Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Belz...]

1) Even though the Concorde crash had a mushroom shape, that's about all it had in similarity. It's column was thick, suggesting fuel still burning and the video quality made the color undeterminable.

Didn't the Concorde crash on something ELSE that started burning, too ?

4. Now that I gave you my clip wasn't good to determine shifting, you'll notice the middle plume had to have sprouted straight up, then you can see it shifted 90 degs to the right, just like I asked if this is how Val's plume shifted. Will you agree to that?

_I_ wouldn't. There's no way you can tell that it sprouted straight up.

3) Well if she's in on it some one, of course she is going to say that!

Damn, that's an easy answer.

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?

Wouldn't change the fact that you're acting like a jerk.

 

[Belz...]

5) "jerk off"? Porn freak.

Well, that explains it! You're repressed!

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Boeing says
Which, subtracting our estimated 2200 gal, gives us:
9289 gal, 9076 gal, and 9266 gal respectively.

Right. That's why I started at 10k gallons. But then tried to find out how much fuel was on board at time of crash. Only found that Telegraph story that said 10k was on board at time of take off, I think. So either way, if it crashed with 10,000 gallons or 7800 gallons, it's reasonable to think that a 600 meter wide cloud is viable.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

No, 600 feet.

No. 600 feet way too small.

 

[Dr Richard]

No. 600 feet way too small.

Hi Buckwheatjones, good work on your original estimate of plume size. Killtown's uncalculated guesstimate puts the plume size at 200m.

I put it at 300-400m assuming only jet fuel was burning.

As your source as stated, other particulate matter from burning bits of airplane, debris and vegetation could increase the plume size further.

So, the onus is on Killtown to explain:

1. EXACTLY how he arrives at his plume size.
2. Why Arkan Wolfshade is wrong in his calculation that a plume size of 500m diameter (approx) would be visible AS SHOWN on the photograph.

If he cannot do this, then he is debunked. End of, as they say.

So Killtown, over to you....

 

[MortFurd]

So, the onus is on Killtown to explain:

1. EXACTLY how he arrives at his plume size.

Rectal extraction.

[modp]MortFurd, please refrain from making remarks of that kind.[/modp]

 

[Killtown]

As far as I can tell.

That said, the Post-Gazette article said she is now accepting money, but only for her lawsuit in defence of her photo. So that isn't evidence of a financial motive either as no photo would have meant no lawsuit.

Well that seems to contradict each other, so let me know when you guys work that out.

 

[Dr Richard]

Well that seems to contradict each other, so let me know when you guys work that out.

He just did, Killtown. No financial motive. No question. Now, please answer the questions put to you.

 

[ghost707]

He just did, Killtown. No financial motive. No question. Now, please answer the questions put to you.

He won't because he can't.
The only thing I have seen from killtown is speculation.

 

[Killtown]

1. This has been disproved by my ealier post showing that there are many pictures on the internet of airplane crashes where the plume is not "almost black" in colour.

2. According to the source given by Killtown in his blog "She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch. "

Note - above the red barns. Nothing about direction there.

3. "She says she took the photo about 5 seconds after she heard it crash"

Much has already been said about this. Even KT himself says "about" 5s. Posts have discussed the exact timing.

4. Sorry, this made me laugh. In the UK, when we have a barbecue we burn some wood/charcoal outside. Some people even have gas-fired barbecues. Do people not do this in the USA? Do you have electric barbecues??

5. This has been effectively debunked by Gravy, so no more to be said here.

6. Unless KT can show his calculations for the plume of smoke in more detail, his claim that be plume size is equal to the size of the crater and burned area is absurd and can be dismissed.

7. There then follows more personal attacks on Val's motives. Discredited for the above reasons (5).

1) I'm sorry, could you link those again?

2) UA 93 flew heading south east. Val heard a plane fly overhead and looked out her front window which would be facing west. Paths contradict. No rocket science here:

3) She says, "about 5 seconds". That's her quote. I like how everybody is essentially calling her a liar too!

4) She could have just done an outside BBQ, or her lights came back on. Do you have any comments to my other questions about this, or just the ones you find easily refuttable?

5) Are you sure?

6) I've mentioned it numerous times already.

7) Her motives haven't been discredited as of yet.

 

[Killtown]

RE 3) The plumes estimated size is 526 meters. You assumption that this was too large for the distance to the crash site is in error. Your assumption that the plume could not have been in the angle of view between the two barns is in error. You conclusion that the plume must have been significanly closer (~1000 meters) to Val than the crash site is wrong.

I specifically asked you:

"So basically if it's proven the plume was more my estimated size, than that would prove my accusation? That plume size is what it boils down to?"

It really only needs a "yes or no" answer.

 

[Killtown]

RE 1) By bisecting the barn, rather than using the north tip, you generate an error of ~89 meters at the longitude of the crashsite between my southern vector and yours.
RE 2) Coordinates of your crater?
RE 2) You have not provided any backing to substantiate that this method of estimation is accurate.

1) I stand by my lines.

2) Approx: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=40.050972,-78.904583

3) We'll get to this is a bit.

 

[Killtown]

Killtown, please provide similar measurements for your analysis of the area.

Here: http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

 

[Killtown]

1) Sure. It could have also performed a loop-d-loop, then inverted itself, twice.

2) What's your point?

1) Grow up.

2) Everyone was saying "no" at first, just wondering if that middle plume pic has changed their answers or not.

 

[Killtown]

1) So, Killtown, how did you perform YOUR plume size calculations? What different values did you use, which program for modellling and

2) where did the 2200ft value come from?

1) MY estimates came from real life videos of crashes of large planes and from forensics.

2) The distance between my plume width lines.

 

[Killtown]

I put it at 300-400m assuming only jet fuel was burning.

I'll take this, because it proves my claim!

 

[ghost707]

1)

2) UA 93 flew heading south east. Val heard a plane fly overhead and looked out her front window which would be facing west. Paths contradict. No rocket science here:

Hmm...an aircraft can't change direction while in flight? Maybe someone should tell the pilots about this little problem.

 

[MortFurd]

Rectal extraction.

It explains all of Killtown's arguments, actually.

I don't know how you guys can manage to keep trying to have a discussion with someone who never answers direct, simple questions.

Killtown hat sein Kopf nur zum Haare schneiden.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Hi Buckwheatjones, good work on your original estimate of plume size. Killtown's uncalculated guesstimate puts the plume size at 200m.

I put it at 300-400m assuming only jet fuel was burning.

As your source as stated, other particulate matter from burning bits of airplane, debris and vegetation could increase the plume size further.

So, the onus is on Killtown to explain:

1. EXACTLY how he arrives at his plume size.
2. Why Arkan Wolfshade is wrong in his calculation that a plume size of 500m diameter (approx) would be visible AS SHOWN on the photograph.

If he cannot do this, then he is debunked. End of, as they say.

So Killtown, over to you....

Hi, Doc. Glad to see another new guy on the board. Looks like you've done your homework.

Wanted to try a summary here, please check my work if you have time. Feel free to correct my thinking if I'm off:

* It's reasonable to think that the fuel on board was anywhere between 7500 and 10,000 gallons at the time of the crash, based on posts above.

* If 10,000 gallons gives us a minimum of 500-600 meters across (correlates with Arkan's figure of 525m) with a possible maximum of 1000 meters across per the calculations of the nuclear engineer,

* and if 7500 gallons is an amount one quarter less than the high end estimate of fuel on board, could one reduce the minimum and maximum parameters of the width of the cloud by 25% to get the low end of the scale?

In other words,

IF: 10,000 max fuel equals minimum cloud of 525 meters, maximum cloud of 1000 meters.

THEN: 7,500 minimum fuel equals minimum cloud of 400 meters, maximum cloud of 7500 meters.

Does it stand to reason that 25% less fuel on board means 25% less cloud, all things remaining equal?

If it does, then at the very least it is reasonable that the cloud could be 400 meters across or 1200 feet, which is twice the size of killtown's best guess of 600 feet.

 

[Killtown]

He just did, Killtown. No financial motive. No question. Now, please answer the questions put to you.

So let me get this straight then, checks are made out to the Todd Beamer foundation and she simply forwards the checks. she can't touch the money, is this correct?