rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
show your math,or admit that you are a complete nincompoop.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
Hi All,
I've been following this "debate" for days now and felt compelled to throw in my two cents worth. I didn't realize that it would take two days to get registered on the site, though! All the central points have been made, Killtown's argument has been systematically dismantled: all that's left is, presumably, a series of "nu-uhhh!" and "look at my blog! I drew lines! On a map!" comments from Killtown.
So, now that this particular argument is on the scrap heap, I wonder if, as a total newbie to the board, I might make a suggestion for future cases of this kind. One of the frustrating things about arguments with CTists is that they're always like a game of whack-a-mole. They may start out with one "smoking gun" but if you debunk it, they immediately propose another (without, of course, accepting that the first is actually debunked: Killtown is a pure example of the type in this regard). When that second, or third, or fourth, or fifth "smoking gun" is demolished, it's time to go back to the first again: "But you guys still haven't answered my original question!"
In a way, arguments on discussion boards like these, particularly enable this tactic. If Killtown is finding one of his paper-thin arguments (and I realize that's an insult to paper) getting demolished he just waits for someone to engage with one of the others and shifts fronts (cloud size, five seconds, angles, cui bono, smoke color etc. etc.). By the time he circles back to the original argument and someone says "we already disproved that point" he can resort to the old "where?," "don't give me a link to the post, quote the relevant part!," "but that's all answered in my blog!" game.
So: here's my proposal. When someone comes into the forum with a claim of this kind, I suggest that respondants agree collectively to some rules of engagement (in a way, not unlike the protocols of the million-dollar challenge). That is, you choose one key part of the proposed claim and you say "we will discuss ONLY this part of the claim. If a compelling argument is put forward that this part of the claim does not stand, we will only move on to discussing other parts of the claim if the person advancing the claim explicitly concedes either that this part of the claim is now debunked or that they are revising their argument in such a way that that part of the claim is no longer relevant."
Of course, if the chosen step in the claimant's argument withstands criticism, the discussion would then move on to another step in the argument with the general agreement that the first step in the argument was apparently sound.
The point here would be that instead of an interminable game of whack-a-mole you'd be filling in the holes that the mole can use after the whacking. In this case, let us say that participants in the discussion had collectively agreed at the beginning that they would initially limit discussion solely to the probable size of the cloud: how long would it have taken to exhaust Killtown's argument there? The sum total of his "argument" is "I don't think so." After the rough calculations of (was it Buckwheatjones's physicist friend?) we could have collectively said "Killtown, your argument as currently stated hinges upon the cloud being "too big" to have been produced by the crash of Flight 93: you have advanced no arguments to support that claim other than comparison to arbitrarily chosen photographs of other plane crashes. Until you either produce some real evidence that the cloud could not be as big as it appears in the photograph OR admit that the size of the cloud is not a valid objection to the authenticity of the photo, this argument is at an end."
What do you think?
I've been following this "debate" for days now and felt compelled to throw in my two cents worth. I didn't realize that it would take two days to get registered on the site, though! All the central points have been made, Killtown's argument has been systematically dismantled: all that's left is, presumably, a series of "nu-uhhh!" and "look at my blog! I drew lines! On a map!" comments from Killtown.
So, now that this particular argument is on the scrap heap, I wonder if, as a total newbie to the board, I might make a suggestion for future cases of this kind. One of the frustrating things about arguments with CTists is that they're always like a game of whack-a-mole. They may start out with one "smoking gun" but if you debunk it, they immediately propose another (without, of course, accepting that the first is actually debunked: Killtown is a pure example of the type in this regard). When that second, or third, or fourth, or fifth "smoking gun" is demolished, it's time to go back to the first again: "But you guys still haven't answered my original question!"
In a way, arguments on discussion boards like these, particularly enable this tactic. If Killtown is finding one of his paper-thin arguments (and I realize that's an insult to paper) getting demolished he just waits for someone to engage with one of the others and shifts fronts (cloud size, five seconds, angles, cui bono, smoke color etc. etc.). By the time he circles back to the original argument and someone says "we already disproved that point" he can resort to the old "where?," "don't give me a link to the post, quote the relevant part!," "but that's all answered in my blog!" game.
So: here's my proposal. When someone comes into the forum with a claim of this kind, I suggest that respondants agree collectively to some rules of engagement (in a way, not unlike the protocols of the million-dollar challenge). That is, you choose one key part of the proposed claim and you say "we will discuss ONLY this part of the claim. If a compelling argument is put forward that this part of the claim does not stand, we will only move on to discussing other parts of the claim if the person advancing the claim explicitly concedes either that this part of the claim is now debunked or that they are revising their argument in such a way that that part of the claim is no longer relevant."
Of course, if the chosen step in the claimant's argument withstands criticism, the discussion would then move on to another step in the argument with the general agreement that the first step in the argument was apparently sound.
The point here would be that instead of an interminable game of whack-a-mole you'd be filling in the holes that the mole can use after the whacking. In this case, let us say that participants in the discussion had collectively agreed at the beginning that they would initially limit discussion solely to the probable size of the cloud: how long would it have taken to exhaust Killtown's argument there? The sum total of his "argument" is "I don't think so." After the rough calculations of (was it Buckwheatjones's physicist friend?) we could have collectively said "Killtown, your argument as currently stated hinges upon the cloud being "too big" to have been produced by the crash of Flight 93: you have advanced no arguments to support that claim other than comparison to arbitrarily chosen photographs of other plane crashes. Until you either produce some real evidence that the cloud could not be as big as it appears in the photograph OR admit that the size of the cloud is not a valid objection to the authenticity of the photo, this argument is at an end."
What do you think?
Last edited:
ghost707
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 71
Killtown is suspicious of Boeing because they did not incorporate fly-by-wire technology into their aircraft during the 90's.
I explained to killtown that Boeing, the airlines and pilots all have input into the design of the aircraft that Boeing builds. The majority of pilots at that time did not trust the fly-by-wire computers, so Boeing did not incorporate it into the 757 or 767 at that time.
When Airbus first demonstrated fly-by-wire control - the aircraft crashed at an airshow - and it was because the computer misunderstood what the pilot was trying to do.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Your method of estimating plume size is incorrect.
I state this based on observation of actual explosions, ranging in size from 1 to 5000 pounds TNT equivalent. In all cases where a cloud was produced, the cloud was significantly larger than the blast crater or blast mark on the ground. The same holds true for rapid incendiaries. It's a simple test that pretty much anyone can do. Make a Molotov Cocktail, find a non-flammable, abandoned area, turn on a good quality video camera, and throw. Look at the splash radius and compare it to the initial smoke cloud. It's still not 100% representative (the groud crash would have aerosolized a good portion of the fuel, producing some areas of FAE-like reaction), but gets you started.
So, unless you can actually show that your method for evaluating the plume size is correct, you have nothing.
So what does the debate for this thread boil down to?
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Not if your lines are off by a fraction on your picture. Then that puts it where it should be.
GIve up, please
You stroking your ego.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
You actually being able to support your claims.
Such as how you estimated the plume size (so far, you've given nothign but vague statements. Let us know, step-by-step, how one with no knowledge of the subject would reproduce the logic to determine plume size. Assume you're programming a computer. This is called "transparency of method" and is an integral part of scientific explanation).
Such as how you determined the crash coordinates.
Such as how you placed your "view lines"
Such as how you determined it's an "ordinance plume" rather than a plane crash (not opinion, evidence).
etc, etc, etc.
The plume size is only a small part.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
It does not boil down to a single "yes/no" question. As with most scientific queries it is a series of questions that must be asked, and the answer to those questions must be in agreement. I shall leave it as an exercise of the reader to determine what those series of questions should be. QED.
I stand by my lines.
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
I think we've about cleaned this one up.
As a final note, I'll add that I contacted Dr. Joe Shepherd at CalTech's Explosion Dynamics Lab (http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/) and simply sent him the photo, told him it was reputed to be Flight 93 and asked if, based on physical appearances alone, was it characteristic of a cloud from a jet fuel explosion or some sort of ordnance.
His response follows:
Buck,
I can't say anything about what this image represents. There are many
possibilities and I am uncomfortable speculating. The dispersal and combustion of fuel following a high-speed impact of an airplane into the ground is a complex event and I know of no simple way to relate the resulting plume of smoke to the quantity of fuel and type of event.
Joe Shepherd
What does this mean? Well, it means the information in the photo as it pertains to what type of explosion it was is inconclusive. There isn't enough data in that image for an expert in the field to make a determination one way or the other. So does that lend credence to killtown or take it away. Well, if you consider his adamant stance on his website:
"Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville..."
...you can see that he knows more than Dr. Shepherd does about detonations and the types of clouds they produce. Dr. Shepherd can't make the call, but killtown can.
As a final note, I'll add that I contacted Dr. Joe Shepherd at CalTech's Explosion Dynamics Lab (http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/) and simply sent him the photo, told him it was reputed to be Flight 93 and asked if, based on physical appearances alone, was it characteristic of a cloud from a jet fuel explosion or some sort of ordnance.
His response follows:
Buck,
I can't say anything about what this image represents. There are many
possibilities and I am uncomfortable speculating. The dispersal and combustion of fuel following a high-speed impact of an airplane into the ground is a complex event and I know of no simple way to relate the resulting plume of smoke to the quantity of fuel and type of event.
Joe Shepherd
What does this mean? Well, it means the information in the photo as it pertains to what type of explosion it was is inconclusive. There isn't enough data in that image for an expert in the field to make a determination one way or the other. So does that lend credence to killtown or take it away. Well, if you consider his adamant stance on his website:
"Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville..."
...you can see that he knows more than Dr. Shepherd does about detonations and the types of clouds they produce. Dr. Shepherd can't make the call, but killtown can.
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
Yes, but 400 is problematic for you in a few different ways.
First, as you've been reminded a few times on here, 400 meters would give rise to a cloud from a detonation that burned only the fuel and nothing else. A fire consuming debris, oxygen, aluminum etc. would produce a bigger cloud.
Second, 400 meters is 1200 feet. You just said you believe the cloud to be 600 feet or 200 meters. Did you change your mind?
No, but that size would still prove my claim!
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Your lines are innacurate until demonstrated to be otherwise. You have done nothing in terms of measurement of error to demonstrate otherwise.
HOWEVER,
even if we assume you lines to be correct AS DRAWN, they give a maximum plume size of 700m.
I and others have asserted that 400m would be a consertive minimum for the plume. Given the innacuracy of such estimates (thanks again buckwheatjones) 1000m maximum plume size would not be unreasonable.
If you disagree, prove it.
Otherwise, watch out as those falling cards could put an eye out...
CurtC
Illuminator
Why are you asking us???
Everyone else in the world accepts that this photo is of the smoke plume left by flight 93. If you are saying that the photo falsifies that idea, then you have to show exactly how. You have the burden of proof. So far, all I've seen is that the plume looks too big to you to be from 93. That falls way short of proof.
Belz...
Fiend God
IF.
A demand for oversimplification... why am I not surprised ?
IF.
I do believe this closes the subject quite nicely. Only an ignorant layman would claim to have better knowledge than an expert in his own field.
I don't get that. Mine got done almost instantly, if memory serves.
CTers can change the rules whenever they see fit and then go cry to mama Dylan. So it wouldn't do any good.
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
You honestly made me laugh. If any one thing has become evident from this thread and perusing the LC forum, it is that most of these badly undereducated kids believe in this statement strongly. I have tried pointing out that the next time they need a serious operation (say a heart transplant), by their own logic, they should visit a local plumber. They never seem to get it.
Exactly.
Killtown, you stand by your lines all you want, but your lines aren't credible, and so are you. You obviously have no idea how to conduct such an analysis, and it seems to me that you are the one attempting to fraud.
- Status