1) Get some glasses.
2) I said "dramatically". Get some glasses.
3) No, your numbers didn't explain the size of what the fireball had to be.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
2) I said "dramatically". Get some glasses.
3) No, your numbers didn't explain the size of what the fireball had to be.
That's the plumes column that wasn't thick enough. Get some glasses.
I have never once called you an idiot.
Your blog proves zilch. You start with the assumption that the cloud is the wrong size and go on to show that the plume must be somewhere other than the crash site. (You've even got a spot marked "possible burn mark.")
I could pull a number out of my ass and use your logic to "prove" that the cloud was at a point mid-way between your burn mark and the crash site. That wouldn't make it true.
Belz...
Fiend God
REALLY ?
Let's look at your own image.
Now, tell me these don't look like guesstimate lines. How did you precisely calculate the angle ? Do you have the actual coordinates of the crash ? Do you know precisely where the camera was pointing, assuming the cloud had moved since the explosion ? It seems to me like you're just throwing lines in an attempt at approximating the direction of the cloud, without actually knowing where it is. The fact that your lines "seem" to correspond to the angle of the camera just means your guesstimate wasn't completely off. But there's no way to know, because it's a damn 2D photograph.
Attachments
Um, it's pretty important.
Belz...
Fiend God
It only expands dramatically during the explosion. What's your point ?
Two more insults and another lie.
Your picture and all subsequent analyses are based on the size of the smoke plume, not the fireball, are they not??
I answered your question about the smoke plume. The fireball, which is not even a well-defined event, is not in question here.
To answer your question anyway, our analysis is almost completely insensitive to the size of the fireball. In case that was too complex, it means "it doesn't matter." Fireball size would have been dominated by how the fuel splattered at impact, which is almost impossible to reconstruct. I already explained this, too.
It is the default assumption, the "null hypothesis" if you have any background in statistics or research methods. If you are challenging it, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate, to an appropriate level of probability, that it could not have happened.
For the record, I did not call you an idiot; I called you ignorant. That is clearly true.
We have. Couldn't have missed the all-purpose link. If you think it contains evidence for your ideas, you are mistaken.
Not to disappoint you, but the lines are not at random. They are merely of questionable accuracy due to the scale of the map and the size of the features being dealt with.
You are correct in the rest, however. Killtown says "It looks wrong." then pulls a number out of his ass for the cloud size. Then he drew his lines to relate his cloud size to the rest of the layout.
Belz...
Fiend God
No, that's not what you said.
From your own blog:
"Her photo, which she has called "End of Serenity," has been cheered by a lot of 9/11 researchers, including myself, who have argued that her photo proves that the crash of Flight 93 is fake because the smoke plume in her photo looks more like the plume coming from an ordnance blast because of its grey color rather than from a plane crash since smoke from jet fuel fires are almost black in color."
Nothing about the column itself.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
It was hyperbole. See my follow-up post. Apparently the concept of exaggeration is lost on Killtown, who calls this a lie.
Ok, how about this video. Would you guys say 93's exlosion behaved like this?...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0
Sorry. I got behind and hadn't seen your later post.
I think I see what your problem is... Since every video of explosions you ever saw stopped at one point during the plume's expansion, you are unable to know what the plume would look like after the cut of the video.
No more videos for you, Stalltown. Do some analysis and show your work.
Belz...
Fiend God
Haven't you been reading ANYthing for the last 5 pages ?
We don't have a video of the flight 93 crash. All we've got is a still taken at some point after the crash occurred.
Are you now positing that someone dropped a MOAB next door to Ms. McClatchey's house?
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I feel like I have to say this..
YOU CAN'T (RULE8)ING TELL ANYTHING FROM THAT (RULE8)ING PIC!
I have no expertise in fire science or anything else remotely connected to this topic, so I'll have to defer to the experts. And the experts UNANIMOUSLY say that the plume is at least plausible.
Thank you. The mods can close the thread now.
And Killtown should apologize to Val, the more abjectly the better.
YOU CAN'T (RULE8)ING TELL ANYTHING FROM THAT (RULE8)ING PIC!
I have no expertise in fire science or anything else remotely connected to this topic, so I'll have to defer to the experts. And the experts UNANIMOUSLY say that the plume is at least plausible.
Thank you. The mods can close the thread now.
And Killtown should apologize to Val, the more abjectly the better.
- Status