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.
Stellafane said:
But now he's just sort of going through the motions. I suspect it won't be long before he feigns offense at some imagined slight and stalks off never to return, or he goes the Jenabel route and commits suicide by mod.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's ready to do that yet. His "baby steps" are an attempt to steer the group into "drinking his koolaid" so to speak by getting us to agree to individual points until someone does something inconsistent - at which point he can pounce and say "told you so." That is, if he's as clever as I give him credit for.

Then again, he may be just floundering along.
 
Does everybody agree that B-52 crash is comparable to how UA 93 was said to have crashed in terms of how the fireball and plume was crated? We'll worry about the size of the explosion UA 93 would have made from coming in faster after this (and yes, I would believe the explosion 93 would have made would be larger than this one. See, I'm learning).
Click to expand...

O.K. Killtown, just to move you on hows this: I agree that it is similar to the extent that something with wings hit the ground and that fuel of some kind caught fire due to ignition of some description. I will also agree that some kind of cloud was produced.

Is that sufficient for you to build upon?
 
Yoink said:
O.K. Killtown, just to move you on hows this: I agree that it is similar to the extent that something with wings hit the ground and that fuel of some kind caught fire due to ignition of some description. I will also agree that some kind of cloud was produced.

Is that sufficient for you to build upon?
Click to expand...
Yes, does everybody else concur?
 
Killtown said:
Does everybody agree that B-52 crash is comparable to how UA 93 was said to have crashed in terms of how the fireball and plume was crated?
Click to expand...

No. Fuel distribution, fuel quantity, plane speed, plane direction, surface material, wind speed and direction would all affect fireball and plume creation.
 
Yes, does everybody else concur?
Click to expand...

Yes, Killtown. I think it is safe to say that we all concur that there are such things as planes, and that they have wings, and that when they hit the ground in an uncontrolled manner they sometimes cause fires that smoke. We were, of course, unaware of this until you caused us to seek out video evidence. One up for you.
 
kevin said:
No. Fuel distribution, fuel quantity, plane speed, plane direction, surface material, wind speed and direction would all affect fireball and plume creation.
Click to expand...
Ok, how different do you think UA 93's fireball and plume creation was? Remember, we are not concerned about size right now, only formation.
 
twinstead said:
I don't know why all of you are playing killtown's game. It's as if the smoke plume picture is the only evidence a plane crashed.

Unless all of this is faked, I don't need a smoke plume to tell me what happened.

http://www.epa.gov/region7/news_eve...rc_conference_august2005/Plenary/flight93.pdf
Click to expand...
We don't need a plume of smoke, either. We've got Mr. Killtown, though, who disputes a photo of a plume of smoke and calls it a "smoking gun" proving that 911 was a conspiracy.
 
Killtown said:
Ok, how different do you think UA 93's fireball and plume creation was? Remember, we are not concerned about size right now, only formation.
Click to expand...
Way lots effin' different since the photo of the smoke plume from UA 93 looks a lot different than the plume from the B52.
 
Yoink said:
Yes, Killtown. I think it is safe to say that we all concur that there are such things as planes, and that they have wings, and that when they hit the ground in an uncontrolled manner they sometimes cause fires that smoke.
Click to expand...

I concur with Yoink, here. This is the only thing that Killtown has managed to prove, so far.
 
Killtown said:
Ok, how different do you think UA 93's fireball and plume creation was? Remember, we are not concerned about size right now, only formation.
Click to expand...

Please finally post your calculations of the plume size and location and stop trying to lead us down some trail of madness.
Killtown, you are the most hard headed person I have ever virtually met. You have resisted posting your calculations for over 20 pages now.

Quit stalling. Quit chopping everything into little thin salami slices and get on with it.


Your tactics are remarkably like a psychic doing a cold reading. You throw out a little nibble of information and expect us to confirm it or let it slide, and at the end you claim to have proven something by way of having gotten so many agreements from us.
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
Relax, relax, relax. As soon as you stop bickering, we can move on.

Does everybody agree that B-52 crash is comparable to how UA 93 was said to have crashed in terms of how the fireball and plume was crated? We'll worry about the size of the explosion UA 93 would have made from coming in faster after this (and yes, I would believe the explosion 93 would have made would be larger than this one. See, I'm learning).
Click to expand...

No.
And if you do, you are dumber than Dr. Phill's proverbial "bag of rocks"

ETA:
And the speed is vitally important. Energy, which is what atomizes the fuel and disperses the fuel cloud, is a function of speed squared
500 miles per hour has 25 times the energy of 100 mph, even if they weighed the same
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
No.
And if you do, you are dumber than Dr. Phill's proverbial "bag of rocks"

ETA:
And the speed is vitally important. Energy, which is what atomizes the fuel and disperses the fuel cloud, is a function of speed squared
500 miles per hour has 25 times the energy of 100 mph, even if they weighed the same
Click to expand...

There you go Killtown, not comparable....and there is simply no way to even guess how much fuel the B52 had, it wasnt flying a cross country. It was doing an airshow practice run..

Can you get on with it anyways and show us your proof.
 
apathoid said:
there is simply no way to even guess how much fuel the B52 had, it wasnt flying a cross country.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, I'm just concerned about the formation of the plume.

So some of you think the plume formation UA 93 would have been susbtantually different than this B-52? How so?

I'm showing this to just demonstration how a plume is formed when the plane crashing into the ground between the min & max angles given for this experiment.
 
It's a game folk's, only a game. I am watching from a far, though! I've seen this type in everyday life. They are politicians for the most part. Fascinating!
 
Killtown said:
So some of you think the plume formation UA 93 would have been susbtantually different than this B-52? How so?
Click to expand...
This is where we came in.

Yes, most of us figure it would look different. We are also reasonable enough to recognize our limitations and say that we aren't able to calculate the appearance of a smoke plume - especially since you seem bound and determined to ignore any and all factors that control the formation of such a cloud.

Quit stalling and show us what you've got.
 
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