORMAL something that you think is very low quality or not true:
The film was rubbish.
His ideas are a load of (old) rubbish

l was using it in sense (2) - your arguments were of low quality and shown to be not true. You and your thought processes are not being rubbished. Again, you did not defend them when given the opportunity.

Answer the questions now? Or evade some more?

P.S. Thanks Darth Rotor. Your interpretation was accurate.

16th August 2006, 11:39 AM
Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

To clarify: even if I accept your value for the plume size I can't answer your question until I can do the calculation and analyze your graph based on that information.

mortimer
16th August 2006, 11:49 AM
Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

(scroll to bottom)
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/ordnance-blasts.html

You're more convinced its an ordnance plume because you can't see the bottom of the plume?

c0rbin
16th August 2006, 11:53 AM
It's almost always #3. The people on the fence who might be reading this thread.

It's like who benefits from maps. Not the locals, who know everything by sight. Not the blind, who can't see the map anyway. Maps are for the people who are coming into an area for the first time.

And while a summary would be nice, I wouldn't expect a critical thinker to rely on it exclusively. Sometimes you have to walk the road to know you've gotten to the right destination.

Your map analogy is excellent. I guess the summary would be a list of points of interest on this map.

Such a legend might not be necessary for those who want to tramp the path unguided, but maybe useful for those who want to know what ground has been covered and what results were concluded.

It seems to me that this whole thread could be boiled down to this:

Killtown claims the photograph provides
a ) evidence that Flight 93 crashed as a result of a missle strike
b ) a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume in the photo

The photo itself deserves some skepticism as it
a ) looks fake
b ) is not regarded as evidence of anything in the official report
c ) has a possibly dubious timeline (5, 10, 45 seconds?)

Killtown has failed to demonstrate expertise in the field of surveying based on photographs and an unwillingness to revise his/her conclusion in light of plausible explanations for the photo (e.g. A photograph is a 2D representation of a 3D environment, the specifics of the camera are unknown, etc)

Does this help?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:56 AM
2 INFORMAL something that you think is very low quality or not true:
The film was rubbish.
His ideas are a load of (old) rubbish

l was using it in sense (2) - your arguments were of low quality and shown to be not true. You and your thought processes are not being rubbished. Again, you did not defend them when given the opportunity.

Yeah, that's not insulting...

NOUN:

1. Refuse; garbage.
2. Worthless material.
3. Foolish discourse; nonsense.

kookbreaker
16th August 2006, 11:57 AM
Yeah, that's not insulting...

He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:58 AM
You're more convinced its an ordnance plume because you can't see the bottom of the plume?
Not to get off topic again, but which plume does the middle plume look more like to you, Val's (left) or the jet crash (right)?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-compare-edited.jpg

mortimer
16th August 2006, 12:00 PM
Not to get off topic again, but which plume does the middle plume look more like to you, Val's (left) or the jet crash (right)?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-compare-edited.jpg

Why don't you stay on topic and tell me which plume(s) look like they are being blown by wind?

Hellbound
16th August 2006, 12:01 PM
He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

It's the only way he can maintain his excuses. If he wasn't offended, he'd have to come up with a new reason for not answering questions.

Of course, if we reacted the same way, he would have been on everyone's ignore list long ago, considering the numerous insults to people and arguments (many from LC).

Of course, some people are mature enough to have a thick skin, and to seperate the argument from the arguer.

Some are...not.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 12:01 PM
It seems to me that this whole thread could be boiled down to this:

Killtown claims the photograph provides
a ) evidence that Flight 93 crashed as a result of a missle strike

Where did I ever claim that???

:confused:

Darth Rotor
16th August 2006, 12:01 PM
He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.
Of course, such an approach distracts from the topic at hand for one holding a bag of smoke. For someone interested in well organized and supported analysis, such distractions are annoying, and of no value.

More "rubbish." :D

DR

Killtown
16th August 2006, 12:03 PM
Why don't you stay on topic and tell me which plume(s) look like they are being blown by wind?
Answer mine first then I'll answer yours.

Belz...
16th August 2006, 12:03 PM
Good, so apologize for calling me a "boy" and I'll respond to your questions.

What is this ? An elementary school lunch-break where you have to shake hands and make up ?

Grow the hell up.

Belz...
16th August 2006, 12:05 PM
Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.

No, you won't. You'll find another reason to not answer them.

Man alive, you are childish.

Assuming he's not a child, per se.

Dr Richard
16th August 2006, 12:07 PM
Yeah, that's not insulting...

Killtown, you appear to take offense as a strategy for avoiding difficult questions.

I have repeatedly stated that I was describing your arguments about the colour of the smoke plume and the shifting of the plume. I have stated thay they are of low quality and not true.

If you provide a satisfactory counter-argument for the above two points I will be happy - nay, overjoyed - to retract the statement that the arguments are rubbish.

So g'wan, please, please, pretty please with sugar on it:

(a) why can the wind not be blowing towards or away from the viewer in the picture where the plume is not shifted?
(b) why are there pictures of airplane crashes where the smoke is not the dense black you claim it must be?

Best wishes in anticipation

Richard

Pardalis
16th August 2006, 12:07 PM
Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic.

Why should we hypothesize that? On what scientific evidence do you base your diameter?

Basically, you are asking us to allow ourselves to believe in your theory to make your diagram accurate.

It's the same thing as if we allowed ourselves to believe in God, it will make the Bible accurate.

mortimer
16th August 2006, 12:07 PM
Answer mine first then I'll answer yours.

Cute. Nah, I asked first. Your turn.

Belz...
16th August 2006, 12:10 PM
He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

Well, of course he is. Another good way to NOT answer questions.

Belz...
16th August 2006, 12:12 PM
Answer mine first then I'll answer yours.

Another tried and true tactic.

As to your question about which plume looks more like the one on the middle, it's irrelevant: explosions aren't like in video games where the same 3d model is used for each blast.

rwguinn
16th August 2006, 12:15 PM
Another tried and true tactic.

As to your question about which plume looks more like the one on the middle, it's irrelevant: explosions aren't like in video games where the same 3d model is used for each blast.
And explosions don't necessarily leave a ground fire burning, as in picture 3.
Nor does a ground fire necessarily indicate evidence of an explosion.

c0rbin
16th August 2006, 12:19 PM
Where did I ever claim that???

:confused:

Does this mean we are getting somewhere?

So you then claim that the photo is evidence of a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume in the photo.

Is this correct?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 01:03 PM
Cute. Nah, I asked first. Your turn.
I'm lost, where's your 1st question then?

mortimer
16th August 2006, 01:15 PM
I'm lost, where's your 1st question then?

It was asked along with my crude photoshop job.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 01:26 PM
As to your question about which plume looks more like the one on the middle, it's irrelevant
Funny, you accuse me of ducking question and look what you do, duck the question!

Killtown
16th August 2006, 01:28 PM
So you then claim that the photo is evidence of a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume in the photo.

Is this correct?
Yes, if it's real.

Overman
16th August 2006, 01:30 PM
I want Killtown to clearly state exactly what he is trying to establish.

So what you ask a bunch of dumb quesitons! What, stated clearly in your own words, are you getting at?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 01:31 PM
It was asked along with my crude photoshop job.

Ooooh, that was your first question. Well answering my question after your would have answered you question, so that's why I asked it.

So to your question and by your clip, only the jet crash plume looks affected by wind.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 01:33 PM
I want Killtown to clearly state exactly what he is trying to establish.
What, stated clearly in your own words, are you getting at?
See here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849607&postcount=471

mortimer
16th August 2006, 01:39 PM
Ooooh, that was your first question. Well answering my question after your would have answered you question, so that's why I asked it.

So to your question and by your clip, only the jet crash plume looks affected by wind.

So the middle picture doesn't look affected by the wind. But in the original photo, that didn't have the source of the plume obscured by landscape, it looked like it was affected by wind, yes?

To answer your question, the second plume looks more like the first plume.

c0rbin
16th August 2006, 01:40 PM
Yes, if it's real.

Killtown claims that if the photo is real (i.e. not photoshopped or altered), then it is proof that there is a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume.

Is this correct?

Dr Richard
16th August 2006, 01:55 PM
Killtown, you appear to take offense as a strategy for avoiding difficult questions.

I have repeatedly stated that I was describing your arguments about the colour of the smoke plume and the shifting of the plume. I have stated thay they are of low quality and not true.

If you provide a satisfactory counter-argument for the above two points I will be happy - nay, overjoyed - to retract the statement that the arguments are rubbish.

So g'wan, please, please, pretty please with sugar on it:

(a) why can the wind not be blowing towards or away from the viewer in the picture where the plume is not shifted?
(b) why are there pictures of airplane crashes where the smoke is not the dense black you claim it must be?

Best wishes in anticipation

Richard

Please KT, as you can see I'm relatively new at this posting game and would really appreciate it if you could answer my questions.

BW

R

Overman
16th August 2006, 02:02 PM
See here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849607&postcount=471

You still don't establish any case.

Are you attempting to say:

"If Val's photo is forsome reason incorrect then the government crashed that plane."

???

What are you attempting to establish?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 02:07 PM
To answer your question, the second plume looks more like the first plume.
I concur and that answers your original question.

16th August 2006, 02:12 PM
This better be worth it. Doing it numerically by hand, I get 32.7 meters and 74.6 meters respectively for your triangle heights.

Okay, so this confirms that the angle of view I have is pretty close. Using that, I extended the lines out past the distance of the crash site. Here are the results:
Height from V1 to V2 (extended) is ~537 meters.
The angle of view starts ~33 meters south of the crash site and continues to 569 meters south of the crash site.

Now, assuming a 9 knot wind we have already calculated the drift to be between 22.79 and 53.75.

Now, assuming a 25 knot wind we have already calculated the drift to be between 64.5 and 161.25 meters SE.

Allow for Google Earth margin of error, both of these wind speeds allow for the cloud to have drifted in to the angle of view in the given time range.

Averaging these, we have an approximate wind drift distance of 75.57. Applying a line 75.74 meters on a SE heading from the crash site places us ~55 meters east of due south from the crash site. At this point the angle of view is 526 meters.

The source provided by Buckwheatjones (which has not be proven to be incorrect) predicts that our 526 meters is on the low side of what the plume could easily be.

Here is the Google Earth image showing my initial setup:

Given this I conclude:
1) The plume could have easily drifted into the angle of view for the picture for the full range of time lapse possible
2) The plume could have easily filled the angle of view for the picture

I have now voted in the poll. I feel I can give provisional agreement to the following statement:
The picture is unaltered and fits the description of the events. The picture is also consistent with what would be expected from the plane crash in Shanksville. There is no evidence from the picture, or Val's story, to suggest that the events did not occur as reported. There is no evidence to suggest that an explosion other than the plane was the cause of the plume.

I fully welcome criticisms and analysis of my work. If you do so, please post your steps in full for further peer review.

Thanks,
AW

Darth Rotor
16th August 2006, 02:12 PM
Please KT, as you can see I'm relatively new at this posting game and would really appreciate it if you could answer my questions.

BW

R
Dr Richard:
Kill (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) town (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm) is apparently trying to combine two discussion group styles for his own amusement in this thread.

Many CT spreading folks look upon incisive critique of their poorly structured positions as shouting down (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/howlers.htm). These same savants (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm) engage in that precise activity when penetrating questions are asked, or their assumptions questioned, on their home forums.

Armed with that :rolleyes: insight, proceed at your own discretion.

DR

mortimer
16th August 2006, 02:18 PM
I concur and that answers your original question.

Good, so we've so far established that:

1. The first photo looks more like the ordnance blast in the second photo than the plane crash in the third.

Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because we've already seen the Concorde plane crash photo that looks more like the first photo than either of the other two.

2. It is impossible to tell the wind effect on the first photo in part because the source of the plume is obscured by the landscape on the horizon.

So, now, tell me how you are able to state this with certainty:

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

Dr Richard
16th August 2006, 02:25 PM
Dr Richard:
Kill (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) town (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm) is apparently trying to combine two discussion group styles for his own amusement in this thread.

Many CT spreading folks look upon incisive critique of their poorly structured positions as shouting down (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/howlers.htm). These same savants (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm) engage in that precise activity when penetrating questions are asked, or their assumptions questioned, on their home forums.

Armed with that :rolleyes: insight, proceed at your own discretion.

DR

Thanks DR. I was confused by this response as the creationists/IDiots/MMR vaccine campaigners I've come across in the past cannot wait to debate and defend their points.

I can only assume that Killtown has no answers.

However, Arkan Wolfshade has done a good job at building on Buckwheatjones's original arguments.

I will therefore take it as read that the original claims about smoke colour and plume bending have been dealt with and falsified, and will wait to see KTs response to Arkan instead.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 02:36 PM

First thanks for make diagrams to help this debate.

2nd, not sure I understand it:

1) How would do you suggest this plume to be?

2) Are you suggesting it just traveled south into the camera line?

16th August 2006, 02:39 PM

First thanks for make diagrams to help this debate.

2nd, not sure I understand it:

1) How would do you suggest this plume to be?

2) Are you suggesting it just traveled south into the camera line?

I am estimating the plume to be approximately 526 meters, well blow Buckwheatjones' sources' 600-1000 meter max size estimation.

I am saying that the prevailing wind conditions (at 9 or 25 knots) were sufficient to cause the plume to drift on a south-east course, which would place it within the angle of view of the camera.

Gravy
16th August 2006, 02:40 PM
3) the size of Val's plume in the photo is way too big IMO to have originated from the crash spot

Discuss.
Since your opinion is not based on sound reasoning or science, it isn't relevant.

Publicly accusing Val McClatchey of fraud and posting her personal information online, because you think she's a fraud, is indecent.

I would love to hear that you understand the flaws in your methods and logic, but I don't expect to as long as I live.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 02:43 PM
1. Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because we've already seen the Concorde plane crash photo that looks more like the first photo than either of the other two.

2. It is impossible to tell the wind effect on the first photo in part because the source of the plume is obscured by the landscape on the horizon.

3. So, now, tell me how you are able to state this with certainty:
1) Even though the Concorde crash had a mushroom shape, that's about all it had in similarity. It's column was thick, suggesting fuel still burning and the video quality made the color undeterminable.

Val's plume looks like a short pulse blast, consistent with the middle plume.

2. Yes, I would agree now.

3. Because similar color and shape with similar thin column consistent with a short pulse blast?

4. Now that I gave you my clip wasn't good to determine shifting, you'll notice the middle plume had to have sprouted straight up, then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 02:47 PM
1) I am estimating the plume to be approximately 526 meters, well blow Buckwheatjones' sources' 600-1000 meter max size estimation.

2) I am saying that the prevailing wind conditions (at 9 or 25 knots)

3) were sufficient to cause the plume to drift on a south-east course, which would place it within the angle of view of the camera.
1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

2) Where did the 25 knots come from?

3) Is this in a path along your yellow line?

Gravy
16th August 2006, 02:50 PM
then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?
How can you tell, from a two-dimensional film, that the plume has shifted "90 degrees to the right?" You keep saying this. Many people have pointed out the errors in your logic. It doesn't seem to have had any effect.

Gravy
16th August 2006, 02:52 PM
1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

Why do you "think" so?

2) Where did the 25 knots come from?
The flight 93 FDR. Personally, I don't put much stock in that figure, but my point is that you're guessing at when the picture was taken and what the wind speed was. Guessing isn't reason for libel.

mortimer
16th August 2006, 02:54 PM
4. Now that I gave you my clip wasn't good to determine shifting, you'll notice the middle plume had to have sprouted straight up, then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

It could well be that the plume shifted, but it is impossible to tell from the photograph. The shift, if it happened, is obscured by the horizon and landscape.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 02:55 PM
I'll tell you what Gravy, you admit the methods you used as "murdervillage" of egging me on to answer your questions to me were immature and deceptive and Dog Town's gross insult towards me was wholly uncalled for, then I'll start debating with you again as long as you promise to not insult me or any of my theories/thoughts/beliefs. Deal? You don't even have to be sincere about you admitting to this.

16th August 2006, 02:57 PM
1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

2) Where did the 25 knots come from?

3) Is this in a path along your yellow line?

RE 1) Given the following from http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846325#post1846325

"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m." No, I do not feel it is 'a "tad" large'. It is within the dimensions provided by the engineer. The calculations posted by Buckwheatjones have not been contradicted/debunked/etc. I do, however retract my statement of "600-1000 meter max size estimation." I should have referred directly to the post I was recalling. My estimate of 526 meters is within the given range of 500-600m however.

RE 2) The flight data recorder info posted earlier in this thread.

RE 3) What path? Which line? If you are referring to the drift of the plume, it is not on the image I posted. Given the information I provided; anyone wishing to reproduce it can do so.

ETA: I would like to emphasis that my conclusion holds true for a windspeed of 9 knots or 25 knots.

pgwenthold
16th August 2006, 02:58 PM
1) 1,725.72ft? Don't you think that's a "tad" large?

I don't know. How big do YOU think it should be, and how did you determine that figure?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 02:58 PM
It could well be that the plume shifted, but it is impossible to tell from the photograph.
Clarify, you agree that by the way the middle plume is shifting 90 degs, Val's plume could have done this too?

Gravy
16th August 2006, 02:58 PM
I'll tell you what Gravy, you admit the methods you used as "murdervillage" of egging me on to answer your questions to me were immature and deceptive and Dog Town's gross insult towards me was wholly uncalled for, then I'll start debating with you again as long as you promise to not insult me or any of my theories/thoughts/beliefs. Deal? You don't even have to be sincere about you admitting to this.
I apologized days ago. You refused to accept my apology. How many times on this forum have you played the "poor, persecuted Killtown" in order to avoid answering questions? Get on with it already. This is a discussion forum.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 03:01 PM
I apologized days ago. You did not accept my apology.
I'm not asking you to apologize, I'm asking you to:

1) admit you used immature and deceptive techniques to try to make me answer your questions

2) and admit Dog Town's gross insult towards me was highly uncalled for.

Gravy
16th August 2006, 03:02 PM
Clarify, you agree that by the way the middle plume is shifting 90 degs, Val's plume could have done this too?
Please see the above posts that point out the flaws in your "90 degree" claims.

Stellafane
16th August 2006, 03:05 PM
I'm not asking you to apologize, I'm asking you to:

1) admit you used immature and deceptive techniques to try to make me answer your questions

2) and admit Dog Town's gross insult towards me was highly uncalled for.

And will you apologize for destroying -- and quite possibly endangering -- the life of an innocent women, simple because she snapped a picture that disproves your theory? Wouldn't that also be classified as "highly uncalled for"?

Gravy
16th August 2006, 03:05 PM
I'm not asking you to apologize, I'm asking you to:

1) admit you used immature and deceptive techniques to try to make me answer your questions

2) and admit Dog Town's gross insult towards me was highly uncalled for.
Guess what, Killtown? I resorted to those techniques because you refused to answer the same questions repeatedly in other forums. Yup. So I resorted to satire.

For the third time, I am not Dog Town. Several times you've requested that this thread be brought back to topic, but when things get uncomfortable for you, you derail it yourself. Get on with it. This is a discussion forum.

16th August 2006, 03:24 PM
Just wanted to add that, given the analyses done in this thread, I feel comfortable using Val's photo as corroborating evidence of Flight 93's crash.

CurtC
16th August 2006, 03:32 PM
Val's plume looks like a short pulse blast, consistent with the middle plume.

...

3. Because similar color and shape with similar thin column consistent with a short pulse blast?
Killtown, it's really hard to infer what your point is. Based on this post, I think you're saying that the plume on the right is angled due to the wind, while the other two plumes are vertically-oriented, indicating that the vertical ones happened in a short amount of time, while the slanted one is continuing to burn.

If this is what you're saying (and I do wish you'd spell it out more clearly), I agree.

The Shanksville photo is vertically oriented, and it is not directly above the crash site (by my estimates, it's 200-250 meters South, and possibly some amount East or West).

There. Happy? I agree with you on that point.

But what I think you're missing is that while the picture on the right is from a crash, it's from one that is continuing to burn. The is a continuous amount of smoke coming up from the ground, while the wind blows the alread-released smoke sideways, resulting in a slanted column.

The Shanksville plane impacted at a very high speed, in which the fuel was pretty much all splattered up and consumed all at once. It didn't continue to burn, as in the other photo where the fuel was simply spilled onto the ground. That's why the Shanksville fireball happened mostly all at once, and resulted in a vertical trail of smoke that drifted sideways with the wind. In that way, it was like an ordnance blast.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 05:27 PM
And will you apologize for destroying -- and quite possibly endangering -- the life of an innocent women
If you can prove I "destroyed -- and quite possibly endangered" her life.

defaultdotxbe
16th August 2006, 05:34 PM
i cant believe im sortof defending killtown, but val macclatcheys home address is pretty easy to come by, anyone with half a brain could find it (although i think its amusing killtown seems to be the only CT capable of finding it)

Killtown
16th August 2006, 05:35 PM
1) If this is what you're saying (and I do wish you'd spell it out more clearly), I agree.

2) There. Happy? I agree with you on that point.

3) The Shanksville plane impacted at a very high speed, in which the fuel was pretty much all splattered up and consumed all at once. It didn't continue to burn, as in the other photo where the fuel was simply spilled onto the ground.

4)That's why the Shanksville fireball happened mostly all at once, and resulted in a vertical trail of smoke that drifted sideways with the wind. In that way, it was like an ordnance blast.
1) Yes.

2) Yes. :D

3) So why did one's fuel splatter all over the ground and UA 93's didn't? I never quite got the particular reasoning.

4) So I was right?...

Killtown:

Ok, then the jet fire plume [from UA 93 crashing] rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 05:37 PM
1) i cant believe im sortof defending killtown, but val macclatcheys home address is pretty easy to come by, anyone with half a brain could find it

2) (although i think its amusing killtown seems to be the only CT capable of finding it)
1) Thanks, honorable people defend those who are being wrongfully accused.

2) What do you mean?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 05:41 PM
I don't know. How big do YOU think it should be, and how did you determine that figure?
I basically started the radius point at the crater and drew a circle around the section of forest that was burned and excavated afterward. And based on videos of large planes crashing and judging the size their explosions and smoke plumes grew to.

I think my explosion size is still a tad bigger than the crash would have made.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 05:46 PM
RE 1) No, I do not feel it is 'a "tad" large'. It is within the dimensions provided by the engineer. The calculations posted by Buckwheatjones have not been contradicted/debunked/etc.

RE 2) The flight data recorder info posted earlier in this thread.

RE 3) What path? Which line? If you are referring to the drift of the plume, it is not on the image I posted. Given the information I provided; anyone wishing to reproduce it can do so.

1) "10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m.""

Where did he come up with 10,000 gals were still in at time of crash?

2) That's right. Hmmm, 9 to 25. Quite a difference, huh?

3) Your yellow vertical line by the crater and pond

Killtown
16th August 2006, 06:13 PM
I resorted to those techniques because you refused to answer the same questions repeatedly in other forums.
I did huh?

Stellafane
16th August 2006, 06:14 PM
If you can prove I "destroyed -- and quite possibly endangered" her life.

She says she is now being frequently harassed, and actually fears for her life, due to your actions. Since other CT'ers have threatened the lives of those who don't agree with them (see threats to MarkyX and billzilla for instance) those are hardly unfounded fears. How would you like to go through the day fearful of your life, simply because you innocently snapped a picture that contradicts someone's theory? I'd sure call that having my life destroyed and endangered, wouldn't you? And you, who hides behind the veil of total anonymity, are hardly in position to dismiss her fears, are you?

Your actions have adversely impacted an innocent person's life, far more than any namecalling on this board could possibly impact yours. So, are you going to apologize for it? Don't you have any compassion for other people at all? Don't you feel any sense of responsibility for your actions?

Stellafane
16th August 2006, 06:20 PM
i cant believe im sortof defending killtown, but val macclatcheys home address is pretty easy to come by, anyone with half a brain could find it (although i think its amusing killtown seems to be the only CT capable of finding it)

So what? When you write that she's a fraud and fake, and then post her address, phone number, and other personal information, it certainly calls into question your motives for doing so. Val feels that Killtown is responsible for the harassment she's currently being subjected to. I believe she's correct -- without Killtown's derogatory comments about her, accompanied by posting her personal info, in all likelihood this wouldn't be happening to her. The fact that someone could have followed some other means of finding her hardly lets Killtown off the hook.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 06:20 PM
1) She says she is now being frequently harassed, and actually fears for her life, due to your actions.

2) Since other CT'ers have threatened the lives of those who don't agree with them (see threats to MarkyX and billzilla for instance) those are hardly unfounded fears.

3) simply because you innocently snapped a picture that contradicts someone's theory?
1) Where does she say this?

2) What does that have to do with me?

3) Actually, I think her photo SUPPORTS my theory!!!

Dog Town
16th August 2006, 06:23 PM
If he will, I will!
K? Wudda ya say?

DT

Stellafane
16th August 2006, 06:40 PM
1) Where does she say this?

2) What does that have to do with me?

3) Actually, I think her photo SUPPORTS my theory!!!

1. As you farkin' well know, Killtown, she says it here:

www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

Here, I'll even snip the relevant quote:

..."This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

2. The fact that you can't see your role in this speaks volumes towards you total lack of normal empathy and compassion for the people you hurt. Seriously dude, you got some major-league issues you ought to be dealing with, rather than wasting your time responding to me and the other people on this board.

3. You're the only one who thinks so, my friend. For the rest of us, it disproves it. And you fully realize this, I suspect. Otherwise why would you post derogatory stuff about someone whose picture actually supports your theory?

I have one final question for you, and then I'm probably done with this thread -- all BS aside, why are you doing this? It's got to be abundantly clear to even you that all your arguments have been utterly evaporated many times over, and no one here has been budged a single millimeter by them.

Val's picture is a perfect metaphor for your theories: going up in smoke.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 06:47 PM
If he will, I will!
K? Wudda ya say?

DT
I forget, what did you call me again?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 06:52 PM
1. "This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

2. The fact that you can't see your role in this speaks volumes towards you total lack of normal empathy and compassion for the people you hurt.

3. You're the only one who thinks so, my friend. For the rest of us, it disproves it. And you fully realize this, I suspect. Otherwise why would you post derogatory stuff about someone whose picture actually supports your theory?

4) why are you doing this?
1) Ok, where did she say the things you said she said?

2) No, I can't see my role. What did I do?

3) Derogatory stuff such as?

4) Cause her story doesn't add up. Didn't you read?...

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

Earl The Tall
16th August 2006, 06:56 PM
1) Ok, where did she say the things you said she said?

Holy Crap! The link was right there. Why did you not bother to click it. Never mind here is the answer. It is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. She said in in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette! One more time in case you miss it.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Stellafane
16th August 2006, 07:00 PM
1) Ok, where did she say the things you said she said?

2) No, I can't see my role. What did I do?

3) Derogatory stuff such as?

4) Cause her story doesn't add up. Didn't you read?...

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

OK, one final time:

1. I included the link to the article the quote was taken from. Didn't you see it?
2. No, I suppose you can't. I guess that's the difference between us (one of many, I suspect). I think what you did was very wrong, but I suppose in the end that's a matter of personal perspective. Different strokes and all that.
3. Val considers it very derogatory. I think she's in best position to judge.
4. If you believe nothing else I ever write, please believe this: I will never, ever set foot in your blog.

Gravy
16th August 2006, 07:06 PM
I did huh?Yup. Want to know how I know that? Because I asked them.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 07:07 PM
OK, one final time:

1. I included the link to the article the quote was taken from. Didn't you see it?
2. I think what you did was very wrong
3. Val considers it very derogatory. I think she's in best position to judge.
4. If you believe nothing else I ever write, please believe this: I will never, ever set foot in your blog.
1) Yes, I know that article well, I just didn't see that things in it that you claim was. Show how what she says parallels what you claim.

2) Such as? You're not being very specific.

3) Well if she's in on it some one, of course she is going to say that!

4) I'm crushed.

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?

Gravy
16th August 2006, 07:15 PM
i cant believe im sortof defending killtown, but val macclatcheys home address is pretty easy to come by, anyone with half a brain could find it (although i think its amusing killtown seems to be the only CT capable of finding it)
That's quite true. Unfortunately, Killtown chose to publish her address, phone number, email, and business information, while accusing her of creating fradulent evidence about 9/11.

How would Killtown like to be harassed because someone publicly lied about him?

Gravy
16th August 2006, 07:19 PM
5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?
That may be the most ignorant statement I've encountered in my time dealing with 9/11 CTs.

Stellafane
16th August 2006, 07:20 PM
1) Yes, I know that article well, I just didn't see that things in it that you claim was. Show how what she says parallels what you claim.

2) Such as? You're not being very specific.

3) Well if she's in on it some one, of course she is going to say that!

4) I'm crushed.

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?

One final time (really!)

1. You're just being deliberately idiotic now. I gave you the link, I quoted from the article. You can't possibly be so thick you can't find the quote I copied in the article.
2. It's plenty specific to me, and I suspect also to others equipped with compassion and empathy. But I can only speak for myself.
3. And if she's not, you're defaming an innocent person.
4.
5.In that case, I owe you an abject apology. Now what if you're a Jew-hating Nazi who jerks off each night while gazing fondly at the life-size photo of Hitler hanging above your bed? Would I then be justified in calling you an anti-Semite without qualification or apology? We can play "what if" forever. But "what if" doesn't justify destroying someone else's life.

16th August 2006, 07:39 PM
1) "10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m.""

Where did he come up with 10,000 gals were still in at time of crash?

2) That's right. Hmmm, 9 to 25. Quite a difference, huh?

3) Your yellow vertical line by the crater and pond

RE 1) It's all in the post that Buckwheatjones provided. He was quoting the engineer verbatim.

RE 2) A moot difference. The 9 knots came from you, iirc. The 25 came from the FDR.

RE 3) That is the height of the triangle formed by VH, V1, V2 at the point where the average of the values of the drift landed.

defaultdotxbe
16th August 2006, 07:42 PM
5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?

what if it turns out the pic is real, and it is of flight 93, and you did ruin her life? what would you think of yourself then?

16th August 2006, 07:54 PM
Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

My critique of your diagram from post #471 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1849607#post1849607

1) Your southern vector line appears to be bisecting the white barn. Since the plume does not appear to go further south than the northern point of the white barn this adds a significant amount of error once you get out ~2000m

2) I question the accuracy of either your northern vector line and/or your crater placement as my calculations place the crater north of the northern vector line. Since you do not provide the coordinates for you crater location I can neither verify, nor confirm its placement on your diagram.

3) You do not provide any evidence, math, etc to back your assertion that a plume ~1000' is a "realistic size"

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 07:56 PM
I am extremely disappointed in you. I was very, very careful to treat you with the respect that you demanded. But now I find that you have been libeling a woman who's only crime was taking a photograph from her own front porch. Even if -- suspending all reality and consistency for a moment -- there was a conspiracy such as you believe in, she would be absolutely blameless.

Your comments below are unbecoming. I know, and you insist, that you are not foolish enough to misunderstand a newspaper article, one that was repeatedly brought to your attention. Yet you write the following:

1) Yes, I know that article well, I just didn't see that things in it that you claim was. Show how what she says parallels what you claim.

2) Such as? You're not being very specific.

3) Well if she's in on it some one, of course she is going to say that!

4) I'm crushed.

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then? (emphasis added)

This is utter madness.

In your conversation with me, you admitted that the claims you make on your website are nothing but opinion, and open to interpretation:
No, I'm leaving them up to the viewers to decide if they are a smoking gun or not.

[...]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Yet here you are, assuming guilt, when you have nothing more than your own opinions.

It's time to do the right thing, Killtown. Fix your website so that it reflects the entirely conjectural and unproven nature that you have admitted to. Stop blaming an innocent person, since you admit you have no proof. You owe her a public apology, and should desist at once.

Only you can do the right thing, Killtown. Show us that you're not a hate-mongerer. Actions speak louder than words. But your words have roared. You will have to work to undo this.

gumboot
16th August 2006, 08:50 PM
Everyone,

Killtown is not worth responding to. End of discussion for me. In respect to the rules of this forum, I shall say no more.

-Andrew

Buckwheatjones
16th August 2006, 09:13 PM
A couple of technical things first...

A plane with a heavy load of fuel for a transcontinental flight might at the most carry a full load of 11,500 gallons. Accounting for fuel burned before the crash, I placed the load at 10,000 gallons. This is my estimate, which may or may not be real. However, my engineer said that this amount of fuel could indeed create a cloud 600 meters wide. Now. let's assume that the load was substantially less than 10,000 gallons. The engineer also said that even had the load been 10k, a blast and resulting cloud could reasonably be 1000 meters wide. So. If the plane carried markedly less than 10k, the 600 meter cloud is quite possible.

Second, a tube of avgas impacting the earth at nearly 600mph would shoot all the fuel upwards at a very high rate of velocity in a splash or spray. Toss a water balloon off a building and you'd get the idea. This would atomize the fuel, and then when ignited it would go WOOF! all at once. Not unlike a fuel air bomb. It would burn off quite fast because the oxygen and fuel droplets would create a very rich environment for fire to do it's fire thing.

Next, killtown has clearly demonstrated on a very consistent basis that discussing something, discussing anything for that matter, with him is not unlike trying to run laps in a vat of Lime Jell-O. You truck hard and you huff and puff, and when you stop to see how far you've gotten....well you know.

killtown is Waste Of Time Incarnate. And I'm as guilty as anyone of wasting my time. But. I am on here for my own satisfaction to exhaust the possibilities in the favor of conspiracy theorists so that I can walk away fully satisfied that the picture is real. The fact that killtown gets outed as The Joke Of The Day is just a happy by-product of the whole experience.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:18 PM
That may be the most ignorant statement I've encountered in my time dealing with 9/11 CTs.
Oh, I got to hear this.

Why Gravy, why?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:24 PM
A plane with a heavy load of fuel for a transcontinental flight might at the most carry a full load of 11,500 gallons. Accounting for fuel burned before the crash, I placed the load at 10,000 gallons. This is my estimate, which may or may not be real.
Sorry if I'm not getting this correct, but did you guys come to this estimate by basing the fuel load capacity of a 757 with its mpg and how many miles 93 flew, or was this part estimated from an official source?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:29 PM
One final time (really!)

1. You're just being deliberately idiotic now. I gave you the link, I quoted from the article. You can't possibly be so thick you can't find the quote I copied in the article.
2. It's plenty specific to me, and I suspect also to others equipped with compassion and empathy. But I can only speak for myself.
3. And if she's not, you're defaming an innocent person.
4.
5.In that case, I owe you an abject apology. Now what if you're a Jew-hating Nazi who jerks off each night while gazing fondly at the life-size photo of Hitler hanging above your bed? Would I then be justified in calling you an anti-Semite without qualification or apology? We can play "what if" forever. But "what if" doesn't justify destroying someone else's life.
1) Oh I got the link, read the article, and saw her quotes, I just don't know how you got what you said out of what she said. Maybe my comprehension is bad, but can you specifically show how you came to your conclusions about what she said?

2) funny you can't list the specifics!

3) And I'll apologize and she'll become my new best friend because her photo is more of a smoking gun to me real than fake!

5) "jerk off"? Porn freak.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:33 PM
RE 1) It's all in the post that Buckwheatjones provided. He was quoting the engineer verbatim.

RE 2) A moot difference. The 9 knots came from you, iirc. The 25 came from the FDR.

RE 3) That is the height of the triangle formed by VH, V1, V2 at the point where the average of the values of the drift landed.
1) I just want to verify if this is an official estimate, or a "guesstimate" on his part.

2) Just seems like quite a difference.

3) So basically if it's proven the plume was more my estimated size, than that would prove my accusation? That plume size is what it boils down to?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:34 PM
what if it turns out the pic is real, and it is of flight 93, and you did ruin her life? what would you think of yourself then?
Did I ruin her life? Hell, I'm probably selling her more photos by raising all this controversy!

Gravy
16th August 2006, 09:38 PM
Oh, I got to hear this.

Why Gravy, why?

...And the fact that you can't understand why it's ignorant may be the saddest thing I've heard a 9/11 CT say. Welcome to ChristopheraLand, Killtown.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:39 PM
My critique of your diagram from post #471 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1849607#post1849607

1) Your southern vector line appears to be bisecting the white barn. Since the plume does not appear to go further south than the northern point of the white barn this adds a significant amount of error once you get out ~2000m

2) I question the accuracy of either your northern vector line and/or your crater placement as my calculations place the crater north of the northern vector line. Since you do not provide the coordinates for you crater location I can neither verify, nor confirm its placement on your diagram.

3) You do not provide any evidence, math, etc to back your assertion that a plume ~1000' is a "realistic size"

1) Unless the curvature of the earth totally throws my lines off, I stand by them.

2) The crater is close enough if not dead on.

3) Yes I do, based on the distance from the middle of the crater to the outermost burnt forest section and from analysing large plane crashes.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:41 PM
Yet here you are, assuming guilt, when you have nothing more than your own opinions.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, where am I assuming guilt???

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:43 PM
...And the fact that you can't understand why it's ignorant may be the saddest thing I've heard a 9/11 CT say. Welcome to ChristopheraLand, Killtown.
Yep, just what I thought, nothing but ad hominem attacks from you. And you wonder why I think you have ZERO credibility!

Gravy
16th August 2006, 09:47 PM
Yep, just what I thought, nothing but ad hominem attacks from you. And you wonder why I think you have ZERO credibility!

Actually, Killtown, I've been trying to get you to show why the "official" evidence is wrong for months. Perhaps you can start with this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1851343&postcount=177

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 09:49 PM
Wait, wait, wait, wait, where am I assuming guilt???
Do you deny accusing Val McClatchey of complicity in your imagined conspiracy? Yes or no?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 09:53 PM
Do you deny accusing Val McClatchey of complicity in your imagined conspiracy? Yes or no?
Nice try. Answer my question about YOUR accusation against me first.

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 09:58 PM
Nice attempt at a dodge. It won't work.

Who's Going to Jail?

If it really was an ordnance blast not too far beyond the white barn and white farm house, then this would be a true smoking gun and one of the clearest examples of complicity in the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. government because what else could have caused such a large explosion and who else would have been behind it?

If the smoke plume was photoshopped on there, then that could mean the following:

1) the photo was simply a fraud by Val.

2) the photo was a fraud by her and the FBI who did inspect her photo and took away her original memory card.

If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case then Val, you got some splainin' to do!

Do you deny that you wrote these words and posted them on your website? YES OR NO?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:02 PM
Nice attempt at a dodge. It won't work.

Do you deny that you wrote these words and posted them on your website? YES OR NO?
No I don't deny it, but what's your point?

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 10:05 PM
My point is, there's your presumption of guilt.

Now that we have that out of the way, and we have your earlier admission that your site, including your "100% proof positive smoking guns" are, in fact, only your completely inexpert opinion, it's time for you to come clean.

Fix your site and apologize to her. Your accusation, listed above, is baseless.

Checkmate.

defaultdotxbe
16th August 2006, 10:11 PM
Did I ruin her life?

what if you did?

Gravy
16th August 2006, 10:13 PM
Wait, wait, wait, wait, where am I assuming guilt???
You're assuming someone's guilt, and it's not the terrorists.

"Because no 757 crashed in Shanksville. The scene was all faked"

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=53

You claim that either the government, or Val McClatchey, or both, are guilty of fraud. Excerpts from your blog (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html):

Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville and not only that, but there is something else about this photo that makes it a 100% proof positive smoking gun photo!

This is a huge smoking gun! It proves that this blast is more likely an ordnance plume and that it did not come from the crater that the government told us was made when Flight 93 nosedived there. However, this huge smoking gun gets even bigger and better! According to my analysis, this ordnance plume blast could not possibly have came anywhere near the crash site!

Is there a motive for Val to be in on faking this photo? Unfortunately, there is.

Right before 9/11, her and her husband had suffered "severe business loss." They were later forced to file for bankruptcy for their saw mill company:

They ended up loosing their business as of Dec 31, 2001, putting 40 people out of work. Val also mentions that they may lose their house.

And it gets worse. Val mentions that her and one of her children have major health problems.

However after all of her and her family's financial and health problems right before 9/11, she's able to open up her own realty company (spring of 2005) after copyrighting this "one-of-a-kind" shot that she sells these less than \$.50 computer paper printouts of it for \$20 bucks a pop.

It's sad to think about a family who is having major financial and health problems, but unfortunately, these are the types of extreme circumstances that can cause people to do unethical things in the such dire times and these are the types of things the police will look for in a criminal investigation.

So with this revelation that the smoke plume seen in Val's photo couldn't possibly have came from the crash area, I can only think of two possible explanations:

1) The smoke plume came from and ordnance blast closer to her house.

2) The smoke plume was photoshopped on there.

If it really was an ordnance blast not too far beyond the white barn and white farm house, then this would be a true smoking gun and one of the clearest examples of complicity in the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. government because what else could have caused such a large explosion and who else would have been behind it?

If the smoke plume was photoshopped on there, then that could mean the following:

1) the photo was simply a fraud by Val.

2) the photo was a fraud by her and the FBI who did inspect her photo and took away her original memory card.

If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case then Val, you got some splainin' to do!

gtc
16th August 2006, 10:13 PM
This is another case of seeing facts that are consistent with your theory as being evidence for your theory.

Even if Val had faked the photos (which we have no evidence that she did) that does not mean that she was part of some conspiracy. She might have been seeking to make money or get fame etc.

That said, I think her actions since 911 are more consistent with someone who is sincere than fraudalent or out to make money.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:24 PM
My point is, there's your presumption of guilt.
Sorry, I must need glasses. Where was it again? I didn't see it in my quote you posted.

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 10:25 PM
I bolded it for you.

Now you are lying.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:25 PM
what if you did?We'll wait to see if that happens first.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:27 PM
1) Even if Val had faked the photos (which we have no evidence that she did)

2) that does not mean that she was part of some conspiracy. She might have been seeking to make money or get fame etc.

1) why do you guys keep lying, or is it you can not read very well?

2) Um, hayah, I did mention this.

Buckwheatjones
16th August 2006, 10:30 PM
Sorry if I'm not getting this correct, but did you guys come to this estimate by basing the fuel load capacity of a 757 with its mpg and how many miles 93 flew, or was this part estimated from an official source?

I think I wrote this clearly, but ok. I'll spoonfeed it to you.

My own personal estimate. No official information to back this up. If you can find documentation that says how much fuel was on board at the time of the crash then you'd be giving an example of the type of legwork I've been b!tching at you to do across two discussion boards. I couldn't find it, maybe you can. If you do, post the figures and we'll see if my math still sings.

In the absence of hard data, all I can do is estimate based on what's reasonable.

1. 93 was a cross country flight so it carried lots of gas. The Telegraph says it carried 10,000 gallons: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/war/waryear.xml

Anyone can dig up better information than that, please do. Anyway.

2. If flying with nearly a full loadout, 10,000 gallons, and burning fuel at a rate of 4194 liters per hour

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:MUiv4rKug9QJ:media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/69/69499/bafactbook/section3.doc+fuel+consumption+two+hours+757&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14&ie=UTF-8

and converting that to gallons, shows that it burned about 1100 gallons per hour. A two hour flight, it presumably burned 2200 gallons, so that puts us at 7800 gallons left. So I find that 10k is too high. but according to my engineer's estimation that 10k gallons could produce a cloud 1000 meters wide, it is not unreasonable to determine that 7800 gallons could produce a cloud of 600 meters in width.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:31 PM
I bolded it for you.

Now you are lying.
Oooooh, then you would be correct if your statement read "Yet here you are, assuming guilt [when I take things you say out of context]"

Gravy
16th August 2006, 10:33 PM
Just wanted to point this out. Killtown wrote:

However after all of her and her family's financial and health problems right before 9/11, she's able to open up her own realty company (spring of 2005) after copyrighting this "one-of-a-kind" shot that she sells these less than \$.50 computer paper printouts of it for \$20 bucks a pop. (Bolding mine)

Killtown, when you order a photo from her, you make the check out to Heroic Choices (formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation). She forwards the checks to them.

Are you going to retract the claim that she may have faked the photo in order to help with her family's financial problems?

gtc
16th August 2006, 10:35 PM
1) why do you guys keep lying, or is it you can not read very well?

How am I lying?

Your evidence that the photo is faked isn't very convincing and there is no evidence that Val faked it (if it was faked).

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 10:36 PM
1) Even if Val had faked the photos (which we have no evidence that she did)

1) why do you guys keep lying, or is it you can not read very well?

Spectacular. You have now contradicted yourself in two successive posts. Here you CLEARLY contradict gtc, saying "we have evidence Val faked the photos." You do not. You admitted that your site has no evidence. Even if you did, it would not imply that Val faked the photos.

Then you try to deny that you accused her, in your reply to me.

Ergo, a liar.

By your own rules that you laid down when you arrived here, I am now obligated to stop debating with you. You lose.

But you may keep digging that hole as long as you like. I'm rather enjoying watching such a nasty piece of work as yourself self-destruct.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:37 PM
A two hour flight, it presumably burned 2200 gallons, so that puts us at 7800 gallons left. So I find that 10k is too high.
Ok that's what I thought, but just wanted to be triple sure. I had conservatively estimated it had 6,000 at impact (not for this discussion though).

So I've come to the conclusion that the answer to this thread is based on the size of the plume the crash made. Would you agree to that?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:38 PM
Killtown, when you order a photo from her, you make the check out to Heroic Choices (formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation). She forwards the checks to them.
Really, how did you find this out???

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:39 PM
How am I lying?

Your evidence that the photo is faked isn't very convincing and there is no evidence that Val faked it (if it was faked).

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

gtc
16th August 2006, 10:41 PM

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

I have and it doesn't seem to answer my question.

Can you summarise the relevant bits?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:43 PM
Spectacular. You have now contradicted yourself in two successive posts. Here you CLEARLY contradict gtc, saying "we have evidence Val faked the photos." You do not. You admitted that your site has no evidence. Even if you did, it would not imply that Val faked the photos.

Then you try to deny that you accused her, in your reply to me.

Ergo, a liar.

By your own rules that you laid down when you arrived here, I am now obligated to stop debating with you. You lose.

But you may keep digging that hole as long as you like. I'm rather enjoying watching such a nasty piece of work as yourself self-destruct.
You are trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard. There IS evidence that she may have. I can't help it if you guys don't want to accept it.

Anyways, start a new thread about anything not specifically related to this thread that ASSUMES her photo is real.

Buckwheatjones
16th August 2006, 10:45 PM
Ok that's what I thought, but just wanted to be triple sure. I had conservatively estimated it had 6,000 at impact (not for this discussion though).

So I've come to the conclusion that the answer to this thread is based on the size of the plume the crash made. Would you agree to that?

Yeah. 10k is too high, but 7800 is not. Still, it's a lot more substantial than "The cloud is too big IMO."

The answer is in response to your conviction that the cloud is too big at the crash site for flight 93 to have made. It isn't. It's well within the parameters of possibility.

gtc
16th August 2006, 10:46 PM
Really, how did you find this out???

See I could post a link to the Post-Gazette and tell you to read thoroughly, but that would be nasty, so here you go:

Copies are available upon request, with proceeds going to the charity Heroic Choices, formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation

defaultdotxbe
16th August 2006, 10:46 PM
We'll wait to see if that happens first.

then thats my answer to your question

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?

Buckwheatjones
16th August 2006, 10:48 PM
Spectacular. You have now contradicted yourself in two successive posts. Here you CLEARLY contradict gtc, saying "we have evidence Val faked the photos." You do not. You admitted that your site has no evidence. Even if you did, it would not imply that Val faked the photos.

Then you try to deny that you accused her, in your reply to me.

Ergo, a liar.

By your own rules that you laid down when you arrived here, I am now obligated to stop debating with you. You lose.

But you may keep digging that hole as long as you like. I'm rather enjoying watching such a nasty piece of work as yourself self-destruct.

Runnin' in Jell-O man. Runnin' in Jell-O. We all are. Why do we do it?

defaultdotxbe
16th August 2006, 10:48 PM
Really, how did you find this out???

its on the website where you buy the picture

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html

To order an 8.5 X 11 print of this photo, send a \$20.00 check made payable to the Todd Beamer Foundation to the following address:

(bolding NOT mine)

defaultdotxbe
16th August 2006, 10:50 PM
Sorry, I must need glasses. Where was it again? I didn't see it in my quote you posted.

"Because no 757 crashed in Shanksville. The scene was all faked"

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=53

if the scene was faked, then someone is guilty of faking it correct?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 10:51 PM
Yeah. 10k is too high, but 7800 is not. Still, it's a lot more substantial than "The cloud is too big IMO."

The answer is in response to your conviction that the cloud is too big at the crash site for flight 93 to have made. It isn't. It's well within the parameters of possibility.
I concur with you fuel estimate.

Hypothetically, if it's proven that the plume was around my estimated size, would that essentially prove my claim that it had to originate somewhere around where I estimated it?

R.Mackey
16th August 2006, 10:55 PM
Runnin' in Jell-O man. Runnin' in Jell-O. We all are. Why do we do it?

I'm done running. I played by his rules, and beat him at his own game.

Why do I do it? This is why... Besides the "lurkers" and "undecideds" who might come across this thread, there is another potential beneficiary. That person is Killtown himself.

I am an optimist in humanity. Perhaps this is a mistake, but that's how I am. Anyway, having gone through similar epiphanies myself (though nothing on a scale that would get me reported in a newspaper for harrassment!), I believe that someday, older and wiser, Killtown will look back upon the foolish things he did in his youth. And be profoundly ashamed.

We really can't convince someone who is so ready to accuse anyone of complicity, such as this perfect bystander, or someone who yells "planted!" about any evidence that doesn't match his insane agenda. Convincing them is not the goal. The goal, instead, is to provide an example.

When the time comes, and Killtown goes through a period of confused re-evaluation, I hope he will understand that there are other people who behave responsibly, intelligently, respectfully. This may help him get through this period and become a happier, more valuable human being.

The JREF is, after all, an educational foundation. Education is ALWAYS a positive force.

CardZeus
16th August 2006, 10:56 PM
Why oh why do we give this nutjob the time of day - I wouldn't be surprised if he and Christophera were one and the same. Both certifiably insane.

Please argue the topic not the poster.

Buckwheatjones
16th August 2006, 11:01 PM
I concur with you fuel estimate.

Hypothetically, if it's proven that the plume was around my estimated size, would that essentially prove my claim that it had to originate somewhere around where I estimated it?

Was your estimated size 2200 feet or 600 meters? If so we agree. Didn't you claim that the point of origin of the plume was one mile east of the crash site? Then no. We don't agree. The plume scales out accurately to be 600 meters across and it's well within the bounds of possibility that such a cloud could exist just southeast of the crash site. Coupling that with the improbability of using Photoshop to paste in a cloud to fake the image, I believe the image to be legitimate. I've been doing Photoshop as a day job since 1995 and you can't pull that one off.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:13 PM
its on the website where you buy the picture

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html

Wow, you are right! This blew right past me...

To order an 8.5 X 11 print of this photo, send a \$20.00 check made payable to the Todd Beamer Foundation to the following address:

Point for you guys!

So this would eliminate her financial motive right? Because she literally just forwards the checks?

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:14 PM
if the scene was faked, then someone is guilty of faking it correct?
Um yeah, but his question was about Val being guilty.

gtc
16th August 2006, 11:20 PM
So this would eliminate her financial motive right?

I think so.

Now we have to decide if the photo is accurate and if not, what is her motive.

I still say we have no hard evidence that the photo isn't accurate.

But, if the photo was not accurate, the options are:
She honestly thought she captured the crash but captured something else or unwittingly captured the cover up explosion,
She is a shill for the conspiracy,
She faked it for fame.

Unless we have any hard evidence otherwise, honour demands that we assume she acted honestly.

This is critical thinking!

Because she literally just forwards the checks?

As far as I can tell.

That said, the Post-Gazette article said she is now accepting money, but only for her lawsuit in defence of her photo. So that isn't evidence of a financial motive either as no photo would have meant no lawsuit.

Killtown
16th August 2006, 11:23 PM
1) Was your estimated size 2200 feet or 600 meters? If so we agree.

No, 600 feet.

mrflame
17th August 2006, 12:18 AM
IMHO, one can't consider that (or any) fotos to be an evidence.

But if you still want to, you should take into account a scope af differrent influences such as the strengh and direction of wind, the kind of soil (and its solidity), the presence/lack of dust, the time that passed from the accident, etc.

and I see no sence in faking that fotos, would you be so kind to educate me on the point?

Pardalis
17th August 2006, 12:24 AM
I am an optimist in humanity. Perhaps this is a mistake, but that's how I am.

And it's all to your credit. I have found your posts more than exemplary, they are trully edifying. :)

Keep up the good work. The same goes for all of you guys, Arkan, Gravy and the others.

Pardalis

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 01:23 AM
And it's all to your credit. I have found your posts more than exemplary, they are trully edifying. :)

Keep up the good work. The same goes for all of you guys, Arkan, Gravy and the others.

Pardalis

Indeed, I must thank everyone and I have to say it feels like we are getting somewhere! Slowly, but even so...

I thought it would be useful to summarise where we are at in debunking or verifying Killtown's claims. I have included direct quotes from his blog so that there can be no accusations of misrepresentation.

1."...her photo proves that the crash of Flight 93 is fake because the smoke plume in her photo looks more like the plume coming from an ordnance blast because of its grey color rather than from a plane crash since smoke from jet fuel fires are almost black in color."

This has been disproved by my ealier post showing that there are many pictures on the internet of airplane crashes where the plume is not "almost black" in colour.

2. "Then she suddenly hears a load roar of a plane's engine fly over Indian Lake and managed to look out her front window and catch a glimpse of the plane's glare, which she states that she thought was a small plane, before it flew over the horizon behind the red barn. Note that Val lives to the west of Indian Lake and east of the crash site. If the plane flew over the lake towards the west, then the flight path she describes is almost in the opposite direction from the official version's flight path."

My bolding. According to the source given by Killtown in his blog "She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch. "

Note - above the red barns. Nothing about direction there. This story is consistent with the version Killtown labels "Popular mechanics" on his google earth map. Unless KT provides further evidence, his link does not support his claim. Note also that it may be that people, when descibing a plane flight, say "it flew overhead" without meaning directly, straight up perpendicular overhead. I know I have in the past. So claim 2 is false.

3. "She says she took the photo about 5 seconds after she heard it crash"

Much has already been said about this. Even KT himself says "about" 5s. Posts have discussed the exact timing. I would add that again people tend to say "about 5 seconds" when they could mean anything up to 30s to 1 min. My wife knows that "I'll be there in a minute" refers to a variable time period of between 10seconds to 30 minutes.

4. "put on a barbecue for the rescue crews as if she was anticipating the events. How was she able to cook for the crews with her electricity knocked out?"

Sorry, this made me laugh. In the UK, when we have a barbecue we burn some wood/charcoal outside. Some people even have gas-fired barbecues. Do people not do this in the USA? Do you have electric barbecues??

5. Regardless, there then follows a lengthy personal attack questioning Val's motives for selling the photo. (" Val seems uninterested in learning about the truth about the crash she allegedly caught on camera, but would rather milk her prized photo she is so protective of for all that it's worth") This has been effectively debunked by Gravy, so no more to be said here.

6. Now to the meat of the article "the smoke plume does not line up with where the crater is"

This hs been dealt with in Arkan's post. KTs only attempt at a response has been to question the size of the plume in Arkan's post. This discussion is ongoing. So, on to the size of the plume:

"On my last photo analysis, I included two equally sized explosions (orange) that I generously estimated that would have come from the crash scene area (based mostly on the size of the burnt forest section)"

Killtown is basing his plume size estimate on the size of burnt forest! He has repeated this statement in this forum. It seems self-evident to me that smoke from a burning fire would expand to be bigger than the area of forest burning to create it, but here is a nice picture demontrating:

http://air.geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/~puff/siberia/puffnow.html

Note Killtown's claim " I basically started the radius point at the crater and drew a circle around the section of forest that was burned and excavated afterward. And based on videos of large planes crashing and judging the size their explosions and smoke plumes grew to."

Unless KT can show his calculations for the plume of smoke in more detail, his claim that be plume size is equal to the size of the crater and burned area is absurd and can be dismissed.

7. There then follows more personal attacks on Val's motives. Discredited for the above reasons (5).

So, Killtown, your one remaining claim on your blog that may hold water is the size of the plume, but only if you show us your calculations as to how you derived it. With figures. And sums. Simplt reinterating "based on videos" is not good enough. Give us the sources. Give us the figures.

Apologies to everyone else for the long post, but as I stated at the beginning, we are getting somewhere! Only one claim left to debunk...

17th August 2006, 01:35 AM
Yeah. 10k is too high, but 7800 is not. Still, it's a lot more substantial than "The cloud is too big IMO."

The answer is in response to your conviction that the cloud is too big at the crash site for flight 93 to have made. It isn't. It's well within the parameters of possibility.

Boeing says
Model 757-200, 757-200F, 757-300
Fuel capacity 11,489 US gal (43,490 l), 11,276 US gal (42,680 l), 11,466 US gal (43,400 l)
Which, subtracting our estimated 2200 gal, gives us:
9289 gal, 9076 gal, and 9266 gal respectively.

17th August 2006, 01:40 AM
1) I just want to verify if this is an official estimate, or a "guesstimate" on his part.

2) Just seems like quite a difference.

3) So basically if it's proven the plume was more my estimated size, than that would prove my accusation? That plume size is what it boils down to?

RE 1) Already responded to by Buckwheatjones
RE 2) A moot one. The plume could drift sufficiently under either condition. I will reiterate, the 25 knots was from the FDR. The 9 knots was provided by you, iirc.
RE 3) The plumes estimated size is 526 meters. You assumption that this was too large for the distance to the crash site is in error. Your assumption that the plume could not have been in the angle of view between the two barns is in error. You conclusion that the plume must have been significanly closer (~1000 meters) to Val than the crash site is wrong.

17th August 2006, 02:33 AM
1) Unless the curvature of the earth totally throws my lines off, I stand by them.

2) The crater is close enough if not dead on.

3) Yes I do, based on the distance from the middle of the crater to the outermost burnt forest section and from analysing large plane crashes.

RE 1) By bisecting the barn, rather than using the north tip, you generate an error of ~89 meters at the longitude of the crashsite between my southern vector and yours.
RE 2) Coordinates of your crater?
RE 2) You have not provided any backing to substantiate that this method of estimation is accurate.

17th August 2006, 02:36 AM
I want to emphasis something. In my calculations I have provided GPS coordinates that anyone with a Magellen/Garmen/TomTom can go out and verify the accuracy of, at the actual locations. I have provided my measurements of distance, which can also be verified in person. I have made clear the tools I have used to do so.

Killtown, please provide similar measurements for your analysis of the area.

mortimer
17th August 2006, 05:51 AM
Clarify, you agree that by the way the middle plume is shifting 90 degs, Val's plume could have done this too?

Sure. It could have also performed a loop-d-loop, then inverted itself, twice. What's your point?

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 05:57 AM
Plume size

Right - first of all I am going to take it as read that Arkan's calculation of field of view is accurate.

Killtown, please post if you disagree.

As stated earlier, the key point is the size of the plume at a given time point.

Arkan's work puts the plume size between 250-500m (ish) given the original photo. This is way off Killtowns 2200ft but he has never provided any evidence for this assertion.

I have been looking for info on smoke plume modelling.

Best site I could find was http://www.fire.nist.gov/aloft/

I have used this program to try and model the smoke plume.

Data for a jet fuel fire was taken from

and I used estimates of wind speed between 9 and 25 knots as discussed here.

I get plume heights (as represented by particulate density) between 320-390m at a distance of 2-2.5km from the crash site. This would fit with Arkan's model and the picture we have seen.

Asuumptions - surface temp 21degC, standard temp lapse rate, moderate solar radiation, crash site area = burning fuel area, jet fuel particulate properties taken from standard values in the program.

So, Killtown, how did you perform YOUR plume size calculations? What different values did you use, which program for modellling and where did the 2200ft value come from?

CurtC
17th August 2006, 06:49 AM
So, Killtown, how did you perform YOUR plume size calculations? What different values did you use, which program for modellling and where did the 2200ft value come from?
Oh! Oh! I know!

He has clearly said that it looks too big.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 07:02 AM
Funny, you accuse me of ducking question and look what you do, duck the question!

You're a very funny person, Killtown. I DID answer the question, by saying it was irrelevant. As I said TWICE to you already, not one explosion looks exactly like any other.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 07:12 AM
1) Even though the Concorde crash had a mushroom shape, that's about all it had in similarity. It's column was thick, suggesting fuel still burning and the video quality made the color undeterminable.

Didn't the Concorde crash on something ELSE that started burning, too ?

4. Now that I gave you my clip wasn't good to determine shifting, you'll notice the middle plume had to have sprouted straight up, then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

_I_ wouldn't. There's no way you can tell that it sprouted straight up.

3) Well if she's in on it some one, of course she is going to say that!

Damn, that's an easy answer.

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?

Wouldn't change the fact that you're acting like a jerk.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 07:15 AM
5) "jerk off"? Porn freak.

Well, that explains it! You're repressed!

Buckwheatjones
17th August 2006, 07:42 AM
Boeing says
Which, subtracting our estimated 2200 gal, gives us:
9289 gal, 9076 gal, and 9266 gal respectively.

Right. That's why I started at 10k gallons. But then tried to find out how much fuel was on board at time of crash. Only found that Telegraph story that said 10k was on board at time of take off, I think. So either way, if it crashed with 10,000 gallons or 7800 gallons, it's reasonable to think that a 600 meter wide cloud is viable.

Buckwheatjones
17th August 2006, 07:43 AM
No, 600 feet.

No. 600 feet way too small.

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 08:14 AM
No. 600 feet way too small.

Hi Buckwheatjones, good work on your original estimate of plume size. Killtown's uncalculated guesstimate puts the plume size at 200m.

I put it at 300-400m assuming only jet fuel was burning.

As your source as stated, other particulate matter from burning bits of airplane, debris and vegetation could increase the plume size further.

So, the onus is on Killtown to explain:

1. EXACTLY how he arrives at his plume size.
2. Why Arkan Wolfshade is wrong in his calculation that a plume size of 500m diameter (approx) would be visible AS SHOWN on the photograph.

If he cannot do this, then he is debunked. End of, as they say.

So Killtown, over to you....

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 08:33 AM
So, the onus is on Killtown to explain:

1. EXACTLY how he arrives at his plume size.

Rectal extraction.

MortFurd, please refrain from making remarks of that kind.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 08:35 AM
As far as I can tell.

That said, the Post-Gazette article said she is now accepting money, but only for her lawsuit in defence of her photo. So that isn't evidence of a financial motive either as no photo would have meant no lawsuit.
Well that seems to contradict each other, so let me know when you guys work that out.

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 08:45 AM
Well that seems to contradict each other, so let me know when you guys work that out.

He just did, Killtown. No financial motive. No question. Now, please answer the questions put to you.

ghost707
17th August 2006, 08:49 AM
He just did, Killtown. No financial motive. No question. Now, please answer the questions put to you.

He won't because he can't.
The only thing I have seen from killtown is speculation.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 08:50 AM
1. This has been disproved by my ealier post showing that there are many pictures on the internet of airplane crashes where the plume is not "almost black" in colour.

2. According to the source given by Killtown in his blog "She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch. "

Note - above the red barns. Nothing about direction there.

3. "She says she took the photo about 5 seconds after she heard it crash"

Much has already been said about this. Even KT himself says "about" 5s. Posts have discussed the exact timing.

4. Sorry, this made me laugh. In the UK, when we have a barbecue we burn some wood/charcoal outside. Some people even have gas-fired barbecues. Do people not do this in the USA? Do you have electric barbecues??

5. This has been effectively debunked by Gravy, so no more to be said here.

6. Unless KT can show his calculations for the plume of smoke in more detail, his claim that be plume size is equal to the size of the crater and burned area is absurd and can be dismissed.

7. There then follows more personal attacks on Val's motives. Discredited for the above reasons (5).
1) I'm sorry, could you link those again?

2) UA 93 flew heading south east. Val heard a plane fly overhead and looked out her front window which would be facing west. Paths contradict. No rocket science here:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/pm-map-flight-paths.gif

3) She says, "about 5 seconds". That's her quote. I like how everybody is essentially calling her a liar too!

4) She could have just done an outside BBQ, or her lights came back on. Do you have any comments to my other questions about this, or just the ones you find easily refuttable?

5) Are you sure?

6) I've mentioned it numerous times already.

7) Her motives haven't been discredited as of yet.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 08:52 AM
RE 3) The plumes estimated size is 526 meters. You assumption that this was too large for the distance to the crash site is in error. Your assumption that the plume could not have been in the angle of view between the two barns is in error. You conclusion that the plume must have been significanly closer (~1000 meters) to Val than the crash site is wrong.
I specifically asked you:

"So basically if it's proven the plume was more my estimated size, than that would prove my accusation? That plume size is what it boils down to?"

It really only needs a "yes or no" answer.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 08:55 AM
RE 1) By bisecting the barn, rather than using the north tip, you generate an error of ~89 meters at the longitude of the crashsite between my southern vector and yours.
RE 2) Coordinates of your crater?
RE 2) You have not provided any backing to substantiate that this method of estimation is accurate.
1) I stand by my lines.

3) We'll get to this is a bit.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 08:56 AM
Killtown, please provide similar measurements for your analysis of the area.
Here: http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

Killtown
17th August 2006, 08:57 AM
1) Sure. It could have also performed a loop-d-loop, then inverted itself, twice.

2) What's your point?
1) Grow up.

2) Everyone was saying "no" at first, just wondering if that middle plume pic has changed their answers or not.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 09:00 AM
1) So, Killtown, how did you perform YOUR plume size calculations? What different values did you use, which program for modellling and

2) where did the 2200ft value come from?
1) MY estimates came from real life videos of crashes of large planes and from forensics.

2) The distance between my plume width lines.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 09:02 AM
I put it at 300-400m assuming only jet fuel was burning.

I'll take this, because it proves my claim!

ghost707
17th August 2006, 09:03 AM
1)

2) UA 93 flew heading south east. Val heard a plane fly overhead and looked out her front window which would be facing west. Paths contradict. No rocket science here:

Hmm...an aircraft can't change direction while in flight? Maybe someone should tell the pilots about this little problem.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 09:06 AM
Rectal extraction.
It explains all of Killtown's arguments, actually.

I don't know how you guys can manage to keep trying to have a discussion with someone who never answers direct, simple questions.

Killtown hat sein Kopf nur zum Haare schneiden.

Buckwheatjones
17th August 2006, 09:07 AM
Hi Buckwheatjones, good work on your original estimate of plume size. Killtown's uncalculated guesstimate puts the plume size at 200m.

I put it at 300-400m assuming only jet fuel was burning.

As your source as stated, other particulate matter from burning bits of airplane, debris and vegetation could increase the plume size further.

So, the onus is on Killtown to explain:

1. EXACTLY how he arrives at his plume size.
2. Why Arkan Wolfshade is wrong in his calculation that a plume size of 500m diameter (approx) would be visible AS SHOWN on the photograph.

If he cannot do this, then he is debunked. End of, as they say.

So Killtown, over to you....

Hi, Doc. Glad to see another new guy on the board. Looks like you've done your homework.

Wanted to try a summary here, please check my work if you have time. Feel free to correct my thinking if I'm off:

* It's reasonable to think that the fuel on board was anywhere between 7500 and 10,000 gallons at the time of the crash, based on posts above.

* If 10,000 gallons gives us a minimum of 500-600 meters across (correlates with Arkan's figure of 525m) with a possible maximum of 1000 meters across per the calculations of the nuclear engineer,

* and if 7500 gallons is an amount one quarter less than the high end estimate of fuel on board, could one reduce the minimum and maximum parameters of the width of the cloud by 25% to get the low end of the scale?

In other words,

IF: 10,000 max fuel equals minimum cloud of 525 meters, maximum cloud of 1000 meters.

THEN: 7,500 minimum fuel equals minimum cloud of 400 meters, maximum cloud of 7500 meters.

Does it stand to reason that 25% less fuel on board means 25% less cloud, all things remaining equal?

If it does, then at the very least it is reasonable that the cloud could be 400 meters across or 1200 feet, which is twice the size of killtown's best guess of 600 feet.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 09:07 AM
He just did, Killtown. No financial motive. No question. Now, please answer the questions put to you.
So let me get this straight then, checks are made out to the Todd Beamer foundation and she simply forwards the checks. she can't touch the money, is this correct?

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 09:10 AM
1) I'm sorry, could you link those again?

Don't be lazy, go back and look. I've mentioned them before. Many times.

2) UA 93 flew heading south east. Val heard a plane fly overhead and looked out her front window which would be facing west. Paths contradict. No rocket science here:

snip of map. Repeat of original point you have missed:

My bolding. According to the source given by Killtown in his blog "She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch. "

The rocket science part is where the source you quote on your blog mentions nothing about the flight being overhead. Hope you get the point this time.

3) She says, "about 5 seconds". That's her quote. I like how everybody is essentially calling her a liar too!

I am not calling her a liar. I am only pointing out the flaw in your own interpretation of the timing.

4) She could have just done an outside BBQ, or her lights came back on. Do you have any comments to my other questions about this, or just the ones you find easily refuttable?

No, I am not going to get dragged into a barbecue argument because that would derail the thread and allow you to weasel out of the important questions.

I am glad that you found I easily refuted your point however. Why did you not pause to think of the plausible explanations earlier? You are obviously capable of doing so when pressed.

5) Are you sure?

Yes, this is why I said it. Sigh. Instead of asking pointless questions, why not answer my points with fact-based argument? And if you cannot, then say so or say nothing and concede the point.

6) I've mentioned it numerous times already.

Where? Where are the calculations of your plume size?

Where?????

7) Her motives haven't been discredited as of yet.

This is an ambiguous statement. If you mean, her motives for publishing the photo cannot be questioned because there is no credible evidence that she sought to gain financially from doing so, then I agree.

Please answer the questions about how you arrived at your plume size calculation and why Arkan's calculations are wrong.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 09:10 AM
.

To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

Belz...
17th August 2006, 09:12 AM
You are trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard. There IS evidence that she may have. I can't help it if you guys don't want to accept it.

Evidence that she MAY have ? That sounds inconclusive to me.

Buckwheatjones
17th August 2006, 09:13 AM
I'll take this, because it proves my claim!

No. It doesn't. Your claim is 200 meters or 600 feet. His minimum is a lot bigger than your maximum which means the cloud in the photo is not to big to be real.

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 09:14 AM
1) MY estimates came from real life videos of crashes of large planes and from forensics.

2) The distance between my plume width lines.

1) This is not an explanation. Which videos? How did you calculate plume size from the video? Which planes? Under what crash conditions?

"...from forensics"

Which "forensics"? What sources? etc? etc? etc?

2)Arkan puts the plume width considerably smaller. You have not refuted his claim. Please show us the trig you use to arrive at this data.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 09:15 AM
So let me get this straight then, checks are made out to the Todd Beamer foundation and she simply forwards the checks. she can't touch the money, is this correct?

She'd have a tough time cashing a check made out to the "Todd Beamer Foundation" if she's not a representative of the foundation.

Note:
The Todd Beamer Foundation is now known as "Heroic Choices."

17th August 2006, 09:17 AM
1) I stand by my lines.

3) We'll get to this is a bit.

RE 1) Standing by them means nothing. Provide supporting evidence for them.

RE 2) "Coordinates: 40°3′3″N, 78°54′13″W" - memorial coordinates (within site of crater. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93_National_Memorial
"Flight 93 crash site are 40.052, -78.8963" source: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6701
"40.052, -78.8963" source: http://www.floppingaces.net/2005/09/11/flight-93-memorial-update/print/
"40:03:07N by 78:54:17W" source: http://www.rawls.org/WorldAheadRelease.htm
Coordinates I used: 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W
Coordinates you used: 40.050972,-78.904583
Google Earth pic of all those coordinates mapped:

The sites quoting 40.052, -78.8963 both seem to be referring to the same source and appear to be completely wrong. Of the remaining sources, mine is the furthest north and west, meaning the other coordinates put the plume even more central in the angle of view of the camera and closer to the camera position.

Here: http://killtown.911review.org/images...ume-1000ft.gif

That provides no measurements or GPS coordinates. It is a map with lines on it.

I specifically asked you:

"So basically if it's proven the plume was more my estimated size, than that would prove my accusation? That plume size is what it boils down to?"

It really only needs a "yes or no" answer.
You question is a false dichtomy. If the plume estimate of 526 meters is consistent with your accusation it does not prove your accusation. You must provide the rest of the evidence showing that (1) all of your accusation has backing evidence and (2) the other explanations for the observed plume are in error. The determination of which explanation is the correct one does not "boil down to" the plume size.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 09:18 AM
So this would eliminate her financial motive right? Because she literally just forwards the checks?

Would you rather assume otherwise ? What's the default position, for you ?

3) She says, "about 5 seconds". That's her quote. I like how everybody is essentially calling her a liar too!

I like how you equate saying someone's mistaken with calling that person a liar.

1) I stand by my lines.

Even if they clearly don't correspond to the angle of the photo ?

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 09:18 AM
Where? Where are the calculations of your plume size?

Where?????

He flushed the paper after performing the rectal extraction.

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 09:19 AM
I'll take this, because it proves my claim!

As buckwheatjones just said, it doesn't. It is consistent with Arkan Wolfshades REBUTTAL of your arguement. And you seem to have missed the part where this is a minimum size based on pure jet fuel combustion without addressing the assertion that other materials would increase the size of the plume.

I am please that you accept my figues however, as that is essentially discussion over.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 09:20 AM
.

To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

Nope.

Are you saying that, if we could get you to agree about the plume's expected size, you'd retract your allegations and make an apology to Val ?

17th August 2006, 09:20 AM
.

To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

No.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 09:25 AM
.

To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?
No. It boils down to this:
1. Everything that everyone else has come up with indicates the photo is real and depicts a photo of the crash of flight 93 as according to the official story.
2. You persist in believing it is either a.) a fake or b.) a real photo showing something that is not the crash of flight 93.
3. You have never yet explained why any conspirator capable of the masterful sequence of events needed to divert flight 93 and dispose of the passengers and create a fake crash site would not be capable of setting off an explosion on the fake crash site rather than some where a mile away.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 09:31 AM
3. You have never yet explained why any conspirator capable of the masterful sequence of events needed to divert flight 93 and dispose of the passengers and create a fake crash site would not be capable of setting off an explosion on the fake crash site rather than some where a mile away.

Might I add that there is also no REASON for the conspirators to do this, except add another layer to the conspiracy and allow the CTers to masturbate (intellectually or not) a while longer.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 09:41 AM
Might I add that there is also no REASON for the conspirators to do this, except add another layer to the conspiracy and allow the CTers to masturbate (intellectually or not) a while longer.
That's kind of the point I'm making. If you stipulate a conspiracy capable of doing the things the CTers claim, then it is really freaking illogical to claim that the conspirators did everything else right but f***ed up the spot to set off an explosion.

The idea that Val's photo is a fake of a real crash or a real photo of a fake crash has been pretty much trashed in favor of the reality that it is a real photo of a real crash. Never mind that Killtown doesn't agree. Facts and numbers won't can't sway a true believer.

1 down, 199 to go. I estimate ~4000 pages of postings would be needed to handle all of them in the depth this one has been handled.

Who's up for it?

ghost707
17th August 2006, 09:50 AM
1 down, 199 to go. I estimate ~4000 pages of postings would be needed to handle all of them in the depth this one has been handled.

Who's up for it?

I'm up for it, I've already debunked his "Boeing was in on it" conspiracy..so that leaves us with 198 I think.

17th August 2006, 09:51 AM
crosspost for "It's CTists, not CTers" thread:

What evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to change your position on the events of 9/11?

As an act of good faith I will answer the question myself. If the consensus of the engineering community shifted to state that the towers should not have collapsed, and their conclusions are corroborated by objective evidence; if Watergate-esque tapes came out, showing that officials knew of, or plotted, the events; if objective evidence was presented showing the use of explosives to aid the collapse of the towers; these are some examples of things that would cause me to rethink my position on the events.

How about you Killtown?

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 09:55 AM
I'm up for it, I've already debunked his "Boeing was in on it" conspiracy..so that leaves us with 198 I think.
Holy cow! What, did Boeing build non-existent planes that the CTers claim never crashed where all the world saw them?

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 09:56 AM
I think...

It all boils down to lines and scaling triangles. Essentially, because of the distance involved, a VERY SMALL difference in where you take the point of the red/white barns to be in terms of field of view makes a VERY BIG difference to the plume size.

I have copied this pic from your blog and added my own (black) lines:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_854244e49e0ef341f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1011)

As you can see, a very small error in the original line position on the barns makes a very big difference to the final "expected" plume size. Taking the innermost lines, the sizes given here (approx 500m say) are entirely accurate.

I would have to say that this method of estimating size based on google earth and low-res photos is WAY too innacurate to start inventing a conspiracy theory.

If you disagree, please state your confidence interval for the measurements you have made, the standard deviation/standard error of said measurements and both the inter- and intra- observer reliability of your measurement technique.

If you have not done this, your method of measurement is scientifically flawed and completely discredited. If you go away and do it, then respect and I await the results with much anticipation...

Killtown
17th August 2006, 09:59 AM
No. It doesn't. Your claim is 200 meters or 600 feet. His minimum is a lot bigger than your maximum which means the cloud in the photo is not to big to be real.
If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

rwguinn
17th August 2006, 10:00 AM
If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif
show your math,or admit that you are a complete nincompoop.

Yoink
17th August 2006, 10:12 AM
Hi All,

I've been following this "debate" for days now and felt compelled to throw in my two cents worth. I didn't realize that it would take two days to get registered on the site, though! All the central points have been made, Killtown's argument has been systematically dismantled: all that's left is, presumably, a series of "nu-uhhh!" and "look at my blog! I drew lines! On a map!" comments from Killtown.

So, now that this particular argument is on the scrap heap, I wonder if, as a total newbie to the board, I might make a suggestion for future cases of this kind. One of the frustrating things about arguments with CTists is that they're always like a game of whack-a-mole. They may start out with one "smoking gun" but if you debunk it, they immediately propose another (without, of course, accepting that the first is actually debunked: Killtown is a pure example of the type in this regard). When that second, or third, or fourth, or fifth "smoking gun" is demolished, it's time to go back to the first again: "But you guys still haven't answered my original question!"

In a way, arguments on discussion boards like these, particularly enable this tactic. If Killtown is finding one of his paper-thin arguments (and I realize that's an insult to paper) getting demolished he just waits for someone to engage with one of the others and shifts fronts (cloud size, five seconds, angles, cui bono, smoke color etc. etc.). By the time he circles back to the original argument and someone says "we already disproved that point" he can resort to the old "where?," "don't give me a link to the post, quote the relevant part!," "but that's all answered in my blog!" game.

So: here's my proposal. When someone comes into the forum with a claim of this kind, I suggest that respondants agree collectively to some rules of engagement (in a way, not unlike the protocols of the million-dollar challenge). That is, you choose one key part of the proposed claim and you say "we will discuss ONLY this part of the claim. If a compelling argument is put forward that this part of the claim does not stand, we will only move on to discussing other parts of the claim if the person advancing the claim explicitly concedes either that this part of the claim is now debunked or that they are revising their argument in such a way that that part of the claim is no longer relevant."

Of course, if the chosen step in the claimant's argument withstands criticism, the discussion would then move on to another step in the argument with the general agreement that the first step in the argument was apparently sound.

The point here would be that instead of an interminable game of whack-a-mole you'd be filling in the holes that the mole can use after the whacking. In this case, let us say that participants in the discussion had collectively agreed at the beginning that they would initially limit discussion solely to the probable size of the cloud: how long would it have taken to exhaust Killtown's argument there? The sum total of his "argument" is "I don't think so." After the rough calculations of (was it Buckwheatjones's physicist friend?) we could have collectively said "Killtown, your argument as currently stated hinges upon the cloud being "too big" to have been produced by the crash of Flight 93: you have advanced no arguments to support that claim other than comparison to arbitrarily chosen photographs of other plane crashes. Until you either produce some real evidence that the cloud could not be as big as it appears in the photograph OR admit that the size of the cloud is not a valid objection to the authenticity of the photo, this argument is at an end."

What do you think?

ghost707
17th August 2006, 10:12 AM
Holy cow! What, did Boeing build non-existent planes that the CTers claim never crashed where all the world saw them?

Killtown is suspicious of Boeing because they did not incorporate fly-by-wire technology into their aircraft during the 90's.
I explained to killtown that Boeing, the airlines and pilots all have input into the design of the aircraft that Boeing builds. The majority of pilots at that time did not trust the fly-by-wire computers, so Boeing did not incorporate it into the 757 or 767 at that time.

When Airbus first demonstrated fly-by-wire control - the aircraft crashed at an airshow - and it was because the computer misunderstood what the pilot was trying to do.

Hellbound
17th August 2006, 10:13 AM
If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

Your method of estimating plume size is incorrect.

I state this based on observation of actual explosions, ranging in size from 1 to 5000 pounds TNT equivalent. In all cases where a cloud was produced, the cloud was significantly larger than the blast crater or blast mark on the ground. The same holds true for rapid incendiaries. It's a simple test that pretty much anyone can do. Make a Molotov Cocktail, find a non-flammable, abandoned area, turn on a good quality video camera, and throw. Look at the splash radius and compare it to the initial smoke cloud. It's still not 100% representative (the groud crash would have aerosolized a good portion of the fuel, producing some areas of FAE-like reaction), but gets you started.

So, unless you can actually show that your method for evaluating the plume size is correct, you have nothing.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 10:15 AM
No.

So what does the debate for this thread boil down to?

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 10:15 AM
If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

Not if your lines are off by a fraction on your picture. Then that puts it where it should be.

Wyn
17th August 2006, 10:18 AM
So what does the debate for this thread boil down to?

You stroking your ego.

Hellbound
17th August 2006, 10:19 AM
So what does the debate for this thread boil down to?

You actually being able to support your claims.

Such as how you estimated the plume size (so far, you've given nothign but vague statements. Let us know, step-by-step, how one with no knowledge of the subject would reproduce the logic to determine plume size. Assume you're programming a computer. This is called "transparency of method" and is an integral part of scientific explanation).

Such as how you determined the crash coordinates.

Such as how you placed your "view lines"

Such as how you determined it's an "ordinance plume" rather than a plane crash (not opinion, evidence).

etc, etc, etc.

The plume size is only a small part.

17th August 2006, 10:23 AM
So what does the debate for this thread boil down to?

It does not boil down to a single "yes/no" question. As with most scientific queries it is a series of questions that must be asked, and the answer to those questions must be in agreement. I shall leave it as an exercise of the reader to determine what those series of questions should be. QED.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 10:27 AM
Not if your lines are off by a fraction on your picture. Then that puts it where it should be.

I stand by my lines.

Buckwheatjones
17th August 2006, 10:33 AM
I think we've about cleaned this one up.

As a final note, I'll add that I contacted Dr. Joe Shepherd at CalTech's Explosion Dynamics Lab (http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/) and simply sent him the photo, told him it was reputed to be Flight 93 and asked if, based on physical appearances alone, was it characteristic of a cloud from a jet fuel explosion or some sort of ordnance.

His response follows:

Buck,

I can't say anything about what this image represents. There are many
possibilities and I am uncomfortable speculating. The dispersal and combustion of fuel following a high-speed impact of an airplane into the ground is a complex event and I know of no simple way to relate the resulting plume of smoke to the quantity of fuel and type of event.

Joe Shepherd

What does this mean? Well, it means the information in the photo as it pertains to what type of explosion it was is inconclusive. There isn't enough data in that image for an expert in the field to make a determination one way or the other. So does that lend credence to killtown or take it away. Well, if you consider his adamant stance on his website:

"Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville..."

...you can see that he knows more than Dr. Shepherd does about detonations and the types of clouds they produce. Dr. Shepherd can't make the call, but killtown can.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 10:41 AM
How about you guys come up with a Minumum and Maximum width of the plume at the time Val took her pick, then we'll proceed.

Buckwheatjones
17th August 2006, 10:47 AM
If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

Yes, but 400 is problematic for you in a few different ways.

First, as you've been reminded a few times on here, 400 meters would give rise to a cloud from a detonation that burned only the fuel and nothing else. A fire consuming debris, oxygen, aluminum etc. would produce a bigger cloud.

Second, 400 meters is 1200 feet. You just said you believe the cloud to be 600 feet or 200 meters. Did you change your mind?

Killtown
17th August 2006, 11:09 AM
Second, 400 meters is 1200 feet. You just said you believe the cloud to be 600 feet or 200 meters. Did you change your mind?
No, but that size would still prove my claim!

Dr Richard
17th August 2006, 11:13 AM
I stand by my lines.

Your lines are innacurate until demonstrated to be otherwise. You have done nothing in terms of measurement of error to demonstrate otherwise.

HOWEVER,

even if we assume you lines to be correct AS DRAWN, they give a maximum plume size of 700m.

I and others have asserted that 400m would be a consertive minimum for the plume. Given the innacuracy of such estimates (thanks again buckwheatjones) 1000m maximum plume size would not be unreasonable.

If you disagree, prove it.

Otherwise, watch out as those falling cards could put an eye out...

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 11:22 AM
Killtown!
Why in the blue peeping hell would the conspirators set off an explosion at a site separate from the debris site?

CurtC
17th August 2006, 11:48 AM
That plume size is what it boils down to?
Why are you asking us???

Everyone else in the world accepts that this photo is of the smoke plume left by flight 93. If you are saying that the photo falsifies that idea, then you have to show exactly how. You have the burden of proof. So far, all I've seen is that the plume looks too big to you to be from 93. That falls way short of proof.

Belz...
17th August 2006, 12:14 PM
If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

IF.

So what does the debate for this thread boil down to?

A demand for oversimplification... why am I not surprised ?

No, but that size would still prove my claim!

IF.

What does this mean? Well, it means the information in the photo as it pertains to what type of explosion it was is inconclusive. There isn't enough data in that image for an expert in the field to make a determination one way or the other.

I do believe this closes the subject quite nicely. Only an ignorant layman would claim to have better knowledge than an expert in his own field.

I didn't realize that it would take two days to get registered on the site, though!

I don't get that. Mine got done almost instantly, if memory serves.

I suggest that respondants agree collectively to some rules of engagement (in a way, not unlike the protocols of the million-dollar challenge).

CTers can change the rules whenever they see fit and then go cry to mama Dylan. So it wouldn't do any good.

milesalpha
17th August 2006, 12:30 PM
I do believe this closes the subject quite nicely. Only an ignorant layman would claim to have better knowledge than an expert in his own field.

.

You honestly made me laugh. If any one thing has become evident from this thread and perusing the LC forum, it is that most of these badly undereducated kids believe in this statement strongly. I have tried pointing out that the next time they need a serious operation (say a heart transplant), by their own logic, they should visit a local plumber. They never seem to get it.

Pardalis
17th August 2006, 12:39 PM
As you can see, a very small error in the original line position on the barns makes a very big difference to the final "expected" plume size. Taking the innermost lines, the sizes given here (approx 500m say) are entirely accurate.

I would have to say that this method of estimating size based on google earth and low-res photos is WAY too innacurate to start inventing a conspiracy theory.

If you disagree, please state your confidence interval for the measurements you have made, the standard deviation/standard error of said measurements and both the inter- and intra- observer reliability of your measurement technique.

If you have not done this, your method of measurement is scientifically flawed and completely discredited. If you go away and do it, then respect and I await the results with much anticipation...

Exactly.

Killtown, you stand by your lines all you want, but your lines aren't credible, and so are you. You obviously have no idea how to conduct such an analysis, and it seems to me that you are the one attempting to fraud.

Yoink
17th August 2006, 01:22 PM
CTers can change the rules whenever they see fit and then go cry to mama Dylan. So it wouldn't do any good.

Perhaps. Still, it would be interesting to see if any CTist would be willing to engage in an argument on that basis. It would, at least, be a way of more rapidly exposing those who, like Killtown, have no serious interest in exploring and weighing evidence.

You'll note, too, that I'm not suggesting that the claimant would have to agree to any "rules." If those skeptical of the claimant's position simply agreed among themselves that they would not address anything the claimant had to say until that claimant had acknowledged that some mutually agreed upon step in the argument had been settled ("mutually" here meaning "among those skeptical of the claim") one way or the other, then attempts by the claimant to "break the rules" simply wouldn't matter.

This thread in particular seems to cry out for some such approach simply because Killtown is so clearly frivolous in his arguments. At some level he clearly doesn't really "believe" any part of them; that is, he's just as happy to hold that the photo is photoshopped as he is to hold that it's a genuine photo of "ordnance" which debunks the OV, despite the fact that these two propositions are mutually incompatible. As long as there's something "fishy" and as long as it feeds his sense of self-importance ("I know something THEY don't want me to know") he's happy.

There'd be some value in refusing to feed that sense of self-importance by getting him to the "put up or shut up" point a great deal more rapidly.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 02:50 PM
1) Your lines are innacurate until demonstrated to be otherwise. You have done nothing in terms of measurement of error to demonstrate otherwise.

2), a) even if we assume you lines to be correct AS DRAWN, they give a maximum plume size of 700m.

I and others have asserted that 400m would be a consertive minimum for the plume.

b) Given the innacuracy of such estimates (thanks again buckwheatjones) 1000m maximum plume size would not be unreasonable.

3) Otherwise, watch out as those falling cards could put an eye out...
1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

2) a) Max 800m.
b) sure, if a nuclear explosion went off their.

3) yeah, that wasn't immature.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 02:52 PM
Why in the blue peeping hell would the conspirators set off an explosion at a site separate from the debris site?
I don't know, why?

17th August 2006, 02:53 PM
1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

2) a) Max 800m.
b) sure, if a nuclear explosion went off their.

3) yeah, that wasn't immature.

Since this appears necessary, allow me to provide a free lesson in the scientific method, via Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*

Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.

Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.

Please take special note that what you have presented fails to meet this criteria on multiple levels.

defaultdotxbe
17th August 2006, 02:53 PM
I don't know, why?

well if you cant answer this question isnt it easier to believe a plane crashed there and not some super-secret govt conspiracy that cant decide where they want the "crash" scene to be?

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:00 PM
So do you guys think the plume would have been even BIGGER than the larger superimposed plume in this pic which is about 800m or 2,700ft wide???...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/rumpl4skn-plume-size2.0.gif

If so, that's ONE hell of a plume!

Mercutio
17th August 2006, 03:00 PM
1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

Please show your work. We could certainly learn something from your example, given that you can guarantee accuracy that even an expert in the field cannot.

What, exactly, did you double check? What are the key variables that you have right, and others have wrong?

I would be happy to attempt to prove otherwise, or to fail in the attempt. To do so, though, you will need to provide your numbers, how you got those numbers, and what you did with those numbers. Unless you provide those, trying to "prove otherwise" is impossible. You are obviously confident that your numbers are accurate; you should have no hesitancy in providing them for critical analysis.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:01 PM
well if you cant answer this question isnt it easier to believe a plane crashed there and not some super-secret govt conspiracy that cant decide where they want the "crash" scene to be?
I'm just trying to wonder why you guys think I would know what goes on in the minds of the conspirators?!

defaultdotxbe
17th August 2006, 03:03 PM
I'm just trying to wonder why you guys think I would know what goes on in the minds of the conspirators?!

because the conspiracy theories dont add up worth a damn (see my other thread) so either you must see how they add up so nicely or your really bad at math

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 03:04 PM
I don't know, why?
You are the one whose diagram shows that the conspirators did so. YOU answer the question.

Mercutio
17th August 2006, 03:06 PM
So do you guys think the plume would have been even BIGGER than the larger superimposed plume in this pic which is about 800m or 2,700ft wide???...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/rumpl4skn-plume-size2.0.gif

If so, that's ONE hell of a plume!

A "superimposed plume" is no longer one for which any scale is appropriate. Size, distance, and speed, when inferred from a 2-dimensional photo (or retinal image, for that matter) are dependent on one another. An object may be small and near, or large and far (your argument is based on this; I do not imply that I am telling you anything you don't know here). When a 2-dimensional object is superimposed on a 2-dimensional picture, its size and distance are independent of any of the objects in the picture.

What you are doing here is asking a judgment of a forced perspective picture. This is not evidence. This is not logic. This is just bad.

Gravy
17th August 2006, 03:13 PM
.

To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?
No.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:20 PM
Please show your work. We could certainly learn something from your example, given that you can guarantee accuracy that even an expert in the field cannot.

What, exactly, did you double check? What are the key variables that you have right, and others have wrong?

I would be happy to attempt to prove otherwise, or to fail in the attempt. To do so, though, you will need to provide your numbers, how you got those numbers, and what you did with those numbers. Unless you provide those, trying to "prove otherwise" is impossible. You are obviously confident that your numbers are accurate; you should have no hesitancy in providing them for critical analysis.
Here, double check for me...

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

CurtC
17th August 2006, 03:21 PM
My estimate of the plume width:

If it was as far as the crater, I get right at 650 m. That would mean that it had gone due South with the breeze, to be the same distance, while Val's house is due East.

If it went to the Southeast, that would mean it would be about 10% closer, or 600 m.

Here are the endpoints of the sight lines that I used to estimate:

-78.90168458485243,40.05104592456145
-78.90203426604705,40.04482683949028

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:21 PM
You are the one whose diagram shows that the conspirators did so. YOU answer the question.
People commit a lot of crimes in which I don't know why they did it.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 03:23 PM
I'm just trying to wonder why you guys think I would know what goes on in the minds of the conspirators?!

You haven't answered, and it is very germane to the topic.

Your idea that the smoke plume is the wrong size and color and in the wrong spot has been torn to shreds - repeatedly. Your whole argument hinges on someone doing this obviously insane thing of creating a fake crash area and then setting off an explosion in the wrong spot to have come from the crash site.

Either A.) The conspirators are simply ******* insane and couldn't coordinate well enough to set off an explosion at the crash site (in which case it is questionable that they'd have managed any of the super human things attributed to them.)

or B.) The photo is faked, in which case this discussion was pointless as the appropriate thing to do would be to accuse Ms. McClatchey of fraud.

or C.) The photo is what it appears to be (a photo of the aftermath of the crash of Fliight 93) in which case this whole discussion about plumes and explosions is irrelevant.

A, B, or C?

Welche Schweindle hätten Sie denn gern?

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:25 PM
A "superimposed plume" is no longer one for which any scale is appropriate. Size, distance, and speed, when inferred from a 2-dimensional photo (or retinal image, for that matter) are dependent on one another. An object may be small and near, or large and far (your argument is based on this; I do not imply that I am telling you anything you don't know here). When a 2-dimensional object is superimposed on a 2-dimensional picture, its size and distance are independent of any of the objects in the picture.

What you are doing here is asking a judgment of a forced perspective picture. This is not evidence. This is not logic. This is just bad.
Man, I think some of you just like to make things complicate just to be skeptical!

The image just shows how big your guys plume would essentially be. No reason to get all complicated about it.

If you feel this is and incorrect rendision, please draw up your own so everybody can get a sense of what the size of your estimated plume would look like from an aerial photo.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 03:25 PM
People commit a lot of crimes in which I don't know why they did it.

We are still on the topic.
You are the one who has created this concept of the separated crash and explosion sites. Since you've had plenty of time to think about, you must have some idea of why it would be done in such a bizarre manner.

Gravy
17th August 2006, 03:27 PM
Killtown, can you name some unknown variables in this problem that, if known, would disprove your claim? Strictly speaking about the photo analysis, that is.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:28 PM
My estimate of the plume width:

If it was as far as the crater, I get right at 650 m. That would mean that it had gone due South with the breeze, to be the same distance, while Val's house is due East.

If it went to the Southeast, that would mean it would be about 10% closer, or 600 m.

Here are the endpoints of the sight lines that I used to estimate:

-78.90168458485243,40.05104592456145
-78.90203426604705,40.04482683949028
So roughly the same size as our gif shows (2,200ft)?...

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

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:29 PM
Killtown, can you name some unknown variables in this problem that, if known, would disprove your claim?
A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated.

Gravy
17th August 2006, 03:32 PM
A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated.
So you feel that the other analyses here are consistent with describing nuclear blasts or hurricane winds? Because you have not otherwise shown them to be wrong.

Killtown
17th August 2006, 03:38 PM
So you feel that the other analyses here are consistent with describing nuclear blasts or hurricane winds? Because you have not otherwise shown them to be wrong.
Well it seems to boil down to our differences in estimated plume sizes, but you say "no".

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 03:38 PM
Man, I think some of you just like to make things complicate just to be skeptical!

The image just shows how big your guys plume would essentially be. No reason to get all complicated about it.

If you feel this is and incorrect rendision, please draw up your own so everybody can get a sense of what the size of your estimated plume would look like from an aerial photo.

If it is of a satellite picture with a scale, then I'll concede that it is possible to put an object in the picture that is more or less properly scaled.

If you slapped another plume into Ms. McClatchey'photo, then there's not really any way for you to get the scaling right. There's not enough information available in the photo for it to be done with anything even approaching the precision of a rough estimate.

Yoink
17th August 2006, 03:39 PM
Killtown, can I ask you a question. As an impartial (at the outset) observer of this thread since its beginning, it seems to me that every single argument you've made has been entirely demolished. But perhaps I'm missing something. If there is one thing in your whole "case" (whatever that case is, whether it is that the photograph is fake OR that it shows something other than the plume from a plane crash) that you think is A) unrefuted and B) clear proof that this could not be an undoctored photo of the aftereffects of the crash of Flight 93 could you please tell us what that is? Please pick just one thing (I know you might think you have dozens, but for the sake of clarity of focus I'd like you to pick just the one which you think is the most telling).

ETA: and please, for the love of whatever you love, don't just say "look at my blog."

chran
17th August 2006, 03:41 PM
How about you guys come up with a Minumum and Maximum width of the plume at the time Val took her pick, then we'll proceed. No.

How about YOU come up with a reason why we should accept your calculations of the plume size and we'll proceed from there.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 03:47 PM
Well it seems to boil down to our differences in estimated plume sizes, but you say "no".
It comes down to "Why would anyone do something as bizarre as what you are espousing?"

Every argument you've made about size and color of the plume has been shot down. You've gotten into your head that since the plume doesn't look the way your rectal extraction says it should, then there must be something wrong.

What logical or illogical reason could the conspirators have for detonating an explosive device at any site except for the crash site?

So far, the only thing I can figure is that you believe that Moe, Larry, and Curly set up the faked crash site and set off the explosion - with Curly accidentally dropping the bomb while carrying it to the the crash site. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

MortFurd
17th August 2006, 04:07 PM
A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated.
Definitely not an A-Bomb.

Everything you ever wanted to know about the effects of different size A-Bombs. (http://www.bomb-shelter.net/Nuclear-Weapons-6)

The cloud would be too large and rise too high to be the one in the photo. Unless you'd care to argue possible smaller A-Bombs?:rolleyes:

17th August 2006, 04:13 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how "THEY" could expect to fool emergency response people into believing their hastily created fake crash site was a real airplane crash.

Brilliant. Of course then as others here have mentioned they screwed it up by detonating the cover blast a mile away, but perhaps they figured that if a bunch of professional response folks could be fooled by their fake crash site, and the FBI could be fooled by a fake digital picture, they wouldn't notice that little discrepancy.

defaultdotxbe
17th August 2006, 04:13 PM
Definitely not an A-Bomb.

Everything you ever wanted to know about the effects of different size A-Bombs. (http://www.bomb-shelter.net/Nuclear-Weapons-6)

The cloud would be too large and rise too high to be the one in the photo. Unless you'd care to argue possible smaller A-Bombs?:rolleyes:

actually they made nuclear weapons with yields as low as .01kt (although why they had to detonate a NUCLEAR weapon and pretend it was a plane crash raises a whole other issue for ockhams razor to slice through)