Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Huntsman said:
I was building up to that. Considering that I doubt Killtown knows what a fuel-air bomb is or how it operates until he googles it after we referenced it, you've ruined my chance to correct his mistake when he assume that this fuel just burned, as if one tossed a match in a puddle of gasoline.

TO be fair, it's likely that only a percentage of the fuel would have been aerosolized to the point of forming an FAE-type reaction, and not all of that at the correct fuel/air ratio. I'd think 5% to 10% would be a relatively conservative number. Howeve,r that initial blast is going to serve to further aerosolize, scatter, and ignite the fuel around it, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Chief. No hard feelings, I hope.
 
Yo easy attack dogs, I'm just trying to make sure we are all on the same page. Sorry for trying to do this TOGETHER.

So the plane hits, shatters, fuel splatters, small amount aerosols, ignites, explodes.

Is that ok, or too much of a simplification?
 
Killtown said:
Yo easy attack dogs, I'm just trying to make sure we are all on the same page. Sorry for trying to do this TOGETHER.

So the plane hits, shatters, fuel splatters, small amount aerosols, ignites, explodes.

Is that ok, or too much of a simplification?
Click to expand...

No, we're attacking you for, apparently, thinking that a web consensus represents actual science, and that your analysis will mean anything. THe fuel-air explosion being a perfect example. We, here, do not have enough expertise or enough data to even guage the margin of error for any figure we would come up with. Just like fuel-air explosions, there may be things that will affect it that no one here has ever heard of. It's simply not really valid.

A small amount will initially be aerosolized, but you'll have more that will add into that, as well as igniting the fuel on the ground.
 
Huntsman said:
No, we're attacking you for, apparently, thinking that a web consensus represents actual science, and that your analysis will mean anything. THe fuel-air explosion being a perfect example. We, here, do not have enough expertise or enough data to even guage the margin of error for any figure we would come up with. Just like fuel-air explosions, there may be things that will affect it that no one here has ever heard of. It's simply not really valid.

A small amount will initially be aerosolized, but you'll have more that will add into that, as well as igniting the fuel on the ground.
Click to expand...

Eh whatever. Just let he say what he wants to. This thread is long enough already.
 
K, let's move on.

The next point is kinda of crucial, so need your input (without attacking me). This will in part decide how the plume grew to its size, mainly how it grew to its width, or I should say diameter if you're looking down on it.

How/when does the width of the plume grow? Is it mainly from:

a) the size of the explosion from the ground, then rises up without growing much wider (such as in "||"), or

b) gets progressively wider as it rises (as in a "V" shape).


I'm just trying to find out if basically the width is already at it's widest before the wind starts to shift it into the camera line, or does it continue to widen as the wind is shifting it?

Then we can move on to how it starts to look at Val's vantage point.
 
Killtown said:
Yo easy attack dogs, I'm just trying to make sure we are all on the same page. Sorry for trying to do this TOGETHER.

So the plane hits, shatters, fuel splatters, small amount aerosols, ignites, explodes.

Is that ok, or too much of a simplification?
Click to expand...

How about this; you state, clearly, what you hypothetical situation is, and what evidence you feel supports it. Then, we will discuss the veracity of the evidence, whether it fits with the hypothesis, etc
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
How about this; you state, clearly, what you hypothetical situation is, and what evidence you feel supports it. Then, we will discuss the veracity of the evidence, whether it fits with the hypothesis, etc
Click to expand...

I agree, this is taking entirely to long. KT, just show all your work and be done with it.
 
Hey, you can check 2 pages ago that I tried to get this experiment rolling fast. It's not my fault YOU guys were stalling with unessecary attacks against me that had nothing to do with this experiment.
 
OK, does everybody agree with "b", that the plume width grows in a "V" shape as it rises?
 
How/when does the width of the plume grow? Is it mainly from:

a) the size of the explosion from the ground, then rises up without growing much wider (such as in "||"), or

b) gets progressively wider as it rises (as in a "V" shape).
Click to expand...

I agree that this thread is too long, but can we all just pause to marvel at this for a moment. Killtown has felt himself justified to publically accuse a woman of either A) being a willing pawn in a government conspiracy to murder thousands of her fellow citizens or B) willing to cynically and dishonestly profit from selling a falsified photograph of this tragic event. He has done this all on the basis of his "feeling" that the cloud in her photograph is "too big" to be produced by the plane's crash. And now--NOW--we learn that he knows so little about how a cloud would form in such a case that he doesn't even know if it would rise in a vertical column or spread out as it rose!

Can you believe the sheer unmitigated gall of this guy?

Killtown, when are you going to revise your website so that it begins with massive banner saying "I abjectly apologize to Val McClatchey. I made baseless and scurrilous accusations against her on utterly non-existant grounds. I pretended to knowledge that I did not in fact have, and I in fact have no evidence whatsoever that her photograph is anything other than the genuine article."

Contributing a nice fat check to a 9/11 victim's charity in her name would not go amiss either.
 
Huntsman said:
No, it does not assume a "V" shape. However, the cloud will do two things (because it is hot):

1. Rise
2. Expand

Not a "V" shape, but as the cloud rises it will get larger.
Click to expand...

Ok, "essentially" a "V" shape. Is there a more accurate character on the keyboard to represent this?
 
Yoink said:
Killtown, when are you going to revise your website so that it begins with massive banner saying "I abjectly apologize to Val McClatchey. I made baseless and scurrilous accusations against her on utterly non-existant grounds. I pretended to knowledge that I did not in fact have, and I in fact have no evidence whatsoever that her photograph is anything other than the genuine article."
Click to expand...
Um, when you guys stop stalling so we can get through this experiment.
 
Killtown said:
Um, when you guys stop stalling so we can get through this experiment.
Click to expand...

Who's stalling? No one is preventing you from putting fingers to keys and getting somewhere.

Welcome to the real world where you can't come to a conclusion of substance by sitting around pulling random "facts" out of thin air and expect them to hold up to scrutiny.
 
K, moving on.

Now the plume is expanding as it rises. Does it basically stop expanding:

a) when the burning fuel sources underneath it (i.e. remaining jet fuel, trees, or other combustible sources) burns out and no more hot air coming up underneath it to expand it, or

b) when the wind pushes it off to the side from any remaining hot air coming up from the ground fire.


This is specifically to Val's plume.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom