Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Yoink]

And if you guys don't like the b-52 crash example, show me a video of a plane crash that you think is more similar.

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

Killtown, let me try--one more time--to explain this to you. "Us guys" DO NOT HAVE A CLAIM in this argument. We don't need to find a video of "a plane crash that looks more similar" to defend "our claim" because the sum total of position is that YOU, Killtown, HAVE FAILED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THE FIREBALL IN MCCLATCHEY'S PHOTOGRAPH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AFTERMATH OF THE CRASH OF FLIGHT 93.

Our consistent position is that we DO NOT KNOW and CAN NOT KNOW what the crash of Flight 93 would have "looked like" independently of the evidence of McClatchey's photograph. If one wishes to put that photograph in question there is simply no useful evidence available to us (certainly you have produced none) to confirm or reject the photograph.

So asking us what our "claim" is and whether this hurts our "case" is simply missing the point. YOU are the only one here with a "claim." You are the one who has to present evidence to support that claim. It simply becomes obvious with every post that you haven't a single, tiny, scrap of evidence available to you. And yet you still refust to apologize to the woman you have slandered so baselessly. Incredible.

 

[Gravy]

Such as?

Such as all those that were pointed out to you in the past 25 pages, Killtown. You've asked the same question several times, and it's been answered several times. It seems obvious that you're being deliberately obtuse. Please stop this game. Your behavior is an insult to all the people here who took the time to address your issues.

 

[Yoink]

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.

We don't have an "estimated size" of the plume, Killtown. You are the one who has an "estimated size." What evidence do you have that the plume could not have been as large as it is in Val McClatchey's photograph. If the sum total of your evidence is that "I can find videos of plane crashes on YouTube--crashes involving completely different planes crashing in completely different circumstances--where the plume formed isn't as big" then your case has clearly not been proven and you should immediately apologize to Ms. McClatchey for having made such grave and utterly unfounded accusations against her.

 

[Yoink]

Oh, and Killtown. I (and many others) have told you this before, but what the heck--far be it from me to resist pointing out how willfully ignorant you're choosing to be:

You ask why it matters if the fuel is "spilled" rather than aerosolized. Please--just for the heck of it--go to Google and look up "fuel air bomb." Or, seeing as YouTube videos are, for you, the gold standard of accident investigation "research" have a look at this one.

You ask "wouldn't the fuel just spill out more rapidly" in the Flight 93 crash. Personally I have no evidence one way or the other. Finding evidence for what happened in that crash is YOUR responsibility because YOU are the one making a positive claim. But I can certainly see why we should not expect a slow tearing-open of a fuel tank to be anything remotely like hurling that fuel tank into the ground at over 500mph.

Pressure alters the nature of an explosion immensely. Pressure can cause normally non-explosive things to explode. Grains of dust can explode with extraordinary force under the right pressure conditions. Yes, dust. If you show me videos of dust NOT exploding when NOT in the appropriate conditions to explode that won't disprove the point that it CAN explode in different conditions.

Again--just do some basic preliminary Googling and you'll actually, you know, find something out. Now, what's the difference between taking a container of fuel and ripping it open, pouring the contents out, and setting fire to them, and taking that same fuel container, and slamming it into the ground at over 500mph. Well, one of them is pressure. Of course, it's only one of them and may not be, for all I know, the most important. For all I know it may make no difference at all, for all I know McClatchey's photo may not be consistent with the crash of Flight 93. But if YOU want to make that case YOU need to show some evidence that "all plane crashes look alike" and that "crashing at 70mph is always identical in every way to crashing at 500mph." Something tells me that holding my breath while I wait for you to come up with that evidence probably isn't a great idea.

 

[Killtown]

But if YOU want to make that case YOU need to show some evidence that "all plane crashes look alike" and that "crashing at 70mph is always identical in every way to crashing at 500mph."

Can you please show me where I said these quotes?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can you please show me where I said these quotes?

Don't play obtuse; you know quite well that Yoink is paraphrasing your posts. Provide your evidence or retract your claims.

 

[jhunter1163]

Boy, am I glad I got a clause inserted in my government-shill contract that says I get paid by the post I read. Thanks Killtown, with that last post you bought me a new car. Keep 'em coming, I could use a bass boat too.

 

[Killtown]

Don't play obtuse; you know quite well that Yoink is paraphrasing your posts. Provide your evidence or retract your claims.

I've provided my evidence and you guys said it was wrong because the plume was much, much larger than I suggested. However, you guy's have NOT proved how your estimated plume got that big, so as far as I'm concerned, YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims because I've proven how my claims hold water.

 

[Yoink]

Can you please show me where I said these quotes?

So, Killtown, you object to that paraphrase of your argument, do you? You think that only an idiot could possibly hold that all plane crashes look alike or that the speed of the plane at the point of impact has no bearing on the aftermath of the crash? You think I'm being unfair to you? Congratulations! You seem to have finally understood what we've been driving at!

If that's the case, if you finally agree with the rest of us that this attempt to find YouTube videos of plane crashes as a "baby step" towards understanding what Flight 93 looked like is a complete and utter waste of time, are you about to

A) present to us a single scrap of evidence that in fact DOES call the authenticity of the McClatchey photo into question

or

B) apologize abjectly to this poor woman you have persecuted for no reason whatsoever except that you got bored one day and thought it would be fun to accuse someone of being an accessory to mass murder and/or a fraudulent scam artist.

 

[twinstead]

I've provided my evidence and you guys said it was wrong because the plume was much, much larger than I suggested. However, you guy's have NOT proved how your estimated plume got that big, so as far as I'm concerned, YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims because I've proven how my claims hold water.

All you have to do is prove that the plume in the picture cannot possibly be from flight 93. If there is ANY possibility, if you combine that with the mountians of evidence presented to you that verifies the official story, then your theory is falsified.

Why can't you see that?

 

[Brainache]

Why am I reminded of a scene from Holy Grail?
You know the one with King Arthur confronting the black Knight?
After the knight has been completely and utterly defeated and King Arthur "rides" away the knight can be heard shouting "Come back here! I'll bite ya legs off!"
It really does look like Killtown is that hopelessly optimistic knight.

 

[Killtown]

1) You think that only an idiot could possibly hold that all plane crashes look alike or that the speed of the plane at the point of impact has no bearing on the aftermath of the crash?

A) present to us a single scrap of evidence that in fact DOES call the authenticity of the McClatchey photo into question

1) Where did you get that silly notion?

A) This thread assumes her photo is real. Can you not read?

 

[Killtown]

All you have to do is prove that the plume in the picture cannot possibly be from flight 93. If there is ANY possibility, if you combine that with the mountians of evidence presented to you that verifies the official story, then your theory is falsified.

Why can't you see that?

YOU guys need to prove the plume could have gotten as big as you guys estimated, or MY theory is the one that holds water.

 

[MortFurd]

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.

Dude, we don't have an effin' theory. You do. Prove your point.

 

[Killtown]

Dude, we don't have an effin' theory. You do. Prove your point.

I did, you guys haven't disproved it. You tried with your "big plume theory", but when I tried to prove your theory, I couldn't, so my theory is the one that holds water, not yours.

 

[Yoink]

I've provided my evidence and you guys said it was wrong because the plume was much, much larger than I suggested. However, you guy's have NOT proved how your estimated plume got that big, so as far as I'm concerned, YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims because I've proven how my claims hold water.

You've provided your evidence? Where? What was it? Where did you give even a back-of-a-napkin calculation that the impact of Flight 93 could not produce a cloud the size of the one in the McClatchey photograph? All you have on your pathetic and shameful blog is a claim that you guesstimated the cloud based on the photograph of a crash that has no similarities whatsoever to the Flight 93 crash. (Don't you remember how you took umbrage just a post ago at my paraphrase of your argument--remember, only an idiot thinks that all plane crashes look alike? Or are you back to that argument now?).

YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims.

Killtown, the sole claim we are making is that YOU HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. We have proven that over, and over, and over again. We are making no claims whatsoever about the cloud produced by Flight 93. We don't know. There are too many variables. It seems that even experts in the field do not feel competent to offer an educated guess. All we claim, and all we know, is that you don't even have the beginnings of a hint of a suggestion of a clue of some trace of something that might possibly lead to a scrap of evidence. All you've got is "nu-uhhh! It should be much smaller dood!" And on the basis of that, on the basis simply of your own utterly ignorant and uninformed assertion, you have PUBLICLY ACCUSED someone of the most vile crimes.

Now. PUT UP or SHUT UP! If you think you have some piece of evidence that has not yet been completely discredited, tell us what it is. If you don't, then go apologize--abjectly--to Val McClatchey.

 

[MortFurd]

I've provided my evidence and you guys said it was wrong because the plume was much, much larger than I suggested. However, you guy's have NOT proved how your estimated plume got that big, so as far as I'm concerned, YOU guys have to prove YOUR claims because I've proven how my claims hold water.

You, dear chum, pulled a number out of your ass with no further claim to accuracy. BuckWheatJones provided calculations (and gave the premises that he used) that showed that the cloud in Ms. McClatchey's photo is within the realm of possibility, given the uncertainties that we have to work with.

Your claim doesn't hold water unless it is frozen in a big block to stop it running through the holes. Your claim amounts to "because I said so."

 

[Gravy]

Killtown, none of your posts in the past day and a half have added anything new. Have you rested your case then?

 

[Yoink]

YOU guys need to prove the plume could have gotten as big as you guys estimated, or MY theory is the one that holds water.

Killtown, let me see if I can point out to you the subtle flaw in this claim. Please read the following carefully and think very very hard about it.

Let us say someone comes to you with a blurry photo of something vaguely humanoid in a forest and says "look, this is a photo of bigfoot!" You say "well, perhaps, but frankly the photo is too blurry for us to tell. In order for you to prove that this is bigfoot we'll need some other corroborating evidence." So the guy with the photo says: "well, you haven't proven that it ISN'T bigfoot, so obviously my theory is proven. Nyah nyah nyah!"

That is the position you're now in. No one here holds that the McClatchey photo has been "proven" to be authentic. We all hold that there is simply no available evidence to determine that one way or the other. In the absence of such evidence, there seems to be no reason to doubt her story. If you wish to shed doubt on it, you need to give us evidence that shows that Flight 93 COULD NOT HAVE produced a cloud like the one in the photograph. You--clearly--don't have any such evidence.

So now, please, go apologize to this woman.

 

[MortFurd]

I did, you guys haven't disproved it. You tried with your "big plume theory", but when I tried to prove your theory, I couldn't, so my theory is the one that holds water, not yours.

Shouting "But it looks too big" doesn't make it true.

You claim the photo is incorrect. You must prove that claim. What we have done is point out to you that the plume could realistically have been expected to be the size shown in the photo.

Your theory does not hold water. You have not provided any evidence in support of it except your gut feeling.