Belz...
Fiend God
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.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
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.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Comparing to crashes NOTHING like YOU guys say 93 was like!!!!
Sheer denial. Please seek some help!
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
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
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
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
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...shroom_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...
Fiend God
Well, well, at least now Killclown admits that not every crash is the same.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
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
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,066
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....
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....
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Explain.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
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
Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 985
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.
As we all know planes always burn the grass around them
AirTran Airways Flight 913
Airline Crash in Venezuela Kills 160
Cypriot airline had previous pressure problems
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
Penultimate Amazing
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.
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.
Last edited:
Come on guys, quit digging yourself deeper with your "it aerosoled up" nonsense.
The grass is UNBURNT right around the crater's RIM!!!!
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
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.
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.
Oh you are right, the grass around the shanks crater is fire resistent!
Ha ha ha!!!
In fact if you look at the lower middle, I'd swear some of the grass is still growing INSIDE the crater!!!
LoL!
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?
Obviously have come in the thread too late!
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
geez...start breaking the prozacs in half.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
So, I guess these trees aren't smoldering from the crash.
And this higher res image 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
And this one from further back doesn't show the orientation of your new favorite pic.
And this higher res image 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
And this one from further back doesn't show the orientation of your new favorite pic.
- Status