Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Dr Richard]

For those using critical thinking skills; as a coworker kindly pointed out to me, since the plane was coming in on a 40 degree angle, there is not reason to expect a symmetrical burn radius centered around the crater.

Or that the plane was intact when it hit the ground?

Or that the fuel spead onto the ground and then ignited?

Or that the fuel was not aerosolised first, thrown into the air and then ignited?

Or that the fireball did not behave as Yoink posted?

etc

etc


The problem is that Killtown still thinks we have a theory we have to prove, rather than proving anything himself.

His whole argument is one of personal incredulity with not one shred of real evidence.

I admit I was wrong when I thought he had some genuine maths that he thought proved his case.

From experience with the ID brigade, once you get to the "but I cannot see how it could have happened, so it didn't" level of non-debate, there is no way of changing someone's mind.

I suspect this is due to an inherent defect in the one advancing the argument from ignorance.

 

[DavidJames]

He's creating a strawman arguement. Your guys estimated fireball WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT to the photo graphic evidence of the crash scene. PERIOD.

He created no strawman. He asked questions, why are you afraid to answer the questions?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I tell you what, show me ANY fireball path in those aerial photos!

Howabout two higher-res, wider angle photos:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1868434#post1868434
http://usinfo.state.gov/photogaller...um_name=/nineeleven/penn&obj_name=5987206.jpg

 

[Killtown]

Or that the fuel was not aerosolised first, thrown into the air and then ignited?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

 

[Yoink]

He's creating a strawman arguement. Your guys estimated fireball WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT to the photo graphic evidence of the crash scene. PERIOD.

Give us some kind of argument to support this claim. You could say "macaroni WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT with cheese" but it wouldn't make it so, would it? What gives you reason to think that the minimum estimated fireball is inconsistent with the unburnt grass observed at the crash scene? If I said that the unscorched side of the WTC building in the photo I linked to is INCONSISTENT with a fireball-explosion having occurred there shortly before, would you say that I was right and discount the photographic evidence that we have of that explosion? Or would you say "well, we need to know more about the nature of such explosions"? Why?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

Attack the argument, not the person. If you continue slinging personal attacks I will start reporting posts.

 

[Yoink]

Cause the fireball went THROUGH the building?

Please look at your own photograph again. You will see TWO fireballs--one in front of the impact site, and one out the side of the building.

ETA: Or, if you prefer, look at this photograph. This is the fireball you prefer--the one you think is exactly the same as the B-52 one. Notice again--immedately after the fireball disperses--that there is substantial blackening on the building ABOVE the exit hole in the building, but no blackening below. Please give us your theory that explains this. Or tell us if you now hold these photos also to be photoshopped?

 

[DavidJames]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

I don't think you understand what Dr Richard's comment means, if not, don't be embarrased to ask. If you disagree with the comment, why not provide an intellgent rebuttal, instead of that unhelpful comment?

 

[Dr Richard]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Please stop, you guys are killing me!!!

Point 1. You have not answered the question. Please do so.

Point 2. Why did you not laugh at the other questions?

Point 3. Why did you not answer the other questions?

 

[Dr Richard]

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?img...+tanks+757&nojs=1&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-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.

In particular, if you can stop laughing, what is your argument against this post? You never laughed or commented on it previously.

 

[Dr Richard]

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

Also never laughed at this.

Or objected to it.

Now, please answer the questions.

 

[gumboot]

Do we know from what direction the impact occurred?

According to the FDR the aircraft's heading was 180 degrees, so directly south. Which means it impacted from the north. Bear in mind it was in a 150 degree turn to starboard so it was probably more of a NW approach.

-Andrew

 

[Yoink]

So, Killtown, now that you're "big surprise" has been thoroughly demolished, are you going to apologize to Val McClatchey like you promised?

 

[Math Maniac]

I have been reading this forum for a while now and I would like to point out that the recently reseased video of the Ukraine plane crash seems to me (untrained eyes) to match fairly closely with the "supposedly" faked/doctored/etc. Flight 93 photo presented in the opening post.

Other thoughts? Are my eyes playing tricks?

 

[Dog Town]

apologize to Val McClatchey like you promised?

I got a 50$ US says no F'ing way.
Welcome Math, love Goldies, and Coney Islander in your Hood!

 

[Dr Richard]

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)

Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C

Dry grass ignites at 525F

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

 

[Dr Richard]

Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C

Dry grass ignites at 525F

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

Yeah, yeah, I know, he'll go on to invent another minimum and go on to fraw some new google earth maps.

When he does, you can always talk about temperature gradients in aerosolised burning jet fuel clouds that are being blown away from the crash site area in question by winds of up to 25knots.

Or any of the other unanswered questions he refuses address because he cannot.

Luckily, I'm off to a music festival tomorrow and won't have to watch the thread slide further into the pit of Killtown's personal ignorance and incredulity.

Been fun guys, thanks!

 

[Yoink]

Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C

Dry grass ignites at 525F

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

Ouch. KT--your credibility called, it wants you to stop trampling all over it.

P.S. have a look at this video. Once again it's a youtube link, and we all know that all cutting edge plane crash forensics are based on youtube videos. You'll see that it's a slow-speed plane crash (your favorite kind) that leads to a massive fireball. Please note towards the end of the clip that we see firefighters fighting the fire on the plane. Please notice that the grass goes all the way up to the plane--even to the rear end of the plane, which we had seen engulfed in flames very like your B-52 flames not long before. Hmmmmmm. How do the FBI and the CIA and Mossad etc. get to fake Russian air crashes, Killtown? Or is this video also Val McClatchey's work?

So...now will you apologize to the poor woman whose life you so thoughtlessly set about wrecking?

 

[Yoink]

Think he finally quit, or his Mom told him ne needed to get off that damned computer and get some fresh air?

 

[DavidJames]

Woody fuel ignites at temperatures of 340C

Dry grass ignites at 525F

Wet grass takes longer/hotter fire exposure to boil away water before combustion occurs.

It is a shame you did not check the facts before coming out with your devastating proof.

Ok...Put on your CT hat (it's the one made of tinfoil, over there in the corner)...go ahead now and put it on.

Now...Go to the link regarding the ignition temp of dry grass....

Tell me what in that link proves the story is a disinfo plant by the perps.

Thanks, our next lesson will be on chemtrails.