Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Yoink]

Killtown, for the love of whoever or whatever you love:

Clearly you think you have some evidence that the photo is incompatible with the OV.

Why won't you just tell us what it is? If you make your case in black and white, then that case is there. If we criticize it and our criticisms are correct, you can withdraw the claim. If we criticize it and our criticisms are false, then you can point out where they are false. The record will be there for all to see. If you have made a convincing case, then regardless of whether or not we agree with you, your triumph will be recorded for all to see.

The "experiment" you think you are engaged in now is simply absurd. You're asking us to agree to a set of variables which are all at best back-of-the-envelope calculations. Even if they end up generating an answer wildly inconsistent with the plume observed in the photograph that will neither prove nor disprove anything at all. The fact that we have "agreed" to them (if we ever do) won't magically make them correct, it certainly won't make them complete (you simply ignore every question put to you about the many, many, many variables that we know are important to the equation and that we know we have no available data to determine).

Again, I ask you to realize that WE DON'T HAVE A THEORY. The sum total of our position is "you have not yet made your case." That's it. You can't "prove us wrong" with whatever equations you're hoping to do, because we DON'T HAVE AN HYPOTHESIS other than the null-hypothesis that Flight 93 caused the crash.

So, if you have some reason, some observation, some scrap of evidence which you think disproves that null hypothesis, just put it forward. If you don't have it, then you are confessing that you baselessly slandered Val McClatchey.

[ghost707]

2001: A Space Odyssey

Damn! missed it by 1!

[Hellbound]

Where do you get 30-70% fuel burn rate? Why couldn't 99% of the fuel burn?

Also, putting in the observed plume size as a "variable" in an equation that is supposed to generate the range of possible plume sizes is hilarious stupid.

That's from me.

I find it unlikely that, by the time of that photo, 95% of the fuel would have burned. Is it possible? Sure, but unlikely I'd think. What do I base my opinion on? Not a lot ;) SO my guesstimates aren't accurate.

Consider, though, a percentage of the burned fuel will be aerosolized. SO:

0.5% aerosolized: 187.5 lbs. TNT equivalent
1% aerosolized: 375 lbs. TNT equivalent
10% aerosolized 3,750 lbs. TNT equivalent
etc.

It doesn't take much. And for it to go up that quickly, at this point we're pretty much limiting oursleves to the aerosolized and rapid-combustion fuel, not any that might have burned later.

[Hutch]

I. HAVE. HAD. ENOUGH. OF. YOU!

If it was good enough for James Tiberius Kirk, it's good enough for me.

Deadburg, you have carried on much too long with no real apparent interest in doing a lick of work.

Murderville, you lack of math is appalling, your lack of logicial thinking is total, and your lack of the ability to carry on a conversation is laughable if it wasn't so sad.

So here it is: I (and I think the majority of the people here) hold that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, PA on 9-11; that the fuel and other contaminints (dirts, aircraft parts, other material) were blasted into the air by the force of the impact and were ignited by the energy/heat (both kinetic or engines) into a fireball that created a particle cloud that rose and spread to the size photographed by Val. In our defense we have provided mathematics, physics, and geometic parameters. I think I speak for many of my colleagues in that we see no reason to doubt that the, as you like to call it, the OCT, is plausible and meets the known factual information and allows for the unknown variables such as Val's timing.

We have shown our work time and again. We have linked it, calculated it, researched it, and when necessary modified it based on new data.

Your stand has been that no plane made the plume and that it was an ordance explosion. For this you show pictures. PICTURES! Not math, not physics, not any type of proof--PICTURES!

I said this before and I will say it for the last time:

We are satisfied by the math and science that the plume captured by Val's photo is from flight 93. SHOW US THE MATH AND PHYSICS THAT PROVE US WRONG. PUT UP OR ADMIT YOU HAVE NOTHING. NADA. NIL. THAT THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE KILLTOWN IS REALLY JUST A FRIGHTENED MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

And be done with it.

Here endeth the rant.

[Hellbound]

*Huntsman stands and flicks his lighter in a celebratory fashion*

:D

[ghost707]

We are satisfied by the math and science that the plume captured by Val's photo is from flight 93.



I concur.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's from me.

I find it unlikely that, by the time of that photo, 95% of the fuel would have burned. Is it possible? Sure, but unlikely I'd think. What do I base my opinion on? Not a lot ;) SO my guesstimates aren't accurate.

Consider, though, a percentage of the burned fuel will be aerosolized. SO:

0.5% aerosolized: 187.5 lbs. TNT equivalent
1% aerosolized: 375 lbs. TNT equivalent
10% aerosolized 3,750 lbs. TNT equivalent
etc.

It doesn't take much. And for it to go up that quickly, at this point we're pretty much limiting oursleves to the aerosolized and rapid-combustion fuel, not any that might have burned later.

Would the ignition of the aerosolized fuel cause (some or all of) the remaining liquid form fuel to aerosolize?

eta: I don't think I've ever seen Hutch snap before. *stands back in awe*

[Dog Town]

*Huntsman stands and flicks his lighter in a celebratory fashion*
*dog town and staff do the wave, while flicking lighters*Woooooo!
WoW that really does feel good! Back to work! Come on K Clown deal the final downcard!

[Hellbound]

Would the ignition of the aerosolized fuel cause (some or all of) the remaining liquid form fuel to aerosolize?

eta: I don't think I've ever seen Hutch snap before. *stands back in awe*

Possibly, but a large portion of the fuel is going to be driven into the ground, as well.

Here's my thinking:

IMagine the impact as the point of origin of an explosion (which it essentially is, at those speeds). You can model an explosion as an expanding sphere. Assuming equal distribution of shrapnel, debris, and fuel, with a point of origin at ground level, half the fuel gets buried into the ground and half sprays upwards or outwards, aerosolized by the force of impact, and igniting as soon as it spreads far enough to reach the right fuel-air mix. What's in the ground is not likely to aerosolize unless it's tossed back up somehow, and even then will likely stay atttached to dirt and other debris, so would not make an FAE-type explosion but just a burn. THis additional fuel may have burned, but I doubt it would aerosolize and explode.

Of course, in an impact like this, more debris would be thrown forward (inertia would carry more of it into the ground), so even 50% seems a bit wishful thiking to me. However, becasue of the complexity of the crash I can't rule anything out. Because it hit sideways and at an angle, the wings could have been torn in a manner to spread/spray more fuel, etc. However, I think a 50% baseline seems reasonable, and I don't think it'd get much higher than that, so I guesstimated 70%.

[Yoink]

Killtown, you're obviously worried that if you advance your best case against the authenticity of the photograph that we'll shift the goalposts. I.e., you'll say "o.k., given that there were 5482 gallons of fuel on board and the plane crashed at 580mph and given X and Y and Z, the cloud could only be 200m across" and we'll come back and say "well, no, the plane was going much faster than that" or "well maybe, just maybe, it had more fuel than the black box said" etc. But if we do that the record of the thread itself will demonstrate what we're doing. If you think that we'll tamper with the thread, why wouldn't we tamper with it in your best-case scenario?

Moreover, because we all agree that there are important variables that your model simply ignores, it will necessarily be possible (nay, inevitable) for us to come back and say "o.k., your calculations yield 200m, but unfortunately those calculations don't take into account x, y, z other variables: unless you can pin those down, your argument is useless"). This won't be after-the-fact-weaseling: we've repeatedly shown you before the fact that there are important variables that you simply DO. NOT. KNOW.

So, this experiment is, demonstrably, a waste of time. If you think you have actual evidence, evidence that has not already been hashed out ad nauseam, why not just man up and tell us what it is?

[Dr Richard]

Moreover, because we all agree that there are important variables that your model simply ignores, it will necessarily be possible (nay, inevitable) for us to come back and say "o.k., your calculations yield 200m, but unfortunately those calculations don't take into account x, y, z other variables: unless you can pin those down, your argument is useless").

Dr Richard hangs his head in shame at the transparent nature of his master plan

[Killtown]

So, this experiment is, demonstrably, a waste of time. If you think you have actual evidence, evidence that has not already been hashed out ad nauseam, why not just man up and tell us what it is?
Getting scared, ain't ya?!

:scared:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Getting scared, ain't ya?!

:scared:

Post your numbers and your conclusion based upon them.

[Killtown]

Here are you current figures....


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: >>> 50m - 860m <<< old estimates
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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


Let me know if you wish to change anything.

(I'd recommend you move you photo time elapse up, waaaaaaaay up!)

[Dog Town]

Getting scared, ain't ya?!


Hate to help K Clown , but I think he meant ANNOYED!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip drivel>

Post your numbers and your conclusion based upon them.

[Killtown]

K Clown
Moderators, please ask Dog Town to not insult me.

[Yoink]

Getting scared, ain't ya?!

:scared:

Scared that I'm going to spend the rest of my life trying to teach you the most basic rudiments of logical argumentation--yes. Scared that you actually have a single shred of evidence to support your case--hardly.

Killtown, I will send you a check for $100 right now if you can post any concrete evidence to support your claim. It will be worth it to me just to get this damn thread to some kind of conclusion. I don't even demand that the evidence be conclusive: just that it be substantive. Something we have clearly failed to take into account, and which requires a non-obvious explanation to account for.

So. I have my checkbook in reach (I'll PayPal you if you don't want to give me your address). So. Care to make an easy $100 (easy, that is, if you actually have a single, tiny, solitary, scrap of evidence).

ETA: I'm perfectly serious, KT. The money's yours if you can do it.

[Buckwheatjones]

I've never given out any of her personal information that wasn't already public on numerous websites.

But you're still giving out personal information. There's personal information about you too that I could easily find on numerous websites, some of them public. The only difference is, you're anonymous so I can't do a search.

Hell. If you're going to devote pages of your website to Val, publish her address and phone, and write all sorts of things about her that smack of fraud, there's only one reason why you don't publish your own name and face.

You're afraid of retribution so you 're going to shelter your identity with an alias so you can call her party to conspiracy while protecting yourself.

[DavidJames]

(I'd recommend you move you photo time elapse up, waaaaaaaay up!)Why do you recommend that. Provide your logic and reasoning along with your rebuttal to the logic reasoning you are recommending against.

Please and thank you.

[Killtown]

Post your numbers and your conclusion based upon them.
See my blog.

[Killtown]

But you're still giving out personal information.
More like reposted the information on the websites were her photo is advertised.

[Killtown]

Guys, you should ask apathoid about what he thinks of your plume theory.

[Taarkin]

Getting scared, ain't ya?!

:scared:
He's so scared of you revealing your damning evidence that he's...asking you to reveal your damning evidence? Reverse psychology I tells ya!

[Yoink]

So, Killtown. So flush with money that $100 doesn't seem worth having, or simply scared? :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

See my blog.

The discussion is not occurring on your blog, and I'm not here to drive up your hit count. Post your numbers and your conclusion here.

[Killtown]

Why do you recommend that. Provide your logic and reasoning along with your rebuttal to the logic reasoning you are recommending against.
Since your plumes had to shrink because of Gravy's good fuel find, that means your photo times will have to....well, you get the "picture"!

[DavidJames]

Since your plumes had to shrink because of Gravy's good fuel find, that means your photo times will have to....well, you get the "picture"!
No I don't, please provide your analysis of why this is the case.

[Killtown]

and I'm not here to drive up your hit count.
Damn, because if my hit counter goes up to a certain number...well, then it goes up to a certain number.

[Yoink]

Since your plumes had to shrink because of Gravy's good fuel find, that means your photo times will have to....well, you get the "picture"!

A: plume size barely changes as a result of the new fuel data. They barely change even from the "maximum" figure of 10,000gallons.

B: we don't know anything at all about the photo time. The photo time is an unconstrained variable. You can't calculate it into your equations--at best you might derive a probable photo time from the calculations.

C: So I take it you're too :scared: to have a go at a quick'n'easy $100, then?

[Killtown]

No I don't, please provide your analysis of why this is the case.
well, then I suggest you ask one of your OCT buddies.

[Dr Richard]

Post your numbers and your conclusion here.

Seconded

[Killtown]

A: plume size barely changes as a result of the new fuel data. They barely change even from the "maximum" figure of 10,000gallons.
Oooooooooook, whatever you say.

[Yoink]

:scared:

[Yoink]

Oooooooooook, whatever you say.

Prove me wrong. ETA: you might want to look at post #1966 to begin with. I know it's more than two lines long and has some math in it, but just have a look.

:scared:

[Wyn]

This is great, I'm back on ignore!! Guy can't answer a simple question and he ignorss me. Guy can't answer a complex question either, hense Gravy's back on ignore too.

[rwguinn]

:big: Since your plumes had to shrink because of Gravy's good fuel find, that means your photo times will have to....well, you get the "picture"!

You are indeed less educated than a yellow-handled screwdriver...
Volume of a sphere=4/3*pi*r^3
50% reduction in volume =25% reduction in radius
reduction in mass= little reduction in energy, since energy =1/2 *M*v^2, and v (velocity) is still 51480 ft/sec (so energy is still 5315 ft-lb, or 7173J per piund of airplane weight)
lower volume+ large energy=more aerosol=larger fireball, probably

[DavidJames]

well, then I suggest you ask one of your OCT buddies.I realize it was sheer folly on my part to think you would have the ability to do any analysis beyond looking at pictures and guessing, but things slowed down here and I took a shot.

Thanks for living down to my expectations.

[Yoink]

Killtown, the $100 offer is of limited duration (after all, give you enough time and someone on this forum might actually come up with something interesting which you could then steal and repeat). If you think you have evidence, I give you 30 minutes from the appearance of this post to put it up. If that evidence is up in 30 minutes and is substantive, I give you my word that I will send you the $100, in whatever manner you feel comfortable with (PO Box is fine--donated to a charity of your choice in your name is fine). If it isn't, then we'll all know you're :scared: and that you've got nuthin'.

[Killtown]

Killtown, the $100 offer is of limited duration (after all, give you enough time and someone on this forum might actually come up with something interesting which you could then steal and repeat). If you think you have evidence, I give you 30 minutes from the appearance of this post to put it up. If that evidence is up in 30 minutes and is substantive, I give you my word that I will send you the $100, in whatever manner you feel comfortable with (PO Box is fine--donated to a charity of your choice in your name is fine). If it isn't, then we'll all know you're :scared: and that you've got nuthin'.
give it to charity.

[Yoink]

:big:

You are indeed less educated than a yellow-handled screwdriver...
Volume of a sphere=4/3*pi*r^3
50% reduction in volume =25% reduction in radius
reduction in mass= little reduction in energy, since energy =1/2 *M*v^2, and v (velocity) is still 51480 ft/sec (so energy is still 41152024.84 ft-lb, or 5555523J per piund of airplane weight)
lower volume+ large energy=more aerosol=larger fireball, probably

Don't worry KT, I've got this one for you--you don't have to waste time while you go ahead and earn my $100: "Dude, you're making this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too complicated. You just need to use forensics. The volume of fuel is less than we thought: I said the cloud was less big than McClatchey's photograph shows. QED!"

Oh, and "look at my blog."

[Yoink]

give it to charity.

You seem to have forgotten to post your "substantive" evidence. I'm sure it was just an oversight. Go ahead, and then nominate a charity and the check will be in the mail before the end of the day.

[Killtown]

so here are your current figures...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: >>> 50m - 860m <<< old estimates
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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


What do you want your plumes sizes at?

[Dr Richard]

:big:

You are indeed less educated than a yellow-handled screwdriver...
Volume of a sphere=4/3*pi*r^3
50% reduction in volume =25% reduction in radius
reduction in mass= little reduction in energy, since energy =1/2 *M*v^2, and v (velocity) is still 51480 ft/sec (so energy is still 41152024.84 ft-lb, or 5555523J per piund of airplane weight)
lower volume+ large energy=more aerosol=larger fireball, probably

Awww, you went and told him...

20.6% smaller radius, makes his case even worse.

[Yoink]

You're running out of time Killtown. Quick, post that evidence. Believe me, I will consider this money well spent!

You're not :scared: are you?

[Yoink]

so here are your current figures...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: >>> 50m - 860m <<< old estimates
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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


What do you want your plumes sizes at?

You're still confused about the difference between "variables" and "observartions." Your "plume size" is roughly the observed plume size--not the range of possible plume sizes that could be produced by a crash with these characteristics.

The "elapsed time" before the photo was taken is irrelevant to your calculation. Given that the time is unknown (other than McClatchey's vague estimate of "five seconds") these figures in no way contribute to or constrain the equation you seem to be trying to perform. In other words, if the crash can be shown to have been able to generate a plume of the observed size and position in McClatchey's photo then our null hypothesis stands--regardless of when the model would place that cloud in that position.

Please show me you can follow at least this simple point. Throw me a bone. I've been so desperately trying to instill a semblance of coherent argument into your farrago of non-sequiturs. Just give me this much!

[Yoink]

Killtown? I can see that you're still logged in, and that you're not posting anywhere else. Are you just waiting for the clock to run down so you can pretend you were busy with something else rather than posting your "evidence" and earning the $100?

That's not cool, dude.

That's :scared:

[Hutch]

eta: I don't think I've ever seen Hutch snap before. *stands back in awe*

snap? Snap? Nay, good Arkan, I was merely Irritated, much as a dog with a flea or a cat with a tick or a human with a bacterium...

Now I might yet end up very, very Grumpy before this thread ends...and you wouldn't like seeing me Grumpy...:mad: :eek: :jaw-dropp

One last point. Using the Kirk quote I did was slightly unfair, I must admit, to the protagainists it was orignally addressed to.

Klingons, after all, do have a sense of honor...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

snap? Snap? Nay, good Arkan, I was merely Irritated, much as a dog with a flea or a cat with a tick or a human with a bacterium...

Now I might yet end up very, very Grumpy before this thread ends...and you wouldn't like seeing me Grumpy...:mad: :eek: :jaw-dropp

One last point. Using the Kirk quote I did was slightly unfair, I must admit, to the protagainists it was orignally addressed to.

Klingons, after all, do have a sense of honor...

Unless there are tribbles involved.

[Pardalis]

CTists do spawn like tribbles don't they?

[Killtown]

Let me know when you guys come up with your Peak fireball widths. After that and nobody objects with your estimates, I'll begin drawing up diagrams of your min/max estimates.

[Yoink]

O.K., Killtown. So we all know now that you have nothing at all. Well, not nothing: you've got some irrelevant photographs, some meaningless videos, and a broken calculator.

You know, and we know, that you made this public accusation against Val McClatchey based on some Sunday-afternoon noodling around with Google-earth and Photoshop. You were just clever enough to find something that "looked wrong" to your completely untrained and uninformed eye, and because it fit in with your preconceptions about 9/11 you decided to run with it and you published it on your blog.

Now, so far you're being childish and thoughtless, but not actually irredeemably evil.

Once the question came over here, though, and people who weren't predisposed to look at this and say "yes, this supports my preconceptions, it must be true!" pointed out to you that you didn't know anything useful about plane crashes, fuel/air explosions, mushroom cloud formation, photography, basic logic, or mathematics (you know, everything you would have needed to actually make a plausible case against the authenticity of the McClatchey photograph), you just decided to do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la la la la la la la la la."

Your little plan has clearly been to just keep trying to get us to perform the basic calculations for you in the hopes that someone at some point would generate some kind of outcome that you could--by not thinking about it too clearly or by distorting it in some way--take to be evidence for "your side." At which point you would declare victory and run away back to people who don't care whether your evidence and reasoning are sound or not.

At this point, I'm sad to say, your behaviour has become simply embarrassing and shameful. You know you have made a false accusation against Ms. McClatchey. You know that you had no valid evidence whatsoever against her photograph, and yet you continue to leave your filthy, lying blog up because you like the fact that it gets you pats on the head from the CT boys. You like being "famous on the Internet" for your 15 minutes, and you think the reputation and peace of mind of a poor unfortunate woman who has had a really hard life since 9/11 is less important than the size of your ego.

That is simply beneath contempt. One day--I feel sure--you will realize just how contemptible your behaviour has been. The fact that those who point it out to you get put on "ignore" shows that you are already beginning to feel that hot prick of shame even though you struggle to shout it down. For your own sake, Killtown, apologize to Val McClatchey now. Turn your site into a dedicated apology page and do your best to make amends.

[Dr Richard]

Let me know when you guys come up with your Peak fireball widths. After that and nobody objects with your estimates, I'll begin drawing up diagrams of your min/max estimates.


Bored now, very bored.

Same as the old estimates. For the reasons given above. Get on with it.

[Pardalis]

You know, and we know, that you made this public accusation against Val McClatchey based on some Sunday-afternoon noodling around with Google-earth and Photoshop. You were just clever enough to find something that "looked wrong" to your completely untrained and uninformed eye, and because it fit in with your preconceptions about 9/11 you decided to run with it and you published it on your blog.


Wow, that sums up Killtown's scientific approach extremely well.

ETA: Your entire post is great Yoink, I wish I could write in English that well some day.:)

[Killtown]

Why isn't apathoid weighing in on this?

[Dr Richard]

Why isn't apathoid weighing in on this?

Lapsed into a coma waiting for you to post the info we have been asking for?

[Killtown]

Lapsed into a coma waiting for you to post the info we have been asking for?
ya know, I'm thinking it's because he disagrees with you guys. Ask him (I tried).

[T.A.M.]

What is amazing is how a thread on one photo in the grand scheme of 9/11 has spawned 50+ pages of posting....

[Yoink]

Wow, that sums up Killtown's scientific approach extremely well.


Thanks. I recognize the type partially because it could just about have been me, once. Not that I ever got into the conspiracy theory stuff, but I had a phase in my early teens as a pretty keen "Erich Von Daniken" type. I can remember spending a rainy day with a friend "conclusively proving" on the basis of an Oxford World Atlas and an Encyclopedia Brittanica (along with a calculator and some numbers we pulled out of our asses) that the pyramids could not have been made by man (something to do with the extent of the forest coverage in Egypt and the number of trees that would be needed to roll the stones into place and how quickly they'd wear etc. etc. etc. :rolleyes:). We thought we were pretty smart, I can tell you! Why, we had "proof"--with numbers and everything! Had there been an internet in those days, you can be pretty sure we'd have made fools of ourselves on some Egyptologist discussion board. And no doubt we'd have been pretty thrilled at getting told our calculations were "unanswerable" on some whack-job Von Daniken site.

That's why I think Killtown is about 13 or 14 years old. It's why I have some hope that he will recognize how appallingly badly he's behaved. It would be pretty heady for a 14 year old to think that he'd "proven" a government conspiracy (or even "proven" that some random person photoshopped a photograph for profit--Killtown seems to want to cling to both incompatible conclusions). Having lots of people tell him he's terribly clever and that he has us all "scared" of his forensics and so forth--all that would be hard for a kid to give up. At that age (at least, judging by embarrassed recollections of myself) your powers of empathy are not fully developed. He's the center of his world--why should he care what happens to Val McClatchey (no doubt in another state altogether from him) if his abuse of her makes him feel important?

Of course, if he's much older than 14 he's probably a lost cause.

[Killtown]

I think we are going to have to wait until the following people concur on the plume size estimates after Gravy found the new fuel total since they did a lost of the calculations of your guy's estimates for this experiment:

Buckwheatjones
gumboot
Hutch
R.Mackey

[Rob Lister]

Great post Yoink

[rwguinn]

I think we are going to have to wait until the following people concur on the plume size estimates after Gravy found the new fuel total since they did a lost of the calculations of your guy's estimates for this experiment:

Buckwheatjones
gumboot
Hutch
R.Mackey
Don't hold your breath...er...on second thought,
Do hold your breath until they agree...

Ok, guys--I made a dee-de-dee error previously--multiplied vs divided... It be fixed up there. You guys are just too fast...

[Matthew Best]

Maybe they've all got Killtown on ignore?

Nobody would blame them, surely?

[Dog Town]

Ok, guys--I made a dee-de-dee error previously--multiplied vs divided... It be fixed up there. You guys are just too fast...

See KC, this is what a man of honor does, when he booboo's!
Still waiting, not really. I am dying to see your last card however!
You best have pocket Aces,.....I doubt it!

[Hutch]

Hey, Killtown, can you confirm what another poster over on the LC IV thread just added..that you have been BANNED from the Loose Change Forum??

NO wonder you have so much time to come over an play with us...:i:

But would you please confiurm your dis-barment?

Hey, just asking questions...


Edited to add link to post in question: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1867650&postcount=2689

[Yoink]

Hey, Hutch, according to the post you link to, K-Town was suspected of being a "government agent." You don't suppose someone read my "Killtown=Kurzburg" post and was convinced by it, do you? :jaw-dropp

ETA: After all...I did use forensics.

[Hutch]

Ya never know, Yoink those 8 no votes in the poll came from somewhere...

Truthfully, KT was never the most popular guy over at LC, due to his insistance (along with another banned poster, izzy, who was even crazier than Killtown) that the WTC's had never been hit by planes, much less the Pentagon and Flight 93...I think sometimes heresy is considered the greater crime over there than any "OCT'er" post. So I am not surprised they cleaned him out.

Of course, that means he has more time to come over here--but with any luck he'll suicide by mod in short order.

Maybe he can go over to the BAUT, I'm sure the eggheads there would LOVE to play with him *ducks rocks thrown by Obviousman, Wolverine and other BAUT Forum members*

[Killtown]

Hey, Killtown, can you confirm what another poster over on the LC IV thread just added..that you have been BANNED from the Loose Change Forum??

NO wonder you have so much time to come over an play with us...:i:

But would you please confiurm your dis-barment?

Hey, just asking questions...


Edited to add link to post in question: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1867650&postcount=2689
Yep, they canned me. The admins over there are podders apparantely. I'm a threat to their cash-cow pod theory.

[Killtown]

So I'm still waiting for the following members to concur on the new totals:

Buckwheatjones
gumboot
Hutch
R.Mackey

and apathoid


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: >>> 50m - 860m <<< old estimates
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

[Brainache]

Yep, they canned me. The admins over there are podders apparantely. I'm a threat to their cash-cow pod theory.

I know this is a bit off topic, but while we wait for those guys' input can you tell me what the pod theory is?

[gumboot]

I know this is a bit off topic, but while we wait for those guys' input can you tell me what the pod theory is?

The pod theory is as follows:

In some pictures/video of UA175 hitting the South Tower the direction of the sun and the low resolution resulted in the undercarriage housing at the wing roots of the aircraft to be exaggerated.

CTers determined that this was some sort of "pod", meaning it wasn't a commercial airliner, but a military aircraft. This is usually accompanied by a supposed "flash" as the aircraft hits the building - the theory being that the pod fired some sort of missile into the building a moment before the aircraft hit.

Some early videos such as 911 In Plane Site and the original Loose Change included this theory. Despite having claimed the pod was their strongest evidence in LC1, it was dropped from LC2.

Many CTers now consider pod theories to be disinformation put out by the government to discredit the serious CTers.

This sort of thing is typical of their movement. The "truth" movement is dividing into factions faster than the Christian Church.

-Andrew

[Killtown]

I know this is a bit off topic, but while we wait for those guys' input can you tell me what the pod theory is?

See here (http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=16).



.

[Killtown]

Andrew,

Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Andrew,

Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals

Gooooood. Next try using it in an equation.

[Brainache]

Thanks GB.
It sounds all a bit like the early days of Stalin's Soviet Union to me. Killtown should watch out for ice picks.

[gumboot]

Andrew,

Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals


I don't care. Get on with your silly "experiment".

-Andrew

[Killtown]

I don't care. Get on with your silly "experiment".

-Andrew
Well since the fuel amounts changed, you better change your fireball sizes...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,482 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: >>> 50m - 860m <<< old estimates
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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


Feel free at any time to concede that Val's plume could not have come from the crash spot.

[gumboot]

Thanks GB.
It sounds all a bit like the early days of Stalin's Soviet Union to me. Killtown should watch out for ice picks.


The various factions have a range of mottos:

"Four planes good, two planes bad"
"Two planes good, four planes bad"
"Three planes good, four planes bad"
"No planes good, four planes bad"

And so forth.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Well since the fuel amounts changed, you better change your fireball sizes...


Why? My fireball sizes were towards the low end of our range anyway, and well inside it. I feel no need to adjust.

-Andrew

[Killtown]

I'm going to help you guys out a bit...

Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals

[Killtown]

Why? My fireball sizes were towards the low end of our range anyway, and well inside it. I feel no need to adjust.

-Andrew
Well since your max fireball size is BIGGER than your max plume size, well...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: >>> 50m - 860m <<< old estimates
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

[Gravy]

Ah, I see the ignore list is growing again.

Afraid I'll show you scary pictures again, Killtown?

[gumboot]

Well since your max fireball size is BIGGER than your max plume size, well...


It is not. 860m is not MY maximum fireball size, and I have NEVER given max and min sizes for the plume.

Quit with your games and GET ON WITH IT.

-Andrew

[Killtown]

It is not. 860m is not MY maximum fireball size, and I have NEVER given max and min sizes for the plume.

Quit with your games and GET ON WITH IT.

-Andrew
Well what's YOUR fireball estimates?

[gumboot]

Well what's YOUR fireball estimates?

:confused:

:jaw-dropp

:hb:

-Andrew

[Killtown]

:confused:

:jaw-dropp

:hb:

-Andrew
Hey, if you don't know, just say so.

[Killtown]

Hey buck, you're gonna have to recalculate things!

[Killtown]

We are almost done. I'm going to make it easy on you guys. Fill in the your max fireball size and we'll be nearly done...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - ???
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

[rwguinn]

Hey buck, you're gonna have to recalculate things!


as I said earlier (not bothering to link):
You are indeed less educated than a yellow-handled screwdriver...
Volume of a sphere=4/3*pi*r^3
50% reduction in volume =25% reduction in radius
reduction in mass= little reduction in energy, since energy =1/2 *M*v^2, and v (velocity) is still 51480 ft/sec (so energy is still 5315 ft-lb, or 7173J per piund of airplane weight)
lower volume+ large energy=more aerosol=larger fireball, probably

[Buckwheatjones]

Possibly, but a large portion of the fuel is going to be driven into the ground, as well.

Here's my thinking:

IMagine the impact as the point of origin of an explosion (which it essentially is, at those speeds). You can model an explosion as an expanding sphere. Assuming equal distribution of shrapnel, debris, and fuel, with a point of origin at ground level, half the fuel gets buried into the ground and half sprays upwards or outwards, aerosolized by the force of impact, and igniting as soon as it spreads far enough to reach the right fuel-air mix. What's in the ground is not likely to aerosolize unless it's tossed back up somehow, and even then will likely stay atttached to dirt and other debris, so would not make an FAE-type explosion but just a burn. THis additional fuel may have burned, but I doubt it would aerosolize and explode.

Of course, in an impact like this, more debris would be thrown forward (inertia would carry more of it into the ground), so even 50% seems a bit wishful thiking to me. However, becasue of the complexity of the crash I can't rule anything out. Because it hit sideways and at an angle, the wings could have been torn in a manner to spread/spray more fuel, etc. However, I think a 50% baseline seems reasonable, and I don't think it'd get much higher than that, so I guesstimated 70%.

I'm going to take issue with the observation that half the fuel would be buried into the ground. I don't think this is right. The percentage of what went up as opposed to down is going to be far higher in favor of aerosolization.

Here's why:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.757.org.uk/systems/images/tanks.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.757.org.uk/systems/sys1.html&h=404&w=700&sz=38&tbnid=Nsg6lwGjBecLGM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=140&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfuel%2Btanks%2B757%26nojs%3D1%26svnum %3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We are almost done. I'm going to make it easy on you guys. Fill in the your max fireball size and we'll be nearly done...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - ???
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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


GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL! WE. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. THEORY. WE HAVE MADE EDUCATED GUESSES BASED UPON AVAILABLE INFORMATION! GET ON WITH YOUR DAMNED GAME ALREADY!

[defaultdotxbe]

unlike CTers the people here are not comfortable pulling random numbers out of the a$$ to support their viewpoints

[LashL]

Sorry, Lash. Apparently you've commited yourself to his ignore list by doing so. I blame myself.

No apologies necessary. It's a good place to be :D

[Buckwheatjones]

More like reposted the information on the websites were her photo is advertised.

The point stands. She posts to sell the photo. You post so people will call her up and harass her after reading your crap. Look at you. You are certainly getting an education now and doing all sorts of legwork here that you didn't before. But the difference is you judged her guilty by association first without learning half of what you did on here. At least she stands by her name. You stand behind anonymity.

[Dog Town]

Kc has been busy, a post of his from ats.
Just in, Flight 93 reportedly had about 5,500 gals of jet fuel at impact.

Kind of hard to make a BIG smoke plume with so LITTLE fuel!

And also take into account that many OCTs believe a lot of fuel was buried underground along with the plane!

Just be honest with yourselves and come to the realizaton that the smoke plume in Val McClatchey's photo was NOT from Flight 93 crashing

He has a little cult growing! How cute.

[Buckwheatjones]

Hey buck, you're gonna have to recalculate things!

Actually, this is your conspiracy theory. You should recalculate things but I don't think you're smart enough to find someone who can do it for you. Either way, I think Yoink's post will bear out that will show 45% less fuel doesn't necessarily mean a cloud half as big. Besides, I think your 70% guess about how much fuel initially went up is too small. Gas carried in wings. Wings break off right away when contacting something more solid than they are.

I don't think you'll be doing your Happy Dance for long.

[ghost707]

Why is this thread still going? Killtown has shown no evidence to support his theory.
Never had, never will.

[Gravy]

But the difference is you judged her guilty by association first without learning half of what you did on here. At least she stands by her name. You stand behind anonymity.
Evidence that Killtown has learned anything here? :confused:

[Hellbound]

I'm going to take issue with the observation that half the fuel would be buried into the ground. I don't think this is right. The percentage of what went up as opposed to down is going to be far higher in favor of aerosolization.

Here's why:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.757.org.uk/systems/images/tanks.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.757.org.uk/systems/sys1.html&h=404&w=700&sz=38&tbnid=Nsg6lwGjBecLGM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=140&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfuel%2Btanks%2B757%26nojs%3D1%26svnum %3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

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

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

[Beleth]

No.
Told you it was a trap.

I win.

[R.Mackey]

I think we are going to have to wait until the following people concur on the plume size estimates after Gravy found the new fuel total since they did a lost of the calculations of your guy's estimates for this experiment:

Buckwheatjones
gumboot
Hutch
R.Mackey
Killtown also PM'd me to inform me that, improbable as it may seem, the rest of you needed my "help." False alarm, to my intense surprise.

The diplomatic way to ask, Killtown, would have been as follows: "Hey, we just determined the fuel on board was about 5600 gallons, roughly half of what we thought. How does that affect your calculated estimates?" I'd have taken no affront at all to such a request.

The answer is, no effect. My calculations for fireball width at ignition are absolutely insensitive to the amount of fuel on board, provided it is "large," and 5600 gallons is still large for purposes of my estimate. I only estimated how far it could splatter. Now, the amount of fuel certainly changes the energy after it ignites, and will have some effect on later evolution of the smoke ring, but that's a different step entirely.

As I've tried to explain, Killtown, how you got the numbers is more important than the numbers themselves. Show your work. As you compile your numbers, if you keep track of where they came from, you can see for yourself whether or not you've got it right.

And you don't. You are still mixing model predictions with the observations from Val's picture. You can't do that. If you want to do a min/max calculation, you have to calculate all the numbers. Val's picture is an example of what did happen, it doesn't define the extremes of what might have happened.

Killtown, for your next assignment, go back and find where each of your numbers came from. In your next summary, write a sentence associated with each number that explains who gave it to you, how the number was calculated, and where we can find its source. You are also welcome to add your own opinions on each number, but only if you explain why you feel like you do.

These are called "references." Without them, you're just pulling numbers out of your hat. Again.

[R.Mackey]

Hey, Killtown, can you confirm what another poster over on the LC IV thread just added..that you have been BANNED from the Loose Change Forum??
Seriously?? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle...

Congratulations, Killtown. You are not the most deluded person in the world.

How about you go for the gold, and apologize to Val?

[Buckwheatjones]

Evidence that Killtown has learned anything here? :confused:

Sure. Lots. He's learned that he actually has to run numbers if anyone is going to take him seriously. Now he may not be running all the necessary numbers, but he is running some numbers. The fact that he's still here shows that he's being held to task, otherwise he'd have just hit and run after a couple of pages.

[gumboot]

Right,

I'm going to use solid mathematics to calculate the EXACT size of the fireball...

Bear with me...

Speed of aircraft 500Kt = 257 m/s

Length of UA93: 47m
Width of UA93: 38m

Windspeed: 9 Kt = 4 m/s

Duration from Val's photo to cloud: 5s

Putting it all together:

257x47x38x4 = 1,836,008

I conclude the fireball from UA93 was initially 1,836km across.

Now calculation for time:

1,836km x 5 seconds

= 9,180km

So the mushroom cloud from UA93 would be 9,180km across at the time of Val's photo.

:jaw-dropp

You're RIGHT Killtown. The cloud couldn't POSSIBLY come from UA93.

CONSPIRAT0R!!!!!!11!!!11ONE!!!!!ELEVENTY-ONE

-Andrew

[Matthew Best]

There you go, Killtown - that's the max fireball size that you were looking for!

Peak fireball width: 50m - 1,836km

Now you can move on.

[Killtown]

Ok, make sure I got your estimates right...


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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 184m
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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

[Killtown]

When the plane hit, I would think the first thing to go would be the wings and the gas. They're going to overstress and snap off right away rather than get buried into the ground.
But...they DID bury* into the ground.


(*According to the OCT.)

[Wyn]

Right,

I'm going to use solid mathematics to calculate the EXACT size of the fireball...

Bear with me...

Speed of aircraft 500Kt = 257 m/s

Length of UA93: 47m
Width of UA93: 38m

Windspeed: 9 Kt = 4 m/s

Duration from Val's photo to cloud: 5s

Putting it all together:

257x47x38x4 = 1,836,008

I conclude the fireball from UA93 was initially 1,836km across.

Now calculation for time:

1,836km x 5 seconds

= 9,180km

So the mushroom cloud from UA93 would be 9,180km across at the time of Val's photo.

:jaw-dropp

You're RIGHT Killtown. The cloud couldn't POSSIBLY come from UA93.

CONSPIRAT0R!!!!!!11!!!11ONE!!!!!ELEVENTY-ONE

-Andrew

Dam, that's exaxtly what I got when I figured it!! Except because I'm in America, I got that in miles.

[R.Mackey]

But...[Flight 93's wings] DID bury* into the ground.

(*According to the OCT.)
I don't believe that's true. Some of the aircraft was buried, to be sure, but I understood that the majority of the aircraft was shredded into relatively small fragments, with only a small percentage of the total mass buried.

Do you have a reference where the "OCT" says what you say it does? If so, we can talk about it. Otherwise, you're guessing.

Reminder:

1. Show your work.
2. Use references. Real ones.

[Killtown]

I don't believe that's true. Some of the aircraft was buried, to be sure, but I understood that the majority of the aircraft was shredded into relatively small fragments, with only a small percentage of the total mass buried.

Do you have a reference where the "OCT" says what you say it does? If so, we can talk about it. Otherwise, you're guessing.

Reminder:

1. Show your work.
2. Use references. Real ones.
Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

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

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)

[Wyn]

I don't believe that's true. Some of the aircraft was buried, to be sure, but I understood that the majority of the aircraft was shredded into relatively small fragments, with only a small percentage of the total mass buried.

Do you have a reference where the "OCT" says what you say it does? If so, we can talk about it. Otherwise, you're guessing.

Reminder:

1. Show your work.
2. Use references. Real ones.

Definition please, I got that CT = conspiracy theorist (AKA nutjob).

What does OCT mean? I'm guessing something conspiracy theorist.

Thanks.

[Dog Town]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...
Are you saying a plane did crash here? I know why they banned ya at LC now!

[Wyn]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

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

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)

Ahh, so everything that hits the ground gets buried, thanks, I didn't know that.

[Killtown]

Are you sayng a plane did crash here?
For this experiment it did.

[R.Mackey]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

image of impact site

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)
I agree, they look like wing imprints to me, too. But that doesn't mean the wings were buried. Quite the opposite, in fact. If the wings actually entered the ground, there would have been a heck of a lot of heat buried with them. I'd expect to see much more violent ground rupture, and a mounding effect over the impact point, not a dent.

This picture is completely consistent with the notion of wings smacking into the ground, breaking into pieces on impact, most of which rebounded up and away from the point of impact.

But you can't prove either your point or mine from a picture. See why you need references? Images, and videos, are not proof. All debris from the plane was retrieved (well, all that they could find, but it was quite a lot), including the parts that were buried. How about you find what those reports say? And give a reference?

[CurtC]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)
The tone of your words sound like you think you're refuting his point, that it was shredded into small pieces mostly, but you haven't at all.

Here's a question that might lead you to see why: what happened to the dirt that used to be where the crater is now?

[Gravy]

Ahh, so everything that hits the ground gets buried, thanks, I didn't know that.

Of course. We all know that no debris was found, except in the "crater."

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee64ce6629.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cef2ea7f492.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e01768321a1.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee5fd97a51.jpg

[Buckwheatjones]

But...they DID bury* into the ground.


(*According to the OCT.)

Say! I guess that means when you leave a footprint, your foot gets sucked into the ground! Now. Try again and this time come up with something that says there were a pair of solid intact wings in the earth just below those imprints. Besides your little blog, I mean.

[Regnad Kcin]

Killtown:

How are your sheep today?

Also: What can you tell me about sheep herding? Is it a business one should consider as a career? Have you been doing it long? How many head are sufficient for a start-up?

Considering how endlessly fascinating it must be, I'm certain you must have endless stories about life with your little friends. Perhaps you could share one.

Many thanks!

[Killtown]

1)
1) Quite the opposite, in fact. If the wings actually entered the ground, there would have been a heck of a lot of heat buried with them. I'd expect to see much more violent ground rupture, and a mounding effect over the impact point, not a dent.

This picture is completely consistent with the notion of wings smacking into the ground, breaking into pieces on impact, most of which rebounded up and away from the point of impact.

2)All debris from the plane was retrieved (well, all that they could find, but it was quite a lot), including the parts that were buried. How about you find what those reports say? And give a reference?
1) Did you see the tail imprint?

2) You mean where the FBI say they recovered 95% of the plane?

[R.Mackey]

1) Did you see the tail imprint?

2) You mean where the FBI say they recovered 95% of the plane?

I can't be sure from this photo -- captured off a TV, so hardly high-resolution -- what is what. There could be a tail mark somewhere. What difference does it make? I'm saying this looks to me more like a splat than a lawn-dart, entirely consistent with my statement.

You made the claim, Killtown. Use whatever actual reference you can find. That means "whoever actually dug up the plane pieces." I suspect that was NTSB and/or FAA, not FBI, but whatever. Doesn't matter.

You said the wings were buried. Now tell us why you said that. This picture is not a good reason because it doesn't say that. Give us a good reason, and we'll listen.

[Killtown]

The tone of your words sound like you think you're refuting his point, that it was shredded into small pieces mostly, but you haven't at all.

Here's a question that might lead you to see why: what happened to the dirt that used to be where the crater is now?
I don't know, what happened to the dirt?

[Skibum]

What does OCT mean?


Original Conspiracy Theory

[Dog Town]

Original Conspiracy Theory

I think it means Official?

[ghost707]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

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

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)

You finally admitted you were wrong without even realizing it!

[Killtown]

You said the wings were buried. Now tell us why you said that. This picture is not a good reason because it doesn't say that. Give us a good reason, and we'll listen.
Well since they had to dig 15 ft to find the plane and aerials show wing imprints, just thought the wings were buried too:

The site had been mined for coal, then refilled with dirt. It was still soft when Flight 93 crashed, and firefighters said the Boeing 757 tunneled right in. They had to dig 15 feet to find it.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/10/news_pf/Worldandnation/Small_town_shoulders_.shtml

[Wyn]

Original Conspiracy Theory

I take by the way dimbulb has been using it he and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd are saying the real story is the "original" conspiracy theory?

[Skibum]

I think it means Official?

Now that I think about it, I believe you are correct.

Guess I shouldn't post between hands while playing poker, LOL.

[Wyn]

Of course. We all know that no debris was found, except in the "crater."

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee64ce6629.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cef2ea7f492.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e01768321a1.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee5fd97a51.jpg


Well, yeah, all that stuff was spread around by Val, so she could sell pictures, and the FBI, because, well, BECAUSE!!!

[R.Mackey]

Well since they had to dig 15 ft to find the plane and aerials show wing imprints, just thought the wings were buried too:
That's not very scholarly, but I appreciate you giving some kind of reference. This is progress.

Think about what it means, though. If they had to dig "15 feet to find the plane," and the plane is -- by your own admission -- about 150 feet long or so, don't you think that means that most, if not all, of the plane was much closer to the surface? Or even on the surface? Heck, the body diameter of the plane is more than 15 feet.*

Can you imagine digging 165 feet to find the nose of the aircraft? Clearly that is NOT what happened. Also note that the wings, being sectionally quite light and presenting the most surface area to the ground, would be the least likely parts to penetrate. Landing gear, engine cores, the Black Boxes, those things might penetrate 15 feet, but it is folly to assume the wings would do the same.

We need to find a more thorough report to see just how much of the plane was in the ground, and how much was found on the surface. A lot of it was found on the surface. You like pictures, Gravy showed several. I like measurements, please try to find those instead.

* I think. Should be pretty close. Feel free to look it up and correct me.

[Buckwheatjones]

1) Did you see the tail imprint?

2) You mean where the FBI say they recovered 95% of the plane?

In little bitty pieces? And this explains that the wings got buried in the ground how? If you have a credible report that the wings and the fuel inside them were lodged in the earth, please provide a link.

Thanks.

[Killtown]

Well just wanted to mention that about the wings and them saying they had to dig for the plane just in case you needed to make some adustments to your figures. If not I think we are done with the estimates...

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

Known constants:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m(125ft)
Fuel upon impact: 5,500 gals
Impact Speed: 580mph

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

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 184m
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

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

Size perspective:

Football field (no endzone) = 100yds

100yds = 300ft = 91.44m

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



Anything I left out?


What I'm going to do is draw your min/maxs on a satellite photo and show where you min/mix plumes had to be at the given times in your estimates. So as this experiment is about, it's to try to prove YOUR guys theory.

[LashL]

Killtown: Why do the numbers for the plume size still say 600-700 m in the "variable" section.

As Yoink said a few pages ago:

You're still confused about the difference between "variables" and "observartions." Your "plume size" is roughly the observed plume size--not the range of possible plume sizes that could be produced by a crash with these characteristics.

The range of possible plume sizes would obviously be a much larger range than 600-700m.

[LashL]

Anything I left out?



Yes, see above.

[R.Mackey]

OK, if you're going to accept that the fuel probably stayed mostly above the surface, that's fine. If you still doubt it, go ahead, but please try to find some support for your buried wings idea.

If you just want to show plume position on a satellite map, you don't need to consider the fireball at all. All you need is the smoke size estimate from the photo. The min/max of the smoke cloud is based on uncertainties in the geometry of the picture, nothing else.

The alternative is consider min/max smoke size from physics, in which case the impact, fireball, cloud dispersion etc. are all relevant. But in this case you would not use the size computed from Val's picture. That computation is not based on the physics.

We've been telling you for about ten pages not to mix up the two. Either go with the physics-based, min/max, range of possible events, or go with the observed events which are limited to a single picture of smoke. Don't mix them up. Pick one.

[Killtown]

OK, if you're going to accept that the fuel probably stayed mostly above the surface, that's fine. If you still doubt it, go ahead, but please try to find some support for your buried wings idea.

If you just want to show plume position on a satellite map, you don't need to consider the fireball at all. All you need is the smoke size estimate from the photo. The min/max of the smoke cloud is based on uncertainties in the geometry of the picture, nothing else.

The alternative is consider min/max smoke size from physics, in which case the impact, fireball, cloud dispersion etc. are all relevant. But in this case you would not use the size computed from Val's picture. That computation is not based on the physics.

We've been telling you for about ten pages not to mix up the two. Either go with the physics-based, min/max, range of possible events, or go with the observed events which are limited to a single picture of smoke. Don't mix them up. Pick one.
Well I was going to draw the min/max fireballs over the crater, draw the min/max plumes within the Val's camera view, then draw the width lines from each fireballs to their plumes, then add the time they would have to do it at.

[Killtown]

Killtown: Why do the numbers for the plume size still say 600-700 m in the "variable" section.

As Yoink said a few pages ago:



The range of possible plume sizes would obviously be a much larger range than 600-700m.
Well post the numbers you want me to use then.

[R.Mackey]

Well I was going to draw the min/max fireballs over the crater, draw the min/max plumes within the Val's camera view, then draw the width lines from each fireballs to their plumes, then add the time they would have to do it at.
Fine. But keep in mind that it's trickier than that. In particular:


The fireballs need not be centered on the crater. If you buy my mechanism, it probably won't be.
I don't see how you intend to step forward in time with the fireball. Thermal expansion will probably dominate, not windspeed. You haven't considered heat at all, nor convection, nor diffusion.
Remember that the smoke in Val's picture doesn't need to match -- in fact, will not match -- all of the fireballs. It is quite possible for the maximum fireball size to be larger than the photographed smoke! The picture only describes one outcome, not the space of all likely outcomes.


So keep that in mind as you get busy with MS Paint. And you still haven't referenced any of your numbers. Or apologized to Val.

[Gravy]

You finally admitted you were wrong without even realizing it!
Hey, can somebody reprint this?

Way to go, Killtown! You just admitted that flight 93 crashed in Shanksville! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1868181&postcount=2110)

So what has this whole charade been about?

[Gravy]

I don't know, what happened to the dirt?
You tell us. How much of the soft earth was compacted, how much displaced, and how much dispersed?

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

[Regnad Kcin]

Killtown:

Do your sheep have names? And does that make it difficult for you when it comes time to slaughter them? I know I'd cry like a baby.

[Killtown]

You tell us. How much of the soft earth was compacted, how much displaced, and how much dispersed?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ebe8a15f2fc.jpg
I don't know, looks like it was all compacted to me.

[Buckwheatjones]

Well, killtown? Are "dems" wing imprints from Flight 93 or a stork? oops...

[Gravy]

Well, killtown? Are "dems" wing imprints from Flight 93 or a stork? oops...
And he said we can see the tail imprint.

The tail imprint of what, Killtown.

I'm sure everyone here is eager to hear about your amazing turnaround.

Are you a man? Prove it. Apologize to Val McClatchey now.

[Gravy]

I don't know, looks like it was all compacted to me.
Really? What compacted the area in the foreground? Were the wings 15 feet thick?

[Killtown]

Well, killtown? Are "dems" wing imprints from Flight 93 or a stork? oops...
For this experiment, the wings are from Flight 93.

[Regnad Kcin]

Wait a minute... I just thought of something. Since he hasn't presented any proof or answered my questions, maybe Killtown isn't a sheep herder like he says.

Why, if that's true, that'd make him a liar. I certainly hope I'm wrong about that! Wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about someone without any evidence!

[Killtown]

Really? What compacted the area in the foreground? Were the wings 15 feet thick?
:confused:

[Gravy]

For this experiment, the wings are from Flight 93.
We're not talking about this "experiment," as you continually misname it. We're talking about why you said we can see the wing and tail imprints in the crater.

Please explain why you're doing this, when you obviously don't believe your own story.

Please explain why you deliberately, cruelly caused pain to a 9/11 victim over a sham belief.

Are you a man? Prove it. Apologize to Val McClatchey now.

[Gravy]

:confused:
Okay, so you also don't know how thick the wings were. You can look that up easily. Please do.

[Buckwheatjones]

For this experiment, the wings are from Flight 93.
And for the purposes of reality? They are the wings from....?

[Killtown]

Okay, so you also don't know how thick the wings were. You can look that up easily. Please do.
I'm not understanding your whole "dirt" thing?

[Killtown]

And for the purposes of reality? They are the wings from....?
After the experiment is done, we'll get into that.

[Gravy]

I'm not understanding your whole "dirt" thing?
It's your "dirt thing," Killtown. You should know how to figure it out, since you're so good at dishing dirt.

[Killtown]

since you're so good at dishing dirt.
Oh, SNAP son!

:boggled:

[Killtown]

You know Gravy, funny you bring up the crater. Why don't you guys take a close look at it:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_rcfp.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_stahl.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater-epa2.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wf.jpg
(See video clip of above pic here (http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/index.htm).)
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_forbes.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_pl2.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_ap.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater-epa3.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_wvsd.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_pl.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_si1.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_pl3.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html


Let me know if you guys see anything odd about it.

;)

[gumboot]

Well, killtown? Are "dems" wing imprints from Flight 93 or a stork? oops...


Wait, are we now saying DEMOCRATS faked 9/11?

:confused:

-Andrew

[SezMe]

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

[Dr Richard]

You know Gravy, funny you bring up the crater. Why don't you guys take a close look at it:


Let me know if you guys see anything odd about it.

;)

It is odd that you are trying to avoid posting the results of your "experiment".

Again.

2968 hours to Christmas...

[Gravy]

Yeah, I would have expected more fire damage around the impact site itself.
It all depends on the angle, lighting, etc. For example, see the charred area in this photo (the corner aberrations are window reflections). What else do we see? Debris everywhere.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044ec13c57554f.jpg

[Gravy]

You know Gravy, funny you bring up the crater.

I'm sure it is funny to you. In fact, you think that Photoshopped feces on that grave site is "Funny!"

Why don't you tell us what's funny about that, Killtown?

[SezMe]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Anyway, assuming it is, notice the shrubbery in the foreground. It appears to be only a few feet from the crater yet there is no apparent singing and there is no bending or breakage of the very thin branches that I would expect.

I might add, since this is the first time I've posted in all these 911 threads, that I think the CTers are pond scum that are doing real damage to the USA. I am not one of them.

[gumboot]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?



To my way of thinking, a lack of evidence of extensive fire at the crash scene could suggest the fuel all fireballed in the air (collaborated by Val's photo).

In addition, a large chunk of forest was completely burned down. Assumably that was caused by the crash, so may indicate that the fuel headed in that direction and didn't burn the direct crash area.

I would only expect large burnt areas if the fuel spilled onto the ground and then burned on the ground - as is typical with low-speed air crashes.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Anyway, assuming it is, notice the shrubbery in the foreground. It appears to be only a few feet from the crater yet there is no apparent singing and there is no bending or breakage of the very thin branches that I would expect.

I might add, since this is the first time I've posted in all these 911 threads, that I think the CTers are pond scum that are doing real damage to the USA. I am not one of them.
I believe the photo is authentic, but I've never seen the original. We're looking at a cropped copy. It appears to have been taken from near the impact point of the right wingtip (the plane was nearly upside-down). If it was taken with a long lens, then apparent distance compression comes into play.

I think this is a good example of how "common sense" is meaningless when analyzing an event like this. "Common sense" (and Bruce Willis movies) makes me think that the grass within the wingspan should be scorched from the blast. But I have no actual experience with events like this, nor do I know exactly how, when, and where the fuel was dispersed. So, the photo is more evidence of how much I don't know about high-speed airliner crashes. I wonder what Killtown has learned from it.

[Belz...]

For this experiment it did.

Incredible. You HAVE no opinion, do you ? You're using photographic evidence to argue that a plane DID crash there, and when reminded of the fact that you previously hinted that there was no plane you answer this ?? So, you didn't mix up your lies ? It was intentional all along ?

Despicable.

[Belz...]

I'm not understanding your whole "dirt" thing?

I'm going to fix that up for you:

I'm not understanding your whole thing?

There.

[Dr Richard]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Anyway, assuming it is, notice the shrubbery in the foreground. It appears to be only a few feet from the crater yet there is no apparent singing and there is no bending or breakage of the very thin branches that I would expect.

I might add, since this is the first time I've posted in all these 911 threads, that I think the CTers are pond scum that are doing real damage to the USA. I am not one of them.

This is a tragic event - 170+ dead including 45 children - I came across the picture today. However, I think it answers your question, SezMe.

"A Russian airliner that crashed in eastern Ukraine yesterday killing all 170 passengers and crew on board was probably struck by lightning as it encountered heavy turbulence, a preliminary investigation suggested last night..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1856135,00.html

Look at the picture. The engine in the foreground is charred, smoke is drifting across the frame - but a lot of the grass looks unburnt.

The fires look even more impressive here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5276784.stm

I agree with Gravy's summary that predicting damage to surrounding vegetation in airplane crashes of this sort is impossible.

[Gravy]

Incredible. You HAVE no opinion, do you ? You're using photographic evidence to argue that a plane DID crash there, and when reminded of the fact that you previously hinted that there was no plane you answer this ?? So, you didn't mix up your lies ? It was intentional all along ?

Despicable.
Perhaps here he's hinted. Everywhere else he states it flat-out.

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

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

[Gravy]

Gravy, take a look at the second picture Killtown posted. Now, first off, I am assuming this is an actual photo of the crash site. Do you know if it is?

Here's the photographer holding a less-cropped print of that photo.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/flight9306.html

[Wyn]

I believe the photo is authentic, but I've never seen the original. We're looking at a cropped copy. It appears to have been taken from near the impact point of the right wingtip (the plane was nearly upside-down). If it was taken with a long lens, then apparent distance compression comes into play.

I think this is a good example of how "common sense" is meaningless when analyzing an event like this. "Common sense" (and Bruce Willis movies) makes me think that the grass within the wingspan should be scorched from the blast. But I have no actual experience with events like this, nor do I know exactly how, when, and where the fuel was dispersed. So, the photo is more evidence of how much I don't know about high-speed airliner crashes. I wonder what Killtown has learned from it.

The fuel tanks don't go all the way out to the wing tips so, the wing tip would have hit the ground, as shown, but no fuel is there. I'd be willing to bet that the scorching in this picture is limited to the dimentions of the fuel tanks.

[Darth Rotor]

Don't know about you, but dems look likes wing imprints to me...

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

(PS - you can also see the tail imprint if you look hard enough.)
I have no sense of the scale of that picture. What is casting the shadow?

DR

[Graham2001]

The impact pattern in the picture shown by Killtown is definitely caused by the high-speed impact of an aircraft.

Back in 1971 a British European Airways Vanguard crashed near Ghent in Belgium (2nd October 1971). The rear pressure bulkhead failed causing air to rush into the tail and destroy the rear control surfaces.

The plane 'tipped up' and hit the ground vertically at full speed. The impact pattern is just the same one big central hole with linear 'dents' where the wings hit. From the pictures in McArthur Jobs 'Air Disaster 4' (tinyurl.com/ogche) it would appear that the debris stayed very close to the point of impact in that case as well.

[Buckwheatjones]

This is a tragic event - 170+ dead including 45 children - I came across the picture today. However, I think it answers your question, SezMe.

"A Russian airliner that crashed in eastern Ukraine yesterday killing all 170 passengers and crew on board was probably struck by lightning as it encountered heavy turbulence, a preliminary investigation suggested last night..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1856135,00.html

Look at the picture. The engine in the foreground is charred, smoke is drifting across the frame - but a lot of the grass looks unburnt.

The fires look even more impressive here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5276784.stm

I agree with Gravy's summary that predicting damage to surrounding vegetation in airplane crashes of this sort is impossible.

Anybody living in the Midwest is familiar with the damage done by tornadoes and the random nature of destruction that can accompany such bursts of physical violence....your house is fine but your neighbor's gets flattened, etc.

[rwguinn]

To my way of thinking, a lack of evidence of extensive fire at the crash scene could suggest the fuel all fireballed in the air (collaborated by Val's photo).

In addition, a large chunk of forest was completely burned down. Assumably that was caused by the crash, so may indicate that the fuel headed in that direction and didn't burn the direct crash area.

I would only expect large burnt areas if the fuel spilled onto the ground and then burned on the ground - as is typical with low-speed air crashes.

-Andrew
Just remember--at 585 mph and a 40 degree crash angle, the fuel/aircraft had a 448 mph horizontal velocity. that is 657 feet per second, horizontally. that is 115,000 foot-lb/sec of horizontal momentum just for the fuel--which, if Sir Issac was correct, is a lot of reason to keep traveling, with not much to stop it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just remember--at 585 mph and a 40 degree crash angle, the fuel/aircraft had a 448 mph horizontal velocity. that is 657 feet per second, horizontally. that is 3.6 million foot-lb/sec of horizontal momentum just for the fuel--which, if Sir Issac was correct, is a lot of reason to keep traveling, with not much to stop it.

Do we know from what direction the impact occurred?

[Yoink]

There's something sadly bathetic about this. For quite a while I thought KT might actually have something that he thought was a devastating blow to the "OCT"--I never doubted that it would be based on some kind of logical or mathematical error, but I thought it would be at least something new. Perhaps he'd have found a website that gave figures for estimating smoke cloud from fireball size or something.

But it turns out that all he's going to do is get busy with Photoshop again. If he actually bothers to go through with this nonsense I predict (and would be willing to bet large sums of cash on the prediction) that the central turn in his "debunking" argument will be, once again, the good ol' argument from personal incredulity: "and of course the smoke cloud couldn't possibly be that big!" Which just brings us back to where we started: it looks wrong to KT, so it is wrong: QED.

Sad and sordid.

[Yoink]

Variables:

Fuel % burned upon impact: 30-70%
Fireball temp: 240C(464F) - 1,316C(2,400F)
Peak fireball width: 50m - 184m
Windspeed: 9kt W - 25kt NW
Plume size: 600m - 700m
Elapsed time from crash to photo: 5.3 - 90 sec

Anything I left out?



KT: the "fuel % burned upon impact" is a pure guesstimate (the person who gave you those figures says so). It's probably not a bad guesstimate, but it can't plausibly be used to constrain your modelling. You'd be better to go from 10-99%--at least that way you won't be vulnerable to perfectly reasonable second-guessing on that variable.

The fireball temperature figures are at least based upon some known constants, but were provided to you in both cases by people who didn't know for sure what the effects of super-compression followed by aerosolization of fuel might be on fireball temperature. By all means run whatever "calculations" you want to do based on these figures, but--again--be aware that further research is required before these figures could be in any way declared to be certain limits.

I don't remember where you got the peak fireball width from, or whether the numbers you have there honestly represent anybody's work (why don't you put post numbers in as references for these figures? Given that none of them are your work, that would be honest as well as helpful). Without confirmation from one of the more knowledgeable members of the group, I'm suspicious of those figures.

Windspeed: that range is absurd. We have two different readings: 9 knots is a daily average, correct? 25 knots comes from the black box. I think we can assume that the black box's reading with the plane heading nose down at 580 knots into the ground is suspect. The 9 knots is meaningless for determining wind speed for a given couple of minutes in a whole day. We also know almost nothing about wind direction. The only honest figures you could put in for windspeed AND direction are "unknown." Or, if you prefer "0 to 40kt, direction unknown. You simply don't have the data to support the range you're offering there. (I offer 40 knots, by the way, as an upper limit simply on the basis that wind anywhere in that range would have been likely to draw comment from witnesses).

Plume size: aaaarggh! I tried to explain this to you before. That is the observed plume size. It is not one of your "constraining variables." The whole point of your stupid pretend "experiment" is to determine the possible range of plume sizes. Put the observed plume size down in a separate section as "the null hypothesis"--if the outcomes of your calculations from the known variables rule out the possibility of a plume of that observed size, then you will have disproved the null hypothesis and you can party. Plus, I'll corner the market in specially reinforced umbrellas to protect people from the flocks of flying pigs that will shortly take to the sky.

Elapsed time: again--that's not a constraining variable in your "experiment." We know nothing whatsoever about the time of the photograph other than Val's "five second" claim. We are all agreed that this claim is of zero informational value. Unless at the end of all this your whole thing will be to rest on that "five seconds" claim as somehow binding, there is no point in putting this value into your "experiment."

So, apart from the fact that every variable you propose is either wrong, irrelevant, or unproven, and that there are dozens of crucially important variables that you are leaving our of your calculation, this looks great.

[Hellbound]

Just to point one other thing out:

Peak fireball width should be a determination from your other variables. Specifically, the scatter pattern of the fuel, ignition type and method, fuel/air ratio, timing of the ignition, air pressure that day, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature, and probably some other things I've forgotten. Best we can give is a guess which, if you're going to use, you really don't need anything else. Most of the data we've offered would be used to calculate a peak fireball width (more accurately, a range of results), and the characteristics of the fireball could be used to determine the plume size range.

[mortimer]

My guess is KT will come back with some more photoshopped Google Earth images and say, "Well, if there's no way the plume was that big back when I determined (from forensics and calculations) plume size with 7,500gal of fuel, there's no way it can be that big with even less fuel! QED!"

[CurtC]

...the central turn in his "debunking" argument will be, once again, the good ol' argument from personal incredulity: "and of course the smoke cloud couldn't possibly be that big!"
I had the impression that he was wanting to know how large of a fireball could lead to a smoke cloud that big, and assuming that the fireball was at ground-level, would try to prove that it couldn't be as big as would be necessary, because the trees within that fireball would have been burned.

Something along the lines of "to make a smoke cloud 600 meters across, the initial fireball would had to have been 300 meters across at ground-level, but we know it wasn't that big becuase trees 150 meters from the crater were unharmed. Further, if you look at the trees that were burned, it indicates a 75-meter fireball, which could not grow to a 600-meter smoke cloud."

I'm making some of these numbers up, but I thought that's where Killtown was headed.

[Yoink]

I had the impression that he was wanting to know how large of a fireball could lead to a smoke cloud that big, and assuming that the fireball was at ground-level, would try to prove that it couldn't be as big as would be necessary, because the trees within that fireball would have been burned.

Something along the lines of "to make a smoke cloud 600 meters across, the initial fireball would had to have been 300 meters across at ground-level, but we know it wasn't that big becuase trees 150 meters from the crater were unharmed. Further, if you look at the trees that were burned, it indicates a 75-meter fireball, which could not grow to a 600-meter smoke cloud."

I'm making some of these numbers up, but I thought that's where Killtown was headed.

If this thread has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that it is all but impossible to underestimate Killtown. I think you have given him an argument that he'll try to use now, but I doubt he could have come up with it all on his own. Heck, I'd have accepted a half-way plausible form of this argument for my $100 challenge.

Just to note, by the way, your hypothetical example mixes up radius and diameter. That is, we'd expect a 300m fireball not to reach trees 150m away. (Taking notes, KT?)

[Killtown]

Ok, anybody care to explain how your up to 184m/600ft (2 football field length) fireball caused from 5,500 gals of jetfuel with a scorching hot temperature of up to 1,316C/2,400F didn't even manage to burn any of the tall dry grass growing right up against the crater???

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-docphotos.html

;)

[Yoink]

Ok, anybody care to explain how your up to 184m/600ft (2 football field length) fireball caused from 5,500 gals of jetfuel with a scorching hot temperature of up to 1,316C/2,400F didn't even manage to burn any of the tall dry grass growing right up against the crater???

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-docphotos.html

;)

It went upward, not outwards. We explained to you over and over and over again about the aerosolized fuel being ejected upwards into the air and then being ignited, not spilled onto the ground and then set on fire (as in the crash of the B-52 to which you are so wedded [now we see why]).

Any more questions before you do your "calculations" from your bogus "variables"? Or have you decided to abandon "calculations" for "forensics"?

[Hellbound]

You don't read anyone's comments, do you, Killtown?

Here's a hint. The answer is in this thread, somewhere. Can you find Waldo?

[Pardalis]

Ok, anybody care to explain how your up to 184m/600ft (2 football field length) fireball caused from 5,500 gals of jetfuel with a scorching hot temperature of up to 1,316C/2,400F didn't even manage to burn any of the tall dry grass growing right up against the crater???

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/00037r.jpg
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-docphotos.html

;)

I think your picture shows that it did. :confused:

[Killtown]

It went upward, not outwards.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UnBELIEVABLE, but not unexpected! I knew that would be your only pathetic comeback!

LoL!!!

[Gravy]

Ok, anybody care to explain how your up to 184m/600ft (2 football field length) fireball caused from 5,500 gals of jetfuel with a scorching hot temperature of up to 1,316C/2,400F didn't even manage to burn any of the tall dry grass growing right up against the crater???

Any of the tall grass? I think you mean the tall grass that's in the foreground near the right wingtip, right? Unless you have photos, speculation about other unburned grass is unfounded.

[Gravy]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UnBELIEVABLE, but not unexpected! I knew that would be your only pathetic comeback!

LoL!!!
1) Why is that pathetic?

2) What's your explanation? After all, you've agreed that the plane did crash there.

[Killtown]

Any of the tall grass? I think you mean the tall grass that's in the foreground near the right wingtip, right? Unless you have photos, speculation about other unburned grass is unfounded.
The TALL UNBURNT GRASS all the way around the crater's edge and beyond!

Stop being in denial guys. You know your theory just got blown to bits.

You should probably hop on the "photo is fake" bandwagon at this point to save yourself for total humility.


You guys just got

Punk'd!


Suckers.


:D

[Yoink]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UnBELIEVABLE, but not unexpected! I knew that would be your only pathetic comeback!

LoL!!!

So, once again, KT, your entire argument rests upon a single claim: "I don't think so!" That's it--that's your whole "line of reasoning": "it doesn't look likely to me!" Do you do any research? Do you bother to find out possible reasons for or against your conclusions? No, don't be silly. You already know your conclusions are right--why bother putting them to the test.

O.K., here's something I found in two minutes of googling:

"The conflagration in Hiroshima caused high winds to spring up as air was drawn in toward the center of the burning area, creating a "fire storm". The wind velocity in the city had been less than 5 miles per hour before the bombing, but the fire-wind attained a velocity of 30-40 miles per hour. These great winds restricted the perimeter of the fire but greatly added to the damage of the conflagration within the perimeter and caused the deaths of many persons who might otherwise have escaped. In Nagasaki, very severe damage was caused by fires, but no extensive "fire storm" engulfed the city. In both cities, some of the fires close to X were no doubt started by the ignition of highly combustible material such as paper, straw, and dry cloth, upon the instantaneous radiation of heat from the nuclear explosion. The presence of large amounts of unburnt combustible materials near X, however, indicated that even though the heat of the blast was very intense, its duration was insufficient to raise the temperature of many materials to the kindling point except in cases where conditions were ideal."

Notice that "large amounts of unburnt combustible materials near X." You know what X is, I assume, right? Yes, "ground zero" of a frikkin' atomic bomb! So--either you are saying that the US never actually dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or you are saying that that bomb did not result in a large mushroom cloud, or you are saying that you don't know even one, teensy, tiny thing about the relationship between explosions, fire, and resultant smoke clouds. Guess which one I pick?

So, Killtown, you've been proven wrong yet again. You've been shown once again that you made this vile and slanderous accusation against Val McClatchey on the basis of nothing more than your "gut instinct" and you've been shown that your "gut instinct" is less reliable than random guessing. Now are you going to apologize to this poor woman, or do you feel you need to have even more shame heaped upon you before you do something to mitigate it?

[Hellbound]

Interesting, since we actually brought up this picture before Killclown did, and adressed many of the issues around it (such as that it isn't the whole picture, it's taken near a wingtip area where you wouldn't expect so much burning, the plane hit an an angle...this may be the side opposite direction of motion, etc, etc).

You show your maturity by not bothering to read the thread, Killclown. And posting lame h4x0r terms doesn't help much.

[Yoink]

By the way, KT, would you care to take a break from further proving your complete ignorance on the subject you have chosen to devote your life to, and explain why you couldn't have produced this piece of "evidence" oh, say, 30 or 40 pages ago? None of it has anything whatsoever to do with the "experiment" you claimed to be running.

Looking back I can see that you thought you were "setting us up" oh so cleverly by trying to get us all to agree that the explosion would have "looked like" the B52 explosion. Given, however, that we all told you it wouldn't have looked anything like that--given, indeed, that we spelled out for you the fact that the key difference was that the B52 spilled its fuel on the ground and that Flight 93 would have aerosolized its fuel upward into the air I'm having real difficulty in figuring out how you think we were "punk'd." We already pointed out that we did not expect extensive burning on the ground at the crash site.

So--you are still to provide even one tiny scrap of evidence in support of your original claim. Don't you think that 55 pages of argument without a single piece of evidence for your side is a little, well, embarrassing?

[MortFurd]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UnBELIEVABLE, but not unexpected! I knew that would be your only pathetic comeback!

LoL!!!

Look closely. The grass isn't all burned here either. (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.shtml)

That's the ValuJet crash in the Everglades.

[Belz...]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UnBELIEVABLE, but not unexpected! I knew that would be your only pathetic comeback!

LoL!!!

LAPI : Laughing Argument from Personnal Incredulity.

[Gravy]

The TALL UNBURNT GRASS all the way around the crater's edge and beyond!

Your evidence?

[Killtown]

Man, you JREFers are in SERIOUS denial! Maybe YOU guys should be referred to as "9/11 DENIARS"?! LoL! It's not a surprise though.

Just concede you guys got punk'd and admit there is no way the crash caused even a little fireball and that Val's plume was in no way caused from something from the crash site.

Just look at the crash scene photos, NOTHING scorched the grass about the crater...

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

Just say that the fuel was buried underground. THAT is a least more plausible than your "2 football field" wide metal melting monsterous fireball!


BOOM!!!

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

:D

[Belz...]

You guys just got

Punk'd!


Suckers.


:D

I'll say again, Killclown: you are a despicable human beign that cares nothing for the horrible truth of that day. Your only concern is PWNage.

[Killtown]

Flight 93 would have aerosolized its fuel upward into the air I'm having real difficulty in figuring out how you think we were "punk'd." We already pointed out that we did not expect extensive burning on the ground at the crash site.

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

Stop, you guys are killing me!!!!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Plane crash sites:
http://www.interesting-places.com/cover2.jpg
http://www.scotcrash.homecall.co.uk/lanc1.JPG
http://www.rangerforce.com/F2020413Atailwebsite.jpg
http://www.interesting-places.com/interestingplaces/images/pictures/crash1.jpg
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/07/09/image8cbf5e95-002b-4d89-afae-7eabb342354d.jpg
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/07/09/image5eb6490d-080c-42bf-932e-b6345dfd1f79.jpg
http://media.nasaexplores.com/01-039/crash.jpg
http://www.pbfd.net/Fire%20And%20Emergency%20Calls/plane%20crash%20037.jpg <-- this one is a great example
http://www.box4.org/040101/PLANE%20CRASH%2014x.jpg

It would appear it is rather normal for a burning plane wreck to not destroy vegetation in the immediate vicinity.

[Killtown]

Look closely. The grass isn't all burned here either. (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.shtml)

That's the ValuJet crash in the Everglades.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Yeah, 93 crashed in WATER!!!!

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

[Belz...]

Man, you JREFers are in SERIOUS denial! Maybe YOU guys should be referred to as "9/11 DENIARS"?! LoL! It's not a surprise though.

Just concede you guys got punk'd and admit there is no way the crash caused even a little fireball and that Val's plume was in no way caused from something from the crash site.

Just look at the crash scene photos, NOTHING scorched the grass about the crater...

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

Just say that the fuel was buried underground. THAT is a least more plausible than your "2 football field" wide metal melting monsterous fireball!


I think Killclown has just retreated to a deeper section of his psyche's ivory tower since his banning on the LC forum. He seems to have completely forgotten the 55 previous pages.

[Killtown]

Plane crash sites:
http://www.interesting-places.com/cover2.jpg
http://www.scotcrash.homecall.co.uk/lanc1.JPG
http://www.rangerforce.com/F2020413Atailwebsite.jpg
http://www.interesting-places.com/interestingplaces/images/pictures/crash1.jpg
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/07/09/image8cbf5e95-002b-4d89-afae-7eabb342354d.jpg
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/07/09/image5eb6490d-080c-42bf-932e-b6345dfd1f79.jpg
http://media.nasaexplores.com/01-039/crash.jpg
http://www.pbfd.net/Fire%20And%20Emergency%20Calls/plane%20crash%20037.jpg <-- this one is a great example
http://www.box4.org/040101/PLANE%20CRASH%2014x.jpg

It would appear it is rather normal for a burning plane wreck to not destroy vegetation in the immediate vicinity.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!

Sheer denial. Please seek some help!

[Yoink]

Man, you JREFers are in SERIOUS denial! Maybe YOU guys should be referred to as "9/11 DENIARS"?! LoL! It's not a surprise though.

Just concede you guys got punk'd and admit there is no way the crash caused even a little fireball and that Val's plume was in no way caused from something from the crash site.

Just look at the crash scene photos, NOTHING scorched the grass about the crater...

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

Just say that the fuel was buried underground. THAT is a least more plausible than your "2 football field" wide metal melting monsterous fireball!


BOOM!!!

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

:D

KT, if you think that your argument is strong, why don't you engage with the counter arguments? We've laid out some preliminary arguments to suggest reasons why a fireball would not spread along the ground. You claim that it must because it did when a B-52 crashed once. That is one data point, I'll agree. Not a very useful one, but one. So why are you so terrified of considering any other data points? Like the everglades crashsite photo? Like the "unburnt combustible material" at ground zero of an atomic bomb? Could it be that you don't, in fact, have any argument to advance as to why all fireballs in all instances must scorch the ground around them?

For your argument to work, you need to be able to show that it was impossible for the fireball to form without scorching the ground. Do you have any argument at all for that claim other than "ha ha ha, loserz, I don't think so"? Do you think that this is a very convincing argument? Would you accept that argument if it were directed toward you?

[Gravy]

Interesting, since we actually brought up this picture before Killclown did, and adressed many of the issues around it (such as that it isn't the whole picture, it's taken near a wingtip area where you wouldn't expect so much burning, the plane hit an an angle...this may be the side opposite direction of motion, etc, etc).
To clarify, the direction of the impact in that photo was right to left. The vertical stabilizer of the nearly inverted plane impacted to the right of the photo. Also, in other photos it's clear that the dirt is mounded higher to the left and that there's more scoching in that direction. The large engine part that was not in the crater was recovered downhill, also to the left.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mushroom clouds form as a result of the sudden formation of a large mass of hot low-density gasses near the ground creating a Rayleigh-Taylor instability. The mass of gas rises rapidly, resulting in turbulent vortices curling downward around its edges and drawing up a column of additional smoke and debris in the center to form its "stem". The mass of gas eventually reaches an altitude where it is no longer less dense than the surrounding air and disperses, the debris drawn upward from the ground scattering and drifting back down
...
While it rises, air is drawn into it and upwards (similar to the updraft of a chimney), producing strong air currents known as "afterwinds", while inside the head of the cloud the hot gases rotate in a toroid shape. When the detonation itself is low enough, these afterwinds will draw in dirt and debris from the ground below to form the stem of the mushroom cloud.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Mushroom_cloud.svg/300px-Mushroom_cloud.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Blowing_Smoke.jpg/200px-Blowing_Smoke.jpg

An ignition of aerosolized fuel is idea for creating one on a smaller scale than what we normally think of.

[Belz...]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!

Sheer denial. Please seek some help!

Well, well, at least now Killclown admits that not every crash is the same.

[Hellbound]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Yeah, 93 crashed in WATER!!!!

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

Nice that you can laugh about plane crashes, Killclown.

Can you even comprehend English? You haven't answered the arguments put forth at all, and haven't shown either a)unburned grass all aroudn the crater or b)that this would be unusual in an airplane crash.

Several posters now have offered many pictures of plane crashes with similar intact grass/shrubs around the crater/impact area. Yoink posted links discussing the detonation of an atomic bomb, where intact combustibles were left unburned near ground zero.

So, why should this crash, even with a large fireball, be any different?

[realitybites]

KT, I don't mean much disrespect, but are you mentally stable?

Did you not already admit to saying a plane crashed there? Something about if you look close enough you can even see the imprint of the tail?

What exactly are you arguing with this "no burned grass" bit?

Ease off the nitrous dude....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!

...

Explain.

[rwguinn]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!

Sheer denial. Please seek some help!

this one crashed yesterday. Please note the burnt engines and other parts in plain, dry, unburnt tall grasses...
http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20060823/53016828.html

[azazal]

The TALL UNBURNT GRASS all the way around the crater's edge and beyond!

Stop being in denial guys. You know your theory just got blown to bits.

You should probably hop on the "photo is fake" bandwagon at this point to save yourself for total humility.


You guys just got

Punk'd!


Suckers.


:D


As we all know planes always burn the grass around them
AirTran Airways Flight 913 (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-03-01-maintenance_x.htm)

Airline Crash in Venezuela Kills 160 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4802464)

Cypriot airline had previous pressure problems (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0816/greece.html)

As can be clearly seen, each in of these tragedies, the surrounding vegetation was burned beyond recognition.... o wait it wasn't never mind.

[DavidJames]

Silly skeptics...how did you expect to persuade someone like killtown, with math and science. He showed over and over again (length + MPH) he's illiterate in those subjects. How many times did he say you were making it way to complicated. He understands pictures, end of story. He looks at pictures and makes conclusions. His ability to research ends at his interpretation of a two dimensional picture.

edit.. showing him examples (even pictures) which contradict his conclusion won't help. People like him aren't smart enough to even know what they don't know. KT's ego won't let him think for a minute that anyone else would know more then him. Why do you think he never once responded to any of the math? He thinks life is no more complicated then what he can deduce from pictures.

[Killtown]

KT, if you think that your argument is strong, why don't you engage with the counter arguments? We've laid out some preliminary arguments to suggest reasons why a fireball would not spread along the ground. You claim that it must because it did when a B-52 crashed once. That is one data point, I'll agree. Not a very useful one, but one. So why are you so terrified of considering any other data points? Like the everglades crashsite photo? Like the "unburnt combustible material" at ground zero of an atomic bomb? Could it be that you don't, in fact, have any argument to advance as to why all fireballs in all instances must scorch the ground around them?

For your argument to work, you need to be able to show that it was impossible for the fireball to form without scorching the ground. Do you have any argument at all for that claim other than "ha ha ha, loserz, I don't think so"? Do you think that this is a very convincing argument? Would you accept that argument if it were directed toward you?

Come on guys, quit digging yourself deeper with your "it aerosoled up" nonsense.

The grass is UNBURNT right around the crater's RIM!!!!

[Buckwheatjones]

The TALL UNBURNT GRASS all the way around the crater's edge and beyond!

Stop being in denial guys. You know your theory just got blown to bits.

You should probably hop on the "photo is fake" bandwagon at this point to save yourself for total humility.


You guys just got

Punk'd!


Suckers.


:D

I think you mean "total humiliation." Watching you post is like watching Moe Howard butcher English.

Anyway, unburned grass doesn't prove anything unless you're an expert in explosion dynamics and KNOW that unburned grass at that spot would be an impossibility.

[Killtown]

So, why should this crash, even with a large fireball, be any different?
Oh you are right, the grass around the shanks crater is fire resistent!

Ha ha ha!!!


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

In fact if you look at the lower middle, I'd swear some of the grass is still growing INSIDE the crater!!!

LoL!

[Yoink]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!

Sheer denial. Please seek some help!

Oh, God--that is hilarious and tragic coming from you, KT. We explained to you in patient, excruciating detail why the crash of the B-52 was not even remotely similar to Flight 93, but you cling and cling and cling to that image. Arkan_Wolfshade gives you a whole bunch of plane crashes that demonstrate that it is quite typical for plane crashes NOT to generate wide-spread burning on the ground around the crash site and now you suddenly demand that the exact circumstances of the crashes have to be the same!

For what it's worth, my guess is that the explanation for the unburnt grass is similar to that advanced in the paragraph I quoted to you from the website about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the fireball forms, it sucks in enormous quantities of air--in inrushing air is pulled in under the fireball and up towards its center (the typical toroidal shape that will result in the mushroom cloud formation). My guess is that without any ignited accelerant on the grass, that inrushing air acts to keep the fire itself away from the grass as the fireball expands and rises. Heat, you may or may not know KT, goes up.

Now, I could be wrong. Your photo could be proof that a fireball of the kind necessary to produce a smoke cloud like the one seen in McClatchey's photograph could not have formed at the crash site. But to demonstrate that you need to show why my model doesn't work. You need to show that a fireball cannot form that does not burn all the grass under it. You need to show that the fuel in the plane could not have been propelled into the air as we have been consistently saying throughout this thread that it would.

Any evidence for any of these things, KT? Or just more adolescent gloating?

[Killtown]

Did you not already admit to saying a plane crashed there? Something about if you look close enough you can even see the imprint of the tail?

What exactly are you arguing with this "no burned grass" bit?
Obviously have come in the thread too late!

[Gravy]

Just look at the crash scene photos, NOTHING scorched the grass about the crater...

You are wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ecabbd928fe.jpg

[Buckwheatjones]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!

Sheer denial. Please seek some help!

geez...start breaking the prozacs in half.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, I guess these trees (http://images.ibsys.com/2001/0911/956982.jpg) aren't smoldering from the crash.

And this higher res image (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/docs/shankshole3.jpg) of the one you're using doesn't show that the side of the crater showing the least fire damage is the side that the plane impacted from and therefore would be the least damage/disturbed.

And this one doesn't show fire damage to the trees beyond the crater (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/docs/shanks_163.jpg)

And this one from further back (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg) doesn't show the orientation of your new favorite pic.

[Dog Town]

He seems to not get the whole heat rises thing !
Does this mean it's over? I just ordered lunch!

The grass is UNBURNT right around the crater's RIM
SO.....does that make you claim there was no plane,..... again? Or just that Val's pic is fake? You are such a trip!

[Killtown]

and KNOW that unburned grass at that spot would be an impossibility.
I agree Buck, I agree! It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the grass to be UNBURNT around the crater if the fireball was even the min size and temp you guys claimed!!!

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

:D

[Skibum]

Of course he shows you a photo where vegetation isn't burned.

At the angle the plane impacted the fuel would have been scattered in the direction the plane was flying.

http://usinfo.state.gov/photogallery/show.php?size=350x350&album_name=%2Fnineeleven%2Fpenn&obj_name=5987206.jpg



Note the area of charred trees and grass, thats where the fireball would have occured.

[Hellbound]

So, I guess these trees (http://images.ibsys.com/2001/0911/956982.jpg) aren't smoldering from the crash.

And this higher res image (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/docs/shankshole3.jpg) of the one you're using doesn't show that the side of the crater showing the least fire damage is the side that the plane impacted from and therefore would be the least damage/disturbed.

And this one doesn't show fire damage to the trees beyond the crater (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/photos/docs/shanks_163.jpg)

And this one from further back (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9301.jpg) doesn't show the orientation of your new favorite pic.

Arkan,

the 911research redirects links to the front page. You links won't go right to the pic.

Thought you shoudl know :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I agree Buck, I agree! It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the grass to be UNBURNT around the crater if the fireball was even the min size and temp you guys claimed!!!

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

:D

Don't cherry-pick quotes. The full quote was "unburned grass doesn't prove anything unless you're an expert in explosion dynamics and KNOW that unburned grass at that spot would be an impossibility"

[Buckwheatjones]

Here, doughboy. Flt. 298 CrossAir jan. 2000. Crashed at Zurich. Big pile of wreckage, smoke, right next to lots of nice green grass. No scorching, no burning. It happens.

Go check the wreck database at www.airdisaster.com. Lots more where this came from. We win. You lose.

Move on. Everybody else agree?

[Killtown]

You are wrong.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_879044ecabbd928fe.jpg

Yeah, nice unburnt grass there! Sure held up nice to your guy's MONSTEROUS HOT FIREBALL!!!

[Yoink]

I agree Buck, I agree! It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the grass to be UNBURNT around the crater if the fireball was even the min size and temp you guys claimed!!!

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

:D

Killtown, explain to me why my model of inrushing air under the fireball keeping the grass unburnt is incorrect. Remember, this is just an informed guess on my part, so a real expert on the nature of fuel air explosions such as yourself will naturally be able to point out the flaw in the argument immediately. Why am I wrong to assume that it is not surprising that grass remains unburnt around the rim of the crater? Just one reason will suffice, thank you.

P.S. "ha ha ha" is not a reason, neither is "you must be joking" and neither is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la la la la la." In fact, all of those things serve to confirm that you don't actually have any reasons whatsoever, and have simply, once again, humiliated yourself.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan,

the 911research redirects links to the front page. You links won't go right to the pic.

Thought you shoudl know :)

Hrm, I can click on them, and I found them via google. I'll upload local here. Stand by.

eta: http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/758344ecae1a37670.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/758344ecae1a5b09c.jpg

[Dog Town]

56 pages for THIS! Damn KC you are slip'en! Right down the slope of hysterical. What's your encore? Telling us how Val dug the whole and lit the fuse on your imagined bomb? Craaaaazzzzzeeeee, man crazy!

[Killtown]

SO.....does that make you claim there was no plane,..... again? Or just that Val's pic is fake?
No, it BLOWS TO BITS your guy's claim the crash made a monsterous hot fireball that made a monsterious plume that is seen in Val's photo.

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

[Hellbound]

I agree Buck, I agree! It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the grass to be UNBURNT around the crater if the fireball was even the min size and temp you guys claimed!!!

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

:D

Interesting, Killtown.

So, let me ask you something. If ytou put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

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

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

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, it BLOWS TO BITS your guy's claim the crash made a monsterous hot fireball that made a monsterious plume that is seen in Val's photo.

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

Explain, and remember, show your math.

[Dog Town]

It's always a grass thing w/KC! He thinks the Pentagon lawn was super dooper
secret turff! I think you smoke too much bad grass! You are consistant! I will give ya that. Are you a gardener by chance?

[Killtown]

Of course he shows you a photo where vegetation isn't burned.

At the angle the plane impacted the fuel would have been scattered in the direction the plane was flying.

http://usinfo.state.gov/photogallery/show.php?size=350x350&album_name=%2Fnineeleven%2Fpenn&obj_name=5987206.jpg

Note the area of charred trees and grass, thats where the fireball would have occured.
Yeah that's interesting how this "crash caused" that SMALL section of forest to get burnt, but NO GRASS between the crater and that section was burnt!!!

And strange trajectory. It's like you running a 100 mph into a brick wall and your guts flying out only from your right side!

[Hellbound]

Killtown,

Can you answer these questions, please?

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

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

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

[Matthew Best]

56 pages for THIS!!

That's exactly what I was thinking. I kind of thought that Killtown might have have been building up to something a tiny bit more substantial than "it looks wrong", but I guess I was giving him too much credit.

I can't quite believe what an utter fool he's made himself look like.

Oh wait - yes I can.

[Killtown]

Here, doughboy. Flt. 298 CrossAir jan. 2000. Crashed at Zurich. Big pile of wreckage, smoke, right next to lots of nice green grass. No scorching, no burning. It happens.

Go check the wreck database at www.airdisaster.com. Lots more where this came from. We win. You lose.

Move on. Everybody else agree?
Funny, I showed you guys a B-52 crash and you said, "oh, that's nothing like the Flight 93 crash," but now you guys are starting to compare the same kinds of "UNRELATED" crashes!!!

LoL!!!


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

[Buckwheatjones]

Say, how about this? Mar. 2000 Vologda Air in Snowy Russia.

That's right. Snowy Russia. Why isn't the snow melted? Because it snowed after the crash? Wrong. No snow on the wreck itself shows it crashed while snow on the ground. Gee. Didn't melt. Why is that? How could it be that in certain cases fires burn, but grass nearby doesn't burn and snow doesn't melt?

Why? Because the dynamics of fire is uncharted territory for most of us and while it may seem as though things "should" be burned, or "ought" to be melted, it doesn't always happen according to common sensical observations. However. Ample photographic evidence does show that these things do happen. And that's why any serious attempt at this discussion has to know it's limitations. Particularly yours. Your understanding of fire science is rebutted by photographic evidence, unless you want to claim that all of these photos being thrown your way are fakes.

[Hellbound]

Killtown,

Can you answer these questions, please?

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

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

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

[senorpogo]

Killtown-

An arrogant tone does not disprove the points being made nor does it answer the questions being asked of you. You look so embarrassingly silly that I almost feel bad for you.

[Killtown]

Killtown, explain to me why my model of inrushing air under the fireball keeping the grass unburnt is incorrect.

Go look at any video of a plane crashing into the ground and it will show you!

[Dog Town]

Maybe somebody would like to explain their Flight 93 crash theory again?!
No theory! Some heroes helped take it down before, the people you aplolgise for, did something even worse! The End!

[Hellbound]

Killtown,

Can you answer these questions, please?

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

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

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

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

I'll even add a question to it. Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

[Killtown]

Interesting, Killtown.

So, let me ask you something. If ytou put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

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

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

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041128/041128_jetcrash_ebersol9p.hmedium.jpg

[senorpogo]

If you touched a banana with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?



:Banane45:

[realitybites]

The patience and level headedness displayed by some of the members here (Arkan, Huntsman, Gravy, etc.) in dealing with this guy has GOT to be supernatural on some level.

Any chance that would qualify me for the million bucks?

[Killtown]

Say, how about this? Mar. 2000 Vologda Air in Snowy Russia.

Did that crash at 40 deg going 580 mph crating a football field sized fireball you guys claimed 93 did?

[Yoink]

KT, you think you just provided stunning proof that the fireball could not have formed, but surely even you can see that you are missing an intermediate step in your "syllogism":

Here's what you want to say:

1/A that is formed from an event occuring at ground level must always and every time burn everything combustible that is directly beneath it.
2/Some of the grass that would necessarily have been beneath the fireball produced by Flight 93 (if Val McClatchey's photograph is to be believed) is unburnt.
ergo 3/Flight 93 could not have produced a fireball large enough to produce the smoke cloud in Val McClatchey's photograph

The problem here is that you haven't proven either 1 or 2. So, what is your proof for 1? Please don't post that photograph of a different plane crashing in completely different circumstances once again. Please.

I'll tell you what--you don't even have to prove it: just give me your seat-of-the-pants best case argument why it seems implausible to you that, for example, air rushing in under an expanding and rising fireball might produce a layer of unheated air under the fireball that would preserve the grass. Go on--just tell me what seems "unlikely" about that?

[SezMe]

If it was taken with a long lens, then apparent distance compression comes into play.
Good point.

This is a tragic event - 170+ dead including 45 children - I came across the picture today. However, I think it answers your question, SezMe.

I agree with Gravy's summary that predicting damage to surrounding vegetation in airplane crashes of this sort is impossible.
The picture does show that nearby vegatative can remain undisturbed and that a picture alone is insufficient for any specific conclusions.

But the picture (I can't fine the post right now) of the Russian crash with a very large chunk of the plane sitting in green grass with no evidence of physical damage to the grass is the real clincher.

The photo Killtown is in love with is interesting...and no more. It proves his case in the same manner that this post proves I am a better writer that Shakespeare.