Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
Read the previous posts. The information you seek has been posted. If you can't find information in a single forum thread, how do you expect us to believe you can the "truth" out there in the wilds of the world?
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I just wanted to see if you were paying attention to what others have written here. No one knows exactly how big the plume should be, because no one knows the exact data for each variable. Others (bless their hearts for trying) recognize that the variables exist and took the time to fill in some of those gaps in knowledge by doing research to establish some parameters. They presented their findings, which you have not refuted.
To call the photo a "smoking gun" or "smokingest gun" as you do, you need conclusive evidence. You have not provided anything remotely like that.
Add to that the fact that no "ordnance" explosions or other huge mushroom clouds were reported, that numerous people saw the plane roll and dive, felt and heard the explosion, saw the fireball and mushroom cloud, and that Val McClatchey's photo is authentic according to the FBI, what are you left with?
You're left with the fact that despite all the evidence to the contrary, you don't believe the photo depicts the aftermath of flight 93.
Belief is not a basis for the serious accusations you've made. Please do the responsible, adult, decent thing and withdraw them.
Killtown: no, it wouldn't. I've read every post in this thread. My point is that those posts have--in my opinion--demolished every single argument that you advanced at the beginning of the thread. What I am asking you is whether you can name one part of your argument that you consider NOW--AFTER all the posts that followed your initial posts in the thread--to be still unanswered.
So, can you tell me one part of your argument which you consider to be unshaken by opposing argument, and which you think is clearly incompatible with this photograph being an undoctored record of the aftermath of the crash of Flight 93. I'm not asking you to say that there is only one claim, I'm asking you to pick what you think to be your most telling claim. What part of your total argument is, to your own mind, the most compelling?
1) So has my plume estimate been 100% refuted?
2) IYO.
3) How many people witnessed Val's plume?
Well there you go. Thanks for visiting this thread.
Those are the numbers that others have come up with.
Buckwheatjones had an estimate of plue size that ranged from 600 upto 1000m. The range depended on part on actual conditions in the crash and the amoutn of fuel. 10000 Gallons was the amount of fuel given that flight 93 had on board at the start of its flight. Estimates of consumed fuel were ~2200 Gallons, so that your 7500 is right in the ballpark.
Congratulations. You managed to find those things all on your own.
It does not need to be. There is no evidence for it; there need be no evidence amassed against it.
Looked for the numbers in your link before...seems a nice, all-purpose link you have there; you link it in answer to every question. Sorry, though, I could not see where, in that blog, you give the numbers, how you got them, or what you did with them. I see your diagrams, but nothing of the process by which you arrived at them.
Since you are intimately familiar with your all-purpose link, could you extract those numbers?
I'm asking you if I've overlooked something, Killtown. You clearly disagree with me that your argument has been systematically put through a shredder. You think the argument is worth pursuing. You continue to defend it. I'm asking you: why? What, for you, is "the smokingest smoking gun" that still remains standing? If you and I were to go before some impartial arbiter right now (somebody we both trusted to be utterly impartial) and ask them to decide if you had any case left or not, what would be your "big gun"? What would you bring out and lay before that judge and say "see--let them try to refute THIS!"?
Come on--it's not a trick question. If there's something in your argument that you think is really telling and you also think it hasn't been properly addressed yet, it can only help your case to draw our attention to it.
K, here are your guy's guestimates:
Now about what % of fuel went up in the resulting fireball? 80%? 90%? 95%?
You guys choose a % and I'll go with it. Also, pick a % that stayed buried underground and I'll go with that too.
.
Belz...
Fiend God
Mercutio said:
No, no, Mercutio. Don't you see ? Numbers are for dweebs :
Killtown said:
See ? All you need is your exaggerated, non-expert sense of self-worth and you can do anything. The hell with math!
Belz...
Fiend God
No. Not an opinion. All you're provided are questions and conjecture. Even a Commodore Vic-20 would agree.
No way to tell what percentage burned, and no way to prove that all of it didn't burn.
The calculations that Buckwheat went through were based on 100% burn of the available fuel.
But then, you knew that. You read his post, right?
Doesn't matter, you guys pick one and I'll go with it.
Jesus H. Christ on a rubber crutch. Is your reading comprehension that bad?
PS:
Your link still doesn't work.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/rumpl4skn-plume-size2.0.gif
As I said, it doesn't matter what you guys pick, I'll go along with it.
Copy/paste my link in browser. (it works for me btw.)
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
translation: "no matter what the evidence i will twist it around to support my warped world view"
Killtown, it's reasonably obvious that you're trying to get someone to spitball a concrete figure. Then, if the cloud measures in any way different from that spitballed figure you can say (until the end of time) "but you guys claim that X% of the fuel burned and that would make the cloud only 95% of the one in the photo!!!"
The point is that the equations done so far are providing estimated ranges. They're not "picking figures" because they know that that would just amount to pulling numbers out of the air. They're trying to actually determine what might have happend on that day. The plane couldn't have had more fuel than it would have with full tanks, and it must have used up some of that fuel. That gives a range. The claim that has been advanced is that the cloud in the photo falls within the expected range, both for it's size and for its position relative to the crash site. It is entirely your responsibility to show some reason (your best, strongest, most compelling reason would be a good one to start with) why anybody should doubt that that cloud does fall within the expected range.
Nobody here knows exactly how much fuel was on the plane, or how much of it burned. They do not need to know that, or to make that claim, in order to be able to argue that they have seen no evidence to suggest that the cloud is inconsistent with the range of possible clouds one might expect in the event of Flight 93 crashing as described in the OV.
So, tell us one strong piece of evidence which should lead us to think that this cloud in fact falls outside of that range.
- Status