Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

Killtown, it's reasonably obvious that you're trying to get someone to spitball a concrete figure.

Nope, just pick what you think is a reasonable % and I'll concur.

 

[Mercutio]

Nope, just pick what you think is a reasonable % and I'll concur.

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

The anonymous blogger wants a number. The expert in the field would be uncomfortable speculating.

I suggest that this photograph simply does not--cannot--contain the information needed to act as a "smoking gun". It contains enough information that a zealous amateur can perform the mathematical equivalent of seeing faces in clouds. (This gives the benefit of the doubt that the diagrams are in fact the result of some number-crunching; thus far, those numbers and that process have not been made available.)

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nope, just pick what you think is a reasonable % and I'll concur.

No. You made the claim, both here and on your webpage. YOU provide supporting evidence that is independently corroboratable by any objective third party or RETRACT YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Gravy]

1) So has my plume estimate been 100% refuted?

You say you have conclusive proof that the photo is either a fake or of an ordnance explosion. People here have shown you why your methods are flawed, and have presented their findings which show that other plume sizes are plausible. Your evidence is clearly not conclusive, agreed?

2) IYO.

Please show how the findings of others, which present reasonable evidence that you are wrong, are incorrect. Remember, the burden of proof is on you. You must provide conclusive proof in order to call something a smoking gun.

Do you understand that?

3) How many people witnessed Val's plume?

I don't know. Here are just a few eyewitness accounts in addition to Val McClatchey's. Of course you've seen these before. What do you make of them? Are these people lying?

"There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plain...tandard.xsl?/base/news/100028703529429109.xml

Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp

"I just watched with my mouth open as this yellow mushroom cloud rose up just like an atomic bomb over the hill where I like to go hunting," said 72- year-old John Walsh. [Say, maybe it was an A-Bomb!]

Barefoot and in his bathrobe, he drove up the dirt road to rescue anyone he could find. There would be nothing he could do.

Debris, including photographs and other papers that survived the fireball, was strewn over a wide area. Residents have spent days collecting it.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/17/MN40630.DTL

"When the plane hit, it sounded like something just fell on the roof. Everybody sort of panicked," she said. "I went to the window and saw all this smoke coming up and I just pointed and screamed."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscenenat4p3.asp

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.
Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.
http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html

Are they lying, Killtown?

 

[Killtown]

No. You made the claim, both here and on your webpage. YOU provide supporting evidence that is independently corroboratable by any objective third party or RETRACT YOUR CLAIM.

Jeez, I'm trying to help you guys out and you're attacking me!

I tell you what, since the more gallons of fuel upon impact and the higher % of fuel burned at impact would create a bigger plume, how about I concede your numbers to be:

Your theoretical fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals

Your theoretical fuel % burned upon impact: 95%


Is everybody ok with this? I mean this would surely be enough to debunk my theory, right?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Jeez, I'm trying to help you guys out and you're attacking me!

I tell you what, since the more gallons of fuel upon impact and the higher % of fuel burned at impact would create a bigger plume, how about I concede your numbers to be:

Your theoretical fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals

Your theoretical fuel % burned upon impact: 95%


Is everybody ok with this? I mean this would surely be enough to debunk my theory, right?

Scientific methodology is not a process of, "who likes this number?". It is not about picking something that everybody "likes". Scientific methodology is a process of fact discovery and allowing the facts to lead to the conclusion. You have made a claim, both here and on your website. Since you have made a claim, I must assume that you have already come to a conclusion. Provide the facts that support your conclusion or RETRACT YOUR CLAIM

 

[Killtown]

1) You say you have conclusive proof that the photo is either a fake or of an ordnance explosion. People here have shown you why your methods are flawed, and have presented their findings which show that other plume sizes are plausible. Your evidence is clearly not conclusive, agreed?


2) Please show how the findings of others, which present reasonable evidence that you are wrong, are incorrect. Remember, the burden of proof is on you. You must provide conclusive proof in order to call something a smoking gun.


3) I don't know. Here are just a few eyewitness accounts in addition to Val McClatchey's. Of course you've seen these before. What do you make of them? Are these people lying?

Are they lying, Killtown?

1) Funny, I asked a simple yes or no question, but didn't see a yes or no answer.

2) Well I'm trying to get to the plume size factors and willing to concede your guys estimates of fuel and burn %, but you guys are being evasive for some reason (weird).

3) a) So all those saw the explosion/smoke and only Val took a photo?
b) Is the h-bomb guy lying?
c) 2nd to last paragraph, which one of those guys is correct? They contradict each other.

 

[Killtown]

Scientific methodology is not a process of, "who likes this number?". It is not about picking something that everybody "likes". Scientific methodology is a process of fact discovery and allowing the facts to lead to the conclusion. You have made a claim, both here and on your website. Since you have made a claim, I must assume that you have already come to a conclusion. Provide the facts that support your conclusion or RETRACT YOUR CLAIM

Wow, I'm TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY. I told you guys I'll concede to these VERY generous estimates that helps YOU guys and not only will you not except them, but you ATTACK me!!!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

1) Funny, I asked a simple yes or no question, but didn't see a yes or no answer.

i asked you a simpel yes or no question, but rather than answer you decided to ignore me on "this and any other forum"

 

[Buckwheatjones]

No, but that size would still prove my claim!

OK, then you have two claims:

1. Claim #1 references the grey lines on your map and call out the plume size to be 400 meters or 1200 feet across.

2. Claim #2, coming from you directly, calls out the plume to be 200 meters or 600 feet across.

You are free to make as many claims as you like, afterall, this is America and you can say whatever you wish. However, common sense affords the rest of us the priviledge to note that inconsistency on your part breeds skepticism on our part. In other words, we're all having a good laugh at your expense on here.

Now. As a professional retoucher, I have to say that without study of the actual photo there is no way to contend that the photo is the victim of Photoshopping. In fact, it really can't be done effectively in this case. So. The photo must be taken at face value.

Next, if the photo is real, and is near the crash site then Arkan's calculations are likely accurate at 525 meters. This is consistent with the engineer's math based on 10,000 gallons. But, he also claims that a plume 1000 meters is also reasonable. So, if only 7800 gallons went up, an argument could be made that the plume is then only 400 meters across -- if the fuel burned in a "vaccum." -- that is, with no other combustibles present. But as we know, this was not the case what with the additional debris, etc. So. 400 meters is not a reasonable estimate.

Still, if the plume were only 400 meters, then it would place it at your grey lines. And if the plume were at your grey lines, then it was well away from both the crash site and the site that you think the ordnance was set off. And if the plume is from your ordnance site, then that means it moved way back to the west Against the wind and toward the crash site.

And this too, is unreasonable. Coupling all of this with Dr. Shepherd's note, that he as an expert cannot make any kind of determination becuase the image lacks enough information, means that you either are smarter than he is on the subject or you were in on it yourself and know for a fact that a bunch of TNT got cooked off a mile downrange from the crash site.

But enough of all that. I'd just like to know which claim you want to stick with, the 600 feet that you believed the plume to measure, or the 1200 feet (400 meters) that you also believed the plume to measure.

 

[Killtown]

Can we all agree to these theoretical estimates?...

Your theoretical fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals

Your theoretical fuel % burned upon impact: 95%

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Can we all agree to these theoretical estimates?...

Your theoretical fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals

Your theoretical fuel % burned upon impact: 95%

without a basis in reality any conclusions drawn are less than useless

 

[LashL]

2) Well I'm trying to get to the plume size factors and willing to concede your guys estimates of fuel and burn %, but you guys are being evasive for some reason (weird).

Nobody is being evasive or "weird" about this, except you. It is simply that that is not how the scientific method works.

You have made claims here repeatedly and you have pretended that your conclusions were based on actual data and science but you have repeatedly refused and/or failed to provide any backup for your conclusions whatsoever.

Now, you seem to think that "agreeing" to a number should somehow justify your failure to provide the math and methodology that you used in the first place. THAT is "weird".

As so many have said before, either provide your math and methodology or concede that you have none.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

killtown are you still going to stand by both Claim#1 and Claim#2 simultaneously?

 

[Gravy]

1) Funny, I asked a simple yes or no question, but didn't see a yes or no answer.

And that's your problem. You want yes or no answers to complex problems. I said that the burden of proof is on you to provide the conclusive evidence that Val McClatchey's photo was faked or of an ordnance explosion. You have not done so, and others have pointed out the flaws in your methods and conclusions, and have shown that other reasonable conclusions are likely.

Do you understand that? I'd like to hear your definition of "smoking gun" Please tell us what YOUR definition is.

2) Well I'm trying to get to the plume size factors and willing to concede your guys estimates of fuel and burn %, but you guys are being evasive for some reason (weird).

See my response to #1.

3) a) So all those saw the explosion/smoke and only Val took a photo?

Is that a joke? You expect everyone to have a camera at their side?

Please answer. I seriously want to know what posessed you to ask that.

b) Is the h-bomb guy lying?

About what? Do you know what a metaphor is?

Please answer. I seriously want to know what posessed you to ask that.

c) 2nd to last paragraph, which one of those guys is correct? They contradict each other.

It's the account of a single person, Bob Blair.

Again, Killtown, you asked for witnesses. I provided them. Do you have evidence that these people are lying?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

b) Is the h-bomb guy lying?

About what? Do you know what a metaphor is?

Please answer. I seriously want to know what posessed you to ask that.

he didnt even say h-bomb, he said atomic bomb (a-bomb) (yes, there is a difference)

shows how much killtown reads

 

[Killtown]

Ok, lets try this for FUN. We'll do two hypothetical experiments based on your guy's min and max plume estimates. The min will produce the smallest plume width and the max will produce the largest. I'll also conced that both of your plume sizes will have drifted into Val's camera line at their necessary times and speeds to be at the appropriate spot needed at the time of Val's photo was taken. So don't worry, in both hypothetical experiments, BOTH should totally obliterate my theory! (It's a win win situation for you guys!)


-------------------------------

Hypothetical #1, the minimum:

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"

Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals

Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%

Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

--------------------------------

Hypothetical #2, the maximum:

Crash angle: 45 deg

Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals

Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%

Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300

--------------------------------

My measley plume size: 200m/600ft


---------------------------------


Note that I believe a 45 deg crash would produce a bigger plume than a 90 deg crash, but if you disagree it doesn't really matter because they BOTH should obliterate my theory which ever way they are switched around.

Ok, is everybody ok with this HYPOTHETICAL experiment for FUN so far?

 

[Yoink]

Can we all agree to these theoretical estimates?...

Your theoretical fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals

Your theoretical fuel % burned upon impact: 95%

Why would we "agree" to these when they're plucked out of thin air? 10,000 gals is clearly not correct because (IIRC) that is the amount of fuel the plane has when fully fueled. It could not possibly have been fully fueled at the time of impact.

The 95% number is simply a random guess. Nobody knows. All we do know is that it is possible that there was sufficient fuel on the plane to cause a fireball sufficiently large to generate the cloud in that photo. None of this precludes the possiblity that one could find evidence (fuel remains in the soil? Data from the black box about the actual quantity of fuel at time of crash?) that would actually go to demonstrate that there was insufficient fuel ignited on impact to create the cloud in the photograph. I know you prefer plucking numbers out of the air to doing actual research, but those you are arguing with are interested in facts, not airy conjecture.

Perhaps I can give you an analogy that will explain to you why we resist this idea of "picking a number." Imagine for a moment that your house had burnt down. Imagine that your neighbour videoed the fire from beginning to end, and has given the recording to your insurance company. You know that the fire took roughly two hours, but you don't know exactly how long. Now, say your insurance company comes to you and says "we don't like the looks of this: we feel that two hours was too rapid for an unaccelerated fire; we think you burnt the house down on purpose."

Now, assuming that your clone works for the insurance company, that's the end of their argument. They "feel" it is too fast, and that's good enough for them. But let's say that you-faced with a financial disaster-decide that you are less impressed with this style of argument than before. Let us say you go to an expert (hah!) and ask his opinion. Well, the house is destroyed now, so it is hard for the expert to give a definitive answer as to the expected burn-time for your house. But you give him an inventory of what you had in the house and your best description of the construction of the house (along with photos, plans etc). He says: "o.k., well, based on my experience, the combustible properties of these contents as determined in various experiments, and taking into account what we know of the weather conditions at the time, it would be reasonable to expect this house to have burned down in anything from 1:50 to 3:30 hrs."

Now, you're happy with that, right? The house burned down in two hours (approx.) and that's within the expert's predicted range. But, what if the insurance company then came to you and said "o.k., now pick a number within that range. We don't care what number you pick. Hell, pick 1:50 if you like--that will be on YOUR SIDE, right? What kind of wuss are you if you won't pick an estimated burn time, huh? Huh?" Can you guess why you might say "no, let's just stay with the predicted range of times, thanks" rather than say "o.k., I'll pluck 2:00 out of the air and stick to that"? Can you?

Let me tell you: what if you say to the insurance company "o.k., it took 2 hours" and then they play your neighbour's video tape and it's 1:50? Don't you just know (hey, this guy's your clone, remember--you know exactly how he'll argue--just in the way you're doing here): "wait, you agreed that for this to be an unsuspicious fire it had to have taken 2 hours--but now we see that it took 1:50!! Clearly you deliberately burned down your house! Look at my blog!! Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Mercutio]

"FUN..."

Wow. Which crash scenario is more fun? Which way for a whole lot of people to die gives you the most joy? The one where you get to call a lady a fraud on top of it all?

Still waiting for those numbers. How you got them. What you did with them. I know, providing evidence is not nearly as much FUN, but since you double checked them and stand by them when an expert would hesitate, at least it should not be too traumatic.

 

[Killtown]

"FUN..."

Wow. Which crash scenario is more fun? Which way for a whole lot of people to die gives you the most joy? The one where you get to call a lady a fraud on top of it all?

Still waiting for those numbers. How you got them. What you did with them. I know, providing evidence is not nearly as much FUN, but since you double checked them and stand by them when an expert would hesitate, at least it should not be too traumatic.

Oh brother. It tell you what, replace "fun" with whatever word you like.