PDA

View Full Version : Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

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

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 07:15 PM
And this is what I'm trying to help you guys prove out of the goodness of my heart.
Dying to see this one! *coughs* Bull shoot!

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:16 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.
Yes, math is not my strong point.

You ok with these estimates?...

min = 100m/330ft

max = 700m/2,230ft

19th August 2006, 07:18 PM
Yes, math is not my strong point.
...

Neither is critical thinking, nor reading comprehension apparently.

Hutch
19th August 2006, 07:19 PM
Yes, math is not my strong point.

You ok with these estimates?...

min = 100m/330ft

max = 700m/2,230ft

I cannot say as I indicated above, I do not have the math for doing fluid dynamics in a situation such as this.

Do you admit the fuel was moving at a appreciable speed before the fireball increased the acceleration?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:22 PM
I cannot say as I indicated above, I do not have the math for doing fluid dynamics in a situation such as this.

Do you admit the fuel was moving at a appreciable speed before the fireball increased the acceleration?
Hey, it's all up to you guys what figures you want to give me. this is your theory I'm trying to prove. you guys decide what your fireball estimates are.

I tried to help you determine by showing you the fireball size the B-52 crash & Moab bomb made. I'd say 93 would have made one the size of the moab personally, but that's up for you guys to decide.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 07:26 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.

Quoted in entirety for posterity.

If you are honestly that ignorant of physics, then it is going to be extremely difficult to explain all of the steps that go into a full calculation. I am willing to walk through it, if you are willing to listen. But this is absolutely proof positive that your feelings on what the smoke plume represents are totally incorrect, and not based on any science at all. Your claims to have "calculated" and "double checked" are a fraud, plain and simple.

I cannot convince you to apologize for your actions based on your misplaced beliefs. Only you can make amends. All that I can do is attempt to educate. I will do so now.

You cannot add two quantities of different types. This is commonly referred to as "apples and oranges." I cannot add five pounds to twelve gallons to get seventeen feet.

Speed and distance are related quantities but they are not the same. Speed is distance divided by time. Meters per second (or m/s) is a measurement of speed. Meters by itself is a measurement of distance. You attempted to add the speed of the aircraft, let's call it 500 knots (you can look up the actual Flight Data Recorder number at your leisure, this is close enough) to the length of the wings, let's call that 40 meters (also not quite right but close enough).

Note I am keeping the units: knots and meters. It's a good idea to keep the units whenever you calculate. That way you can check to see if it's safe to add numbers together. Since knots and meters are totally different, we can't just add these numbers.

I looked up in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_%28speed%29) that one knot = 0.514 meters / second. Therefore 500 knots = (500) x (0.514) meters / second = about 257 meters per second.

Now I have meters per second (speed) and meters (wing size). They're closer, but they're still not the same. We can't add them. We need to think about what we're doing.

What I really want to calculate is a distance, specifically how far I think fuel might travel after the plane hits the ground and splatters, but before it ignites. I need a time. I need to guess how long it might be before ignition. I mentioned this in the first post where I challenged you to solve the equation.

Obviously the time will not be very long, but remember, we are estimating a maximum size this time. The minimum would be for time = 0, i.e. instant initiation of every single drop of fuel, but the maximum will be more. I chose to take one second as the initiation time. Note: I am making an assumption. There is nothing wrong with making an assumption, so long as I declare it. Others may challenge my assumption, and I should take their objections under consideration, or change my assumption if faced with new information.

The distance the fuel will splatter in one second is equal to how fast the fuel is traveling, times the amount of time. In this case, the fuel might splatter at the speed of the aircraft before collision. It might travel slower, too, maybe even a lot slower, but it's not likely to go faster. We're after the maximum, so we take the speed of the plane as the speed of the fuel. Thus, in the one second we assume before ignition, we compute:

Fuel splatter distance = speed x time = 257 meters / second x 1 second = 257 meters second / second = 257 meters

We further make the assumption that the fuel splatters equally in all directions on impact. Again, this is probably an overestimate, but we want the maximum. This means that fuel sprays 257 meters on both sides of the wings. Therefore, the maximum initial fireball size is the following:

Fuel spray size = spray (ahead) + spray (behind) + size before spraying

= 257 meters + 257 meters + 40 meters (the width of the wings) = 554 meters

There you go. That is an estimate of the maximum initial fireball size.

Do I think this number is reasonable? It's probably too big. In my opinion, the fuel would probably not spray equally in all directions. I also believe that the fuel rapidly decelerated as it hit the open air, but it would depend on whether the fuel tanks completely crumbled into small pieces, or whether larger fragments (which would fly farther) scattered, entraining fuel with them. We might even have had several distinct fires, well separated, contributing to a single larger fireball. Large chunks might fly very far indeed.

In my opinion, an initial fuel distribution size of about 200 meters seems reasonable. But I would believe numbers as small as 50 meters, and as large as 500 meters, depending on exactly what happened. Unfortunately, there is only one static photo long after the blast, so we will never know.

Remember, this is the size of the fireball at ignition. It will rapidly get larger after it ignites, and convection will spread it further still.

Now, was any part of that unclear? There is no shame in asking for help.

gumboot
19th August 2006, 07:27 PM
-------------------------------

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

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

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

Killtown, this just sums up how little thinking you are doing. On multiple occasions I have given you the ACTUAL crash angle of UA93. Yet still you persist with your "minimum" and "maximum" ranges.

Clearly you are not even remotely interested in dealing with anything that approaches reality.

-Andrew

Gravy
19th August 2006, 07:31 PM
Sorry, in that case, your answer is totally wrong. You can't add a speed to a length. Do you understand this?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:33 PM
Ok, we got two choices now for your fireball widths:

1#:

min = 100m/330ft
max = 700m/2,230ft

2#:

min = 50m/165ft
max = 500m/1,640ft

R.Mackey also brought up that this is for the "initial" fireball, so I think we should factor in the after fireball width before it burns out and turns to smoke. Cool?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:34 PM
Killtown, this just sums up how little thinking you are doing. On multiple occasions I have given you the ACTUAL crash angle of UA93. Yet still you persist with your "minimum" and "maximum" ranges.

Clearly you are not even remotely interested in dealing with anything that approaches reality.

-Andrew
Ok, that was "40 deg", right? Does everybody concur with this?

Gravy
19th August 2006, 07:35 PM
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).
Oh, goody. This is what I've waited 31 pages for. Please get through your first calculation so you can explain what color the mushroom cloud was before and after Val McClatchey's still photo was taken.

:popcorn1

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:39 PM

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

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: 50m/165ft
Peak fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

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

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: 700m/2,230ft
Peak fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

Does everybody concur? If so, we'll move on to "peak fireball size."

Gravy
19th August 2006, 07:41 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:

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?
No, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't...wait...have we been Punk'd?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:41 PM
Ya know, why don't we just do "peak" fireball size, since having both is redundant.

cool?

19th August 2006, 07:44 PM
Hey, it's all up to you guys what figures you want to give me. this is your theory I'm trying to prove. you guys decide what your fireball estimates are.

I tried to help you determine by showing you the fireball size the B-52 crash & Moab bomb made. I'd say 93 would have made one the size of the moab personally, but that's up for you guys to decide.

Since this seems to be slow in sinking in 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.

Mercutio
19th August 2006, 07:45 PM
Ya know, why don't we just do "peak" fireball size, since having both is redundant.

cool?
Why don't you first apologize to Val and put up a disclaimer on your site that it is all fiction, since you have demonstrated that you do not have the understanding to have "checked the numbers twice" and confirmed anything at all?

After you do that, then you can treat this as the little game you seem to think it is. Before you do that, all you are is dishonest.

19th August 2006, 07:46 PM
Why don't you first apologize to Val and put up a disclaimer on your site that it is all fiction, since you have demonstrated that you do not have the understanding to have "checked the numbers twice" and confirmed anything at all?

After you do that, then you can treat this as the little game you seem to think it is. Before you do that, all you are is dishonest.

QFT

Senor_Pointy
19th August 2006, 07:47 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/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?

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry If I'm misunderstanding the nature of this post, but are you honestly trying to compare the smoke plumes of a crashed airliner and an extremely large high explosive bomb? I'm sure 10000 gallons of burning (deflagrating) jet fuel and 9.2 tons of detonating high explosive have a lot in common!

:rolleyes:

19th August 2006, 07:47 PM
Why don't you first apologize to Val and put up a disclaimer on your site that it is all fiction, since you have demonstrated that you do not have the understanding to have "checked the numbers twice" and confirmed anything at all?

After you do that, then you can treat this as the little game you seem to think it is. Before you do that, all you are is dishonest.

bump

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 07:48 PM
No, he didn't, he didn't, he didn't...wait...have we been Punk'd?
I warned ya! He is not here to learn! Of that I am sure! RM my hat is off to you! A teacher first rate!

edit: Senor, love you work at ats!
DT

Gravy
19th August 2006, 07:48 PM
I nominate R. Mackey for Sainthood.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 07:55 PM
I'm sorry If I'm misunderstanding the nature of this post, but are you honestly trying to compare the smoke plumes of a crashed airliner and an extremely large high explosive bomb?
No, you are misunderstanding.

But stick around and add to the experiment!

19th August 2006, 07:58 PM
No, you are misunderstanding.

But stick around and add to the experiment!

LOL. OMG this is a video game to you!

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 08:01 PM
Ya know, why don't we just do "peak" fireball size, since having both is redundant.

cool?
Yes, by all means tell us what you know about "peak" fireball size.

If you're totally lost, here's a hint: Air / fuel mixture ratios.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:04 PM
Yes, by all means tell us what you know about "peak" fireball size.

If you're totally lost, here's a hint: Air / fuel mixture ratios.
You know, its total width before it burns up.

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 08:05 PM
I need the popcorn eating icon bout now!

19th August 2006, 08:06 PM
You know, its total width before it burns up.

No, we don't. Please enlighten us, as it is your claim, and you are the one that must substantiate it.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:09 PM

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

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

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

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft

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

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:38 PM
Everybody cool with these new figures?

JBG
19th August 2006, 08:39 PM
Why don't you first apologize to Val and put up a disclaimer on your site that it is all fiction....?

Makes a great novel though.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:44 PM

Your max peak width was way too wide to be realistic.

Everybody cool with these new figures?

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

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

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

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 300m/985ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft

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

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 08:49 PM

Your max peak width was way too wide to be realistic.

Everybody cool with these new figures?

[...]

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

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 300m/985ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft

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

Now, now, just a minute. Before you go altering numbers out of thin air, you need to explain just where they came from.

You've jumped several steps. First of all, our estimate maximum fireball at initiation, not peak, was higher than this.

Second, you've somehow computed "peak width," but not explained where it came from. You'll understand that, since you don't even know the difference between distance and speed, that we don't have much confidence in this calculation.

Third, you've decided -- without telling us why -- that the number is "too big." Tell us why and see if we agree.

Fourth, you've substituted a new number, without any justification. Tell us why.

If you can do all that, I might agree. But take your word for it? Nope.

Ask for help if you need it. Show your work. You'll get the hang of it someday.

gumboot
19th August 2006, 08:49 PM

Your max peak width was way too wide to be realistic.

Everybody cool with these new figures?

:jaw-dropp :confused: :covereyes :faint: :hit: :hb: :bwall

I have nothing more to add.

-Andrew

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:51 PM
Now, now, just a minute. Before you go altering numbers out of thin air, you need to explain just where they came from.

You've jumped several steps. First of all, our estimate maximum fireball at initiation, not peak, was higher than this.

Second, you've somehow computed "peak width," but not explained where it came from. You'll understand that, since you don't even know the difference between distance and speed, that we don't have much confidence in this calculation.

Third, you've decided -- without telling us why -- that the number is "too big." Tell us why and see if we agree.

Fourth, you've substituted a new number, without any justification. Tell us why.

If you can do all that, I might agree. But take your word for it? Nope.

Ask for help if you need it. Show your work. You'll get the hang of it someday.

Ok, you want your peak width back at 700m?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:52 PM
Andrew,

Was the nosedive angle 40 deg?

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 08:53 PM
I didn't say that. I said "show your work." Please do so, now.

Mercutio
19th August 2006, 08:53 PM
Ok, you want your peak width back at 700m?

It's not a matter of what we (or you) want. What do the numbers tell? If you think the numbers are wrong, why so?

Mercutio
19th August 2006, 08:56 PM
Oop, yet another new page...
Why don't you first apologize to Val and put up a disclaimer on your site that it is all fiction, since you have demonstrated that you do not have the understanding to have "checked the numbers twice" and confirmed anything at all?

After you do that, then you can treat this as the little game you seem to think it is. Before you do that, all you are is dishonest.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:58 PM
I didn't say that. I said "show your work." Please do so, now.
Your min peak is 2x the length of the wingspan.

Your max is almost 18x wider.

Don't you think that's quite a bit of difference from the fuel min/max being only 1.34x difference?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 08:59 PM
Mercutio,

If you are not going to add relevant stuff to the experiment, then wait until it is over please.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:00 PM
Mercutio, I just now realized that you were a moderator. Please let me know if I step over the line. This discussion has been, to put it mildly, rather exasperating at times.

I also wondered from the start, since Killtown has actually been threatened with legal action for violation of Val McClatchey's copyright, if this entire post shouldn't have been reported and moderated at once. I see many of the offending photos have been removed (as they should have been) so I will continue to operate under the assumption that we are still within required standards.

I continue to echo your request that Killtown apologize.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:02 PM
Your min peak is 2x the length of the wingspan.

Your max is almost 18x wider.

Don't you think that's quite a bit of difference from the fuel min/max being only 1.34x difference?
No. I take it you didn't read what I wrote at all. An 18x difference is quite possible given the speed of impact. If you drop an open bucket of paint from a great height, is it possible for the paint to spread 18x larger than the can? You bet your failing report card it's possible.

Second, where did the 1.34x difference come from? Did you compute this on your own? How did you get this number? (But no, I don't agree with it at all.)

gumboot
19th August 2006, 09:06 PM
Andrew,

Was the nosedive angle 40 deg?

Yes.

-Andrew

Mercutio
19th August 2006, 09:06 PM
Mercutio,

If you are not going to add relevant stuff to the experiment, then wait until it is over please.It is quite relevant. You have posted your conclusions before you have actually calculated them. This is not how one conducts an experiment.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:13 PM
No. I take it you didn't read what I wrote at all. An 18x difference is quite possible given the speed of impact. If you drop an open bucket of paint from a great height, is it possible for the paint to spread 18x larger than the can? You bet your failing report card it's possible.

So 93 made a fireball the width of 7 football fields? Hardly.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:15 PM
So 93 made a fireball the width of 7 football fields? Hardly.

And your basis for this claim is..?

Show your work. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult.

Mercutio
19th August 2006, 09:17 PM
So 93 made a fireball the width of 7 football fields? Hardly.

You were asking for a theoretical maximum; why are you surprised when it is large?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:23 PM
If Andrew concurs, I'll concur.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:25 PM
I won't accept that even if Andrew does concur. Think about the problem. Give your reasoning. Don't just vote with the crowd, or -- as I'm pretty sure you're doing -- feign obstinance to bully other people into going along with you.

What do you say? You made a conclusion, tell us why.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:28 PM
I won't accept that even if Andrew does concur. Think about the problem. Give your reasoning. Don't just vote with the crowd, or -- as I'm pretty sure you're doing -- feign obstinance to bully other people into going along with you.

What do you say? You made a conclusion, tell us why.
Your minimum is a football field wide already, you realy think 7 football fields?

I've PM'd Buckwheat and Apathoid to way in on this.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:29 PM
Your minimum is a football field wide already, you realy think 7 football fields?

I've PM'd Buckwheat and Apathoid to way in on this.
I gave you my reasoning. If you want to take issue with my assumptions, go right ahead. That's why I showed my work.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:32 PM
well if Andrew, Buckwheat and Apathoid concur, I'll concur.

This whole experiment shouldn't be based on one person's assumptions alone.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:34 PM
well if Andrew, Buckwheat and Apathoid concur, I'll concur.

This whole experiment shouldn't be based on one person's assumptions alone.
I won't accept that even if Andrew [or Buckwheat or anybody]does concur. Think about the problem. Give your reasoning. Don't just vote with the crowd, or -- as I'm pretty sure you're doing -- feign obstinance to bully other people into going along with you.

What do you say? You made a conclusion, tell us why.

It isn't! Go ahead, take issue with my assumptions! Start a conversation! I've showed you every single step in nauseating detail!! Bring your opinions to the table! I demand it!

Why is this bouncing off your skull?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:40 PM
because if we just use your assumptions and the experiment doesn't end up going your way, I don't want the rest of you OCTs saying "well you didn't ask for our input, so your experiment results are invalid."

I would rather wait for "unanimous" approval before we move on.

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 09:43 PM
Cue Jeopardy Themed Music !

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:45 PM
Cue Jeopardy Theme !
do you concur with a 7 football field peak fireball DT?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/moab-test-030311-06-s.jpg

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 09:47 PM
Not my bag! Need to put on a concert in an afternoon! I'm your man! The rest I study! Please proceed!

Wyn
19th August 2006, 09:49 PM
do you concur with a 7 football field peak fireball DT?

Hey Killtown, how much Jet B was in the MOAB you keep showing us pictures of?

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:50 PM
because if we just use your assumptions and the experiment doesn't end up going your way, I don't want the rest of you OCTs saying "well you didn't ask for our input, so your experiment results are invalid."

I would rather wait for "unanimous" approval before we move on.
Bah! I'm not asking you to "move on," I'm asking you to explain something you said. YOU are the one who tried to replace my value with "300 m peak fireball." YOU don't need to wait for ANYONE before explaining your reasoning. So explain already.

Besides, we can do more than one experiment, you know.

If we show our work, then other people can come along and criticize it later, if they disagree.

Really, I know you're just stalling, but this is the most bizarre form of stalling I've ever seen -- you're waiting until your adversaries all come in and add their opinions. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 09:50 PM
I would rather wait for "unanimous" approval before we move on.
Glad I have a good book to read while you PM the 2,206 active JREF members.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 09:53 PM
[Really, I know you're just stalling, but this is the most bizarre form of stalling I've ever seen -- you're waiting until your adversaries all come in and add their opinions. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
I'm with you there, R. I've never, ever seen anything like Killtown's behavior here.

19th August 2006, 09:54 PM
[Killtown, w]hy is this bouncing off your skull?I'll take a wild-ass guess.

Soon to be seen on a certain someone's blog, as well as various CT forums...

"Y'know, I went around and around with the so-called skeptics and critical thinkers at the vaunted JREF. I gave them every opportunity, was patient and polite, yet they couldn't seem to provide any support for their pet theories. LOL. ROFLMAO."

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 09:56 PM
I'm with you there, R. I've never, ever seen anything like Killtown's behavior here.

I mentioned this book before, Take Down. By Tsutomu Shimomura, he took down Kevin Mitnick! All about ego, K Clown is the =, of the psyche.Fascinating!

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 09:59 PM
I'll take a wild-ass guess.

Soon to be seen on a certain someone's blog, as well as various CT forums...

I've had the same thought. Although, with some of his admissions here, I rather doubt all but the most dogmatic CTers are following this thread with satisfaction. The hole has gotten mighty deep.

I've also wondered how this conversation might factor into Val's hypothetical libel suit. Ah well, I went into this with the best intentions.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 09:59 PM
Bah! I'm not asking you to "move on," I'm asking you to explain something you said. YOU are the one who tried to replace my value with "300 m peak fireball." YOU don't need to wait for ANYONE before explaining your reasoning. So explain already.

Besides, we can do more than one experiment, you know.

If we show our work, then other people can come along and criticize it later, if they disagree.

Really, I know you're just stalling, but this is the most bizarre form of stalling I've ever seen -- you're waiting until your adversaries all come in and add their opinions. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
Are you afraid to see if the other OCTs concur or not?

Gravy? Do you concur with the 7 football field peak fireball?

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 10:01 PM
Are you afraid to see if the other OCTs concur or not?

Gravy? Do you concur with the 7 football field peak fireball?
Dude, not only am I not afraid, I'm not afraid if you concur or not. That's why I showed my work. I put it out there for everyone to see.

Wyn
19th August 2006, 10:02 PM
Killtown, how much Jet B was in that MOAB you keep talking about?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 10:12 PM
Here is that B-52 crash. I rotated the plane as if it were doing a nose dive like UA 93 and also to show its wingspan which is 185ft/56m (60ft longer than UA 93's). I also shrank the plane 20% to compensate for camera zoom in/out difference:

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

You guys really want to claim UA 93's fireball was 7x bigger than this one (assuming this one reached a football field's length)?

B-52 stats:
Length: 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters)
Height: 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters)
Wingspan: 185 feet (56.4 meters)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm

Fuel capacity: 47,975 US gal (181,725 L)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

Gravy
19th August 2006, 10:12 PM
Gravy? Do you concur with the 7 football field peak fireball?
As I said, I'm here to discuss your claim that you can predict color changes in a mushroom cloud from a single still photo. I enjoy examining psychic claims. Since page 20 you've been promising to do an experiment. Please stop stalling and finish your first calculation so we can move on to the good stuff.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 10:13 PM
Killtown, how much Jet B was in that MOAB you keep talking about?
That is irrelevant as to why I showed that moab blast.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 10:14 PM
Please stop stalling and finish your first calculation so we can move on to the good stuff.
I'm not stalling. I'm waiting for people like YOU to concur with the peak fireball width.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 10:19 PM
Here is that B-52 crash. I rotated the plane as if it were doing a nose dive like UA 93 and also to show its wingspan which is 185ft/56m (60ft longer than UA 93's). I also shrank the plane 20% to compensate for camera zoom in/out difference:
How did you arrive at 20%? How do you know there wasn't much more zoom, say 300%? That's what would have happened if I'd been filming with my 100-300mm variable lens. Is this another of your famous wild guesses?

You guys really want to claim UA 93's fireball was 7x bigger than this one (assuming this one reached a football field's length)?
So how did you "assume" this fireball was 90 meters across? Is that another wild guess? Is this "peak" or "initial" size? Did the fireball continue to grow?

And there are two other errors of logic. The first is that I computed a maximum size, not an expected size. That's what you asked for, and that's what I did. The second is that the size is primarily based on speed of impact. Your B-52 example crashed much, much slower than Flight 93. Ergo, the two are not directly comparable.

Do you understand these differences? Now do you accept my computation, or do you have an additional concern?

19th August 2006, 10:20 PM
I'm not stalling. I'm waiting for people like YOU to concur with the peak fireball width.

That's odd, because I thought it was up to you to present your claim, the evidence supporting your claim, and then for you to defend your claim. I guess I was wrong. You're just here to troll.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 10:22 PM
I'm not stalling. I'm waiting for people like YOU to concur with the peak fireball width.
Me? I haven't been involved in a single calculation here. Why would I be? Please complete your calculation, show your work, then move to the next step. You've been stalling since page 20. You can stall forever, but I'm betting that people will eventually lose interest in your bizarre act.

Wyn
19th August 2006, 10:22 PM
That is irrelevant as to why I showed that moab blast.

Why is it irrelevent?

Then why do you keep showing an irrelevent MOAB blast?

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 10:25 PM
Here is that B-52 crash. I rotated the plane as if it were doing a nose dive like UA 93 and also to show its wingspan which is 185ft/56m (60ft longer than UA 93's).
Ugh, missed this one the first time through. That's three errors of logic. So this plane didn't nosedive at all?? Why would you even suspect this example is close to our problem? The mechanics are totally different.

I categorically reject this example, and shame on you for altering pictures to mislead. Now explain why my maximum value is too big, and where your new value came from.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 10:31 PM
1) How did you arrive at 20%? How do you know there wasn't much more zoom, say 300%? That's what would have happened if I'd been filming with my 100-300mm variable lens. Is this another of your famous wild guesses?

2) So how did you "assume" this fireball was 90 meters across? Is that another wild guess? Is this "peak" or "initial" size? Did the fireball continue to grow?

3)The second is that the size is primarily based on speed of impact. Your B-52 example crashed much, much slower than Flight 93. Ergo, the two are not directly comparable.

4)Now do you accept my computation, or do you have an additional concern?
1) Eyeball. If you'd like to show your guess, please save that pic, shrink to what size you think and post so we can compare.

2) Wingspan is 56m and fireball width looks only 2x wider. the fireball width is probably 1 1/2 football field lengths max.

3) so this B-52 was going min what, 150mph? so if that was going 580mph wouldn't the fireball only be 5.8 football field lengths?

4) Have you noticed that NOT ONE person was concured with your max yet?

Gravy
19th August 2006, 10:35 PM
1) Eyeball. If you'd like to show your guess, please save that pic, shrink to what size you think and post so we can compare.

2) Wingspan is 56m and fireball width looks only 2x wider. the fireball width is probably 1 1/2 football field lengths max.

3) so this B-52 was going min what, 150mph? so if that was going 580mph wouldn't the fireball only be 5.8 football field lengths?

4) Have you noticed that NOT ONE person was concured with your max yet?
Killtown, just pretend we're not here. You've been shown the path to enlightenment. Do your work, and when it's done to your satisfaction, post it.

Will you do that now? Yes or no?

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 10:36 PM
1) Eyeball. If you'd like to show your guess, please save that pic, shrink to what size you think and post so we can compare.
Useless. You don't know the geometry of the shot. You never will.

2) Wingspan is 56m and fireball width looks only 2x wider. the fireball width is probably 1 1/2 football field lengths max.
Again, useless. I'll bet they zoomed out while it was progressing. Fireball could have been wider but obscured by ground effect. You don't know how long the fireball was. This is hardly a solid measurement.

3) so this B-52 was going min what, 150mph? so if that was going 580mph wouldn't the fireball only be 5.8 football field lengths?
"5.8 football fields" is pretty darn close to my theoretical upper limit of 554 meters, so, yeah. Thanks for verifying my conclusion.

4) Have you noticed that NOT ONE person was concured with your max yet?
Wrongo. You got an even higher estimate of 700m. That's another lie you've told.

Besides, I don't care. Anyone can argue with it. But they must EXPLAIN WHY, because gut feelings don't cut it. That goes double for you.

Now stop stalling and explain! It's a learning process, don't fear it.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 10:40 PM
Ok, pretend this B-52 was going 580mph and had 7,800-10,000 gals of fuel. You really think it's going to make a fireball this size?

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/867/b52xeg8.jpg

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 10:44 PM
Ok, pretend this B-52 was going 580mph and had 7,800-10,000 gals of fuel. You really think it's going to make a fireball this size?

I don't know. How big is that? I don't see a ruler anywhere...

And also don't confuse the initial spread of the fireball with the overall appearance. Higher speed should lead to a bigger flash, wider ignition, but not as dense. You're showing a picture of a very low speed crash, so basically a big, slow deflagration. Not at all what Flight 93 probably experienced.

But in terms of horizontal spread, sure. 500 knots is ruddy fast. It'd splat all over the place.

Now explain why you object to my reasoning. I've already explained four times why this pictorial analysis is hopeless.

R.Mackey
19th August 2006, 11:14 PM
Well, I must take my leave of you and the JREF Forum for a while, probably won't be back until Monday and maybe not then. You are undoubtedly the most difficult, bizarre person I've ever tried to explain anything to. In particular, most people with off-beat theories just can't wait to tell me why they believe something. But in your case, I literally have tried to drag your opinions from you, yet you guard them jealously, refusing to explain anything unless everyone agrees with you first.

Learning is a two-way process. It is not like watching movies. Share your feelings if you ever want to get anywhere.

Take a break from this topic. Start thinking about it. Spend some time in the sun, just musing.

After that, I have a homework assignment for you, as follows:

Problem 1: Word problem

Set up and work through an entire hypothetical example of the Flight 93 crash. Describe in words the state of the aircraft during all periods, from before the crash through cooling of the resulting smoke. At every step, describe all of your assumptions. Use numerical quantities and units. Use whatever equations you know to support your choices.

You will not be graded on the results or values of your example. Instead, your grade will depend on (a) how clearly you describe the problem, (b) how clearly you identify and rationalize all assumptions, and (c) how few unanswered steps remain. You will receive full credit for identifying and correctly describing a process that you do not understand, so long as you clarify this in your discussion.

Extra Credit: Essay question

Revisiting the example of Flight 93, identify as many environmental conditions as you can that will affect the final outcome. Also identify whether you feel each has a "major" or "minor" effect, and how easy it is to measure each condition.

In the meantime, I repeat, you absolutely owe Val an apology.

May the morrow find you with an open mind, humble and ready to learn.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 11:20 PM
Alright, here's the B-52 scaled with the MOAB explosion at roughly the size of 5 football fields comparatively:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6391/b52moabfc3.jpg

It doesn't have to be absolutely scaled to perfection because isn't it obvious the fireball is just a tad big for the tiny B-52 to have made going 580mph w/ 10,000 gals of fuel?

Buckwheatjones
19th August 2006, 11:24 PM
Well, mister killtown has PM'd me three times tonight saying in each one "We need your input, Buck!" So for some reason my thoughts now seem to be very important to him. No idea why.

Anyway, I've been on here reading several pages of Drupal posts and that takes time. What I sum up is this:

The size of the cloud is determined by the width of the fireball. So killtown has been trying to make that determination based on what seems reasonable to him. First, to what effect the volume of the fireball has on the resultant cloud is something I cannot determine. He says he calculated the radius of the blast by using the burn marks on the trees and the pit of the crash as his references.

Question. If the trees got burned, wasn't there a fire? If the stack of explosives created the cloud, then doesn't that mean we had two blasts? If we had two blasts, then we had two clouds. Nobody witnessed this?

If killtown is saying the burn marks resulted in the a fireball that was the wrong size for the cloud, that sounds like a de facto admission that some detonation occurred at the crash site, but I don't think he's realized what this means to his argument. And it means we've got two separate instances of an explosion, one of which nobody heard, felt or saw.

But if he says 93 didn't crash at the site because it would not have produced a fireball sufficient for the size of the cloud, then he is back to his "ordnance" argument. Then, if ordnance was the cause of Val's cloud, no blast occurred at the crash site. And if that's true how did the trees get burned?

So now we are back to the issue of the fireball. Lots of discussion on here about the width of the ball being determined by wingspan, but I don't know for a fact that this is true. I think that's a big assumption to base everything else on, but it could be true. Or it could not. The only way to know if this fireball thing is at all helpful to killtown is to again consult someone who knows about these things.

I'll contact someone to see if there is:

* a way to reverse engineer the size of the fireball by the only evidence we have (the size of the cloud in the photo)

* a way to determine if fireballs develop randomly every time or if they follow a pattern.

* and given the numbers that have been speculated about on here are sufficient enough to determine the qualities of the fireball.

But first I want to know something from killtown: If it's determined that you are unable to conclusively prove your argument that the cloud was too big for the explosion of Flight 93 will you publish on line that, on your blogsite, that the claims you've made are unsubstantiated and apologize to Ms. McClatchey? And that there is no proof, because you haven't been able to prove them, regardless of whether or not you still FEEL that they are true?

First, let me remind you that you have come to me for my input. Three times just tonight. So if you don't respond to what I've written here, EVERYBODY is going to see this as a big Dodge. And if you respond to me in part, but not the part about apologizing to Ms. McClatchey, they will also see that as a Dodge and it will be a de facto admission of a bankruptcy of your integrity.

Buckwheatjones
19th August 2006, 11:30 PM
By the way, a B-52 carries 46,000 gallons of fuel. Not 10,000. Using a B-52 groundlooping is not an apt parallel to a 757 augering in at 40 degrees.

Pardalis
19th August 2006, 11:30 PM
Alright, here's the B-52 scaled with the MOAB explosion at roughly the size of 5 football fields comparatively:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6391/b52moabfc3.jpg

It doesn't have to be absolutely scaled to perfection because isn't it obvious the fireball is just a tad big for the tiny B-52 to have made going 580mph w/ 10,000 gals of fuel?

Killtown, do you realise how ridiculous your analysis is?

Killtown
19th August 2006, 11:32 PM
Buck, your making things waaaaaaaaaay too complicated than they need to be.

Just want to know if you concur with these estimates for your guys theory...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft

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

Killtown
19th August 2006, 11:34 PM
By the way, a B-52 carries 46,000 gallons of fuel. Not 10,000. Using a B-52 groundlooping is not an apt parallel to a 757 augering in at 40 degrees.
:rolleyes:

Killtown
19th August 2006, 11:35 PM
Killtown, do you realise how ridiculous your analysis is?
Apparantely not.

Do YOU concur with these estimates?

Pardalis
19th August 2006, 11:42 PM
Do I concur with your photoshop skills? Hell no.

Buckwheatjones
19th August 2006, 11:43 PM
Ok. I got nothing from him. And that's because he got nothing from me. I didn't give him anything to work with and so now my input, which once was important to him, is immaterial. And that's ok. I told him on RightNation that I wasn't here to prove that the photo implied conspiracy, I was taking up the discussion simply to point out that ignoring variables, of which there were many, and pressing on with his argument just presented many more questions than answers. And that I was simply going to ask those questions by reminding him of those variables, and that process in itself would simply make him look like an even larger fool than he is able to do all by himself.

An air crash is a complicated matter, killtown. The experts have said so. I've presented by exchange with one on here. And again, it seems that you know far more than a qualified Ph.D does on explosion dynamics. But please don't PM me anymore. You're a waste of bandwidth.

Thanks.

Killtown
19th August 2006, 11:46 PM
Ok. I got nothing from him. And that's because he got nothing from me. I didn't give him anything to work with and so now my input, which once was important to him, is immaterial. And that's ok. I told him on RightNation that I wasn't here to prove that the photo implied conspiracy, I was taking up the discussion simply to point out that ignoring variables, of which there were many, and pressing on with his argument just presented many more questions than answers. And that I was simply going to ask those questions by reminding him of those variables, and that process in itself would simply make him look like an even larger fool than he is able to do all by himself.

An air crash is a complicated matter, killtown. The experts have said so. I've presented by exchange with one on here. And again, it seems that you know far more than a qualified Ph.D does on explosion dynamics. But please don't PM me anymore. You're a waste of bandwidth.

Thanks.
So you don't concur with mainly R.Mackey's estimations?

Buckwheatjones
19th August 2006, 11:54 PM
Are you going to publicly apologize to Ms. McClatchey if you cannot conclusively prove your point?

Buckwheatjones
20th August 2006, 12:06 AM
OK. Didn't think so. You wear a dress. Well, the Bank of Integrity called. You're overdrawn. Again.

Gravy
20th August 2006, 12:20 AM
The moderators may believe that my remarks here belong in another thread. I respectfully submit that Killtown has done everything in his power to see that the subject of this thread is not 9/11, but Killtown, and I ask that this post remain here.

Killtown, do you understand that real people died on 9/11, and that real people live with its painful legacy every day?

Do you understand that you have needlessly added to that pain, and that you have the power, with a few keystrokes, to make amends?

Do you also understand that people on this forum take 9/11 seriously?

If so, then why are you playing games? You have utterly refused to confront all the evidence that flight 93 crashed near Shanksville.

Instead, you've backed yourself into a corner with your head engulfed in an opaque cloud. You cannot, or will not, see out. You have taken absurd measures to avoid facing reality, and in doing so, have made a bizarre spectacle of yourself.

From behind the anonymity of your screen name, you have effortlessly, thoughtlessly, disparaged Val McClatchey, Bernard Brown, Charles Burlingame, and hundreds of other victims and witnesses. Your refusal to acknowledge Hal Bidlack's heartfelt letter to you speaks volumes.

If you have any sense of self-respect, compassion, or honor, you will stop this behavior.

You owe Val McClatchey an apology. Anything less is indecent.

By doing so you will spare an innocent person and her family continued grief, grief that you are responsible for.

Will you, at the first opportunity, swallow your pride, retract your claims and insinuations about Val McClatchey, and issue a sincere apology to her?

Yes or no?

If you choose to do the right thing, I feel confident that everyone here will applaud you for it. I know I will.

Sincerely,
Mark Roberts

gumboot
20th August 2006, 12:31 AM
Here is that B-52 crash. I rotated the plane as if it were doing a nose dive like UA 93 and also to show its wingspan which is 185ft/56m (60ft longer than UA 93's). I also shrank the plane 20% to compensate for camera zoom in/out difference:

Based on my frame-by-frame assessment, the fireball in the B-52 crash reaches a maximum size of at least 4x the aircraft's wingspan - or a minimum of 225m.

This is, of course, only the x-axis scope of the fireball - you can't tell what the z-axis dimensions are. Given the aircraft was travelling on the z-axis at the time of impact, this may be an important consideration (or it may not, I don't know).

-Andrew

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 12:51 AM
Killtown, before you answer my post, please take a moment to answer Gravy's post #1345, you can't get a more courteous post than that.

But I do feel you haven't answered my previous question as to the importance of the focal length of the lens that was used in Val's picture.

I want you to take a look at the pictures on this page:
http://cp.c-ij.com/english/photoshooting/techniques/camerafunction/camerafunction02.html

Look at the pics taken with the 24mm and 35mm lenses. These are what I estimate would be the probable lens that Val's camera had.

Considering the difference of size and apparent distance of the cityscape on the other side of the river in both pictures, would you agree that knowing exactly which one of these two lenses (or even another lens) would greatly influence the results of your analysis, especially these next conclusions you have come to in your blog:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4601/plumecomparisonns0.gif
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-comparison3.0.jpg

Again, respond to Gravy first.

ETA: Come to think of it, it would most probably be between the 35mm and the 50mm lenses, it's hard to tell.

gumboot
20th August 2006, 01:14 AM
Killtown's dishonesty on the MOAB comparison is annoying me, so I've assembled a VERY ROUGH mathematical rebuttal. Please be aware a lot of this is "best guess" type stuff and not absolute science.

Right.

First, there's information on the MOAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB)itself.

The MOAB uses 18,700 pounds of H-6 as its explosive filler[2]. At 1.35 times the power of TNT, H-6 is one of the more powerful explosives used by the US military.

So, first to clarify, it is not a Fuel Air Explosive. It uses high-explosives.

But we'll forget that for now, because Killtown is wanting to compare the explosion size.

The Massive Ordnance Air Blast is the biggest conventional bomb ever created. At 21,000lbs, it can flatten an area the size of six superbowl standiums.

Okay, so we have a blast area here. Now. "Superbowl Stadium" isn't exactly a precise measure, so this is where it all gets less solid.

I don't know much about football or "superbowl stadiums" so if someone has better information, please step in.

I went for the stadium that hosted last year's Superbowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXIX) - ALLTEL Stadium (http://local.google.com/maps?ll=30.324036,-81.637323&spn=0.003297,0.005590&t=k) in Jacksonville Florida.

Now, for area, I have assumed the stadium is a circle, calculating its diameter off the longest dimension (which gives a calculation in favour of a larger area).

By my rough Google Earth measurements the stadium is 240m along its longest axis, giving a radius of 120m.

For a circle:

Area = pi x r^2
= pi x 120^2
= 45,239m^2

The stadium sits on 10 acres (40,000 m²) of land and originally had a capacity of 73,000.

I wasn't sure if that number included carparking space etc... it appears it does not. So we will go with both numbers - 45,000m^2 and 40,000m^2.

Now, back to "an area the size of six superbowl standiums"

6 x 45,000 = 270,000m^2
6 x 40,000 = 240,000m^2

Assuming an evenly distributed blast area, the diameter of a MOAB blast would be:

r^2 = area / pi
= 240,000 / pi
= 76,394m
r = 276.3m
d = 552.6m

Or for 270,000m
d = 586.3m

Ahah! Cries Killtown. The smaller number is 5 football fields! I was right!

Not so fast.

"an area the size of six superbowl standiums" refers to the area in which the overpressure is sufficient to cause destruction. This is not necessarily the size of a fireball. Indeed, with high explosives the overpressure area is significantly larger than the fireball itself.

I don't know enough about explosives to determine how big the actual explosion would be, but I know it is smaller than the length of 5 football fields.

-Andrew

chran
20th August 2006, 03:25 AM
First, let me remind you that you have come to me for my input. Three times just tonight. So if you don't respond to what I've written here, EVERYBODY is going to see this as a big Dodge. And if you respond to me in part, but not the part about apologizing to Ms. McClatchey, they will also see that as a Dodge and it will be a de facto admission of a bankruptcy of your integrity.

Buck, your making things waaaaaaaaaay too complicated than they need to be.

Just want to know if you concur with these estimates for your guys theory... So Killtown, you're dodging and weaving. That's great. :rolleyes:

Belz...
20th August 2006, 04:36 AM
You said min = wing length (125ft)
+
max = min + speed of 93

Again, I laughed out loud at this one.

"Yeah, sure, I'll just add this and that, that'll look good!"

Belz...
20th August 2006, 04:43 AM
Hey, it's all up to you guys what figures you want to give me. this is your theory I'm trying to prove.

That's funny because we HAVE NO THEORY.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 04:47 AM
R.Mackey also brought up that this is for the "initial" fireball, so I think we should factor in the after fireball width before it burns out and turns to smoke. Cool?

For the record, Killtown, how old are you, and what's your academic level ?

Belz...
20th August 2006, 04:50 AM
Ok, you want your peak width back at 700m?

I don't think you understood his post. Or any of the other ones, for that matter.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 05:01 AM
Your min peak is 2x the length of the wingspan.

Your max is almost 18x wider.

Don't you think that's quite a bit of difference from the fuel min/max being only 1.34x difference?

So 93 made a fireball the width of 7 football fields? Hardly.

My, you're just one big, walking argument from incredulity, aren't you ?

well if Andrew, Buckwheat and Apathoid concur, I'll concur.

This whole experiment shouldn't be based on one person's assumptions alone.

It shouldn't be based on ANY number of people's assumptions, Killtown.

Are you afraid to see if the other OCTs concur or not?

:covereyes

I rotated the plane as if it were doing a nose dive like UA 93 and also to show its wingspan which is 185ft/56m (60ft longer than UA 93's).

And in the process, ignored the fact that it DIDN'T crash like this at all. Do you realise that this, and the speed of the impact, might have made a huge difference ?

Eyeball. If you'd like to show your guess, please save that pic, shrink to what size you think and post so we can compare.

Incredible. Killtown, you don't understand what Mackey's saying at all, do you ? You CANNOT estimate the zoom. CANNOT. CANNOT. CANNOT. Do you get that ?

so this B-52 was going min what, 150mph? so if that was going 580mph wouldn't the fireball only be 5.8 football field lengths?

It wouldn't change a thing, since the "7 football fields" figure was the MAXIMUM.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 05:27 AM
Interesting info on the MOAB.

18,700 lbs. of explosive at 1.35 ReF means 25,245 lbs. of TNT equivalent.

Kerosene weighs in at 6.8 lbs. per gallon (roughly).

Assuming 7500 gallons of kerosene, that's 51,000 lbs.

Now, a fuel-air bomb (for purposes of comparison) has an ReF of 5.0 (average). That means that a 51,000 lb. fuel-air explosive would be the equivalent of 255,000 lbs. of TNT.

Realistically, however, only a small percentage of the fuel would aerosolize and produce FAE-like effects, and the fuel-air mix would likely not be optimal. I'd suggest that a reasonable value of a .5 ReF (similar to old black powder [not modern smokeless]) could be used. THis would represent both the flash ignition of the fuel as well as the FAE-like effects of the aerosolized portions. That would give a value of 25,500 lbs. TNT equivalent.

Or, roughly equivalent to a MOAB blast, about 550m or so.

Of course, this does not take into account the splatter of the fuel, which could add up to (733m/s * .21s = 154m) 154m to the radius (308m to diameter), giving a maximum potential size of 858m. For arguments sake I'd use a number halfway between min and max fo fuel splatter, and call it 704m...which was roughly the basis of my estimate.

And just to make clear, this is only a "best guesstimate", not even an estimate. I'd place it's accuracy within an order or magnitude, but it is only (at best) a guess.

This is the problem we have with your "experiment", Killtown, and the way you are trying to conduct it. It does not prove anything. It's possible for a fireball of 600 or 700 meters to form in such a crash. But we don't know the exact size. For you to prove your theory, you have to show that a cloud of the size observed could not be produced by such a crash.

You have, so far, offered nothign to support that besides "I don't think it looks right". Imagine being accused of murder on the basis of someone finding a bullet hole in a wall. "We think you fired this bullet, so you're going up for attempted murder." The bullet is from, say, a 9mm pistol. You have never owned a 9mmm pistol, and there's no pistol to be found anywhere. The judge responds that "Well, where did the bullet hole come from then?" You might suggest someone else fired it. The judge responds "So, can you prove this? Because if not, you're going to jail!"

You're playing the Judge in my previous story, Killtown.

gumboot
20th August 2006, 06:14 AM
Of course, this does not take into account the splatter of the fuel, which could add up to (733m/s * .21s = 154m) 154m to the radius (308m to diameter), giving a maximum potential size of 858m. For arguments sake I'd use a number halfway between min and max fo fuel splatter, and call it 704m...which was roughly the basis of my estimate.

Interesting info there... :D

Do you have any idea of the difference in fireball and over-pressure area for high-explosives?

While researching I stumbled across a rather complicated formula for calculating blast radius and overpressure and at given distance, but it looked far too complex for me at the time and I forgot to bookmark it... :(

-Andrew

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 07:16 AM
Interesting info there... :D

Do you have any idea of the difference in fireball and over-pressure area for high-explosives?

While researching I stumbled across a rather complicated formula for calculating blast radius and overpressure and at given distance, but it looked far too complex for me at the time and I forgot to bookmark it... :(

-Andrew

There was a formula on Wiki for Thermobaric overpressure calculation (Thermobaric=FAE). However, I wasn't sure enough to use it, as I did a calc based on a 75lb. FAE and got an answer that was something like 20 kilometers, so apparently I did something wrong :)

Other than that, I don't know of any. I can figure TNT-equivalents needed for breaching of certain structures and such, but those are "quick-n-dirty" calcs intended for field use.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 09:31 AM
Are you going to publicly apologize to Ms. McClatchey if you cannot conclusively prove your point?
Sure.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 09:37 AM
Ok, I need you guys to concur with these figures for your theory. A "yes" or "no" is all that's needed and if it's a "no," please state your concerns (it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that):

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft (1 football field)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft (7 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

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

If you guys concur, we can start talking about the plume color.

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 09:47 AM
Killtown, to correctly appreciate the size and distance of the plume in Val's picture, can you adress my questions in post #1347?

chran
20th August 2006, 10:03 AM
Ok, I need you guys to concur with these figures for your theory. A "yes" or "no" is all that's needed and if it's a "no," please state your concerns (it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that) No. And my concern is that we have no basis for estimating those numbers.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 10:04 AM
Sure.

A very good start. I would recommend changing your blog immediately, though, as you are only beginning the proof process, and have in no way supported the things you already claim there. If it turns out you do demonstrate that the standard story is impossible, you can put everything back up, and add an "I told you so". As of now, though, since you are still asking other people's permission to do your own calculations, it is apparent that your claims are not yet supported.

Given that you have said that you would apologize if you were wrong, don't you think that to be consistent you should not make claims until you can show you are right?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:09 AM
Given that you have said that you would apologize if you were wrong, don't you think that to be consistent you should not make claims until you can show you are right?
And what claims have I made?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:12 AM
Killtown, to correctly appreciate the size and distance of the plume in Val's picture, can you adress my questions in post #1347?
Focal length wouldn't matter because the object in focus (the plume) would still line up with the same details (red/white barn, etc).

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:13 AM
No. And my concern is that we have no basis for estimating those numbers.
Ok, we are at a stand still until enough of you concur, or you over-rule chran's complaint.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 10:20 AM
Ok, we are at a stand still until enough of you concur, or you over-rule chran's complaint.

We've been at a standstill from the beginning, because you don't know how to evaluate the numbers (as you've admitted), your statements show that you are not objective nor concerned about "truth" ("I'll take that, that supports my theory!"), we have no real idea of the validity of any of the numbers (besides impact speed and angle from the FDR, the rest is guesswork), and whatever your "experiment" shows will have no bearing on what actually occurred.

If you want to show something, take the numbers and run. Waiting for everyone here to agree is just a stalling tactic, that's getting very old. Figure your own numbers (after all, you've already done the analysis, right? You wouldn't make accusations without proof, right?), show your method, and post your methodology and results. Really, we don't need you to do the math for "our theory", as you call it. We would like to see you do the math for yours.

chran
20th August 2006, 10:22 AM
Ok, we are at a stand still until enough of you concur, or you over-rule chran's complaint. Ummm, you have been told this repeatedly over 35 pages. Why do you suddenly start caring now?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:25 AM
If you want to show something, take the numbers and run. Waiting for everyone here to agree is just a stalling tactic, that's getting very old.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 10:25 AM
Ummm, you have been told this repeatedly over 35 pages. Why do you suddenly start caring now?

Because it gives him another excuse to stall, while going back to the nuthouse to tell everyone he's "got those OTCers stumped".

If you just take reality, and turn it 90 degrees or so, it all makes sense ;)

chran
20th August 2006, 10:27 AM
Because it gives him another excuse to stall, while going back to the nuthouse to tell everyone he's "got those OTCers stumped".

If you just take reality, and turn it 90 degrees or so, it all makes sense ;) Of course! :eye-poppi :rolleyes:

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 10:34 AM

Let me try this in a way that might actually cause you to read it...

No, You are not proving our theory.
You are not proving anything, except how little you actually know about math, physics, forensics, photography, explosion dynamics, logic, and evidence.

The numbers you want us to agree on are, at best, guesses based on guesses. None of use are explosion modellers, none of us has experience in aircraft crash reconstruction. I have some experience with explosives, but I do not stand behind the validity of my figures except within an order of magnitude; I simply do not know enough about the dynamics of a crash.

However, I DO know enough basic physics to understand that a 600 foot diameter damage area does not mean a 600' smoke cloud. As would anyone who had two brain cells to rub together and spark an idea.

If you want to prove something, determine your numbers, show your work, and prove to us that the cloud was too big/too small/too purple/too square/too whatever.

You've yet to show that it's anything other than what it appears to be.

You've been unable to show how you worked out the map angles, nopr included your margin of error. You have not answered concerns about your estimation of the plume size in the photo. You have not shown any reason that the plume is too large, too small, too close, too far, or anything in-between. Your methodology is non-existent, your assumptions purely imaginary, and your conclusions based in ignorance.

IN other words, you've shown nothing but baseless allegations.

Quite frankly, you're getting tiresome. Either take the numbers and GET THE HE|| ON WITH IT, or shut up and go elsewhere.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 10:35 AM
And what claims have I made?

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

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:36 AM
Huntsman,

Feel free NOT to participate in this experiment.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 10:38 AM
Huntsman,

Feel free NOT to participate in this experiment.

LOL

What experiment?

An experiment actually involves setting up conditions and observing something happen. You're just participating in mental masturbation with no purpose.

Fine, then.

Kindly remove all of my numbers from your estimates.

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 10:39 AM
Feel free NOT to participate in this experiment.
Why not you don't seem to participate. Come on Stalltown. Show your work. Like RM and everyone has asked of you. This game is dying a slow painfull death. Like the one I hope you suffer!

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:40 AM
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html
And what claims do you think I've made in there?

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 10:43 AM
And what claims do you think I've made in there?
I would not paruse that site of filth if YOU paid me! Move along!

Wyn
20th August 2006, 10:45 AM
And what claims do you think I've made in there?

He's just trolling, no one is that dense.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:47 AM
He's just trolling, no one is that dense.
Mercutio said "claims." I'm just curious how many and what claims does he think I've made.

gumboot
20th August 2006, 10:47 AM
There was a formula on Wiki for Thermobaric overpressure calculation (Thermobaric=FAE). However, I wasn't sure enough to use it, as I did a calc based on a 75lb. FAE and got an answer that was something like 20 kilometers, so apparently I did something wrong :)

Oh, that was it!

Yeah I calculated it out for your value of 51,000lbs and got 4.9 million km :jaw-dropp

Although that is for 1 psi overpressure, which probably is not even worth considering... I wonder what the formula would be for 90 psi (approx guaranteed fatal).

Anyway... funnily enough NIST have already done what we're kind of trying to do.

In this (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05179.pdf) report they do a simple model to calculate how much fuel was burned off in the fireballs created when UA175 hit the South Tower.

I can't make much sense of it - as you'd expect it is INCREDIBLY technical - demonstrating the insanity of what Killtown is attempting here.

However, it is worth nothing that for an estimated burn of 1600kg of fuel (out of an estimated fuel load of 28,000kg) they produced (by my reading) a total spherical fireball radius of 70m after 2.5 seconds - or 140m across.

Now, if we're saying 51,000lbs of fuel on UA93 - that is 23,000kg.

Now, to compare this to our theoretical fireball we have to calculate spherical volume of the fireball first.

I just want to reiterate this is an appalingly shoddy calculation, given the enormous assumptions I am making, however given it is based very roughly on the NIST calculations, I figure it is better than anything Killtown has thrown up.

So for the UA175 fireball r = 70m

$$V = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$$

$$V = \frac{4}{3}\pi 70^3$$

$$V = 1,436,755.04m^3$$

Working backwards...

If volume for 1600kg = 1.4 million m^3

Purely throwing out an even-ratio calculation, a fireball consuming Killtown's 75% (17,250kg) and 95% (21,850kg) will have volumes of about 15 million m^3 and 19 million m^3.

Someone let me know if this is wrong...

$$V = \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3$$

$$V\div\frac{4}{3} = \pi r^3$$

$$V\div\frac{4}{3}\div\pi = r^3$$

So for the first example (75% burn)

$$15,000,000\div\frac{4}{3}\div\pi = r^3$$

$$3,580,986 = r^3$$

$$r = 152.99m$$

So a fireball 306m across.

Or for 95% burn:

$$19,000,000\div\frac{4}{3}\div\pi = r^3$$

$$4,535,915.878 = r^3$$

$$r = 165.534m$$

So a fireball 331m across.

Now it is important to note, in each of these cases, that the NIST calculation was only until the point where the fireballs began to rise. They continued to expand after this, and expanded even further as the fires died out and the mushroom cloud formed.

So could a 330m initial fireball produce a 600m across mushroom cloud?

Well, for comparison the Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) - the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated - had a fireball about 8-9km across, and produced a mushroom cloud 30 - 40km across. Bear in mind, despite the differing weapon, the basic physics involved in each is the same - all mushroom clouds form the same way.

Based on this very incredibly extremely rough example, you'd be looking at, easily, 1100 - 1650m across for a mushroom cloud from a 330m across fireball (and remember, based on UA175, the fireball would have reached BIGGER than 330m).

Now, I just want to stress, because it is incredibly important, that all of these calculations are INSANELY loose. A multitude of factors come into play at each step.

I have simply used a single example of a high speed airliner impact and resulting fireball, and applied the most loose interpretation of that data (and frankly, I could easily have interpreted it wrong!) scaled up to the percentage of fuel Killtown is proposing was burned in the crash of UA93.

This is not real science at all. But it at least has semi-stable foundations. I feel more comfortable with MY calculation than with Killtown's "looks about the right size".

-Andrew

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 10:48 AM
Focal length wouldn't matter because the object in focus (the plume) would still line up with the same details (red/white barn, etc).

You obviously don't know anything about photography. Focus has nothing to do with it.

I'm talking about image distortion. The background gets bigger and seems closer as the focal length of the lens gets longer. Have you looked at the pictures in my link?

Here is again some basic literature about photography that you might want to read, and learn from.

http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
http://cp.c-ij.com/english/photoshoo...unction02.html

Unfortunately, I have no skills in math, so I cannot make the proper calculations in order to measure the plume, taking into consideration the focal lenght of the lens. Maybe someone here could be kind enough to make such calculations. But you, Killtown sure as hell could show some intelligence and consideration for facts and the scientific method to consider all possible variables before accusing someone of fraud.

20th August 2006, 10:51 AM
Killtown:

What do you do for a living?

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 10:54 AM
What do you do for a living?
This! The web page hits are making him money, best guess!

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 10:55 AM
Is harrassing innocent women a job?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 10:59 AM
This is not real science at all. But it at least has semi-stable foundations. I feel more comfortable with MY calculation than with Killtown's "looks about the right size".

-Andrew
So do you concur with the lastest experiment estimates, or not?

gumboot
20th August 2006, 11:01 AM
I'm talking about image distortion. The background gets bigger and seems closer as the focal length of the lens gets longer. Have you looked at the pictures in my link?

To be fair to Killtown, when calculating scale off an aerial photo a different lens size won't affect the distance between two vector lines at a given distance from the camera.

While a wideangle lens will compress the gap between the barns (relative to the edge of frame), it will compress the background within those two vector lines by the same ratio.

Likewise, while a long lens will exaggerate the gap between the barns (relative to edge of frame) it will likewise expand the background within those two vector lines by the same ratio.

It is only when trying to judge the size of objects at an unknown distance tha t it becomes an issue.

-Andrew

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 11:01 AM
And what claims do you think I've made in there?

"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."

Claim: Her photo is fake.
Reality: You have not completed the investigation that would allow you to rule out the possibility that the official story is correct. You have not even begun that analysis, because you keep stalling and waiting for permission to continue. You have admitted, in this thread, that you did not know how to conduct that investigation.

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

Claim: there is conclusive evidence to show that the cloud is not from a 757 crash at Shanksville.
Reality: You have presented no such conclusive evidence; as above, you have not even completed the analysis that would allow you to make that claim.

"So how do I know that the mushroom cloud seen on her photo is in fact an ordnance plume and what is the other even bigger smoking gun? "

Claim: it is a fact that the cloud is an ordnance plume.
Reality: You have no evidence that it is. None. As above, you have not even completed the analysis that would allow you to reject the official story.

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

Claim: the plume did not come from the 93 crash site.
Reality: Same as above.

Claim: You conducted an analysis.
Reality: You have been asked to produce your numbers, their source, and what you did with them. You have admitted that you did not know the math involved with the proper equations. If you have indeed conducted an analysis, you have kept it quite hidden--certainly not transparent to review.

****

There are more, of course. But the first alone would be enough to merit an apology to Val, and a retraction on your blog, if you were an honest person.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 11:02 AM
But you, Killtown sure as hell could show some intelligence and consideration for facts and the scientific method to consider all possible variables before accusing someone of fraud.
Where did I do that?

gumboot
20th August 2006, 11:02 AM
So do you concur with the lastest experiment estimates, or not?

I've given you my calculations. If they don't make sense, read them again.

-Andrew

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 11:03 AM
Where did I do that?

And pretty much everytime you talk.

20th August 2006, 11:08 AM
Killtown:

What do you do for a living?Hi again.

You are currently live on the forum, and have been since before I posted the above question. Is there something complicated about it?

Wyn
20th August 2006, 11:11 AM
Mercutio said "claims." I'm just curious how many and what claims does he think I've made.

Like I said, you're just trolloing, no one is that dense.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 11:38 AM
"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."

Claim: Her photo is fake.

Dude, go back and READ for godsakes!

Killtown
20th August 2006, 11:39 AM
I've given you my calculations. If they don't make sense, read them again.

-Andrew
Andrew,

What part of:

A "yes" or "no" is all that's needed and if it's a "no," please state your concerns (it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that)

did you not understand?

20th August 2006, 11:42 AM
Andrew,

What part of:

did you not understand?

Do you enjoy making a game out of an event where ~3,000 people lost their lives?

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 11:45 AM
Dude, go back and READ for godsakes!

*sigh*

Gee, Killtown, if you have nothing in your blog worth apologizing for, why did you say that "sure", you would apologize if it turned out you could not prove your point?

Your own "sure" tells us that you know you have said things that, if baseless, are worth apologizing for. Your own comments on this thread tell us that you recognize that you did not do the appropriate math that would make those things anything other than baseless.

You have said X. You have agreed that, if you cannot back up X, you would apologize. You have, however, said X before you could back it up.

Sure.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 11:46 AM
Dude, go back and READ for godsakes!

Killtown
20th August 2006, 11:50 AM
Do you enjoy making a game out of an event where ~3,000 people lost their lives?
Dude, you have nothing productive to contribute to this experiment. Get lost.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 11:52 AM
Cool, but if you come here not to contribute to the experiment at hand, please find another thread to post non-related stuff.

Thanks.

20th August 2006, 11:54 AM
Dude, you have nothing productive to contribute to this experiment. Get lost.

You're the one playing games and making light of the tragedy that occurred that day. Instead of presenting your case you dance around, dodging and weaving against questions posed to you all the while claiming you are doing an "experiment". Grow up.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:07 PM
Instead of presenting your case you dance around, dodging and weaving against questions posed to you all the while claiming you are doing an "experiment". Grow up.
What part of "I'm trying to prove your guy's plume theory" do you not understand?

If you don't like this thread, buzz off. No one is forcing you to be here.

chran
20th August 2006, 12:11 PM
What part of "I'm trying to prove your guy's plume theory" do you not understand? The part where "we" don't HAVE a plume theory, perhaps?

Wyn
20th August 2006, 12:11 PM
What part of "I'm trying to prove your guy's plume theory" do you not understand?

If you don't like this thread, buzz off. No one is forcing you to be here.

Yep, just trolling.

Yoink
20th August 2006, 12:12 PM
This whole experiment shouldn't be based on one person's assumptions alone.

I think my irony-meter exploded when Killburg wrote this.

Kurztown, R. Mackey (who really is a saint), went to considerable trouble to give you a detailed and explicit calculation that suggested a plausible and possible mechanism whereby the initial fireball from the crash of Flight 93 would have been more than large enough to generate the mushroom cloud observed in the McClatchey photograph.

Your response to this was to say "nuh-uhhhh." For you, the only "first principle" that matters is "does it fit my own personal, uninformed best guess."

Tell us, do you apply this principle to all the findings of science, regardless of how surprising they seem to an uniformed layperson? Do you refute the findings of quantum science (nobody's "gut feelings" about the behaviour of sub atomic particles have ever been borne out in experiment)? Do you dispute plate tectonics (does anything seem more counter-intuitive than the fact that the very land beneath our feet is in a state of permanent drift)? Do you dispute Einstein's E=MC squared (there's no "informed guess" that would lead us to think that mass can be converted to energy)?

Or is it only in the field of plane crashes that you think that science has nothing to tell us, and that your "gut feelings" should be held to be the final and unchallengeable standard by which all other evidence should be measured?

If you have anything other to offer to this discussion than "I don't think it could be that large" (which is, I should stress, the sole basis for the claims you have advanced) now would be a good time. So far you have done nothing but cement everybody's opinion that you

A) made a public accusation against someone on the basis of no evidence whatsoever

B) are manifestly (and confessedly) incompetent to even follow (let alone perform independently) the mathematical arguments that would be necessary to make any kind of informed estimate of the plausible size of the cloud formed by the crash of Flight 93.

and

C) are too cowardly to confess your error and apologize.

One day you will think back on this "argument" (it's hard to see it as a real argument given that you have advanced not a single reason to support your claim) and burn with shame. Not shame at having demonstrated such profound ignorance (there's nothing shameful about ignorance--only in refusing to amend it), not shame in having so comprehensively failed to support your argument (losing arguments is the way we learn), but deep and lasting shame at having made such a public and scurrilous accusation against an innocent person on the basis of nothing more than a passing whim, and for the cheap reward of getting applause from uncritical Conspiracy nuts. The only way you can mitigate some of that future shame is by making a very public and very clear apology to Val McClatchey.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:20 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:21 PM
The part where "we" don't HAVE a plume theory, perhaps?
Um, yes you do. Have you guy's proven this plume came from the crash spot?

kookbreaker
20th August 2006, 12:23 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

He is very welcome here. You do not control this forum and Yoink makes many good points that you see fit to have avoided over and over. You had best deal with those points before you can even think of daring to tell someone to go away.

Stellafane
20th August 2006, 12:29 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

HA! Killtime is trying to resort to that tried-and-true tactic adopted at the LC forum: If you can't answer 'em, ban 'em. Problem is, he's not a mod here, and neither is one of his psychotic little pals like johndoex.

Kinda sucks, eh Killtime? Why don't you just put Yoink on Ignore? Trust me, it doesn't matter what he says about you, you've reached the saturation point on the ridiculous meter all on your own.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:30 PM
Why don't you just put Yoink on Ignore?
You can do that here??? Where's that button?!

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 12:30 PM
Cool, but if you come here not to contribute to the experiment at hand, please find another thread to post non-related stuff.

Thanks.

One quick experiment question, then: Is it considered acceptable to publish one's conclusions before one has calculated one's results?

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 12:32 PM
Um, yes you do. Have you guy's proven this plume came from the crash spot?

The only way this picture would matter at all is if it is shown to be both real, and inconsistent with the impact. So far, you've provided no reason to believe it is inconsistent. Given the preponderence of other evidence, it's more reasonable to assume the photo is accurate, than to believe the uninformed rantings of a random internet loon.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 12:32 PM
Um, yes you do. Have you guy's proven this plume came from the crash spot?
Experimental method question: Are you familiar with the term "null hypothesis"? Can you see where it applies here?

Stellafane
20th August 2006, 12:33 PM
You can do that here??? Where's that button?!

Click the person's name, choose the next-to-last option.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:33 PM
One quick experiment question, then: Is it considered acceptable to publish one's conclusions before one has calculated one's results?
I've calculated mine, that's why I published it on my blog.

Now I'm trying to calculate yours. Do you concur with your guy's estimates?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:35 PM
Click the person's name, choose the next-to-last option.
I just figured that out and they're on ignore. Now, are you going to contribute positive things for this experiment? If not, you'll be on ignore next.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 12:37 PM
I've calculated mine, that's why I published it on my blog.

Bull**it.

You are lying. You didn't "calculate" anything. You eyeballed and guessed. Which is the same thing you're doing here.

You didn't even know what math of physics would apply to it, you were trying to compare it to other crashes of completely different types (planbes of a differing size, at differeing speeds, with differing fuel loads, impacting at a differing angle).

And if you have calculated it, that's what we've been asking for since page one. WHERE are your calculations? Because (hint: this is on the test) pulling anumber from your a is not "calculating".

You've calculated exactly nothing. You made up numbers that made your pet theory sound good, trashed a woman's name based on nothing except that you didn't agree with her, and accused huindreds of government employees and civillians of being accessories to mass murder.

None of which has involved any sort of calculation.

kookbreaker
20th August 2006, 12:41 PM
I just figured that out and they're on ignore. Now, are you going to contribute positive things for this experiment? If not, you'll be on ignore next.

Most cowards don't openly boast of their cowardice.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 12:43 PM
Most cowards don't openly boast of their cowardice.

This is CT world, kook. Up is down, right is left, stupid is smart and coward is brave.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:48 PM
Most cowards don't openly boast of their cowardice.
Welcome to ignore!

Belz...
20th August 2006, 12:48 PM
Ok, I need you guys to concur with these figures for your theory. A "yes" or "no" is all that's needed and if it's a "no," please state your concerns (it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that):

Oh, yes it does. But I guess that IS too complicated for you.

I feel like we're caught in a time-loop, here. Not sure which one, though.

Yoink
20th August 2006, 12:50 PM
I've calculated mine

I don't think the word "calculated" means what Kurztown thinks it means.

Skibum
20th August 2006, 12:51 PM
Welcome to ignore!

LOL, my two year old does something very similar.

Sticks his fingers in his ears and goes na na na I can't hear you.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 12:52 PM
I've calculated mine, that's why I published it on my blog.

Now I'm trying to calculate yours. Do you concur with your guy's estimates?

"Our guy's estimates", in this case, approximate the null hypothesis against which you have supposedly been testing your own numbers. You could not have properly evaluated your own without a proper understanding of the null hypothesis. Your job in this particular experiment is not to show that your idea is possible, it is to show that the null hypothesis is improbable enough that it can be rejected. You have not done so, and so you cannot draw a conclusion in favor of your own ideas.

This is elementary experimental methodology.

As Huntsman notes, even taking your "I've calculated mine" seriously is impossible given the numbers you have presented. Perhaps you do have numbers you have worked from; all you show are conclusions, and not the raw numbers you worked with, nor where you got them, nor what you did with them.

Have you ever had any classwork in experimental methodology or statistics? If not, you might wish to. If you have, it is time to dig up the books and refresh your memory.

kookbreaker
20th August 2006, 12:53 PM
LOL, my two year old does something very similar.

Sticks his fingers in his ears and goes na na na I can't hear you.

I think your two year old is smarter, and probably braver.

Yoink
20th August 2006, 12:53 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

Ah, I was right. Killtown doesn't like being exposed as Mossad agent extraordinaire Sivan Kurzburg (Black Belt in Celebratory Lighter Flicking; leader of the elite Mossad "Cover-Blowing" Unit).

Strange that he doesn't realize that I have exposed his identity using his own logic: "if you can't explicitly disprove the hypothesis I have extraced from my lower intestine, then it's true!"

Belz...
20th August 2006, 12:53 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

That's not for you to decide. This is a public forum.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 12:55 PM
You can do that here??? Where's that button?!

Uh-oh. Killtown is now aware of the ignore function. I can now safely assume that he'll be talking to himself, soon enough. This means we're that much closer to him going back to LC forum claiming victory.

"They weren't saying anything anymore. They conceded my points!!!111!"

Killtown
20th August 2006, 12:55 PM
We are testing out the "official theory" here that Val's plume is from Flight 93 crashing at the reported spot.

Anybody who doesn't wish to participate is free to not post here.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 12:56 PM
Um, yes you do. Have you guy's proven this plume came from the crash spot?

OH!! You don't mean that we HAVE a theory, per se. You mean that we have a theory that you ASSIGNED to us.

Got it.

20th August 2006, 12:56 PM
That's not for you to decide. This is a public forum.

At least geggy had the intensinal fortitude to address peoples' counter-points rather than stuffy digits in earholes and pretending everyone agrees.

Skibum
20th August 2006, 12:56 PM
I think your two year old is smarter, and probably braver.

I'll pass along the compliment, as soon as I can get his fingers out of his ears. :D J/K

Belz...
20th August 2006, 12:58 PM
The only way this picture would matter at all is if it is shown to be both real, and inconsistent with the impact. So far, you've provided no reason to believe it is inconsistent. Given the preponderence of other evidence, it's more reasonable to assume the photo is accurate, than to believe the uninformed rantings of a random internet loon.

No, no, no. Huntsman, Killtown cannot POSSIBLY be random. If he were, he'd be right at least SOME of the time.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 12:59 PM
We are testing out the "official theory" here that Val's plume is from Flight 93 crashing at the reported spot.

Oh, good; nice to see you know what step we are on. Note, please, that this should have been one of the steps on the way to evaluating your own theory. As such, your own theory cannot possibly be claimed as "tested", let alone "supported".

Basic experimental methodology.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 01:00 PM
Oh, good; nice to see you know what step we are on. Note, please, that this should have been one of the steps on the way to evaluating your own theory. As such, your own theory cannot possibly be claimed as "tested", let alone "supported".

Basic experimental methodology.
Ok, are you done whining, or can we proceed?

Belz...
20th August 2006, 01:00 PM
At least geggy had the intensinal fortitude to address peoples' counter-points rather than stuffy digits in earholes and pretending everyone agrees.

I think Killtown's actually worse than Christophera, who at least understood that people disagreed, and was trying to make an argument.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 01:13 PM
Ah, life is so much better here with the ignore button!

Ok, here's what we got so far...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft (1 football field)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft (7 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

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

If everybody's cool with these estimates, we can proceed with discussing that plume's color characteristics.

Dave_46
20th August 2006, 01:15 PM
Ok, are you done whining, or can we proceed?

So, when someone disagrees they're whining. OK

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 01:16 PM
Gotta love it.

"Okay, is this right? Everyone agree with this?"

"No, we don't. It isn't accurate, it's based on poor data, and it won't prove anything."

"Okay, I'm ignoring you. Now, anyone else have a problem with it? I want all your opinions..."

LOL

9/11 "TRUTHTM" movement: Defending freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas (as long as it toes our party line).

Dave_46
20th August 2006, 01:16 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

Yes he is.

(Have I got on ignore in two posts?)

rwguinn
20th August 2006, 01:21 PM
I think Killtown's actually worse than Christophera, who at least understood that people disagreed, and was trying to make an argument.
ignore can be defeated
In response to:

I've calculated mine
Yoink said:
I don't think the word "calculated" means what Kurztown thinks it means. Today 02:48 PM

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 01:23 PM
[SCENE: A gray, dingy courtyard in a heavily urbanized area. Several young children stand in a line, at attention, wearing uniforms. Fritz, a Free Speech Officer, walks in front of the line of children...]

Fritz: Are we sheep?

Children: Sir, no sir!

Fritz: Are we followers?

Children: Sir, no sir!

Fritz: Are we free thinkers?

Children: Sir, yes sir!

Fritz: Yes, yes, we are all free thinking enough to see how wonderful our mighty leader is...Hie...um, praise Dylan!

Children: Praise Dylan!

Fritz: Now, off to re-education with you! We must remove all that government propoganda.

[Children exit right, through a door labelled "Labotomy Clinic"]

Killtown
20th August 2006, 01:26 PM
ignore can be defeated
And can be re-defeated.

Buh-bye!

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:27 PM
[SCENE: A gray, dingy courtyard in a heavily urbanized area. Several young children stand in a line, at attention, wearing uniforms. Fritz, a Free Speech Officer, walks in front of the line of children...]

Funny, Fritz is one of my budgies name! :D

ghost707
20th August 2006, 01:32 PM
Yoink, get off this thread. You are not welcome here.

Yoink is just telling you what you know is true.

Getting upset with people because of their insight is sophomoric.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 01:37 PM
Ok, back on topic. Here's what we got so far...

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft (1 football field)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft (7 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

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

If everybody's cool with these estimates, we can proceed with discussing that plume's color characteristics.

Yoink
20th August 2006, 01:38 PM
Wow, Killtown put Arkan_Wolfshade on ignore! He REALLY doesn't want to understand his errors, does he? Be interesting to see if R. Mackey gets there eventually.

While I'm speaking to everyone but Killtown: I notice that some 8 people voted for the photograph NOT being authentic in Killtown's poll. I haven't really seen more than one person speak in defense of K's position, though. Would anyone who actually agrees with Killtown but hasn't yet said so publicly care to say A) if they're still persuaded by his "argument" (I can summarize it for you here in case you've forgotten some of its finer points: "The cloud is too big because my gut tells me it is too big") and B) why?

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:40 PM
Geez, I'm kind of flattered not to be included in Killtown's list... :rolleyes:

ghost707
20th August 2006, 01:43 PM
I think I see where killtown is going with this........

3" rebar on 4' centers.

Skibum
20th August 2006, 01:43 PM
Geez, I'm kind of flattered not to be included in Killtown's list... :rolleyes:

Give him time, He's only been working on it for just over an hour.

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:47 PM
Maybe he should put everyone on ignore, then he could both finish his experiment and have a consensus.

Skibum
20th August 2006, 01:51 PM
Maybe he should put everyone on ignore, then he could both finish his experiment and have a consensus.

I'm not even sure a consensus would even be possible then as his theories often contradict each other.

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:54 PM
I'm not even sure a consensus would even be possible then as his theories often contradict each other.

Ouch, that's painly true.

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 02:58 PM
Ok, are you done whining, or can we proceed?

You asked for us to stay on the topic of your "experiment". That which you characterized as "whining" was a methodological criticism of your "experiment".

Did you at least understand my "whining" criticism? Do you see why it is a lie to post on your website that you have calculated your results, when in fact you have not?

So...are you treating this as an actual experiment?

Earl The Tall
20th August 2006, 03:15 PM
Wow, Killtown put Arkan_Wolfshade on ignore! He REALLY doesn't want to understand his errors, does he? Be interesting to see if R. Mackey gets there eventually.

While I'm speaking to everyone but Killtown: I notice that some 8 people voted for the photograph NOT being authentic in Killtown's poll. I haven't really seen more than one person speak in defense of K's position, though. Would anyone who actually agrees with Killtown but hasn't yet said so publicly care to say A) if they're still persuaded by his "argument" (I can summarize it for you here in case you've forgotten some of its finer points: "The cloud is too big because my gut tells me it is too big") and B) why?

I have stopped by attention to the poll a few pages ago. Though I am a little curiouse myself. I know there are some other CTers/ist/911 deniers on the board. I welcome their explantions as well.

Stellafane
20th August 2006, 03:16 PM
I just figured that out and they're on ignore. Now, are you going to contribute positive things for this experiment? If not, you'll be on ignore next.

Oh please! Oh please! I wanna join the new club, "I Got Put On Killtown's Ignore List"! Can you just do it as, you know, a favor, or do I have to bring up the anti-Semite thing again?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 03:30 PM
That which you characterized as "whining" was a methodological criticism of your "experiment".

If you don't like this experiment, feel free NOT to participate.

Gravy
20th August 2006, 03:32 PM
You asked for us to stay on the topic of your "experiment". That which you characterized as "whining" was a methodological criticism of your "experiment".

Did you at least understand my "whining" criticism? Do you see why it is a lie to post on your website that you have calculated your results, when in fact you have not?

So...are you treating this as an actual experiment?

Killtown, please respond to these questions now. Then explain why you haven't apologized to Val McClatchey.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 03:32 PM
If you don't like this experiment, feel free NOT to participate.

You have no idea what science is, do you? Or how investigation is supposed to be done?

*chuckle*

jhunter1163
20th August 2006, 03:33 PM
Congrats Stellafane, you're in the club!

Killtown
20th August 2006, 03:35 PM
If everybody's cool with these estimates, we can proceed with discussing that plume's color characteristics.

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 100m/330ft (1 football field)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 700m/2,230ft (7 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)

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

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 03:35 PM
Congrats Stellafane, you're in the club!

I think the club is everyone except Killtown.

It's much easier to win a debate when your only opponent is yourself.

Because, we all know that's what Killtown wants. To win the debate. The actual truth of the matter is secondary.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 03:59 PM
I guess we'll move on to the plume color. If anybody highly objects to the estimates so far, we can go back and address them.

First, I've been told the fireball 93 made was different because of the speed it crashed. Will this make a difference in the plume color from the onset?

I made two sample explosion pics to try to compare how 93's fireball would have reacted:

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

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6391/b52moabfc3.jpg

This first pic is from the B-52 crashing at a slow speed where I'm told the fireball "spills" out.

The 2nd pic is from a MOAB. Even though this explosion is from a bomb blast, is this explosion more characteristic of how 93's might have been?

Notice that the MOAB blast DOES leave a plume color similar to Val's plume.

kevin
20th August 2006, 04:03 PM
We are testing out the "official theory" here that Val's plume is from Flight 93 crashing at the reported spot.

Anybody who doesn't wish to participate is free to not post here.

Nah, we're criticizing your ability to prove it's a fake photo. Most have not taken a stance as to if it's real or not. In fact MOST of the criticism here has been constructive criticism that if you actually followed might actually prove your point. But you'll never know that.

Gravy
20th August 2006, 04:09 PM
Killtown, why haven't you answered Mercutio's questions, and why haven't you apologized to Val McClatchey?

Wyn
20th August 2006, 04:10 PM
I guess we'll move on to the plume color. If anybody highly objects to the estimates so far, we can go back and address them.

The 2nd pic is from a MOAB. Even though this explosion is from a bomb blast, is this explosion more characteristic of how 93's might have been?

How much Jet B was carried in the MOAB?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 04:10 PM
Killtown, why haven't you answered Mercutio's questions, and why haven't you apologized to Val McClatchey?
We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 04:12 PM
We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts so I can add you to ignore if it doesn't fit with what I've already decided.

There, fixed that for ya :)

Killtown
20th August 2006, 04:15 PM
How much Jet B was carried in the MOAB?
Well if you'd like to show me what the fireball from 93 looked like, feel free to post a pic.

Stellafane
20th August 2006, 04:16 PM
Now that Killtime has (hopefully) put me on Ignore, I'd like to ask a question that might actually get answered: is anybody following this? What's the deal with his "experiment," and what if anything is he trying to prove? Is he trying to get people to commit to some numbers so he can shoot them down? Or is he just off in his own little playpen somewhere? (I've read all the posts here, and to be honest, I can't figure out what he's trying to do.)

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 04:19 PM
Now that Killtime has (hopefully) put me on Ignore, I'd like to ask a question that might actually get answered: is anybody following this? What's the deal with his "experiment," and what if anything is he trying to prove? Is he trying to get people to commit to some numbers so he can shoot them down? Or is he just off in his own little playpen somewhere? (I've read all the posts here, and to be honest, I can't figure out what he's trying to do.)

I really don't know, nor do I care at this point. I believe he's trying to pin us to some numbers, so when he gets an answer that varies by 10% or 25% he can scream "See, you're wrong!!11!!eleventy-one!!"

Of course, ignoring the several pages wherein we tried to explain to him that his numbers are, at best, guesstimates and you can't really reach any meaningful answers that way (at best a range of values).

Gravy
20th August 2006, 04:22 PM
Once again:

You asked for us to stay on the topic of your "experiment". That which you characterized as "whining" was a methodological criticism of your "experiment".

Did you at least understand my "whining" criticism? Do you see why it is a lie to post on your website that you have calculated your results, when in fact you have not?

So...are you treating this as an actual experiment?

Killtown, you make allegations and and insinuations on your website that are not supported by any evidence you have provided. You have both stated and shown that you do not know how to prove or disprove your claims, despite all the help you've had here.

Without basis, you have disparaged people who were affected by 9/11. Only you have the power to make amends.

No more hiding from your actions, Killtown. You've treated people badly for no reason. Stop this childish behavior and face your responsibilities as a man.

Don't give us more excuses. Just do it. Will you? Yes or no?

Wyn
20th August 2006, 04:24 PM
Well if you'd like to show me what the fireball from 93 looked like, feel free to post a pic.

How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 04:25 PM
How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

*Raises hand, jumps up and down*

Oh! Oh! I know! Pick me, Mr. Wyn!!!! Oh! Oh! Oh!

Wyn
20th August 2006, 04:27 PM
*Raises hand, jumps up and down*

Oh! Oh! I know! Pick me, Mr. Wyn!!!! Oh! Oh! Oh!

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 04:33 PM
No more hiding from your actions, Killtown. You've treated people badly for no reason. Stop this childish behavior and face your responsibilities as a man.

K Clown has not once shown that ability! I am not sure that claiming him a male, is quite clear. I see a juvey, fem at best. Not to knock females! He shows your intel, up to a point. Goes off on hysteria! I think we all know where that is from, and ends up! Stop give'n humor to this Clown! I' have said this too much, sorry! DONE! Page 37 for C's sake, read the circular joke, that it is!
DT

Killtown
20th August 2006, 04:34 PM
If you don't know why I used that explosion as a sample, then there is nothing more I can do for you.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 04:35 PM
Once again:

Killtown, you make allegations and and insinuations on your website that are not supported by any evidence you have provided. You have both stated and shown that you do not know how to prove or disprove your claims, despite all the help you've had here.

Without basis, you have disparaged people who were affected by 9/11. Only you have the power to make amends.

No more hiding from your actions, Killtown. You've treated people badly for no reason. Stop this childish behavior and face your responsibilities as a man.

Don't give us more excuses. Just do it. Will you? Yes or no?
We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks for participating.

Gravy
20th August 2006, 04:36 PM
Once again:

Killtown, you make allegations and and insinuations on your website that are not supported by any evidence you have provided. You have both stated and shown that you do not know how to prove or disprove your claims, despite all the help you've had here.

Without basis, you have disparaged people who were affected by 9/11. Only you have the power to make amends.

No more hiding from your actions, Killtown. You've treated people badly for no reason. Stop this childish behavior and face your responsibilities as a man.

Don't give us more excuses. Just do it. Will you? Yes or no?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 04:37 PM
Gravy,

We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks for participating.

Wyn
20th August 2006, 04:37 PM
If you don't know why I used that explosion as a sample, then there is nothing more I can do for you.

How much Jet B is carried in a MOAB?

Gravy
20th August 2006, 04:39 PM
We haven't finished the experiment yet.

That's the whole point Killtown. You have disparaged people without having done any kind of experiment to determine if there was any validity to your claim, and you ignored all that evidence that supports Val McClatchey's story.

Will you now apologize to her? No excuses about needing to finish work that should have been done long ago.

Will you apologize now? Yes or no?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 04:43 PM
Gravy,

We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks for participating.

Gravy
20th August 2006, 04:45 PM
Gravy,

We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks for participating.
That's the whole point Killtown. You have disparaged people without having done any kind of experiment to determine if there was any validity to your claim, and you ignored all that evidence that supports Val McClatchey's story.

Will you now apologize to her? No excuses about needing to finish work that should have been done long ago.

Will you apologize now? Yes or no?

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 04:48 PM
If you don't like this experiment, feel free NOT to participate.
Science is an endeavor practiced by a community. Critical analysis is a crucial part; if people who did not like experiments simply ignored them, science could not progress. Take a look at Huntsman's sig--the first part.

If I do not like your experiment, it is incumbent on me to speak up, and to give you a chance to correct your errors or, in defending your idea, to point out my errors. Anything less is negligence, if one chooses to participate in the scientific process.

I could feel free not to participate. But that would leave a bad "experiment" unchecked. Not something I am keen on, sorry.

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 04:50 PM
Gravy,

We haven't finished the experiment yet.

We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks for participating.

How dare you!, It is bad enough for you that the best teacher I have seen, chose to leave you. You now take your liberties to Gravy. Grow up lad, you have alot left to do! Please stop giving humor to one, with none! Save his own pathetic excuse for it!

Gravy
20th August 2006, 04:51 PM
A reminder: you call McClatchey's photo the "smokingest smoking gun" as proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

A "smoking gun" is conclusive proof.

You have not only not provided conclusive proof, you've shown that you have no idea why your methods are wrong, despite all the help you've received here.

Will you apologize now, yes or no?

Skibum
20th August 2006, 04:51 PM
What exactly is this experiment he keeps ranting about?

IMO, his "experiment" is to push the envelope and stir the pot, just enough to get himself banned in a "controversial" manner.

That, and to see how long he can keep a pointless thread going.

If this were a true experiment, we would have to gather up several thousand gallons of jet fuel and light it in order to make our own fireballs for comparison.

That sounds like lots of fun, I'm in.

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 05:00 PM
That, and to see how long he can keep a pointless thread going.

My point has always been that , a psychopath like this one will have a point. Not the one expected , however! Heed my words!

Killtown
20th August 2006, 05:02 PM
Science is an endeavor practiced by a community. Critical analysis is a crucial part; if people who did not like experiments simply ignored them, science could not progress. Take a look at Huntsman's sig--the first part.

If I do not like your experiment, it is incumbent on me to speak up, and to give you a chance to correct your errors or, in defending your idea, to point out my errors. Anything less is negligence, if one chooses to participate in the scientific process.

I could feel free not to participate. But that would leave a bad "experiment" unchecked. Not something I am keen on, sorry.
We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks for participating.

Stellafane
20th August 2006, 05:04 PM
What exactly is this experiment he keeps ranting about?

IMO, his "experiment" is to push the envelope and stir the pot, just enough to get himself banned in a "controversial" manner.

That, and to see how long he can keep a pointless thread going.

If this were a true experiment, we would have to gather up several thousand gallons of jet fuel and light it in order to make our own fireballs for comparison.

That sounds like lots of fun, I'm in.

That'll be a first; banned due to tedium. But if anyone is up to it, Killtime's the one.

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 05:06 PM
We are on the subject of the plume color now. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.

Hate all caps, but here I go! STOP THIS #\$%@ LET THE SPIRIT GO. IT IS OUT TO GIVE YOU ALL CARPAL T. IT WIL NOT BE LIKE A SNICKERS.*SNICKER* YES, NOTHING MORE. RM TOOK A BREAK! NUFF SAID!

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 05:06 PM
I guess we'll move on to the plume color. If anybody highly objects to the estimates so far, we can go back and address them.

First, I've been told the fireball 93 made was different because of the speed it crashed. Will this make a difference in the plume color from the onset?

I made two sample explosion pics to try to compare how 93's fireball would have reacted:

This first pic is from the B-52 crashing at a slow speed where I'm told the fireball "spills" out.

The 2nd pic is from a MOAB. Even though this explosion is from a bomb blast, is this explosion more characteristic of how 93's might have been?

Notice that the MOAB blast DOES leave a plume color similar to Val's plume.So...these pics are, of course, useless.

Why?

Ok...

The colour of a plume in a photo will depend on a number of things. Among these are...the spectrum of light illuminating the plume (this will depend on time of day and atmospheric conditions), the angle of light (dependent on size of plume, distance from plume, time of day), reflective properties of plume (dependent on composition of plume, density, angle of light), absorbtion spectrum of air between camera and plume (dependent on distance and haze, itself dependent on air impurities), and spectral sensitivity of camera (varies by chip and megapixels). Others may have slipped my mind.

It is obvious that the backgrounds of your pics are different; this means that one or more (very likely more) of these variables are different. Your pics are not a match for Val's pic. Unless you have that information, pics you have chosen that "look right" to you may be utterly inappropriate. Indeed, pics that "look right", but are taken under different conditions, may actually be evidence against their plumes being similar.

Are the above variables among those you "double checked"?

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 05:08 PM
Oops, how do I delete?

Gravy
20th August 2006, 05:09 PM
Killtown, if you want people to participate in your experiment, you need to tell them why your methods are valid.

You have repeatedly dismissed the scientific method.

So, what is YOUR method? Please list here how you believe you can go about conclusively proving or disproving that Val McClatchey's photo does not show the aftermath of flight 93's crash.

You don't have to go into detail. A simple outline is all that's needed.

Killtown
20th August 2006, 05:10 PM
The colour of a plume in a photo will depend on a number of things. Among these are...the spectrum of light illuminating the plume (this will depend on time of day and atmospheric conditions), the angle of light (dependent on size of plume, distance from plume, time of day), reflective properties of plume (dependent on composition of plume, density, angle of light), absorbtion spectrum of air between camera and plume (dependent on distance and haze, itself dependent on air impurities), and spectral sensitivity of camera (varies by chip and megapixels). Others may have slipped my mind.

It is obvious that the backgrounds of your pics are different; this means that one or more (very likely more) of these variables are different. Your pics are not a match for Val's pic. Unless you have that information, pics you have chosen that "look right" to you may be utterly inappropriate. Indeed, pics that "look right", but are taken under different conditions, may actually be evidence against their plumes being similar.

Are the above variables among those you "double checked"?
See these pics...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-comparison3.1.jpg

Why is the plume color in the left pic so different from the plume in the right pic?

Killtown
20th August 2006, 05:12 PM
Killtown, if you want people to participate in your experiment, you need to tell them why your methods are valid.
All the estimates are YOUR guy's estimates that YOU guy's came up with. I'm just being a moderator.

Wyn
20th August 2006, 05:20 PM
All the estimates are YOUR guy's estimates that YOU guy's came up with. I'm just being a moderator.

How much Jet B is in a MOAB?

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 05:24 PM
Why is the plume color in the left pic so different from the plume in the right pic?

And the reason you can't already answer this is why we laugh at you. And also more evidence that you are scum, who believes in accusing without evidence, damn the consequences.

Composition.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 05:26 PM
We haven't finished the experiment yet.

Irrelevant. The point is, you don't know if the photo is fake, therefore you have no conclusive proof, therefore what you said about Val was a lie. Please retract and apologise. Maybe THEN we can proceed.

EDIT: My ignore list: Arkan_Wolfshade, Belz, defaultdotxbe, Dog Town, Huntsman, kookbreaker, Pardalis, rwguinn, Skibum, Stellafane, Sword_Of_Truth, Yoink

Killclown's got me on ignore. Can someone slap him upside the head with my response above ?

Mercutio
20th August 2006, 05:27 PM
See these pics...

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-comparison3.1.jpg

Why is the plume color in the left pic so different from the plume in the right pic?

In order to answer, I need to know...

Where is the sun in each pic? (no shadows to tell me)

How far away is the camera? (in left, impossible to tell, as bottom is obscured by trees which may be near to or quite far from plume)

What time of day for each? (mostly for spectral reasons, but also for angle)

What atmospheric conditions? (dry desert air absorbs different spectral frequencies than humid air)

What is the composition of each plume? (for spectral absorbtion)

What is the density of each plume? (for spectral absorbtion)

What is the make of camera for each pic? (spectral sensitivity of chip)

Some of these can be adjusted for; if we know the camera makes, we can adjust. If we know the illuminating spectrum, we can adjust. Angle could be a bit more difficult, as it interacts with composition of plume and density.

Unless you know each of these variables, you have unaccounted-for variability that could invalidate any "it looks similar" sort of analyses.