Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Buckwheatjones]

I'm a rebel.

Do you concur with the new estimates so we don't have to stall any further?

I'd like Buck and Gravy to concur too.

I thought I told you to put me on Ignore?

 

[Killtown]

I thought I told you to put me on Ignore?

Why do you think I'm not?!

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Why do you think I'm not?!

You. Tell. Me.

You've ignored most of my questions so I don't know why you'd think my input matters.

 

[Hellbound]

You. Tell. Me.

You've ignored most of my questions so I don't know why you'd think my input matters.

Heck, he's ignoring everyone's answers right now. Gumboot spelled it out for him.

Of course, Gumboots post would take more than 10 seconds to read. As such, being longer than a sound bite, I'd imagine Killtown simply cannot understand it. Or, at the least, can't keep the thred of the conversation throughout.

 

[gumboot]

So I would suggest that while I agree with Gumboots analysis, we make it clear that any agreement by us is based upon the limited data we have available for calcuation and the even more limited information that KT is providing us (while waiting to pull his big surprise).


IMHO as always.

Press on.

Absolutely. I think all of us have stressed as much as humanly possible that any calculations we have done are incredibly rough "best guess" type stuff, based on the bare bones information we have available.

Heck, even the NIST calculations for UA175's fireball were titled a "simple model" and their calculations were extensively more technical and detailed than any of ours!

-Andrew

 

[CurtC]

Edit - However I have to add, that the color variable doesn't prove anything conclusively either way. It only proves it could be either way, agreed?

I'll agree with that statement. However, since your point was that the color proves the photo to be fake, then on this point, your argument has been shown to be wrong.

Again, the burden of proof is completely on you. If the picture fails to prove that the smoke could not be from flight 93, then you are wrong and owe Val that apology.

 

[gumboot]

This is exactly why you need to see something better than the tiny little photo that appears all over the web. You need to see the original file off the flash card.

Assuming that one could get a look at it, one could check the metadata for the time stamp to see if it correlates to the crash time.

Thanks for the informative post.

I guess for now we'll have to settle for the FBI's assertions that the photo is legitimate, until an examination such as you outlined proves otherwise.

Of course this probably won't go down well with CTers, but for now I'm happy to accept the FBI's conclusion.

-Andrew

 

[Mercutio]

Yours?

Are you asking me what my null hypothesis is for your experiment?

A careful reading of some of my previous posts would easily give that to you, so I must wonder whether you read them, or understood them, or understand the concept of null hypothesis.

This is your experiment. You are getting a lot of free advice on it, but it is your experiment. If you don't know what you are doing, you won't get results you can understand.

If I read a journal article reporting an experiment, I expect to see a direct presentation of the null hypothesis or hypotheses. Without one, you cannot proceed. So...again...what is your null hypothesis?

 

[Killtown]

Absolutely. I think all of us have stressed as much as humanly possible that any calculations we have done are incredibly rough "best guess" type stuff, based on the bare bones information we have available.

Why do you think I'm using the "min/max" scenario? Don't all rush out all at once and thank me for doing what I can to help prove your theory.

 

[Killtown]

However, since your point was that the color proves the photo to be fake

Where did I say that?

 

[ghost707]

Or King Arthur and the Black Knight....

"I've just chopped your arm off!"

"No you haven't"

"Yes I have!"

"No you haven't"

"It's just a flesh wound!"

 

[Killtown]

Focus people.


Does everybody concur with these new estimates? (A "yes or no" is all that's needed.)

-------------------------------
Your minimum:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (6 1/2 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------
Your maximum:

Crash angle: 40 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (9 1/2 football fields)
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (10 football fields)
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------

 

[gumboot]

Why do you think I'm using the "min/max" scenario? Don't all rush out all at once and thank me for doing what I can to help prove your theory.

We.

Do.

Not.

Have.

A.

Theory.

-Andrew

 

[Killtown]

Should I say claim then? And what part of "A "yes or no" is all that's needed" did you not understand?

 

[Hellbound]

Should I say claim then? And what part of "A "yes or no" is all that's needed" did you not understand?

The part where we've already presented the entirety of our case, including a version of what you are calling your "experiment", but you continue to ignore it.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

I'm not going to concur to anything until I see the argument laid out in its entirety. There's no reason for him NOT to do this unless he's got the intellectual equivalent of the Burning Sack of DogPoop on the other side of the front door.

 

[Killtown]

Well I guess silence = concuring with the new estimates.

Next order of business, thanks to Gravy posting the WTC hit pics brings up our next point in the experiment:

I'd estimate this explosion from the 767 was about 4x as wide as the tower, so roughly about 230m in width which is WIDER than my original estimated plume of 200m.

What's everybody's thoughts of this fireball size compared to 93's? Think it's more comparable in size rather than your max fireball peak of 860m?

Also, you guys didn't like my B-52 fireball comparison, but don't you think the fireball was similar compared to UA175's fireball?

B-52 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c

 

[gumboot]

I'd estimate this explosion from the 767 was about 4x as wide as the tower, so roughly about 230m in width which is WIDER than my original estimated plume of 200m.

Now at least we have proof that Killtown does not read my posts.

-Andrew

 

[Killtown]

I'm not going to concur to anything until I see the argument laid out in its entirety. There's no reason for him NOT to do this

What part of "I'm trying to prove YOUR guys theory/claim/whatever" do you NOT understand Buck?

 

[Mercutio]

What's everybody's thoughts of this fireball size compared to 93's? Think it's more comparable in size rather than your max fireball peak of 860m?

Do you understand what the term "maximum" means? The only time a comparison of an actual fireball to a maximum would be important would be if it were actually larger than your theoretical maximum, in which case you could reject the assumptions that led to your theoretical values.

In this case, all you are saying is that the fireball in the picture is not as big as the theoretical maximum fireball that could have been produced. You would then look into what constrained the fireball...like, say, it was partially inside a building.