Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[R.Mackey]

Just in case anyone is genuinely curious about the significance of aerosolized fuel in the dynamics of the explosion, here's a brief example to consider:

Aircraft in the US Navy use a pretty standard fuel, JP-5 I believe (any Navy folks, feel free to correct me). Navy aircraft will certainly burst into flames if they crash.

On the other hand, US aircraft carriers store much of their aviation fuel in tanks just inside the outer hull, at the waterline -- as part of their torpedo protection.

Moral of the story, whether fuel just sits there, ignites, burns, or deflagrates is entirely a function of the conditions of the crash. Flight 93 was a fairly unusual crash. Trying to find an analogous video is not going to be easy. Comparing Flight 93 to low-speed airshow crashes is nothing more than deliberate misinformation.

 

[Pardalis]

Man, this thread has grown since the last time I logged in!

Anyway, Killtown, I just remembered that we do have an example of a video of a Boeing crash, the very same day, which could allow us to make somekind of comparison.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8737962996036061371&q=plane+hit

(I'm sorry to post these horrible images again, BTW)

Now, of course the crashes of flight 175 and flight 93 don't have the same sets of variables, but still, let's look at the similarities of the plumes that formed for each of them.

After the fire ball of what was once flight 175, the grey plume does go up, and grabs some of the smoke from the fire in the first tower along. If you can substract that smoke, I agree with some imagination, we can make out how the plume of smoke forms and expands.

As the plume expands, even at the 5 second mark (and beyond) doesn't it look alot like Val's picture?

 

[Pardalis]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8737962996036061371&q=plane+hit

As the plume expands, even at the 5 second mark (and beyond) doesn't it look alot like Val's picture?

To help you out:

 

[Killtown]

To help you out:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/888644e6b1dcc04c9.png[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/888644e6b1dd0f08c.png[/qimg]

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Let's say the B-52 was going the speed of 93, wouldn't the fireball still have "spilled" on the ground, but faster and WIDER/FURTHER which would in turn make for a LARGER smoke plume?

Wouldn't this scenario support your claim?

 

[Killtown]

Trying to find an analogous video is not going to be easy. Comparing Flight 93 to low-speed airshow crashes is nothing more than deliberate misinformation.

Why, do you think it hurts your guy's claim?

 

[Pardalis]

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Let's say the B-52 was going the speed of 93, wouldn't the fireball still have "spilled" on the ground, but faster and WIDER/FURTHER which would in turn make for a LARGER smoke plume?

Wouldn't this scenario support your claim?

What B-52? Are we talking about the 9/11 or not?

 

[Gravy]

For the record, Killtown has refused to confront the witness accounts of the flight 93 crash. Remember, he derailed this thread to ask me to provide these accounts.

That's plain cowardice, Killtown. Again.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For the record, Killtown has refused to confront the witness accounts of the flight 93 crash. Remember, he derailed this thread to ask me to provide these accounts.

That's plain cowardice, Killtown. Again.

He has also refused to state what evidence would cause him to change his views on the events of that day.

He has also refused to withdraw his claims after having them been shown to be without substance.

He has also refused to apologize to Ms. McClatchey for his accusations after they were shown to be without substance.

 

[MortFurd]

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Yes. You are missing something. Your statement has just completely invalidated your entire argument.

If smoke plumes look pretty much alike to you, then arguing the accuracy of a phto on the appearance of a smoke column is pointless.

 

[MortFurd]

He has also refused to state what evidence would cause him to change his views on the events of that day.

Actually, he has stated what would be required.

A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated.

 

[MortFurd]

What B-52? Are we talking about the 9/11 or not?

We're all talking about 911. Killtown is off in lala land, trying to equate the crash of a B52 to the crash of a 757 and presenting only his patented rectal extractions as proof.

 

[Pardalis]

Actually, he has stated what would be required.

Hey, Killtown stole my idea!

 

[Darat]

I have had to move several posts to AAH that were in breach of the Membership Agreement. An occasional heated remark in an exchange between Members is tolerated. However posts that contain nothing more then insults or posts that are focused on the personal as opposed to discussing the facts, opinions and issues raised regarding Conspiracy Theories are not acceptable.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't matter, I'm just concerned about the formation of the plume.

You're concerned about how the plume formed, but not about the factors that come into play ? That's kinda weird.

 

[Belz...]

Ok, plane crashes (at angle within areexperiment range), explodes into fireball, fireball rises, starts to from mushroom shape, fire burns out and turns into smoke, smoke continues to rise in mushroom shap.

K, how are they so different?

Translation: "But the thing went BOOM!! Of course it's the same!"

 

[Belz...]

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

 

[rwguinn]

After looking at this, I don't see much difference from the B-52 crash. Plane crash, creates big fire ball, plume generates into mushroom cloud.

Am I missing anything?

Let's say the B-52 was going the speed of 93, wouldn't the fireball still have "spilled" on the ground, but faster and WIDER/FURTHER which would in turn make for a LARGER smoke plume?

Wouldn't this scenario support your claim?

You sound like my kid at age 6:
"Daddy, if the ball had been square, it woudn't have roled off the table and broke the lamp."
"True, son, but it isn't square. It is round"
"But if it was..."

 

[Killtown]

What B-52? Are we talking about the 9/11 or not?

The video of the B-52 crash. I'm trying to determine how your guy's plume formed. it had to form somehow. How did it?

 

[Killtown]

If smoke plumes look pretty much alike to you, then arguing the accuracy of a phto on the appearance of a smoke column is pointless.

I'm trying to determine how the plume of your guy's estimated size was formed. So far you guys haven't done a good job at that. I'm trying to HELP prove your guy's theory, but so far it's not looking too good since we've seemed to hit a major stumbling block.

 

[Killtown]

You're concerned about how the plume formed, but not about the factors that come into play ? That's kinda weird.

Such as?