Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Dr Richard]

Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

Cambridge dictionary:

MAINLY UK (MAINLY US garbage, US ALSO trash) waste material or unwanted or worthless things:
I forgot to put the rubbish out for collection this morning.
Put the empty box in the rubbish bin.
Take the old furniture to the rubbish dump.

2 INFORMAL something that you think is very low quality or not true:
The film was rubbish.
His ideas are a load of (old) rubbish

l was using it in sense (2) - your arguments were of low quality and shown to be not true. You and your thought processes are not being rubbished. Again, you did not defend them when given the opportunity.

Answer the questions now? Or evade some more?

P.S. Thanks Darth Rotor. Your interpretation was accurate.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

To clarify: even if I accept your value for the plume size I can't answer your question until I can do the calculation and analyze your graph based on that information.

 

[mortimer]

Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

(scroll to bottom)
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/ordnance-blasts.html

You're more convinced its an ordnance plume because you can't see the bottom of the plume?

 

[c0rbin]

It's almost always #3. The people on the fence who might be reading this thread.

It's like who benefits from maps. Not the locals, who know everything by sight. Not the blind, who can't see the map anyway. Maps are for the people who are coming into an area for the first time.

And while a summary would be nice, I wouldn't expect a critical thinker to rely on it exclusively. Sometimes you have to walk the road to know you've gotten to the right destination.

Your map analogy is excellent. I guess the summary would be a list of points of interest on this map.

Such a legend might not be necessary for those who want to tramp the path unguided, but maybe useful for those who want to know what ground has been covered and what results were concluded.

It seems to me that this whole thread could be boiled down to this:

Killtown claims the photograph provides
a ) evidence that Flight 93 crashed as a result of a missle strike
b ) a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume in the photo

The photo itself deserves some skepticism as it
a ) looks fake
b ) is not regarded as evidence of anything in the official report
c ) has a possibly dubious timeline (5, 10, 45 seconds?)

Killtown has failed to demonstrate expertise in the field of surveying based on photographs and an unwillingness to revise his/her conclusion in light of plausible explanations for the photo (e.g. A photograph is a 2D representation of a 3D environment, the specifics of the camera are unknown, etc)

Does this help?

 

[Killtown]

2 INFORMAL something that you think is very low quality or not true:
The film was rubbish.
His ideas are a load of (old) rubbish

l was using it in sense (2) - your arguments were of low quality and shown to be not true. You and your thought processes are not being rubbished. Again, you did not defend them when given the opportunity.

Yeah, that's not insulting...

NOUN:

1. Refuse; garbage.
2. Worthless material.
3. Foolish discourse; nonsense.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yeah, that's not insulting...

He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

 

[Killtown]

You're more convinced its an ordnance plume because you can't see the bottom of the plume?

Not to get off topic again, but which plume does the middle plume look more like to you, Val's (left) or the jet crash (right)?

 

[mortimer]

Not to get off topic again, but which plume does the middle plume look more like to you, Val's (left) or the jet crash (right)?

[qimg]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-compare-edited.jpg[/qimg]

Why don't you stay on topic and tell me which plume(s) look like they are being blown by wind?

 

[Hellbound]

He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

It's the only way he can maintain his excuses. If he wasn't offended, he'd have to come up with a new reason for not answering questions.

Of course, if we reacted the same way, he would have been on everyone's ignore list long ago, considering the numerous insults to people and arguments (many from LC).

Of course, some people are mature enough to have a thick skin, and to seperate the argument from the arguer.

Some are...not.

 

[Killtown]

It seems to me that this whole thread could be boiled down to this:

Killtown claims the photograph provides
a ) evidence that Flight 93 crashed as a result of a missle strike

Where did I ever claim that???

 

[Darth Rotor]

He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

Of course, such an approach distracts from the topic at hand for one holding a bag of smoke. For someone interested in well organized and supported analysis, such distractions are annoying, and of no value.

More "rubbish."

DR

 

[Killtown]

Why don't you stay on topic and tell me which plume(s) look like they are being blown by wind?

Answer mine first then I'll answer yours.

 

[Belz...]

Good, so apologize for calling me a "boy" and I'll respond to your questions.

What is this ? An elementary school lunch-break where you have to shake hands and make up ?

Grow the hell up.

 

[Belz...]

Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.

No, you won't. You'll find another reason to not answer them.

Man alive, you are childish.

Assuming he's not a child, per se.

 

[Dr Richard]

Yeah, that's not insulting...

Killtown, you appear to take offense as a strategy for avoiding difficult questions.

I have repeatedly stated that I was describing your arguments about the colour of the smoke plume and the shifting of the plume. I have stated thay they are of low quality and not true.

If you provide a satisfactory counter-argument for the above two points I will be happy - nay, overjoyed - to retract the statement that the arguments are rubbish.

So g'wan, please, please, pretty please with sugar on it:

(a) why can the wind not be blowing towards or away from the viewer in the picture where the plume is not shifted?
(b) why are there pictures of airplane crashes where the smoke is not the dense black you claim it must be?

Best wishes in anticipation

Richard

 

[Pardalis]

Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic.

Why should we hypothesize that? On what scientific evidence do you base your diameter?

Basically, you are asking us to allow ourselves to believe in your theory to make your diagram accurate.

It's the same thing as if we allowed ourselves to believe in God, it will make the Bible accurate.

 

[mortimer]

Answer mine first then I'll answer yours.

Cute. Nah, I asked first. Your turn.

 

[Belz...]

He was talking about your arguements. You seem determined to go out of your way to be offended.

Well, of course he is. Another good way to NOT answer questions.

 

[Belz...]

Answer mine first then I'll answer yours.

Another tried and true tactic.

As to your question about which plume looks more like the one on the middle, it's irrelevant: explosions aren't like in video games where the same 3d model is used for each blast.

 

[rwguinn]

Another tried and true tactic.

As to your question about which plume looks more like the one on the middle, it's irrelevant: explosions aren't like in video games where the same 3d model is used for each blast.

And explosions don't necessarily leave a ground fire burning, as in picture 3.
Nor does a ground fire necessarily indicate evidence of an explosion.