Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Answer Dr. Richard's question. Which of the three in his example do you feel most represents what happened in Shanksville?
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
Answer Dr. Richard's question. Which of the three in his example do you feel most represents what happened in Shanksville?
Prove YOUR theory.
I don't think 93's fireball made a perfect circle. LoL!
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Please provide the quote along with the specific link to where anyone defined a theory.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Which of the three is closest?
You are the one making the claim. You are claiming that no fireball with characteristics within the estimated parameters could have occurred without burning the grass. Prove it. Using a picture is not proof.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
WE...Don't...Propose...
A..
Theory...
You do.
And the preponderence of evidence in no way supports your conjecture.
Last edited:
chran
Muse
Killtown, I wonder if you could give us a rough estimate of how many times we would need to repeat to you that WE. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. THEORY. before it might begin to sink in? 1000? 40,000? 1,000,000?YOU have a theory. You think that the McClatchey photograph is fraudulent. Your evidence for this is, in toto: "It doesn't look right to me." (Did I miss anything out from your complex argument?)
Now, please provide some proof for your theory, or we will have to reject it. In rejecting your theory, we are not "voting for" any other theory, we are simply saying that your theory has been proven to be inadequate.
Hopeless, pitifully, shamefully inadequate.
I wonder if killtown thinks it possible to snuff out a candle flame with your bare fingers without getting burnt? Because candle flames have a peak temperature of about 1400C afterall and that is fairly warm...
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
Well. I provided photos for anyone with eyes to see. Makes little difference to me if you buy into it or not.
Anybody else on here can see that when planes crash, the ground around them doesn't always burn up. You can't figure that out, I guess that's just where you are in life. Sun rise in the west for you, too?
Dave_46
Graduate Poster
Folks.
Why do you keep on replying to Killtown's inane posts?
Dave
Why do you keep on replying to Killtown's inane posts?
Dave
this one is the closest:
If you disagree 93 made a fireball like the SIMILAR ones above, then please by all means show me an example of what kind of fireball 93 made.
Yes you guys do. Your THEORY is that Val's plume was caused by 93 crashing.
You know, the sad thing is here is, he is right. People trying their best to teach you(some who are now eligeable for Saint Hood)something about real life critical thinking. So yes , as I believed all along, you were Klowning around. Your absurd fascination with, what you think, instead of math, logic, etc..., is pathetic. You are a waste of these good folk's time. You are a lepper go back and marvel with the kiddies at LC. You can paint yourself as another false Idol, god knows they need it. I see you as a Golden Klown!
Ketyk
Earthbound Misfit
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 4,750
That's easy. Because if we don't, who will.
KT, please try to read the following:
"The fireball created in the epicenter of the explosion is warmed up to a high temperature. The increased pressure expands it and the buoyancy force pushes it upward. Fission products (e.g. 90Sr) being inside of the fireball are also lifted to high altitudes. The air under the fireball cools down and it becomes compressed under the atmospheric pressure around. Thus, the stem of the nuclear mushroom is created, and the air is sucked into its bottom. This air rises above the fireball, cools down and sinks forming the convective cells, which look like a cap of a mushroom."
It's from here (a pdf file, I warn you). It is describing a nuclear explosion, to be sure, but it describes precisely the "cool air beneath hot, rising fireball" mechanism that I hypothesized before.
Unless you want us to continue to think you are a complete coward give me your reasons for dismissing the hypothesis that this is what happened in the case of Flight 93. (No, not that an atomic bomb went off--I don't want a stupid flippant answer: tell me why a similar effect could not have happened from aerosolized fuel ignited by the crash of Flight 93)? Or are you too scared to actually defend your "argument"?
"The fireball created in the epicenter of the explosion is warmed up to a high temperature. The increased pressure expands it and the buoyancy force pushes it upward. Fission products (e.g. 90Sr) being inside of the fireball are also lifted to high altitudes. The air under the fireball cools down and it becomes compressed under the atmospheric pressure around. Thus, the stem of the nuclear mushroom is created, and the air is sucked into its bottom. This air rises above the fireball, cools down and sinks forming the convective cells, which look like a cap of a mushroom."
It's from here (a pdf file, I warn you). It is describing a nuclear explosion, to be sure, but it describes precisely the "cool air beneath hot, rising fireball" mechanism that I hypothesized before.
Unless you want us to continue to think you are a complete coward give me your reasons for dismissing the hypothesis that this is what happened in the case of Flight 93. (No, not that an atomic bomb went off--I don't want a stupid flippant answer: tell me why a similar effect could not have happened from aerosolized fuel ignited by the crash of Flight 93)? Or are you too scared to actually defend your "argument"?
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
Is there a brief summary of this thread someplace in the 51 pages?
If not could somebody summarize killtown's theory and what the opposing view is?
From what I can tell somebody allegedly took a picture of smoke emanating from the flight 93 crash.
The center of the smoke column (derived by taking into account the white and red barns) isn't exactly on top of the hole caused by the flight 93 crash.
In addition there has been a claim that the look of the smoke is not right for an airplane crash.
So Killtown believes the photo was faked? For what purpose does Killtown believe the photo was faked?
No doubt I am confused, please feel free to mock me for that or my laziness in not going through the preceding 51 pages to develop a better understanding of this thread. And, as always, please feel free to mock me for any spelling or grammatical errors.
If not could somebody summarize killtown's theory and what the opposing view is?
From what I can tell somebody allegedly took a picture of smoke emanating from the flight 93 crash.
The center of the smoke column (derived by taking into account the white and red barns) isn't exactly on top of the hole caused by the flight 93 crash.
In addition there has been a claim that the look of the smoke is not right for an airplane crash.
So Killtown believes the photo was faked? For what purpose does Killtown believe the photo was faked?
No doubt I am confused, please feel free to mock me for that or my laziness in not going through the preceding 51 pages to develop a better understanding of this thread. And, as always, please feel free to mock me for any spelling or grammatical errors.
Sigh. That is not our "theory." That is our "null hypothesis." For the moment, that is the only thing that we have any evidence available to suggest. We do not hold that this has been "proven" to be the case, we hold simply that nothing we have so far seen is inconsistent with this being the case.
Certainly your obsessive posting of that photo of a slow-speed crash of a B-52 is not changing anybody's mind about anything. It just keeps proving over, and over, and over, and over again that you wouldn't be able to make the debate team at the Special Olympics.
- Status