Plume in Flight 93 photo is different [Archive] - Page 5

R.Mackey

18th August 2006, 11:26 PM

Just in case anyone is genuinely curious about the significance of aerosolized fuel in the dynamics of the explosion, here's a brief example to consider:

Aircraft in the US Navy use a pretty standard fuel, JP-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-5) I believe (any Navy folks, feel free to correct me). Navy aircraft will certainly burst into flames if they crash.

On the other hand, US aircraft carriers store much of their aviation fuel in tanks just inside the outer hull, at the waterline -- as part of their torpedo protection.

Moral of the story, whether fuel just sits there, ignites, burns, or deflagrates is entirely a function of the conditions of the crash. Flight 93 was a fairly unusual crash. Trying to find an analogous video is not going to be easy. Comparing Flight 93 to low-speed airshow crashes is nothing more than deliberate misinformation.

Pardalis

18th August 2006, 11:32 PM

Man, this thread has grown since the last time I logged in! :eek:

Anyway, Killtown, I just remembered that we do have an example of a video of a Boeing crash, the very same day, which could allow us to make somekind of comparison.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8737962996036061371&q=plane+hit

(I'm sorry to post these horrible images again, BTW)

Now, of course the crashes of flight 175 and flight 93 don't have the same sets of variables, but still, let's look at the similarities of the plumes that formed for each of them.

After the fire ball of what was once flight 175, the grey plume does go up, and grabs some of the smoke from the fire in the first tower along. If you can substract that smoke, I agree with some imagination, we can make out how the plume of smoke forms and expands.

As the plume expands, even at the 5 second mark (and beyond) doesn't it look alot like Val's picture?

Pardalis

18th August 2006, 11:40 PM

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8737962996036061371&q=plane+hit

As the plume expands, even at the 5 second mark (and beyond) doesn't it look alot like Val's picture?

To help you out:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e6b1dcc04c9.png

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e6b1dd0f08c.png

Killtown

19th August 2006, 12:30 AM

To help you out:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e6b1dcc04c9.png
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e6b1dd0f08c.png

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Let's say the B-52 was going the speed of 93, wouldn't the fireball still have "spilled" on the ground, but faster and WIDER/FURTHER which would in turn make for a LARGER smoke plume?

Wouldn't this scenario support your claim?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 12:32 AM

Trying to find an analogous video is not going to be easy. Comparing Flight 93 to low-speed airshow crashes is nothing more than deliberate misinformation.
Why, do you think it hurts your guy's claim?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 12:41 AM

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Let's say the B-52 was going the speed of 93, wouldn't the fireball still have "spilled" on the ground, but faster and WIDER/FURTHER which would in turn make for a LARGER smoke plume?

Wouldn't this scenario support your claim?

What B-52? Are we talking about the 9/11 or not?

Gravy

19th August 2006, 12:53 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th August 2006, 01:33 AM

For the record, Killtown has refused to confront the witness accounts of the flight 93 crash. Remember, he derailed this thread to ask me to provide these accounts.

That's plain cowardice, Killtown. Again.

He has also refused to state what evidence would cause him to change his views on the events of that day.

He has also refused to withdraw his claims after having them been shown to be without substance.

He has also refused to apologize to Ms. McClatchey for his accusations after they were shown to be without substance.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 01:55 AM

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Yes. You are missing something. Your statement has just completely invalidated your entire argument.

If smoke plumes look pretty much alike to you, then arguing the accuracy of a phto on the appearance of a smoke column is pointless.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 02:00 AM

He has also refused to state what evidence would cause him to change his views on the events of that day.

Actually, he has stated what would be required.

A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1853587&highlight=hurricane#post1853587)

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 02:02 AM

What B-52? Are we talking about the 9/11 or not?
We're all talking about 911. Killtown is off in lala land, trying to equate the crash of a B52 to the crash of a 757 and presenting only his patented rectal extractions as proof.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 02:08 AM

Actually, he has stated what would be required.

Hey, Killtown stole my (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1849677&postcount=479) idea!

Darat

19th August 2006, 02:49 AM

I have had to move several posts to AAH that were in breach of the Membership Agreement. An occasional heated remark in an exchange between Members is tolerated. However posts that contain nothing more then insults or posts that are focused on the personal as opposed to discussing the facts, opinions and issues raised regarding Conspiracy Theories are not acceptable.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:49 AM

It doesn't matter, I'm just concerned about the formation of the plume.

You're concerned about how the plume formed, but not about the factors that come into play ? That's kinda weird.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:55 AM

Ok, plane crashes (at angle within areexperiment range), explodes into fireball, fireball rises, starts to from mushroom shape, fire burns out and turns into smoke, smoke continues to rise in mushroom shap.

K, how are they so different?

Translation: "But the thing went BOOM!! Of course it's the same!"

Belz...

19th August 2006, 06:05 AM

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

:hb:

rwguinn

19th August 2006, 07:16 AM

Killtown

19th August 2006, 07:22 AM

What B-52? Are we talking about the 9/11 or not?
The video of the B-52 crash. I'm trying to determine how your guy's plume formed. it had to form somehow. How did it?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 07:25 AM

If smoke plumes look pretty much alike to you, then arguing the accuracy of a phto on the appearance of a smoke column is pointless.
I'm trying to determine how the plume of your guy's estimated size was formed. So far you guys haven't done a good job at that. I'm trying to HELP prove your guy's theory, but so far it's not looking too good since we've seemed to hit a major stumbling block.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 07:26 AM

You're concerned about how the plume formed, but not about the factors that come into play ? That's kinda weird.
Such as?

Yoink

19th August 2006, 07:41 AM

And if you guys don't like the b-52 crash example, show me a video of a plane crash that you think is more similar.

Why, do you think it hurts your guy's claim?

Killtown, let me try--one more time--to explain this to you. "Us guys" DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM in this argument. We don't need to find a video of "a plane crash that looks more similar" to defend "our claim" because the sum total of position is that YOU, Killtown, HAVE FAILED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THE FIREBALL IN MCCLATCHEY'S PHOTOGRAPH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AFTERMATH OF THE CRASH OF FLIGHT 93.

Our consistent position is that we DO NOT KNOW and CAN NOT KNOW what the crash of Flight 93 would have "looked like" independently of the evidence of McClatchey's photograph. If one wishes to put that photograph in question there is simply no useful evidence available to us (certainly you have produced none) to confirm or reject the photograph.

So asking us what our "claim" is and whether this hurts our "case" is simply missing the point. YOU are the only one here with a "claim." You are the one who has to present evidence to support that claim. It simply becomes obvious with every post that you haven't a single, tiny, scrap of evidence available to you. And yet you still refust to apologize to the woman you have slandered so baselessly. Incredible.

Gravy

19th August 2006, 07:41 AM

Such as?
Such as all those that were pointed out to you in the past 25 pages, Killtown. You've asked the same question several times, and it's been answered several times. It seems obvious that you're being deliberately obtuse. Please stop this game. Your behavior is an insult to all the people here who took the time to address your issues.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 07:44 AM

I'm trying to determine how the plume of your guy's estimated size was formed. So far you guys haven't done a good job at that. I'm trying to HELP prove your guy's theory, but so far it's not looking too good since we've seemed to hit a major stumbling block.

We don't have an "estimated size" of the plume, Killtown. You are the one who has an "estimated size." What evidence do you have that the plume could not have been as large as it is in Val McClatchey's photograph. If the sum total of your evidence is that "I can find videos of plane crashes on YouTube--crashes involving completely different planes crashing in completely different circumstances--where the plume formed isn't as big" then your case has clearly not been proven and you should immediately apologize to Ms. McClatchey for having made such grave and utterly unfounded accusations against her.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 08:04 AM

Oh, and Killtown. I (and many others) have told you this before, but what the heck--far be it from me to resist pointing out how willfully ignorant you're choosing to be:

You ask why it matters if the fuel is "spilled" rather than aerosolized. Please--just for the heck of it--go to Google and look up "fuel air bomb." Or, seeing as YouTube videos are, for you, the gold standard of accident investigation "research" have a look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk)one.

You ask "wouldn't the fuel just spill out more rapidly" in the Flight 93 crash. Personally I have no evidence one way or the other. Finding evidence for what happened in that crash is YOUR responsibility because YOU are the one making a positive claim. But I can certainly see why we should not expect a slow tearing-open of a fuel tank to be anything remotely like hurling that fuel tank into the ground at over 500mph.

Pressure alters the nature of an explosion immensely. Pressure can cause normally non-explosive things to explode. Grains of dust can explode with extraordinary force under the right pressure conditions. Yes, dust. If you show me videos of dust NOT exploding when NOT in the appropriate conditions to explode that won't disprove the point that it CAN explode in different conditions.

Again--just do some basic preliminary Googling and you'll actually, you know, find something out. Now, what's the difference between taking a container of fuel and ripping it open, pouring the contents out, and setting fire to them, and taking that same fuel container, and slamming it into the ground at over 500mph. Well, one of them is pressure. Of course, it's only one of them and may not be, for all I know, the most important. For all I know it may make no difference at all, for all I know McClatchey's photo may not be consistent with the crash of Flight 93. But if YOU want to make that case YOU need to show some evidence that "all plane crashes look alike" and that "crashing at 70mph is always identical in every way to crashing at 500mph." Something tells me that holding my breath while I wait for you to come up with that evidence probably isn't a great idea.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 08:14 AM

But if YOU want to make that case YOU need to show some evidence that "all plane crashes look alike" and that "crashing at 70mph is always identical in every way to crashing at 500mph."
Can you please show me where I said these quotes?

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th August 2006, 08:16 AM

Can you please show me where I said these quotes?

Don't play obtuse; you know quite well that Yoink is paraphrasing your posts. Provide your evidence or retract your claims.

jhunter1163

19th August 2006, 08:18 AM

Boy, am I glad I got a clause inserted in my government-shill contract that says I get paid by the post I read. Thanks Killtown, with that last post you bought me a new car. Keep 'em coming, I could use a bass boat too.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 08:19 AM

Don't play obtuse; you know quite well that Yoink is paraphrasing your posts. Provide your evidence or retract your claims.
I've provided my evidence and you guys said it was wrong because the plume was much, much larger than I suggested. However, you guy's have NOT proved how your estimated plume got that big, so as far as I'm concerned, YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims because I've proven how my claims hold water.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 08:22 AM

Can you please show me where I said these quotes?

So, Killtown, you object to that paraphrase of your argument, do you? You think that only an idiot could possibly hold that all plane crashes look alike or that the speed of the plane at the point of impact has no bearing on the aftermath of the crash? You think I'm being unfair to you? Congratulations! You seem to have finally understood what we've been driving at!

If that's the case, if you finally agree with the rest of us that this attempt to find YouTube videos of plane crashes as a "baby step" towards understanding what Flight 93 looked like is a complete and utter waste of time, are you about to

A) present to us a single scrap of evidence that in fact DOES call the authenticity of the McClatchey photo into question

or

B) apologize abjectly to this poor woman you have persecuted for no reason whatsoever except that you got bored one day and thought it would be fun to accuse someone of being an accessory to mass murder and/or a fraudulent scam artist.

twinstead

19th August 2006, 08:23 AM

Brainache

19th August 2006, 08:24 AM

Why am I reminded of a scene from Holy Grail?
You know the one with King Arthur confronting the black Knight?
After the knight has been completely and utterly defeated and King Arthur "rides" away the knight can be heard shouting "Come back here! I'll bite ya legs off!"
It really does look like Killtown is that hopelessly optimistic knight.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 08:25 AM

1) You think that only an idiot could possibly hold that all plane crashes look alike or that the speed of the plane at the point of impact has no bearing on the aftermath of the crash?

A) present to us a single scrap of evidence that in fact DOES call the authenticity of the McClatchey photo into question

1) Where did you get that silly notion?

A) This thread assumes her photo is real. Can you not read?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 08:27 AM

All you have to do is prove that the plume in the picture cannot possibly be from flight 93. If there is ANY possibility, if you combine that with the mountians of evidence presented to you that verifies the official story, then your theory is falsified.

Why can't you see that?
YOU guys need to prove the plume could have gotten as big as you guys estimated, or MY theory is the one that holds water.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 08:28 AM

I'm trying to HELP prove your guy's theory, but so far it's not looking too good since we've seemed to hit a major stumbling block.

Dude, we don't have an *****' theory. You do. Prove your point.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 08:30 AM

Dude, we don't have an *****' theory. You do. Prove your point.
I did, you guys haven't disproved it. You tried with your "big plume theory", but when I tried to prove your theory, I couldn't, so my theory is the one that holds water, not yours.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 08:31 AM

I've provided my evidence and you guys said it was wrong because the plume was much, much larger than I suggested. However, you guy's have NOT proved how your estimated plume got that big, so as far as I'm concerned, YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims because I've proven how my claims hold water.

You've provided your evidence? Where? What was it? Where did you give even a back-of-a-napkin calculation that the impact of Flight 93 could not produce a cloud the size of the one in the McClatchey photograph? All you have on your pathetic and shameful blog is a claim that you guesstimated the cloud based on the photograph of a crash that has no similarities whatsoever to the Flight 93 crash. (Don't you remember how you took umbrage just a post ago at my paraphrase of your argument--remember, only an idiot thinks that all plane crashes look alike? Or are you back to that argument now?).

YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims.

Killtown, the sole claim we are making is that YOU HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. We have proven that over, and over, and over again. We are making no claims whatsoever about the cloud produced by Flight 93. We don't know. There are too many variables. It seems that even experts in the field do not feel competent to offer an educated guess. All we claim, and all we know, is that you don't even have the beginnings of a hint of a suggestion of a clue of some trace of something that might possibly lead to a scrap of evidence. All you've got is "nu-uhhh! It should be much smaller dood!" And on the basis of that, on the basis simply of your own utterly ignorant and uninformed assertion, you have PUBLICLY ACCUSED someone of the most vile crimes.

Now. PUT UP or SHUT UP! If you think you have some piece of evidence that has not yet been completely discredited, tell us what it is. If you don't, then go apologize--abjectly--to Val McClatchey.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 08:36 AM

Gravy

19th August 2006, 08:36 AM

Killtown, none of your posts in the past day and a half have added anything new. Have you rested your case then?

Yoink

19th August 2006, 08:38 AM

YOU guys need to prove the plume could have gotten as big as you guys estimated, or MY theory is the one that holds water.

Killtown, let me see if I can point out to you the subtle flaw in this claim. Please read the following carefully and think very very hard about it.

Let us say someone comes to you with a blurry photo of something vaguely humanoid in a forest and says "look, this is a photo of bigfoot!" You say "well, perhaps, but frankly the photo is too blurry for us to tell. In order for you to prove that this is bigfoot we'll need some other corroborating evidence." So the guy with the photo says: "well, you haven't proven that it ISN'T bigfoot, so obviously my theory is proven. Nyah nyah nyah!"

That is the position you're now in. No one here holds that the McClatchey photo has been "proven" to be authentic. We all hold that there is simply no available evidence to determine that one way or the other. In the absence of such evidence, there seems to be no reason to doubt her story. If you wish to shed doubt on it, you need to give us evidence that shows that Flight 93 COULD NOT HAVE produced a cloud like the one in the photograph. You--clearly--don't have any such evidence.

So now, please, go apologize to this woman.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 08:39 AM

I did, you guys haven't disproved it. You tried with your "big plume theory", but when I tried to prove your theory, I couldn't, so my theory is the one that holds water, not yours.

Shouting "But it looks too big" doesn't make it true.

You claim the photo is incorrect. You must prove that claim. What we have done is point out to you that the plume could realistically have been expected to be the size shown in the photo.

Your theory does not hold water. You have not provided any evidence in support of it except your gut feeling.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 08:47 AM

I've provided my evidence ...[snip]
No. You have presented the conclusions that you have drawn, ostensibly from your evidence. You have not presented the evidence. You have ignored repeated requests to provide the numbers you used, where you got those numbers, and what you did with those numbers in order to arrive at the conclusions you have presented here.

I hope this helps you understand the difference between what you have presented and what you have been asked to present.

Any conclusion asserted in absence of evidence may be dismissed just as easily. If you want to be taken seriously (and you already have been given far more respect in this thread than you have earned), show us the numbers that you say you have double-checked. Not the conclusions you have drawn from them; the raw data you started with.

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th August 2006, 08:53 AM

Killtown,

It has been requested repeatedly of you to post the actually numbers and math you used in your calculations. You have not done so.

We on the other had have been completely transparent in the methods we have used for our estimates.

This behavior, coupled with your refusal to address other questions posed to you, and your refusal to retract your claims which have proven to be false leave me with no choice but to come to the conclusions that you are either (1) lying, (2) willfully ignorant, or (3) trolling.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 09:07 AM

Killtown, just in case you ARE a bigfoot believer and therefore think that my last example was just a great example of sound argument, let me offer you another example.

Say I came up to you and said "I have proof that Pluto is made entirely of cheese!" "Oh, you say, what is that proof?" "Well, I looked at a photo of some cheese and a felt that it looked a lot like Pluto--QED" (this, by the way, is exactly the evidence you have for your "theory"--you looked at a photo and "felt" that all air crashes should look like that). "But," you say, "I don't actually have any proof that Pluto ISN'T made out of cheese, but it sure seems unlikely: can you give me any evidence other than your feeling"? "Ha Ha!" I say, "You can't prove your isn't-made-of-cheese theory, therefore my is-made-of-cheese theory is proven!!!!!!!"

Can you see what is wrong with the last claim? No? Really?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 09:11 AM

I've provided evidence that Val's plume is too big to have originated from the crater...

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

You guys have provided "numbers," but you can't explain how your numbers got from point A to point B. I've tried to test your theory, but so far I can't determine how your plume was able to achieve the size of your estimations from how the plane crashed.

I thought the comparison of the B-52 crash would be able to and I was going to use that to move on with the experiment, I even said if the B-52 was going the speed of 93 that the fireball would have been thrown further, thus creating a larger plume field, but you guys rejected that, yet haven't showed me anything else to compare it with to get to point b.

Now a 1,000 posts and insults towards me later, you still haven't shown me your theory holds water.

The ball is in your court now. Find me a comparison to show how the fireball from 93 crashing reacted.

Gravy

19th August 2006, 09:18 AM

FINALLY he's admitted he has nothing new to add. Thank you for officially resting your case, which was de facto rested long ago.

As a reminder to all, here's Killtown's claim, from post 1 of this thread:
The smoke plume in Val McClatchey's infamous photo originated at a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed:

So this means this plume in Val's photo was not from Flight 93 crashing.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 09:33 AM

Gravy

19th August 2006, 09:37 AM

I've started a new thread for Killtown's next strongest argument:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1858020#post1858020

Gravy

19th August 2006, 09:38 AM

Your ever lovin' diagrams don't show how you arrived at your estimate of the size of the smoke plume. Nowhere on your site do you mention how you came to the conclusion that 600ft is a "normal size for a normal plume."

Nor was the size of the plume a condition of his claim. He claimed the plume was in the wrong place. But that's all in the past now. Glad we could wrap this up.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 09:53 AM

Just to recap for posterity.

YOU guys need to prove the plume could have gotten as big as you guys estimated, or MY theory is the one that holds water.
False premise. The extraordinary claim is that the plume could not have gotten to such a size. Nonetheless, folks here have done precisely what you have asked:

For you guys on here who have been questioning mister killtown, I'd like to introduce another piece of information that ought to be considered. [...] I took the liberty of consulting a nuclear engineer from a physics question and answer forum. The math follows, and while one can say that I just found some "web guy" with an opinion, the numbers are all there and can be checked.

[...] 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."

[Editor's note: Thermal expansion by a factor of 6-7 is quite possible within the twelve-second minimum window, also not necessary, since the impact itself could have spread the fuel over 300 meters or more in the first second after impact. Not to mention, we don't know the cloud is spherical, and the pre-impact vector of the aircraft could easily have jetted the fuel lengthwise across Val's field of vision, so the total volume of the cloud could be much smaller and even more plausibly in bounds.]
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

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire04/PDF/f04057.pdf#search=%22radiative%20fraction%20jet%20 fuel%22

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.
As a final note, I'll add that I contacted Dr. Joe Shepherd at CalTech's Explosion Dynamics Lab:

"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"

So, to summarize:

Two independent calculations, both showing their methods, indicate the plume size is reasonable.
The stated opinion of a distinguished expert suggests that NOBODY could infer that this single photo is anything other than it appears.
The complaining member's claim that we have not proven that it could have gotten this big is, simply, a lie.

If anyone wants to investigate this further, these observations are the standard to beat. Any "explanation" that does not conclusively find flaws in all three lines of reasoning is wrong. End of story.

So get to work, Stalltown. And in the meantime, apologize to Val.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 09:55 AM

Your ever lovin' diagrams don't show how you arrived at your estimate of the size of the smoke plume. Nowhere on your site do you mention how you came to the conclusion that 600ft is a "normal size for a normal plume."
Based mostly on the radius from the center of the crater to the end of the furthest point of the burnt forest section (which I don't even think the fireball reached the furthest burnt trees) and drawing a circle.

It's fine if you laugh at how I estimated this, but YOU guys haven't proven how your plume got to be as big as you claim. You've just thrown out numbers and said "here". Your plume had to develop from the crash spot, it couldn't have developed out of thin air.

So explain to me how 93's fireball behaved and then we can move on to how the plume grew to the size you guys estimated.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 09:57 AM

Now a 1,000 posts and insults towards me later, you still haven't shown me your theory holds water.

You are the one advancing a theory. You therefor must prove that it "holds water."

You spout off about how the plume is in the wrong place and the wrong size, and offer nothing but your gut feelings as proof.

Show proof.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:01 AM

The complaining member's claim that we have not proven that it could have gotten this big is, simply, a lie.
I'm not saying it couldn't get to that size, I'm saying your haven't DEMONSTRATED how it got to that size. Did 93 blow up in midair? No, it crashed and no one can tell my how the fireball reacted.

I suggested it reacted like the B-52 crash and times that by however we need to be reasonable to grew the plume to the whooping 2,000-3,000 ft across it needed to be.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:03 AM

You are the one advancing a theory. You therefor must prove that it "holds water."

You spout off about how the plume is in the wrong place and the wrong size, and offer nothing but your gut feelings as proof.

Show proof.
I did. To say I didn't is a bold face lie. You may not like, or accept my evidence, but if my evidence doesn't support my theory, that doesn't automatically PROVE your theory.

You guys still haven't proven YOUR theory, regardless of what you think of mine.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:05 AM

So explain to me how 93's fireball behaved and then we can move on to how the plume grew to the size you guys estimated.

How DO YOU think a fire balls behaves? Doesnt a fire ball, when the fire is consumed, expands in a plume of smoke, gets carried away by wind and eventually dissipates in the air?

What is odd about Val's picture?

I remind you that there is no conclusive timing of when it was taken, so we don't know for sure how much time after the crash the pic is supposed to be.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 10:06 AM

Based mostly on the radius from the center of the crater to the end of the furthest point of the burnt forest section (which I don't even think the fireball reached the furthest burnt trees) and drawing a circle.

It's fine if you laugh at how I estimated this, but YOU guys haven't proven how your plume got to be as big as you claim. You've just thrown out numbers and said "here". Your plume had to develop from the crash spot, it couldn't have developed out of thin air.
I'd take you up on that offer, if the consequences of your delusion weren't so severe.

You're trying to determine how big a fireball was from ruddy Google Earth. No way in the world are you going to properly estimate the maximum extent of char from a satellite photo taken long after the fact. The fireball could easily have been larger than that.

The smoke cloud is by definition wider than the fireball. It would have cooled as it expanded. Even before it rose, it could have pushed through the trees.

The smoke cloud further expanded as it rose, through residual convection, mixing, diffusion, and dispersion from crosswinds.

You would have saved yourself a world of ridicule, not to mention potential legal action, if you'd simply presented your thoughts and ASKED WHETHER YOU'D GOTTEN IT RIGHT before posting your laughably simple analysis as gospel. Please bookmark this painful lesson for the future.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 10:09 AM

I'm not saying it couldn't get to that size, I'm saying your haven't DEMONSTRATED how it got to that size. Did 93 blow up in midair? No, it crashed and no one can tell my how the fireball reacted.
Another lie, and another non-sequitur, all wrapped in one.

You said we hadn't "proved" how it "could" get to that size. See my post. We did. Case closed.

We don't have to "Demonstrate" how it "did" get to that size, either.

We don't have to crash a fueled aircraft, at 500+ knots, steep dive and rolled nearly inverted, just to get you to agree. You just aren't that special.

twinstead

19th August 2006, 10:10 AM

You guys still haven't proven YOUR theory, regardless of what you think of mine.

The only way to prove any part of this is for YOU to prove that plume is impossible. Otherwise, the fact the plume could very well be from flight 93 and all the other corroborating evidence that you fail to even acknowledge falsifies your theory.

Again, why do you keep with this plume thing? Why don't you start addressing the other evidence?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:13 AM

We don't have to crash a fueled aircraft, at 500+ knots, steep dive and rolled nearly inverted, just to get you to agree.

We don't have to, something very similar happened the very same day.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e6b1dd0f08c.png

Killtown, granted it didn't crash in the ground, but doesn't it look a hell of alot like the plume in Val's picture? Can't you see in the video how plumes of smoke "behave"?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...71&q=plane+hit

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:14 AM

The fireball could easily have been larger than that.

The smoke cloud is by definition wider than the fireball. It would have cooled as it expanded. Even before it rose, it could have pushed through the trees.

The smoke cloud further expanded as it rose, through residual convection, mixing, diffusion, and dispersion from crosswinds.
Fine, now PROVE your claims then. How did it get from point A to point B?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:16 AM

Fine, now PROVE your claims then. How did it get from point A to point B?

According to you, how else a cloud of smoke should behave?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:17 AM

We don't have to, something very similar happened the very same day.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e6b1dd0f08c.png

Killtown, granted it didn't crash in the ground, but doesn't it look a hell of alot like the plume in Val's picture? Can't you see in the video how plumes of smoke "behave"?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...71&q=plane+hit

I did see yours, now turn that video 90 deg so the plane is flying downward the the fireball would have behaved like the B-52 crash, no?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:18 AM

I did see yours, now turn that video 90 deg so the plane is flying downward the the fireball would have behaved like the B-52 crash, no?

What the hell does this B-52 you keep referring to has anything to do with 9/11?

You can't turn the video 90 degres, see the first quote from my signature.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 10:19 AM

I'm not saying it couldn't get to that size,

No need, you've already accepted my claims.

The onus, as it has been since square one, is even more firmly upon you. Get to work, Stalltown.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:19 AM

According to you, how else a cloud of smoke should behave?
I highly doubt a 2,000-3,000 ft across plume could have been generated in less than 1 minute by a 300-600 ft fireball.

How wide was the fireball that 93 made?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:21 AM

What the hell does this B-52 you keep referring to has anything to do with 9/11?
The B-52 crash is the closest crash caught on video that I could find to compare how big a plume could be made from a crash.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:21 AM

I highly doubt a 2,000-3,000 ft across plume could have been generated in less than 1 minute by a 300-600 ft fireball.

How wide was the fireball that 93 made?

WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHEN THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 10:22 AM

Your doubt is irrelevant. We've presented two calculations that show it could have. Quit posting erroneous opinons and get to work.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:31 AM

WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHEN THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN.
Does anybody think the photo was taken after a minute after the crash?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:33 AM

Your doubt is irrelevant. We've presented two calculations that show it could have. Quit posting erroneous opinons and get to work.
Your calculations didn't show how it got from point A to point B.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 10:34 AM

Your calculations didn't show how it got from point A to point B.

Where's A? Where's B? What's this got to do with the price of tea in China?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:37 AM

Does anybody think the photo was taken after a minute after the crash?

Your whole theory is based on the alledged 5 seconds it supposedly took Ms McClatchey to take the picture. There is no proof anyone in the FBI analysed the picture at 5 seconds, except what Ms McClatchey's said in the video, which could have been a mistake on her part.

Actually, the size and shape of the plume should be an indication of how long after the crash it was. It's clearly more than 5 seconds.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:37 AM

Where's A? Where's B? What's this got to do with the price of tea in China?
Jeez, and you guys call me dumb.

Point A = crash spot

Point B = where it was in Val's photo

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:39 AM

Your whole theory is based on the alledged 5 seconds it supposedly took Ms McClatchey to take the picture.
Nope.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:41 AM

Nope.

Do you agree that we don't have a consesus as to how long after the crash the plume is?

Do you agree that Val's 5 seconds is inconclusive?

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 10:43 AM

Jeez, and you guys call me dumb.

Point A = crash spot

Point B = where it was in Val's photo

The farking wind was blowing. Remember? 9Knots SE

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:43 AM

Do you agree that we don't have a consesus as to how long after the crash the plume is?

Do you agree that Val's 5 seconds is inconclusive?
It doesn't really matter unless you guys think the plume would have kept growing even as it was shifting the 100's of yards needed by the wind.

Since the plume in her photo is still "thick," it doesn't look like it dissipated much.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:44 AM

The farking wind was blowing. Remember? 9Knots SE
:rolleyes:

Ok smart guy, how did the plume get so big before the wind started blowing it?

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 10:46 AM

Does anybody think the photo was taken after a minute after the crash?

Have you actually been reading this thread? A few people have already said that was within the realm of possibility, based on research on eyewitness testimony. It is quite possible that the witness was honest in her report (indeed, the "evidence" on your blog does not specify whether that is her recollection, her recollection of what the FBI said officially, her recollection of what the FBI said informally...) but mistaken or simply imprecise.

Unless the time data are available on the camera's memory card, there is no way to be precise about the time the photo was taken. This is just one of several variables that cannot be pinned down with the information you have available to you. Your analysis simply cannot eliminate the official story as being true, and that is, quite simply, what you must do in order to say what you do about Val.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:47 AM

It doesn't really matter unless you guys think the plume would have kept growing even as it was shifting the 100's of yards needed by the wind.

The plume must have kept expanding and dissipating, wouldn't you agree on that? What do you think happenned to the plume after the picture? Do you think it's still hovering around somewhere? Gosh, if someone could take his hands on it!

Since the plume in her photo is still "thick," it doesn't look like it dissipated much.

It was dissipating the minute the fire got consumed. Besides, how do you know how a plume of smoke is exactly supposed to behave?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:48 AM

Have you actually been reading this thread? A few people have already said that was within the realm of possibility, based on research on eyewitness testimony. It is quite possible that the witness was honest in her report (indeed, the "evidence" on your blog does not specify whether that is her recollection, her recollection of what the FBI said officially, her recollection of what the FBI said informally...) but mistaken or simply imprecise.

It doesn't matter, see post #1076.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 10:49 AM

Jeez, and you guys call me dumb.

Point A = crash spot

Point B = where it was in Val's photo
You give that appearance at times.

Nowhere else has any thing been referred to as points A and B.

There were several posts calculating possible drift at various speeds, and what effect that would have on the appearnce of the cloud.

You are stalling and farking around.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 10:49 AM

Jeez, and you guys call me dumb.

Point A = crash spot

Point B = where it was in Val's photo

It doesn't really matter unless you guys think the plume would have kept growing even as it was shifting the 100's of yards needed by the wind.

Since the plume in her photo is still "thick," it doesn't look like it dissipated much.

:rolleyes:

Ok smart guy, how did the plume get so big before the wind started blowing it?

I have never in my life seen anybody strobe back and forth this fast between two arguments (both discredited) in a vain attempt to avoid answering questions.

Wind will blow the plume at all times, even before it ignites. Anything airborne will be blown. The wind does not impede expansion of the fireball or resulting smoke cloud. Anyone who's ever been to a barbeque can tell you that. (Hey, wait a minute, I think I see the problem ;) )

We showed you calculations about how big it could get, and how fast is well within reason too. I don't care how it "looks" to you. Disprove the calculations already. Get to work, Stalltown.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 10:51 AM

Killtown, the size and shape of the plume IS ITSELF an indication of how long it was after the crash.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 10:51 AM

It doesn't really matter unless you guys think the plume would have kept growing even as it was shifting the 100's of yards needed by the wind.
If it still had combustible material in it, then of course it was. If it still was hot compared to the colder air around it, then it was.

Ever watch a smokestack on a day with a breeze? Does the smoke go straight up as it expands, then take a 90 degree turn? Of course not. Does the smoke quit expanding after it leaves the stack? Of course not.

Since the plume in her photo is still "thick," it doesn't look like it dissipated much.Again, your subjective opinion. You are no expert; the expert who has been shown the photo says that it is impossible to say.

You owe Val an apology.

Actually...let me ask you: If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 10:51 AM

:rolleyes:

Ok smart guy, how did the plume get so big before the wind started blowing it?

It GROWS and DRIFTS at the same time! There's a concept for you. Watch smoke rise sometime, or actually watch some of those videos you love to bandy about.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 10:54 AM

1) The plume must have kept expanding and dissipating, wouldn't you agree on that?

2) What do you think happenned to the plume after the picture? Do you think it's still hovering around somewhere? Gosh, if someone could take his hands on it!

3) It was dissipating the minute the fire got consumed. Besides, how do you know how a plume of smoke is exactly supposed to behave?
1) according to Val's photo, has it dissipated much? Doesn't look like it to me...

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg

2) I think it dissappeared, or someone else surely would have taken a picture of it as this MONSTEROUS plume continued to drift, right?

3) It's a short pulse plume drifting in the wind, how different could it have on a nice sunny day with light wind?

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 10:54 AM

It doesn't matter, see post #1076.

I did. You are wrong there, too.

Your ignorance of the things that are important to your argument is astonishing.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 10:56 AM

Such as?

Such as speed, fuel levels, etc. etc. You know, the kind of stuff you tell us isn't important.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 10:59 AM

1) according to Val's photo, has it dissipated much? Doesn't look like it to me...

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg

2) I think it dissappeared, or someone else surely would have taken a picture of it as this MONSTEROUS plume continued to drift, right?

3) It's a short pulse plume drifting in the wind, how different could it have on a nice sunny day with light wind?
Again, your opinion. "Doesn't look like it to me..."

That is all you've got. An opinion not backed by a single farking fact.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 11:00 AM

1) according to Val's photo, has it dissipated much? Doesn't look like it to me...
argument from personal incredulity.

2) I think it dissappeared, or someone else surely would have taken a picture of it as this MONSTEROUS plume continued to drift, right?
argument from personal incredulity.

3) It's a short pulse plume drifting in the wind, how different could it have on a nice sunny day with light wind?
So, you are saying that your theory would produce a cloud indistinguishable from the one that others say the crash would produce. What evidence do you have that would eliminate the other hypothesis? You do not have any.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:01 AM

I'm trying to determine how the plume of your guy's estimated size was formed. So far you guys haven't done a good job at that. I'm trying to HELP prove your guy's theory, but so far it's not looking too good since we've seemed to hit a major stumbling block.

So, basically you're saying that, regardless of circumstances, all explosions really look alike ? I think he's saying that this goes against your initial claim that the "plume" on Val's picture doesn't "look" like it could be 93's.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:02 AM

1) according to Val's photo, has it dissipated much? Doesn't look like it to me...

How can you make such an assessment?

2) I think it dissappeared, or someone else surely would have taken a picture of it as this MONSTEROUS plume continued to drift, right?

Right. So we do agree that a plume of smoke from an explosion is a short lived phenomenon.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:04 AM

Such as speed, fuel levels, etc. etc. You know, the kind of stuff you tell us isn't important.
I gave you all those favorable factors, you guys just haven't demostrated how the plume could have grown to be that size from the crash site. And no, magic is not acceptable.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:05 AM

BTW, Killtown, could you answer Mercutio's question?

Actually...let me ask you: If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

An what would be satisfactory to you?

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:06 AM

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:06 AM

you guys just haven't demostrated how the plume could have grown to be that size from the crash site.

I keep repeating to you that the plume of smoke was expanding, that means it was growing in size as it was dissipating. Isn't that a logical assumption?

ETA: So it could have reached the size it had in the picture at any given time after the crash (remember that the exact timing is unknown)

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:09 AM

Let us say someone comes to you with a blurry photo of something vaguely humanoid in a forest and says "look, this is a photo of bigfoot!" You say "well, perhaps, but frankly the photo is too blurry for us to tell. In order for you to prove that this is bigfoot we'll need some other corroborating evidence." So the guy with the photo says: "well, you haven't proven that it ISN'T bigfoot, so obviously my theory is proven. Nyah nyah nyah!"

That's not a valid analogy, as it doesn't involve an evil-clone insurance employee.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:10 AM

Again, your opinion. "Doesn't look like it to me..."

That is all you've got. An opinion not backed by a single farking fact.
Does it look very dissipated to you?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:11 AM

Does it look very dissipated to you?

Pretty much. But I'm no expert.

ETA: answer Mercutio's question please, Killtown.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:15 AM

Does it look very dissipated to you?

It looks like it is dissipating.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:15 AM

I've provided evidence that Val's plume is too big to have originated from the crater...

[...]

The ball is in your court now. Find me a comparison to show how the fireball from 93 crashing reacted.

Your blog basically says "it looks wrong". How is that evidence ? You've also drawn lines, apparently at random, ostensibly in an attempt to determine the thing's size, while apparently having already decided what that size should be. How is that evidence ?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:16 AM

1) Wind will blow the plume at all times, even before it ignites. Anything airborne will be blown.

2) The wind does not impede expansion of the fireball or resulting smoke cloud.

3) We showed you calculations about how big it could get, and how fast is well within reason too. I don't care how it "looks" to you. Disprove the calculations already. Get to work, Stalltown.
1) But wind didn't blow Val's plume until it reached a certain height according to her photo with looks like the plume is rising straight up.

2) So when did Val's plume dramatically stop expanding? You gails fail to answer this.

3) you haven't demonstrated how your plume could have grown from a small crash spot to an enormous plume and your plume is one MONSTEROUS plume. :jaw-dropp

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:17 AM

Killtown, the size and shape of the plume IS ITSELF an indication of how long it was after the crash.
and how long did Val's plume take to reach that width?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:18 AM

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:18 AM

I'm not saying it couldn't get to that size, I'm saying your haven't DEMONSTRATED how it got to that size. Did 93 blow up in midair? No, it crashed and no one can tell my how the fireball reacted.

Even experts have told you that this is impossible, based on the available evidence. What part of that don't you understand ?

I suggested it reacted like the B-52 crash and times that by however we need to be reasonable to grew the plume to the whooping 2,000-3,000 ft across it needed to be.

Well, I suggest we should look at a Cesna crash, instead. While we're at it, let's take the least plausible comparison and make that a TOY cesna.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 11:19 AM

1) But wind didn't blow Val's plume until it reached a certain height according to her photo with looks like the plume is rising straight up.

2) So when did Val's plume dramatically stop expanding? You gails fail to answer this.

3) you haven't demonstrated how your plume could have grown from a small crash spot to an enormous plume and your plume is one MONSTEROUS plume. :jaw-dropp

Nice! Three lies in one post.

1) What a stupid thing to say. The wind blew Val's plume continuously. Her photo "accords" no such thing, which is utterly counter-intuitive and contrary to the laws of gas dynamics. We already beat this one to death.

2) It doesn't. Ever. Diffusion alone will keep it expanding. I am not a gal, "boy," and I already did answer this.

3) Yes, we have. See my survey post on Page 26. We gave you two independent mathematical analyses that both answer this.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:20 AM

1) All we have done is show that it could well be correct.

2) It is your theory. Defend it with facts that show that smoke plume in the picture is not realistic.
1) But you haven't conclusively demonstrated it. Calling me an idiot over and over doesn't help prove it.

2) I have. "see my blog".

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:21 AM

I keep repeating to you that the plume of smoke was expanding, that means it was growing in size as it was dissipating. Isn't that a logical assumption?
Yes, but you HAVEN'T demonstrated how big your fireball was to lead up to the size of your plume.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:21 AM

Since the plume in her photo is still "thick," it doesn't look like it dissipated much.

I thought you said it DIDN'T look like a real plane crash because it WASN'T thick and black enough....

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:23 AM

Yes, but you HAVEN'T demonstrated how big your fireball was to lead up to the size of your plume.

Geez, it's like the chicken and the egg. The plume was expanding, so who cares what the size of the fireball was?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:24 AM

It GROWS and DRIFTS at the same time!
Plumes substantially stop growing once it drifts away from the hot smoke feeding it underneath it. Remember, your plume had LESS THAN A MINUTE to grow.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:25 AM

Plumes substantially stop growing once it drifts away from the hot smoke feeding it underneath it. Remember, your plume had LESS THAN A MINUTE to grow.

How do you know? Where did you get that information?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:26 AM

It looks like it is dissipating.
That wasn't the question.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:26 AM

Killtown, answer Mercutio's question:

Actually...let me ask you: If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 11:27 AM

How do you know? Where did you get that information?
Yes, this should be quite illuminating, since it's wrong...

I predict Killtown's moment of self-reckoning is near.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:27 AM

You've also drawn lines, apparently at random,
Lie.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:27 AM

I gave you all those favorable factors, you guys just haven't demostrated how the plume could have grown to be that size from the crash site. And no, magic is not acceptable.

Nice dodge, as though you don't remember what I said.

You said you want to know how the plume formed, without caring about the factors involved.

You said: "such as ?"

To which I answered: the kind of factors you tell us aren't important.

This isn't about conceding guesstimates for the sake of creating a make-believe hypothesis about the crash. We're asking you to prove your point. We're not going to "decide" what numbers are okay. You're going to have to SHOW the REAL numbers. Otherwise you have nothing.

And I second Mercutio: If you were shown conclusively wrong, to your own satisfaction, would you apologise to Val ?

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:29 AM

1) But wind didn't blow Val's plume until it reached a certain height according to her photo with looks like the plume is rising straight up.

This sounds contradictory to me. If the wind didn't blow until it reached a certain height, "according to her photo", how can it look like it's rising straight up IN HER PHOTO ??

2) So when did Val's plume dramatically stop expanding? You gails fail to answer this.

Dramatically ? Clouds expand. Period.

3) you haven't demonstrated how your plume could have grown from a small crash spot to an enormous plume and your plume is one MONSTEROUS plume. :jaw-dropp

Pressure, and density differential. Sheesh. How old are you, anyway ?

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:30 AM

Your blog basically says "it looks wrong". How is that evidence ? You've also drawn lines, apparently at random, ostensibly in an attempt to determine the thing's size, while apparently having already decided what that size should be. How is that evidence ?
You've hit the crux of Killtown's argument. He expects a smoke cloud about 600 feet across. The cloud in the picture looks huge, so he figures his 600 foot cloud would have to be much closer than the real crash site to appear so big in the photo.

Now for the kicker:
Take a good look at This diagram (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif) and note the spot marked "possible burn mark." This is where Killtown thinks a much smaller explosion occurred. He makes references to "ordnance."

If you grant him the location, then his 600 foot cloud would be the right size. If you grant him the "ordnance," then there's no reason for the cloud to be 600 feet across. He claims he got the 600 foot value from looking at the crash site, then uses that to prove that it couldn't have been at the crash site.

Does your head hurt? Mine does. Reconstructing the illogical thought processes of other people is just painful.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:31 AM

Plumes substantially stop growing once it drifts away from the hot smoke feeding it underneath it.

HUH ?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:34 AM

Nice! Three lies in one post.

1) The wind blew Val's plume continuously. Her photo "accords" no such thing

2) It doesn't. Ever. Diffusion alone will keep it expanding.

3) Yes, we have. See my survey post on Page 26. We gave you two independent mathematical analyses that both answer this.
1) Get some glasses.

2) I said "dramatically". Get some glasses.

3) No, your numbers didn't explain the size of what the fireball had to be.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:36 AM

I thought you said it DIDN'T look like a real plane crash because it WASN'T thick ... enough....
That's the plumes column that wasn't thick enough. Get some glasses.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:36 AM

1) But you haven't conclusively demonstrated it. Calling me an idiot over and over doesn't help prove it.

2) I have. "see my blog".
I have never once called you an idiot.

Your blog proves zilch. You start with the assumption that the cloud is the wrong size and go on to show that the plume must be somewhere other than the crash site. (You've even got a spot marked "possible burn mark.")

I could pull a number out of my ass and use your logic to "prove" that the cloud was at a point mid-way between your burn mark and the crash site. That wouldn't make it true.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:37 AM

Lie.

REALLY ?

Let's look at your own image.

Now, tell me these don't look like guesstimate lines. How did you precisely calculate the angle ? Do you have the actual coordinates of the crash ? Do you know precisely where the camera was pointing, assuming the cloud had moved since the explosion ? It seems to me like you're just throwing lines in an attempt at approximating the direction of the cloud, without actually knowing where it is. The fact that your lines "seem" to correspond to the angle of the camera just means your guesstimate wasn't completely off. But there's no way to know, because it's a damn 2D photograph.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:37 AM

Geez, it's like the chicken and the egg. The plume was expanding, so who cares what the size of the fireball was?
Um, it's pretty important.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:39 AM

2) I said "dramatically". Get some glasses.

It only expands dramatically during the explosion. What's your point ?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 11:40 AM

1) Get some glasses.

2) I said "dramatically". Get some glasses.

3) No, your numbers didn't explain the size of what the fireball had to be.
Two more insults and another lie.

Your picture and all subsequent analyses are based on the size of the smoke plume, not the fireball, are they not??

I answered your question about the smoke plume. The fireball, which is not even a well-defined event, is not in question here.

To answer your question anyway, our analysis is almost completely insensitive to the size of the fireball. In case that was too complex, it means "it doesn't matter." Fireball size would have been dominated by how the fuel splattered at impact, which is almost impossible to reconstruct. I already explained this, too.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 11:40 AM

1) But you haven't conclusively demonstrated it. Calling me an idiot over and over doesn't help prove it.
It is the default assumption, the "null hypothesis" if you have any background in statistics or research methods. If you are challenging it, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate, to an appropriate level of probability, that it could not have happened.

For the record, I did not call you an idiot; I called you ignorant. That is clearly true.

2) I have. "see my blog".We have. Couldn't have missed the all-purpose link. If you think it contains evidence for your ideas, you are mistaken.

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:41 AM

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:41 AM

That's the plumes column that wasn't thick enough.

No, that's not what you said.

From your own blog (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html):

"Her photo, which she has called "End of Serenity," has been cheered by a lot of 9/11 researchers, including myself, who have argued that 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."

Nothing about the column itself.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:45 AM

Not to disappoint you, but the lines are not at random.

It was hyperbole. See my follow-up post. Apparently the concept of exaggeration is lost on Killtown, who calls this a lie.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 11:47 AM

Ok, how about this video. Would you guys say 93's exlosion behaved like this?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:49 AM

It was hyperbole. See my follow-up post. Apparently the concept of exaggeration is lost on Killtown, who calls this a lie.
Sorry. I got behind and hadn't seen your later post.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 11:50 AM

If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 11:52 AM

Ok, how about this video. Would you guys say 93's exlosion behaved like this?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

I think I see what your problem is... Since every video of explosions you ever saw stopped at one point during the plume's expansion, you are unable to know what the plume would look like after the cut of the video.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 11:52 AM

Ok, how about this video. Would you guys say 93's exlosion behaved like this?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

No more videos for you, Stalltown. Do some analysis and show your work.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 11:52 AM

Ok, how about this video. Would you guys say 93's exlosion behaved like this?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

Haven't you been reading ANYthing for the last 5 pages ?

MortFurd

19th August 2006, 11:57 AM

Ok, how about this video. Would you guys say 93's exlosion behaved like this?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0
We don't have a video of the flight 93 crash. All we've got is a still taken at some point after the crash occurred.

Are you now positing that someone dropped a MOAB (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/) next door to Ms. McClatchey's house?

jhunter1163

19th August 2006, 12:13 PM

I feel like I have to say this..

YOU CAN'T (RULE8)ING TELL ANYTHING FROM THAT (RULE8)ING PIC!

I have no expertise in fire science or anything else remotely connected to this topic, so I'll have to defer to the experts. And the experts UNANIMOUSLY say that the plume is at least plausible.

Thank you. The mods can close the thread now.

And Killtown should apologize to Val, the more abjectly the better.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 12:27 PM

Ok, since this is going nowhere, you guys estimate the min/max diameter that the explosion at impact had to be before we continue. Otherwise we're running around in circles.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 12:29 PM

Are you now positing that someone dropped a MOAB (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/) next door to Ms. McClatchey's house?
So far that would be more believable than your guy's theory.

;)

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 12:35 PM

Ok, since this is going nowhere, you guys estimate the min/max diameter that the explosion at impact had to be before we continue. Otherwise we're running around in circles.
Irrelevant, as I've already explained, and the only one running in circles is yourself.

However, as already indicated, any education is positive, so I shall answer the question anyway.

The explosion "at impact" would be sized according to the fuel distribution. At minimum, consider a case where the fuel was all contained within a volume equivalent to the wings of the aircraft. I'll let you research what the wing size is, since you need the practice. These figures are publicly available.

At maximum, consider the case where the fuel was in such a volume but scattered elastically at the moment of impact. The ground does not recoil, so the fuel can conceivably spread at the aircraft's former speed, but fanning in (potentially) all directions. The speed of the aircraft has already been presented to you from the FDR. For sake of argument, assume one second between impact and complete engulfment of the fuel (this time is an estimate, but there is absolutely no way to predict just how long it took to ignite, or where). Multiply the speed by one second, and add it to each extreme of the first calculation.

Show us your answers, and we will see if they were computed properly. Expect answers for the first on the order of 10-30 meters, and > 300 meters for the second.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 12:42 PM

In effort to move this experiment along, would you concede that 93's explosion was more similar to the Moav bomb video, or the B-52 crash video in how its fireball spread and began to rise up in the shape of a plume. DON'T WORRY ABOUT the size of the plume expanding after it gets higher up in the air. We'll go over that next.

Moav = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0

B-52 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 12:46 PM

NO! No more videos! Neither is remotely close to our situation, as has been explained to you dozens of times!!

Killtown

19th August 2006, 12:49 PM

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 12:54 PM

We don't have ANY video of the "fireball" of Flight 93! All we have is a single, static photo of smoke, taken an indeterminate time after the event! Your claim that it "reacted differently" is nothing but conjecture!

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 12:54 PM

Killtown, did you account for the focal length of Val's lens to determine the size of the plume?

Usually, lens with longer focal length tend to distort the size of objects, make them seem closer than their real distance.

http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
http://cp.c-ij.com/english/photoshooting/techniques/camerafunction/camerafunction02.html

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th August 2006, 12:59 PM

It looks like KT has been taking lessons from Christophera. That is to say, once you have been proven utterly wrong, start over with your original post. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:05 PM

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 01:08 PM

Killtown, did you take into account the focal length of Val's camera in your analysis of the plume's size? (see post #1147)

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:09 PM

Killtown, did you take into account the focal length of Val's camera in your analysis of the plume's size? (see post #1147)
So you are starting to pull back from you MONSTEROUS plume size? I wouldn't blame you.

Hellbound

19th August 2006, 01:10 PM

Killtown.

Please read this (http://www-math.mit.edu/~gabriele/1802/lecnotes.divergence.pdf#search=%22smoke%20diffusio n%20formulas%22).

This briefly discusses the math needed to determine the diffusion of smoke and the change in volume.

Apparantly, you've done this calculation absed on various size fireballs (because you've "proven" that it couldn't have gotten that large), so let's see that math, please.

Gravy

19th August 2006, 01:10 PM

Three more pages?

Oh.

Killtown, there have been 378 posts since you started your "experiment" nearly two days ago, and you haven't taken a single step forwards.

Does that concern you?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 01:11 PM

Wouldn't you think that the focal length of the lens would be an important variable to consider?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:12 PM

SRW

19th August 2006, 01:14 PM

It looks like KT has been taking lessons from Christophera. That is to say, once you have been proven utterly wrong, start over with your original post. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Thanks for the heads up that will save me from having to go back to the beginning and reading this entire thread.

I saw the B-52 crash but I didn't see the Empire State building in that video. Is is that due to the re-editing of Loose Change?.

Hellbound

19th August 2006, 01:16 PM

Since we know nothing about the crash conditions, the radius of the fireball could have been anywhere from 150 feet by 30 feet (elliptically shaped, assuming all fuel stayed in the wings) to the equivalent of a 100 ton TNT blast (assuming all the fuel was aerosolized).

There's not much way to determine what extent within these bounds (with the exceptions of the extremes that can be ruled out).

I'd suggest that a two orders of maginute result could be obtained assuming a fireball of equivalent diameter to the blast pattern left on the ground.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 01:16 PM

Another idea to move things along. 757 wingspan is about 125ft/38m. You would all agree the fireball 93 would have made would be at least twice as wide (250ft/76m) in diameter compared to the wingspan when it hit?

I mean your min plume width is 600m and you max is 1000m, so you'll need to start explaining how such a large plume could come from a plane with only a 38m wingspan.
Jumping back and forth between fireball and smoke plume again, are we. Must be all that time watching videos.

Killtown, I accept your estimate of the minimum initial fireball size. Partial credit. Now please compute the maximum initial fireball size, like we discussed before. After you've done that, we can discuss how the fireball evolved. We're not ready to jump to that step yet.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:16 PM

Wouldn't you think that the focal length of the lens would be an important variable to consider?
She had a "new" digital camera. My guess it would have been at most an average priced one since they were under financial constraints. She said she "didn't even aim" so that says to me that she didn't stop to focus, but just snapped the picture.

So tell me, what does that all mean to you about your focal length?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:20 PM

Since we know nothing about the crash conditions, the radius of the fireball could have been anywhere from 150 feet by 30 feet
so your min fireball width when it crash was only 48m wide, but grew to the width of 600-1,000m??? :confused:

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:24 PM

Now please compute the maximum initial fireball size, like we discussed before. After you've done that, we can discuss how the fireball evolved. We're not ready to jump to that step yet.
Well my min/max for my 200m/600ft plume would be min 76m/250ft and max 122m/400ft.

What is you guys min and max?

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 01:25 PM

She had a "new" digital camera. My guess it would have been at most an average priced one since they were under financial constraints. She said she "didn't even aim" so that says to me that she didn't stop to focus, but just snapped the picture.

So tell me, what does that all mean to you about your focal length?

Did you read the links I posted?

Wouldn't you agree that the focal length affects greatly one's appreciation of size and distances?

Hellbound

19th August 2006, 01:25 PM

so your min fireball width when it crash was only 48m wide, but grew to the width of 600-1,000m??? :confused:

You are ignorant.

Go to www.dictionary.com. Type in "radius". See what it returns.

And that's a minimum. That's one of those extremes that I did say could be ruled out with high confidence, and assumes the fuel was completely ignited inside the wings. No splatter/spillage.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:26 PM

Killtown, there have been 378 posts since you started your "experiment" nearly two days ago, and you haven't taken a single step forwards.

Does that concern you?
Actually yes, it tells me you OCTs can't prove your plume theory and that concerns me. :rolleyes:

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:27 PM

Did you read the links I posted?

Wouldn't you agree that the focal length affects greatly one's appreciation of size and distances?
Yes I do.

So you are saying my 200m/600ft plume could be accurate?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 01:28 PM

At maximum, consider the case where the fuel was in such a volume but scattered elastically at the moment of impact. The ground does not recoil, so the fuel can conceivably spread at the aircraft's former speed, but fanning in (potentially) all directions. The speed of the aircraft has already been presented to you from the FDR. For sake of argument, assume one second between impact and complete engulfment of the fuel (this time is an estimate, but there is absolutely no way to predict just how long it took to ignite, or where). Multiply the speed by one second, and add it to each extreme of the first calculation.

Show us your answers, and we will see if they were computed properly. Expect answers for the first on the order of 10-30 meters, and > 300 meters for the second.

Well my min/max for my 200m/600ft plume would be min 76m/250ft and max 122m/400ft.

What is you guys min and max?
You didn't bother to finish reading the assignment, did you?

Now compute the maximum as I described above. Your "rule of two" is wrong, because it does not consider the conditions of the crash. It's just a guess. Your guesses, as we have seen, are not very good.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 01:28 PM

Yes I do.

So you are saying my 200m/600ft plume could be accurate?

It depends on what lens were used, which we don't know.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:32 PM

Please, what is your guy's min & max fireball size diameter when 93 crashed?

Remember, your plume grew to 600m/2,000ft-1000m/3,300ft.

93's wingspan was only 38m/125ft.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:33 PM

It depends on what lens were used, which we don't know.
Well what does you average digital cam use?

and btw, thanks for saying i could be right!

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 01:34 PM

Please, what is your guy's min & max fireball size diameter when 93 crashed?

Remember, your plume grew to 600m/2,000ft-1000m/3,300ft.

93's wingspan was only 38m/125ft.
I've showed you twice now how to compute it.

I am getting the impression that you are just not that interested in finding out.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 01:34 PM

How did 93's fireball react so differently then?

The fireballs in the Moav/B-52 video are not a whole heck of a lot different. the 52 one spilled forward more where as the Moav one made more of a circle shape which I would suspect 93's would have made because it nose-dived. Agreed?

... I... I can't believe you're still at this.

Aside from fell Christophera, I've never seen someone so deeply involved in his own delusions.

Pardalis

19th August 2006, 01:35 PM

and btw, thanks for saying i could be right!

When did I say that?

You obviously disregarded this variable in your analysis, which makes it even more flawed.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 01:36 PM

SRW

19th August 2006, 01:36 PM

...first page of this thread ...

All we know is it was a "new digital camera." I'd guess it was more of a basic one than an expensive one since she probably bought it for her real-estate work (taking pictures of houses, etc.) and that right before 9/11 she was about to go bankrupt, so doubtful she'd spend a ton of money on an advanced camera. We can only speculate though.

...and 50 some pages on....

She had a "new" digital camera. My guess it would have been at most an average priced one since they were under financial constraints. She said she "didn't even aim" so that says to me that she didn't stop to focus, but just snapped the picture.

So tell me, what does that all mean to you about your focal length?

Wow, not even one step forward and two steps back just a big old circle.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 01:38 PM

She had a "new" digital camera. My guess it would have been at most an average priced one since they were under financial constraints. She said she "didn't even aim" so that says to me that she didn't stop to focus, but just snapped the picture.

My, what happens when you factor in all those guesses and gut feelings ?

(Feelings x Guesses x Conjecture) + ((Estimate) ^ Ignorance) = Crap.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 01:40 PM

Actually yes, it tells me you OCTs can't prove your plume theory and that concerns me. :rolleyes:

We DON'T HAVE a plume theory, here. Only YOU DO. Didn't you even learn logic and critical thinking in high school ? Did you even get that far ?

Belz...

19th August 2006, 01:41 PM

and btw, thanks for saying i could be right!

Must make you feel all good, inside.

Hellbound

19th August 2006, 01:47 PM

Frankly, Killtown, although you keep repeating it, you've yet to produce anything to show the accuracy of your 2200' to 3000' plume estimate. You're maps were imprecise and inaccurate.

jhunter1163

19th August 2006, 01:49 PM

Circular Reasoning About Plume = CRAP

That acronym pretty well sums up Killtown's argument.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:53 PM

Killtown

19th August 2006, 01:54 PM

you've yet to produce anything to show the accuracy of your 2200' to 3000' plume estimate.
Those are your estimates, not mine.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 01:56 PM

What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?

Here's what we have so far:

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

--------------------------------

Please fill in the blanks so we can move on for godsakes.

You're now moving backwards. The min/max initial fireball size depends on fuel splatter. It is NOT conflated with any of these other variables.

I've showed you twice and reminded you once how to compute the maximum likely extent of the splatter. Now STOP WATCHING VIDEOS and DO YOUR HOMEWORK. You are the laziest "researcher" I have ever heard of.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:00 PM

You're now moving backwards. The min/max initial fireball size depends on fuel splatter. It is NOT conflated with any of these other variables.

I've showed you twice and reminded you once how to compute the maximum likely extent of the splatter. Now STOP WATCHING VIDEOS and DO YOUR HOMEWORK. You are the laziest "researcher" I have ever heard of.
My calculator broke.

Now, show me YOUR fireball size estimates. I don't want to come up with the wrong answers for you guys, so YOU should submit your answers.

(I think you guys are starting to get scared!)

chran

19th August 2006, 02:02 PM

What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact? 23, 78 and 16.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:03 PM

When did I say that?

Me: "So you are saying my 200m/600ft plume could be accurate?"

You: "It depends on what lens were used, which we don't know."

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 02:04 PM

Another page...

If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 02:04 PM

My calculator broke.
You will forgive me if, based on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, I don't believe you for a second. The only more pathetic dodge in all of recorded history is "the dog ate my homework."

Now, show me YOUR fireball size estimates. I don't want to come up with the wrong answers for you guys, so YOU should submit your answers.

(I think you guys are starting to get scared!)
Oh yes, absolutely shaking.

I'll be more than happy to correct your work for you. That's a promise. I won't even take points off for errors, so long as you show your work.

Now get to work, Stalltown.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:04 PM

23, 78 and 16.
I'll take those because those will PROVE MY claim!

chran

19th August 2006, 02:05 PM

I'll take those because those will PROVE MY claim! Great. Maybe that'll shut you up?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:06 PM

I'll be more than happy to correct your work for you. That's a promise. I won't even take points off for errors, so long as you show your work.
Ok, your min is 76m and your max is 152m.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 02:06 PM

Me: "So you are saying my 200m/600ft plume could be accurate?"

You: "It depends on what lens were used, which we don't know."

Killtown: So I could be right?

Pardilis: Here's yet one more variable you have not accounted for, to add to the pile.

Killtown: Thanks for saying I could be right!

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 02:10 PM

Ok, your min is 76m and your max is 152m.

I already corrected that error in this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1858596#post1858596) If you're not willing to read my corrections, that's not my fault. Try again. When you've made progress, get back to me.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:18 PM

What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?

Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

--------------------------------

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 02:25 PM

I take it back, there is a more pathetic dodge than "my calculator broke" -- complete ignorance.

If you want to do a "thought experiment," as you claimed for pages and pages, then do it. Do it right. I'm showing you how to start. If you won't even do what you said you would... why on earth would anyone, even another 9/11 denier, ever take you seriously?

Now, then, for the hundreth time, stop stalling.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:35 PM

Me stalling??? I asked you a couple times now for YOU guys to give me your fireball width numbers.

Talk about stalling.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 02:42 PM

It's your claim. You are quite fortunate that R. Mackey has deigned to help you, but he is under no obligation to do so.

Meanwhile, the truth is that you have not established the things you have claimed in your blog. An honest person would retract those claims until they are proven. An honest person would apologize to Val.

Once you have cranked through the numbers, perhaps you will be able to make the claims. Perhaps you will recognise that your claims are baseless. But for now, you are making claims that you simply cannot back up. This is dishonest.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:46 PM

It's your claim.
No, these are #'s for YOUR claims!

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 02:55 PM

Can I assume, then, that you have abandoned your "thought experiment?"

If you want to be a 9/11 Researcher or Investigator, this is how you research and this is how you investigate. It takes work, something you apparently abhor. I'm sorry -- well, no I'm not -- that it isn't what you expected, namely cruising the Internet for videos of stuff going boom and making wild accusations.

If you want to learn, get started.

If you don't want to learn, then drop all pretense to being a "truth seeker" or however you fancy yourself.

There is no honorable third choice.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 02:57 PM

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 03:03 PM

What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?

Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.
Still ignoring. Dishonest.

I accepted your calculation for minimum initial fireball size. I've showed you how to do the maximum calculation, twice. It's a simple computation. I've volunteered to review your work.

You still delay.

Either you are not willing to perform this simple step, in which case you are deceitful... or you are not capable of performing this step, in which case you are incompetent. In either case, we may safely disregard any conclusions you care to make as inexpert, biased, and without scientific basis.

I'm not letting you out of this box. Do your homework, and you might learn something. I have no respect for those who refuse to learn.

CurtC

19th August 2006, 03:05 PM

Killtown, let's remind you of the big picture. You have claimed that the photo is provably faked. We are waiting for you to prove it. We don't need to prove anything, the burden of proof is completely on you. Do you understand that? It's a fundamental point behind a lot of our posts here, but you seem to brush it off, so it makes me think you don't understand that.

We've given calculations that indicate you could expect the plume to be 500 to 600 meters, possibly up to 1000. We've made measurements on the photograph to determine that the smoke was somewhere around 600 m wide. I'd say that you are a very long way from proving your case.

But it's up to you to prove your case. It's not us who are making a claim about this photo. It is you claim that the photo had to have been faked. Please make your case and stop playing games.

Gravy

19th August 2006, 03:05 PM

I'd like to make a suggestion here. Everyone take a break from this thread for a day or two, or longer. I've only seen Christophera's thread go nowhere for so long.

Killtown, the thread will still be here if you decide to buy an abacus or to download any of the free calculator programs available online, and then to do some actual work. In hundreds of posts, you have done no work, and you've shown no understanding of the problem itself.

Meanwhile, there are many other issues raised by your provocative websites that I (and I'm sure others) would like to discuss with you. That's discuss.

Absolutely nothing is being accomplished here. People have done an admirable job trying to teach Killtown, but we can't force him to learn.

I wish I had the power to wriggle my nose and enact a hiatus, but it remains just a humble suggestion.

Hellbound

19th August 2006, 03:07 PM

You know, it's actually quite a bit simpler to get aballpark figure than you're making it out to be. We really don't need your numbers.

The equations I posted earlier on smoke diffusion could be used backwards as well. Given a cloud of a certain temperature and volume, you can track backwards to when it was at a correct temperature (at least 1000 C, about what jet fuel burns at in the open).

Killtown

19th August 2006, 04:40 PM

Hmmm, still no answers from you guys. Weird.

What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?

Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

--------------------------------

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 04:46 PM

Hmmm, still no answers from you guys. Weird.

You have been given more than enough help by R. Mackey to keep going. That is more than enough answer.

If you want an example of a question that really has not been answered...

Another page...

If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

Yoink

19th August 2006, 05:01 PM

Killtown, I'm going to follow Gravy's suggestion and leave this thread for a few days. I'll check in every so often to see if you've actually bothered to do anything more than look at irrelevant videos and photos and say "gee, my gut tells me that this cloud is over-embiggened!" If you can actually make some sort of argument then I'll re-engage. As it is, you're clearly aware that your "argument" has been demolished and now you're just trying to save face (sadly, what you don't realize is that the only actual way you could save face would be to admit that you made an argument based on nothing more than wild guesswork and made a vile and baseless accusation against someone on that inadequate basis).

Before I go, though, let me remind you one more time (this is probably about the 10th time that I've tried to get you to see this point): WE. DON'T. HAVE. A. THEORY. ABOUT. THE. SIZE. OF. THE. PLUME. The most we, collectively, have to say is that we're yet to see any evidence that the photograph in Val's photo is inconsistent with what we know about Flight 93 and what we know about the generation of smoke plumes from plane crashes (collectively, not much, but several thousand times more than you apparently know).

Your current line of argument is based upon the idea that if we can't prove an "alternative" to your baseless assertion then this in some way lends weight to your assertion. This is just about the most pathetically transparent fallacy in the field of logic. Let me try one last time to show you why. This is an example that might annoy you a little (I hope so, because if it does it might make you think about the flawed logic on which it is based--that is to say, the special "Killtown-brand" logic on which it is based):

Killtown, I have figured out (using forensics and YouTube) that you are in fact Sivan Kurzburg. Sivan Kurzburg was clearly part of a crack Mossad "cover-blowing" team who were tasked with ensuring that people found out that Mossad were behind the 9/11 attacks. I can tell (using forensics and many many calculations which I would put on my blog if they weren't so sensitive) that Sivan is back at work and hiding behind the name "Killtown" (Kurzburg/Killtown--both eight letters, both begin with the letter K, "burg"="town," "Kurz"="short"="cut short"=Kill: it's completely obvious as soon as you think about it). The forensics that I use have shown me that Sivan's use of the English language (as documented in the hundreds of MSM reports on his activities) is eerily similar to Killtown's. We know that Sivan was dedicated to the work of making sure that people found out the "truth" about 9/11, and what is this "Killburg"--sorry, "Kurztown"--doing? I rest my case.

So, Killtown: do you disagree that you are in fact Sivan Kurzburg? Well then, prove it. Come on--give us definitive proof that you are not Sivan Kurzburg. If you can't then that will clearly--according to your logic--prove that you ARE in fact Sivan Kurzburg.

My suggestion is that NOBODY calls this "Killtown" character anything but "Sivan" or "Kurzburg" until he offers DEFINITIVE proof of his "I'm not Kurzburg" hypothesis. Killtown himself insists that if you can't prove the contrary, the original hypothesis MUST be true.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 05:03 PM

Come on Kurzburg. Where's this "proof" of yours? We're waiting.

Dog Town

19th August 2006, 05:10 PM

Please let it die, it's rightful death! He will never give to you, that which you ask. It is a game , nothing more, nothing less! No more hits to that offensive excuse for a web page, either! This kat is stumping! For what reason, is the real question?
DT

Killtown

19th August 2006, 05:24 PM

Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-04-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-05-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-06-s.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-07-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-09-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-11-s.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-14-s.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

The plume likes to grow no more than 3x wider than the width of the fireball.

A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.

How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

twinstead

19th August 2006, 05:30 PM

I'm done reading this thread.

I must thank killtown for the obvious push of all the 'on the fencers' towards the real truth; you've done more to debunk the 911 'truth' movement for them than gravy and others could ever hope for.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:33 PM

My calculator broke.

Now, show me YOUR fireball size estimates. I don't want to come up with the wrong answers for you guys, so YOU should submit your answers.

I'm going to write this so even you can understand:

THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO ESTIMATE THE FIREBALL'S SIZE.

Thank you.

(I think you guys are starting to get scared!)

You are as though we have something to hide. You DO realise that many of us don't even live in the US ?

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:35 PM

No, these are #'s for YOUR claims!

For the umpteenth time... WE HAVE MADE NO CLAIM.

Do you GET that ?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 05:39 PM

The plume likes to grow no more than 3x wider than the width of the fireball.

A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.

Still watching videos, and not understanding.

Your photos do not show the smoke plume at its widest. Even at that time, it is still expanding, quite fast actually. It's just that the plume is so large, that there's no ready reference for how fast it is expanding. Could be expanding at 50 meters per second at that point, you'd never be sure.

So your assertion that "the plume likes to grow no more than 3x wider than the fireball" is utter nonsense.

Besides, just how big is "the fireball?" Hint, it's not the size of the bomb itself. Just like Flight 93's fireball wasn't the size of the aircraft's fuel tanks.

I make that three compound fallacies in one. Once again, watching videos is not helping you.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:39 PM

Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:

[...]

How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Look for THIS (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting), specifically.

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:41 PM

Still watching videos, and not understanding.

Hopefully he's not representative of his generation.

Your photos do not show the smoke plume at its widest

That's what happens when the video doesn't run for minutes after the crash. Killtown thinks the smoke dissapeared at that very moment.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 05:44 PM

1) Your photos do not show the smoke plume at its widest.

2) Besides, just how big is "the fireball?" Hint, it's not the size of the bomb itself. Just like Flight 93's fireball wasn't the size of the aircraft's fuel tanks.

1) that's ok, we are not to that point yet.

2) K, what are you min/max fireball width diameters?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 05:45 PM

Yup.

I might also point out that the pictures he linked appear to be zooming out during the event. Not at all unusual. But it makes yet a fourth mistake in his "3x" reasoning, one that I missed the first time around.

Things like this are why one needs to measure and be careful.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 05:47 PM

1) that's ok, we are not to that point yet.

2) K, what are you min/max fireball width diameters?

The point we are at is precisely where we've been all day.

I've told you how to make an estimate of Flight 93's min / max fireball sizes at initiation. You keep dodging, digging ever deeper into your seemingly bottomless well of pathetic excuses. So stop stalling.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 05:49 PM

I've told you how to make an estimate of Flight 93's min / max fireball sizes at initiation.
I don't know how and if I did, you guys would say i was trying to low-ball the width to my favor, so to avoid all that and since YOU seem to know how to do it, give me your estimates.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 05:52 PM

Do you guys really think you should be continuing to talk with this confessed Mossad agent? I mean, he's offered us no proof that he's not Kurzburg (and I offered LOTS of evidence that he was--much of it squarely rooted in forensics; some of it in superforensics), so--according to his own logic--he clearly must be Kurzburg.

Should we be assisting this agent of the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy (TM)?

Yoink

19th August 2006, 05:57 PM

I don't know how

O.K., stick a fork in him. Kurzburg's done.

"I don't know how"?????
"I DON'T" frikkin' well "know HOW"?????????????????

Hey Kurztown--sorry, Killburg--with this final confession that you just plucked your entire "case" against Ms. McClatchey out of thin air, will you NOW turn your blog into a dedicated apology page?

And then go to your Mossad paymasters and ask them what's next on the Giant List of eeeeeevil Zionist plans. Perhaps training Bigfoot to use telekinesis to kill the reincarnated spirit of JFK?

If you can't prove to me that you AREN'T training Bigfoot, you realize, we're going to have say that that's another closed case.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 05:57 PM

I'm not scared of the "Mossad."

Killtown, I showed you how to do it. It's ruddy simple.

If you don't know how to do it, then what the heck are your claims based on? Video with no measurements of a weapons test, that's your evidence? I remind you, you are the one who brought up this subject. Our derivations don't even need to consider the fireball (yet you ignored them anyway).

Killtown

19th August 2006, 05:58 PM

I can't believe you guys can't give me your fireball estimates so we can move on? What are you guys waiting for?

Belz...

19th August 2006, 05:59 PM

I don't know how and if I did, you guys would say i was trying to low-ball the width to my favor

Stop it, right there. It isn't a matter of favour or who's right, here. We're not playing games. We're discussing an event that killed THOUSANDS, that day.

Maybe if we drop the BS and focus on what we actually know, instead of looking for useless estimates for a complex event that you, sir, can't possibly understand, we'd get somewhere.

Of course, we wouldn't, really, because the only evidence we have for that explosion is the photograph, which an expert told us, and I agree, cannot be used to conclusively draw a conclusion.

I'm sorry, Killtown, was this post too long for you ? I don't tend to tailor my posts for people suffering from attention deficit disorder.

Yoink

19th August 2006, 06:00 PM

I'm not scared of the Mossad.

Well, see, that's because you don't know forensics.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:00 PM

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:03 PM

Well if you are so smart, what are you waiting for? post your estimates so we can move on to the next stage and hopefully finish this experiment by X-mas.
It is your experiment. I have done every single thing for you except plug in the numbers, and hold your hand.

But you'd rather go watch videos. That is NOT our problem.

Brainache

19th August 2006, 06:04 PM

I don't know how and if I did, you guys would say i was trying to low-ball the width to my favor, so to avoid all that and since YOU seem to know how to do it, give me your estimates.

I am having trouble typing because I'm laughing so hard.
Do you think he realises what he just said?

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:05 PM

It is your experiment. I have done every single thing for you except plug in the numbers, and hold your hand.

But you'd rather go watch videos. That is NOT our problem.
If you don't know how to figure your fireball size estimates, that's ok. there is nothing to be ashamed about. Just ask one of your OCT friends to help you.

Mercutio

19th August 2006, 06:07 PM

If you don't know how to figure your fireball size estimates, that's ok. there is nothing to be ashamed about. Just ask one of your OCT friends to help you.

Won't work here. It is patently obvious who knows how to figure, and who does not.

So, given that you have no evidence for your alternate theory, will you be altering your blog and apologizing?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:07 PM

"I am rubber, you are glue..."

Every time I think you're done, you top yourself. I Told You how to compute it. You Said that you still didn't know how.

Now read back what you just said, and try not to laugh.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:11 PM

I Told You how to compute it.
Ok, since you don't know how, give me that link again and i'll do my best to help you.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:17 PM

Ok, since you don't know how, give me that link again and i'll do my best to help you.
Even too lazy to read his own thread! Astonishing.

Here you go, tough guy, for the fourth time: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1858462#post1858462
Focus on the maximum initial fireball size.

And it isn't me you'll be helping, it's yourself. Someday you'll understand what I mean, I hope.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:21 PM

min = 125ft
max = 705ft

?

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:23 PM

Possibly. But I'm more interested in your work than the numbers themselves. How did you come up with those numbers? Be explicit.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:32 PM

Possibly. But I'm more interested in your work than the numbers themselves. How did you come up with those numbers? Be explicit.
You said min = wing length (125ft)
+
max = min + speed of 93

gumboot

19th August 2006, 06:33 PM

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:34 PM

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:39 PM

Sorry, in that case, your answer is totally wrong. You can't add a speed to a length. Do you understand this?

This is why the method is more important than the numbers. Anybody can make up a number. You appear to have made up more than your share.
Ok, so what are your best estimates of the min/max width of the fireball? I would really, really, really, like to know this so we can move on to the color change of the plume (if there is any color change).

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:40 PM

Hi everyone,

Not sure who is familiar with this article, but I've come across an article from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review talking about the debris field from UA93. It even includes a map. Not the direction of the debris field from impact... neatly fits in with the mushroom plume drift direction.

Crash debris found 8 miles away (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.html)

The debris field (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2002-01-19/PH_2002-09-11_debris-a.jpg)

-Andrew
Excellent work!

Since smoke is a special class of "debris," namely ultra-fine particulate soot, the plume necessarily expanded to be larger than the area in the map, which considered heavier-than-air fragments only.

Surprising no one, of course, except for Killtown. But perhaps he can be taught.

R.Mackey

19th August 2006, 06:41 PM

Ok, so what are your best estimates of the min/max width of the fireball? I would really, really, really, like to know this so we can move on to the color change of the plume (if there is any color change).
DAMN are you lazy!

You can't add a speed to a length! Do you understand this or not??

At the moment, you are flirting with a failing grade.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 06:56 PM

DAMN are you lazy!

You can't add a speed to a length! Do you understand this or not??

At the moment, you are flirting with a failing grade.
No I don't, so you gonna give YOUR figures or not? If not, I'll wait until some other OCT can since you can't seem to be able too.

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th August 2006, 07:02 PM

No I don't, so you gonna give YOUR figures or not? If not, I'll wait until some other OCT can since you can't seem to be able too.

LISTEN! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM. THE ONUS IS UPON YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIATES/CORROBARATES YOUR CLAIM. AS YOUR OPPOSITION ALL WE NEED TO IS ANALYZE, AND POSSIBLE REFUTE, YOUR EVIDENCE.

Hellbound

19th August 2006, 07:03 PM

We've already given you figures, Killtown. And those figures are anywhere from 100 meters of so radius up to 700 meters or more, depending on the specific characteristics of the impact (which we do not know). Mackey's method will give a ballpark, but even it isn't accurate. Likely ignition would start long before that first second, but the initial burn/blast of aerosolized fuel would spray and aerosolize more fuel, creating a rapidly expanding fireball regardless of initial size. It's a chaotic event, there's simply no way to calculate a precise size.

Of course, you can't seem to understand this. You can't seem to realize that there isn't enough information to make that determination. All we can say is that, based on expert opinion, experience with explosives and demolitions, and physics, that a plume of 600m to 1000m for a 10,000 gallon jet fuel explosion/ignition is possible.

You, on the other hand, seem able to ignore all the math, physics, and, well, knowledge, and somehow declare that the fireball should have been 600 feet, period. Wiht nothing but your idea of how big the fireball should be. Not only that, but you seem to believe this is good enough to slander and libel other people, accusing them of being accessories to mass murder.

You've already admitted on here that you made your accusations based on claims which you did not know how to actually evaluate, and numbers that just seemed right to you. If the tables were turned, and you were accused of murder based on this evidence, you'd be screaming "police state!" and scrambling to get in front of a camera before the judge got to the bench.

Killtown

19th August 2006, 07:06 PM

Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-04-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-05-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-06-s.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-07-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-09-s.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-11-s.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-14-s.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.

It seems to be on its way to making a pretty big plume.

How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th August 2006, 07:07 PM

Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:
<snip Rule 4 hotlinking violation>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.

It seems to be on its way to making a pretty big plume.

How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

LISTEN! YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM. THE ONUS IS UPON YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUBSTANTIATES/CORROBARATES YOUR CLAIM. AS YOUR OPPOSITION ALL WE NEED TO IS ANALYZE, AND POSSIBLE REFUTE, YOUR EVIDENCE.

Dog Town

19th August 2006, 07:08 PM

I suspect he uses the poll in his little trap!

Hutch

19th August 2006, 07:09 PM

I'm probably going to regret it, but I'll try to put this in simple terms for Killtown.

An experiment is something YOU DO, not us. YOU set the parameters, YOU do the calculations, and YOU provide the information for review. WE do not do the legwork for YOUR experiment.

I would highly recommend you stop using that word, as you are demonstrating that you do not know how to use it properly.

Second, just a couple of other facts and personal suppositons (since so many of us have presented them and you have not).

500 Miles/per hour = 733.3 Ft/sec (others put the speed at 550-580MPH, but I'll stick to round numbers). As the Boeing 757 is 155.25 Ft long, the time of impact was approximately 0.21 seconds.

In those 0.21 seconds the entire plane impacted the ground and destroyed itself, releasing the accumulated Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy (I leave it to Killtown to calculate that Energy, it is simple enough that I can do it so I am sure he can). Some of that energy was directed at gouging out the hole, while the rest was used to distribute materials in the nearby woods (the 8 mile question has been fully debunked elsewhere, but let us not move off target).

The fuel (the Boeing 757-200 could carry a max of 11,489 gallons and had been in the air for 1:21 (takeoff 8:42, crash 10:03). For thought purposes, let us say 8,000 gallons remained.

That fuel was released in the inital 0.21 seconds and was splashed into the air at an appreciably high fraction of the contact speed (I do not have the math to calculate the rebound speed, if someone knows an expert in fluid dynamics, that would help). But the fuel would splash in a wide pattern, much like doing a cannonball dive (my speciality) into the swimming pool.

Almost immediately, the heat from the engines and the release of that many megajoules would reach the critical temperature and ignite the fuel. Again, the actual dynamics of the fireball is beyond my math. However, please note Killtown, that (1) the ignition point would be at or near ground level (2) the ignition would NOT be instantaneous,as fuel particles are already in motion away from the crash and the ignition would have reach them, perhaps measuring in hundreths of seconds, but still time for the fuel to spread farther into the air and (3) the inherent Kinetic Energy of the fuel (as Buckwheatjones source noted) would contribute to the acceleration that the fuel was already undergoing. In other words, the JET B wasn't JUST LYING ON THE GROUND WAITING TO EXPLODE: IT ALREADY HAD AN APPRECIABLE ACCELERATION FROM THE CRASH.

You expose again the greatest weakness of the CTists; you cannot do the Math. You cannot do the Physics. And without those two tools, you cannot prove One. Single. Bloody. Thing. And you have admitted the Math is beyond you; I will take it as a working hypothesis that Physics is also not your strong suit. Which leaves you where...??

RMackey or BWJ or others, if I have made any errors in my calculations or suppositions, please note them.