Those are your estimates, not mine.
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
You're now moving backwards. The min/max initial fireball size depends on fuel splatter. It is NOT conflated with any of these other variables.
I've showed you twice and reminded you once how to compute the maximum likely extent of the splatter. Now STOP WATCHING VIDEOS and DO YOUR HOMEWORK. You are the laziest "researcher" I have ever heard of.
My calculator broke.
Now, show me YOUR fireball size estimates. I don't want to come up with the wrong answers for you guys, so YOU should submit your answers.
(I think you guys are starting to get scared!)
chran
Muse
23, 78 and 16.
Me: "So you are saying my 200m/600ft plume could be accurate?"
You: "It depends on what lens were used, which we don't know."
You will forgive me if, based on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, I don't believe you for a second. The only more pathetic dodge in all of recorded history is "the dog ate my homework."
Oh yes, absolutely shaking.
I'll be more than happy to correct your work for you. That's a promise. I won't even take points off for errors, so long as you show your work.
Now get to work, Stalltown.
I'll take those because those will PROVE MY claim!
chran
Muse
Great. Maybe that'll shut you up?
Ok, your min is 76m and your max is 152m.
Killtown: So I could be right?
Pardilis: Here's yet one more variable you have not accounted for, to add to the pile.
Killtown: Thanks for saying I could be right!
I already corrected that error in this post. If you're not willing to read my corrections, that's not my fault. Try again. When you've made progress, get back to me.
What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?
Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Your maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
--------------------------------
Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Your maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
--------------------------------
I take it back, there is a more pathetic dodge than "my calculator broke" -- complete ignorance.
If you want to do a "thought experiment," as you claimed for pages and pages, then do it. Do it right. I'm showing you how to start. If you won't even do what you said you would... why on earth would anyone, even another 9/11 denier, ever take you seriously?
Now, then, for the hundreth time, stop stalling.
If you want to do a "thought experiment," as you claimed for pages and pages, then do it. Do it right. I'm showing you how to start. If you won't even do what you said you would... why on earth would anyone, even another 9/11 denier, ever take you seriously?
Now, then, for the hundreth time, stop stalling.
It's your claim. You are quite fortunate that R. Mackey has deigned to help you, but he is under no obligation to do so.
Meanwhile, the truth is that you have not established the things you have claimed in your blog. An honest person would retract those claims until they are proven. An honest person would apologize to Val.
Once you have cranked through the numbers, perhaps you will be able to make the claims. Perhaps you will recognise that your claims are baseless. But for now, you are making claims that you simply cannot back up. This is dishonest.
Meanwhile, the truth is that you have not established the things you have claimed in your blog. An honest person would retract those claims until they are proven. An honest person would apologize to Val.
Once you have cranked through the numbers, perhaps you will be able to make the claims. Perhaps you will recognise that your claims are baseless. But for now, you are making claims that you simply cannot back up. This is dishonest.
No, these are #'s for YOUR claims!
Can I assume, then, that you have abandoned your "thought experiment?"
If you want to be a 9/11 Researcher or Investigator, this is how you research and this is how you investigate. It takes work, something you apparently abhor. I'm sorry -- well, no I'm not -- that it isn't what you expected, namely cruising the Internet for videos of stuff going boom and making wild accusations.
If you want to learn, get started.
If you don't want to learn, then drop all pretense to being a "truth seeker" or however you fancy yourself.
There is no honorable third choice.
If you want to be a 9/11 Researcher or Investigator, this is how you research and this is how you investigate. It takes work, something you apparently abhor. I'm sorry -- well, no I'm not -- that it isn't what you expected, namely cruising the Internet for videos of stuff going boom and making wild accusations.
If you want to learn, get started.
If you don't want to learn, then drop all pretense to being a "truth seeker" or however you fancy yourself.
There is no honorable third choice.
What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?
Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Your maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.
-------------------------------
Your minimum:
Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft
--------------------------------
Your maximum:
Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft
Still ignoring. Dishonest.
I accepted your calculation for minimum initial fireball size. I've showed you how to do the maximum calculation, twice. It's a simple computation. I've volunteered to review your work.
You still delay.
Either you are not willing to perform this simple step, in which case you are deceitful... or you are not capable of performing this step, in which case you are incompetent. In either case, we may safely disregard any conclusions you care to make as inexpert, biased, and without scientific basis.
I'm not letting you out of this box. Do your homework, and you might learn something. I have no respect for those who refuse to learn.
- Status