Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
Yoink said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Huntsman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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*
 
Last edited:
*Huntsman stands and flicks his lighter in a celebratory fashion*
Click to expand...
*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!
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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*
Click to expand...

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%.
 
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?
 
Yoink said:
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").
Click to expand...

Dr Richard hangs his head in shame at the transparent nature of his master plan
 
Yoink said:
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?
Click to expand...
Getting scared, ain't ya?!

:scared:
 
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!)
 
Killtown said:
Getting scared, ain't ya?!

:scared:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
I've never given out any of her personal information that wasn't already public on numerous websites.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom