Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
Go look at any video of a plane crashing into the ground and it will show you!
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
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?
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?
senorpogo
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,100
realitybites
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,066
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?
Any chance that would qualify me for the million bucks?
Did that crash at 40 deg going 580 mph crating a football field sized fireball you guys claimed 93 did?
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?
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
post-pre-born
Good point.
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.
you guys are a joke! You guys insisted that 93's crash made a HUGE monsterous hot fireball that in turn made a HUGE monsterous smoke plume that's seen in Val's photo, now you are all BACKTRACKING and saying, "well, well, not all plane crashes burn the grass."! Frickin pathetic!
Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.
Just concede that Val's plume WAS NOT caused from 93 crashing.
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
wow.
Killtowns logic:
assertion 1. the crater is defined by the area of burnt grass
assertion 2. there is no burnt grass ouside the crater
assertion 3. a fireball from the plane crash would burn grass ouside the crater
conclusion: the crater was therefore not caused by the plane crash
well, I'm convinced.
shame we had to wait 2600+ posts for that gem of deductive reasoning
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Killtown,
Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.
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?
Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?
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?
Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.
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?
Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?
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?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
No, Killtown, we argued that it could have made a huge, hot fireball. We also argued that it could have made a small, relatively cool fireball. IF you could answer the questions I've asked, we could actually move beyond your childish namecalling and you might learn a bit of something.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Strawman. We simply argued the possibility was there.
Can you answer these questions, please? Not a photo, a simple yes or no answer...or a conditional answer if you feel it is needed.
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?
Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?
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?
Hi Killtown, this is Rudimentary Logic calling. Why do you shun me? Why won't you return my calls? I know I'm a bit of a downer at times--always pointing out that this doesn't make sense or that that is a non-sequitur, but still, baby, if you stick with me we can really go places.
You see, honey, let Ms. Logic just explain something to you: the difference between "some" and "all." I know, I know, they are both words for quantities, so why should any of us care about more subtle differences than that? I'm making it waaaaaayyyyyy too complicated for you, ain't I, sugar?
Let me do my best to keep it simple:
If you say "all swans are white" then I only need to find one black swan, and I've proven you wrong.
If you claim, however, that "some swans are black" then it doesn't matter how many photographs of white swans I provide for you, that doesn't prove you wrong. You're now the only one who needs to find a single photograph of a black swan, and you've proven your case.
Can you see where I'm going with this?
When you say "ALL plane crashes produce massive fireballs that leave lingering fires on the ground underneath them" you're not the one who only has to produce one photograph to prove your case. It's the people who disagree with you who only have to produce one photograph to disprove it.
Similarly, if the people you're arguing with are saying "someareoplanes can crash and produce a fireball that does not spread along the ground but moves rapidly upwards into the air" you can't disprove that by producing one photo of a plane that didn't. They can prove it (just like the swans, baby) by producing any photos of planes that crashed, burned, and did not scorch the earth around the crash site.
Any chance you followed any of that, KT? Or is Rudimentary Logic dead to you now?
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Killtown, could a I just check your current position:
1. You have admitted that you previous assertions on smoke plume colour are wrong
2. You have admitted your previous assertions about the size of the plume based on Val's photo and google earth maps are wrong
3. Your entire case now rests on the fact that you have a picture of some unburnt grass taken at an unspecified point after the crash?
Not necessarily, it just means that YOUR GUY'S fireball estimates have been DISPROVEN!
If a 757 crashed there, it burrowed underground along with MOST of the 5,500 gals of fuel thereby DISPROVING it could have caused the 6-7 FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH smoke plume seen in Val's photo.
Just concede to that.
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Do you concede the first points I made about the crater then? I'd be grateful if you could draw on the photo you have provided where you think the crater is.
- Status