Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[LashL]

Ok, lets try this for FUN.

I have a better idea. How about you try this for FUN: provide the math and methodology that you used to come to your conclusions at the outset of this thread, as you have been asked repeatedly but have constantly and completely failed to provide?

 

[gumboot]

Ok, lets try this for FUN.

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"

Crash angle: 45 deg

The aircrapft impacted the ground with a 40 degree nose down attitude, and a 150 degree roll to starboard (right wing down). Impact speed was 500 Kt.

This is actual data taken from the FDR. No estimates are required for this information.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1854333&postcount=795

I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.

Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.

 

[Killtown]

The aircrapft impacted the ground with a 40 degree nose down attitude, and a 150 degree roll to starboard (right wing down). Impact speed was 500 Kt.

This is actual data taken from the FDR. No estimates are required for this information.

Well it really doesn't matter because each way should make no difference for your estimates to obliterate my theory.

So everybody cool and this hypothetical test? Shall we proceed?

 

[LashL]

The aircrapft impacted the ground with a 40 degree nose down attitude, and a 150 degree roll to starboard (right wing down). Impact speed was 500 Kt.

This is actual data taken from the FDR. No estimates are required for this information.

-Andrew

I doubt that killtown even knows what the data means.

 

[LashL]

Well it really doesn't matter because each way should make no difference for your estimates to obliterate my theory.

So everybody cool and this hypothetical test? Shall we proceed?

No. The rest of us are still waiting for your math and methodology, which you have been dodging for over 800 posts now in this thread.

 

[Killtown]

No. The rest of us are still waiting for your math and methodology, which you have been dodging for over 800 posts now in this thread.

It doesn't matter, this experiment is sure to obliterate my theory. Ready to proceed?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Which claim, killtown. #1 or #2?

 

[LashL]

It doesn't matter, this experiment is sure to obliterate my theory. Ready to proceed?

Oh, it most certainly matters.

For over 800 posts here, you have been deliberately non-responsive to requests to provide the math and methodology of your "100% proof" of your "smokingest smoking gun" and you have demonstrated that you do not understand the data.

So it is incumbent upon you to do so.

Instead, like all CTers, you try to change the subject and move the goalposts when you can't back up what you claim.

Why don't you just answer the simple questions that have been asked repeatedly of you and which you have repeatedly failed to answer, i.e. the math and methodology that led you to your conclusions in your opening post?

It certainly looks obvious to me that it is because you cannot.

And if you cannot, your "conclusion" is just another big load of bunkum, like most of the other stuff on your blog.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Really, Professor Shepherd of GALCIT? Small world. You won't find a better theoretical expert on the subject, anywhere.

BuckwheatJones, you wouldn't happen to be a Techie, would you?

 

[Killtown]

Which claim, killtown. #1 or #2?

Pick one, it doesn't matter.

Now shall we proceed with this hypothetical experiment that will surely obliterate my theory? (I would figure you'd guys would be jumping to see the experiment proceed if it's sure to debunk me? )

 

[Killtown]

Why don't you just answer the simple questions that have been asked repeatedly of you and which you have repeatedly failed to answer, i.e. the math and methodology that led you to your conclusions in your opening post?

I have numerous times before on here. go check back posts.

Now, shall we proceed?

 

[Gravy]

Third Request. Please Respond.

Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=795

I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.

Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.

 

[R.Mackey]

Gravy, I know you'll be "shocked" to hear this, but you won't even get a straight answer from Killtown on what constitutes a Smoking Gun.

I tackled this one head-on in my brief demolition of his WTC 7 theory in this thread. Eventually, Killtown was reduced to this cowardly form of revisionism:

1) On my 'smoking guns' list, do I have "smoking guns" in quotes, or not?

(from this post)

You have them in quotes. I fail to see the significance. Are you saying that, by putting them in quotes, they are not actually smoking guns? As in, you are saying they are not proof or evidence of anything? If not, just what do you mean?

(my response in the following post)

1) No, I'm leaving them up to the viewers to decide if they are a smoking gun or not.

(from his reply)

Prospects for debate are grim indeed when your opponent isn't satisfied with twisting the burden of proof, but distorts the very language he claims to speak.

 

[Killtown]

Kiilltown, you raised the issue of other witnesses. I took the time to respond. Please respond to my questions in this post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=795

I especially want to know if you have any evidence to show that the witness accounts I provided do not describe the crash of flight 93.

Also, the issue of what a smoking gun is, is important to these discussions. Please give your definition.

Yeah yeah yeah, we're in the middle of a hypothetical experiment here, so I'll get to it later maybe.

 

[R.Mackey]

Case in point.

Killtown, have you apologized to Val yet? I am fairly certain that someday, you will wish you had.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yeah yeah yeah, we're in the middle of a hypothetical experiment here, so I'll get to it later maybe.

That was the clumsiest, most blatant, ham-fisted dodges I have ever seen.

The only thing you have proven here is that you have NO proof of any of your claims. All you do is make accusations and then dodge, dodge, dodge.

Why do you cling to these nonsensical theories when you know they aren't true? Is it the jew thing? That the "official" version won't let you vent your hatred of them?

 

[Killtown]

Case in point.

Killtown, have you apologized to Val yet? I am fairly certain that someday, you will wish you had.

Well if we continue with this hypothetical experiment that will surely destroy my theory, then I'll be forced to. Why are all of you stalling?

 

[Dr Richard]

1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

2) a) Max 800m.
b) sure, if a nuclear explosion went off their.

3) yeah, that wasn't immature.

1) The onus is on YOU to show that your measurement is accurate. You have repeatedly failed to do this.

2) (a) 700m. Using a minimum windspeed of 9knots and 12s for the response time. What did you base your calculation on again?
(b) Nuclear explosion? Is that what "forensics" tell you? Please, do yourself a favour AND SHOW US YOUR CALCULATIONS

 

[Killtown]

1) The onus is on YOU to show that your measurement is accurate. You have repeatedly failed to do this.

2) (a) 700m. Using a minimum windspeed of 9knots and 12s for the response time. What did you base your calculation on again?
(b) Nuclear explosion? Is that what "forensics" tell you? Please, do yourself a favour AND SHOW US YOUR CALCULATIONS

It doesn't matter, this experiment will prove you guys right. Ready to proceed?