Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Dr Richard]

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?

I know everyone has been giving KT a bit of a going over about this, but I for one am intrigued to see where he is going with it. From my reading of smoke plume prediction, he a missed off a (few) teensy variables:

So, Killtown, for your hypothetical experiment:

what is the predicted burn rate of your aviation fuel?
what is the predicted burn rate of your aviation fuel/plane/debris mix?
what is the radiative fraction of your aviation fuel?
what is the predicted burn rate of your aviation fuel/plane/debris mix?
what is the surface temperature at your burn site?
what wind speed are you using?
what direction?
how does the wind speed change with changing altitude?
what is the composition of your burnt aviation fuel (PM10, PM 2.5)?
what is the composition of your burnt aviation fuel/plane/debris mix (PM10, PM 2.5)?

what program or calculation are you using to model how the plume evolves with time based on the above variables?

I have to admit I am actually looking forward to seeing this......

 

[R.Mackey]

Dr. Richard, I can't say I share your enthusiasm... The mechanics of our disgraced "colleague" are all wrong.

Specifically this: He already claims to have carried out one or more "computations." Checked them even. Now he's making up numbers for a "thought experiment." Yet he won't do it... because he's waiting for us?? To do what, precisely? Give him a cookie?

WE are somehow "stalling" this "thought experiment?" Impossible.

It should be quite clear who, here, is stalling. Anyone can run any experiment at any time, with any numbers, and any assumptions. And if this person is sincere, he or she will show the work. That's how it's done.

 

[Dr Richard]

My estimate of the plume width:

If it was as far as the crater, I get right at 650 m. That would mean that it had gone due South with the breeze, to be the same distance, while Val's house is due East.

If it went to the Southeast, that would mean it would be about 10% closer, or 600 m.

Here are the endpoints of the sight lines that I used to estimate:

-78.90168458485243,40.05104592456145
-78.90203426604705,40.04482683949028

And the case closes, as all of us have come up with sizes that are equal to this figure within an acceptable margin of error.

Also assuming that the plume is spherical object and the perspective has not changed apparent shape as it has been blown by the wind.

I've given up pressing this point as Killtown has a problem with understanding vectors, but of course Val's angle of view from the plane would make a lengthening plume approaching her appear even larger.

Still can't wait to ACTUALLY SEE HIS CALCULATIONS however.

 

[Gravy]

Fourth Request.

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

You're not in the middle of anything. I took quite a bit of time to answer your questions, in this thread, about witnesses.

It will only take you seconds to answer mine. Please do so now.

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[Dr Richard]

Dr. Richard, I can't say I share your enthusiasm... The mechanics of our disgraced "colleague" are all wrong.

Specifically this: He already claims to have carried out one or more "computations." Checked them even. Now he's making up numbers for a "thought experiment." Yet he won't do it... because he's waiting for us?? To do what, precisely? Give him a cookie?

WE are somehow "stalling" this "thought experiment?" Impossible.

It should be quite clear who, here, is stalling. Anyone can run any experiment at any time, with any numbers, and any assumptions. And if this person is sincere, he or she will show the work. That's how it's done.

I know, but as KT has never, ever shown us his "calculations", I began to think that he can't do any. Not even simple trig, as I think all his distance measurements come from drawing lines on Google Earth.

Remember that his plume size estimate comes from "watching videos" and "forensics".

Have I missed the episode of CSI:Miami where an airliner crashes?

 

[Gravy]

Still can't wait to ACTUALLY SEE HIS CALCULATIONS however.

Agreed, Dr. Richard. I certainly appreciate your contributions here. But I gave up hope that Killtown was capable of doing, or showing, his work when he said the only things that would change his mind were proof that an atomic explosion or hurricane-force wind was involved.

 

[R.Mackey]

For me it was that "plume went straight up and then suddenly turned 90 degrees" nonsense... I can't ever remember even seeing that in a video game, not even the 8-bit days.

 

[Dr Richard]

Agreed, Dr. Richard. I certainly appreciate your contributions here. But I gave up hope that Killtown was capable of doing, or showing, his work when he said the only things that would change his mind were proof that an atomic explosion or hurricane-force wind was involved.

Thanks Gravy.

But I have been won over by Killtown's method! I have wasted years of scientific training!

I have done my own research and found a video of a plane crash that supports a very, very large plume.

 

[Killtown]

I know everyone has been giving KT a bit of a going over about this, but I for one am intrigued to see where he is going with it. From my reading of smoke plume prediction, he a missed off a (few) teensy variables:

So, Killtown, for your hypothetical experiment:

what is the predicted burn rate of your aviation fuel?
what is the predicted burn rate of your aviation fuel/plane/debris mix?
what is the radiative fraction of your aviation fuel?
what is the predicted burn rate of your aviation fuel/plane/debris mix?
what is the surface temperature at your burn site?
what wind speed are you using?
what direction?
how does the wind speed change with changing altitude?
what is the composition of your burnt aviation fuel (PM10, PM 2.5)?
what is the composition of your burnt aviation fuel/plane/debris mix (PM10, PM 2.5)?

what program or calculation are you using to model how the plume evolves with time based on the above variables?

I have to admit I am actually looking forward to seeing this......

Man, you guys are making this waaaaaaaaaay more complex then it need to be. Aren't you the same ones saying, "Why did the gov't do that to complicate things more when they could have just done this?"?

Relax bro, all the variables benefit YOUR side of this experiment.

Shall we proceed?

 

[MortFurd]

And the case closes, as all of us have come up with sizes that are equal to this figure within an acceptable margin of error.

Also assuming that the plume is spherical object and the perspective has not changed apparent shape as it has been blown by the wind.

I've given up pressing this point as Killtown has a problem with understanding vectors, but of course Val's angle of view from the plane would make a lengthening plume approaching her appear even larger.

Still can't wait to ACTUALLY SEE HIS CALCULATIONS however.

Never mind understanding vectors, Mr. Killtown appears to have problems with reading comprehension.

He can't pick out the basis of BuckwheatJones' calculations.

And more explicitly here.

 

[Gravy]

Shall we proceed?

Whose permission are you waiting for to show your work?

And for the fifth time, please answer my questions.

 

[Dr Richard]

Man, you guys are making this waaaaaaaaaay more complex then it need to be. Aren't you the same ones saying, "Why did the gov't do that to complicate things more when they could have just done this?"?

Relax bro, all the variables benefit YOUR side of this experiment.

Shall we proceed?

For the love of God man, just GET ON WITH IT!

PROCEED!

I GIVE YOU PERMISSION!

I GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIOSN WE HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU!

SHOW US YOUR CALCULATIONS! IT IS WHAT WE HAVE ASKED FROM POST 1!

....


and then I'll explain to you, in nice, non-technical terms if I can, why the above variables are necessary.

 

[chran]

Man, you guys are making this waaaaaaaaaay more complex then it need to be. Aren't you the same ones saying, "Why did the gov't do that to complicate things more when they could have just done this?"?

Relax bro, all the variables benefit YOUR side of this experiment.

Shall we proceed?

Sure, go right ahead.

too late ...

 

[Belz...]

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!!!

You clearly don't understand anything about investigating.

 

[Belz...]

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

It won't prove anything unless the data is correct.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yoink, that's far too good an example for Killtown NOT to ignore.

 

[twinstead]

Also, killtown if you had even an ounce of dignity and objectivity, on your blog you would link to sites that provide evidence that contradicts yours.

We all know that if your evidence better explains what happened that day any rational person would also come to that conclusion after reading ALL available information, right? The only way to truly come to an educated conclusion is to hear all sides of an issue first, right?

Seriously, the LC video is so compelling that anybody who watches it and then goes to screw loose change or Popular Mechanics will still believe LC, right?

Well, nope. every single rational person I know who has watched LC and said to themselves "hmmmm", and then been exposed to information that refutes it has thanked me for showing them what LC is all about. Literally THANKED me simply for providing some balance.

You and LC have an emotionally compelling yet ultimately weak theory, one that has more holes than answers. Add that whole degradation of the victims of 911 thing and you’ve got less than nothing. Way less than nothing.

And you know it.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

And a final note from the good Dr. Shepherd at CalTech. I wrote him back to verify his answer to the question: Could this photo be of a plume from a jet fuel fire or something else?

He initially wrote that the information in the photo is inconclusive and that as an expert in the field he would not venture a guess.

Here is his second note:


ME: Would it be safe to say that one could really draw no conclusions from this image one way or the other?

DR. SHEPHERD: Yes. I think this is the only rational response in this situation.

JES


Nota Bene: Please pay attention to the use of adjective "rational."

So, killtown...Have you decided which claim to stick with? Is your cloud 600 feet or 1200 feet? Which looks better to you today?

 

[Yoink]

Man, you guys are making this waaaaaaaaaay more complex then it need to be.

Killtown, it has been clear for some time now that you don't actually believe your own argument. I mean, if you were actually so stupid that you couldn't see that all the variables listed by Dr. Richard are relevant to the size of the smoke plume (and that we simply do not have data to determine those variables) you wouldn't even be able to write in complete sentences. At this point the whole game for you is simply about "winning" the argument by refusing to ever concede any point.

I'm sure that's fun for you--it's certainly frustrating for the rest of us, and no doubt that, in itself, amuses you. But I do still wonder. Is there anything--anything at all--from your original claim that you actually DO think is a smoking gun (or even a "smoking gun")? Do you think that there is some element in your argument still hasn't actually been debunked?

If you aren't willing to nominate one (for you) particularly telling piece of evidence, would you be willing to tell us why not? Do you have any point here other than to keep saying "nu-uhhh!"? If so, why not lay your cards on the table: "here's the thing that makes me sure that this cloud could not be an undoctored image of the cloud produced by the crash of Flight 93"?

 

[Dr Richard]

And a final note from the good Dr. Shepherd at CalTech. I wrote him back to verify his answer to the question: Could this photo be of a plume from a jet fuel fire or something else?

He initially wrote that the information in the photo is inconclusive and that as an expert in the field he would not venture a guess.

Here is his second note:


ME: Would it be safe to say that one could really draw no conclusions from this image one way or the other?

DR. SHEPHERD: Yes. I think this is the only rational response in this situation.

JES


Nota Bene: Please pay attention to the use of adjective "rational."

So, killtown...Have you decided which claim to stick with? Is your cloud 600 feet or 1200 feet? Which looks better to you today?

Gosh, proper research with a source from a credible expert.

I would love to think this was the last word on the subject.

But don't forget, Killtown has watched some videos.

And has forensics.

Myself, if the weather holds I'm going to spend the weekend relaxing.

Maybe have a barbecue...

Thanks to all who have joined in this thread, it has been enjoyable...

Yours

Richard