rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I know he can't see it, but it bears repeating:
We.
Do.
Not.
Have.
A.
Theory.
-Andrew
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
A synonym of an inapplicable word is still inapplicable.
We don't have a claim. A null hypothesis is not a claim any more than a patch of dirt on the ground is the first floor of a mansion.
The part where we have explained to you why it's inapplicable and you still don't understand. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Hey, I'm just pointing this stuff out to you guys so you are triple sure of your estimates.
Now what about the fireball itself, don't you think it was similar compared to UA175's fireball?
B-52 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c[/QUOTE]
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Killtown. Why are you doing this? I have already linked you to a NIST study that calculates the dynamics of this very fireball.
I USED THAT REPORT TO CALCULATE MY OWN RANGE OF FIREBALL SIZES FOR UA93!!!
Again. Why are you doing this?
-Andrew
So you don't read gumboot's posts. Gotcha.
Why do you think this eyeballed "similarity" is any more meaningful than any of the others?
Do you take every chance available to jettison the math and run back to looking a pictures?
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Let me explain it to you simply...succincintly...and soundly.
We. Don't. Trust. You.
You have given us no reason to trust you. You have asked us constantly for data for "your" experiment, provided none of your own besides the already dubious assertations (and lack of mathematics) on your blog and refuse to lay out the precise direction you are going with this, obviously hoping to spring some sort of 'surprise' on us.
We. Don't. Trust. You.
But we will listen to you. We will discuss things with you. It may be that we even find agreement with you on minor issues.
But until you lay ALL your cards on the table, tell us where you are going with all this work that we are doing on your beck and call (which does have the benefit of providing us a major database for future rebuttals), provide your own hypothesis for the cloud that we have amply demonstrated as being most likely caused by Flight 93...
We. Don't. Trust. You.
Note: If others disagree with my statments, please consider the "We" to be "I". I may have over-reached; but I think not.
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Phew! This thread grew over the weekend. But we have progress!
Now, Killtown, over the weekend you have repeatedly posted the above "minimum/maximum" set of variables WITH NO JUSTIFICATION.
I have to admit to a bit of research into smoke and fire plumes at ISI Web of Science.
If you don't have access to a good library, then getting hold of some of the articles may be tricky. Of course, having read them as part of research, this will not be a problem, right?
You seem to be lacking a few variables.
This article has the front page available for free, so anyone can look: (pdf)
Smoke Dispersion from Multiple Fire Plumes
Note the number (>50) of variables.
So, question 1:
Why do you feel you can predict the size of the plume with 5 variables when peer-reviewed scientists need that many? What do you know that they do not?
Secondly, I wonder if you are aware of this article:
ON THE FLUID MECHANICS OF FIRES
I particlularly draw your attention to this paragraph on the calculation of fire plumes: "future researchers can expect to see first-principles solutions
of the soot/thermal radiation loop in fires in practical applications in the decades after the start of the twenty-second century." (My bolding).
Incidentially, this is a review article and therefore a good introduction to the subject (although I claim no particular expertise in the fluid dyanimcs of fires - any lurkers out there?)
Also, it would appear that modelling smoke plumes is of interest to those studying (or planning) a burn of an oil slick. This is the first part of a paper validating a computer simulation of such fires:
Smoke Plume Trajectory from In Situ Burning of Crude Oil in Alaska --- Field Experiments and Modeling of Complex Terrain
The computer program is available here: http://www.fire.nist.gov/aloft/
Take a minute to look at the program.
Look at the important variables.
Area of the fire.
Burn velocity.
Windspeed.
Variation of windspeed and temperature with height.
We do not know the values of these variables.
You cannot calculate the size of the plume accurately without them.
I know buckwheatjones has stated this before, but I am trying to get the point home.
With the above knowledge, facts and evidence, I put it to you:
WE CANNOT ACCURATELY CALCULATE THE PLUME SIZE FROM THE DATA WE HAVE.
If you disagree, then please tell us why. Show us how you arrived at your conclusion. Show us the evidence, please.
(N.B. a picture of a B52 bomber shrunk, photoshopped and stuck above a different picture is not evidence. None of the above researchers have used this model in their work. Until you get your method externally validated - preferably in a peer-reviewed journal - it is meaningless).
The rough estimates people have given here are entirely in keeping with what is pictured in Val's picture.
So, in summary:
1. Why do you feel you can predict the size of the plume with 5 variables when peer-reviewed scientists need so many? What do you know that they do not?
2. Do you agree that calculating the size of the plume based on the data we have is impossible?
3. If not, explain why. With evidence. And facts. And evidence of internal consistence and external validity of the method you used
4. Do you agree that the estimates of plume size produced here are in agreement with Val's picture?
5. If not, explain why. With evidence. And facts. And evidence of internal consistence and external validity of the method you used. (Not with a link to your blog showing lines on google earth - this method has been discredited many, many posts ago).
Thanks Killtown, hope you had a good weekend
Richard
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Sorry I missed out your study too, gumboot. A good find and also relevant. Reinforces the point about the complexity of the variables nicely I think.
Something tells me that the "five seconds" hypothesis is going to get some heavy play soon: i.e, that the cloud has to be no more than five-seconds removed from the crash or the whole thing is a lie. When I first got interested in this discussion I played the video that Killtown links to on his site, which is his sole evidence for the "five second" claim. I did a rough transcript of her testimony (the video is from some small local TV human-interest piece: it's pretty dreary to watch it right through). Then, as I said, it took a couple of days to get registered here and by then the discussion seemed to have moved on. Anyway, in case anyone's interested in the nature of the "five second" testimony: here's the transcript (not double-checked for errors, but pretty accurate, I think).
Val McClatchley is being interviewed at least a year after 9/11. She tells us that she was "sitting on the sofa watching tv having my second or third cup of coffee" when the first plane hit the Twin Towers. She says she was "pretty much glued to the TV" from that point on. What follows is simply her part in conversation with the reporter. I should stress that the reporter's interest in this is purely the "human interest" angle ("How did you feel" etc.)--he's not pressing her in any way at all for precision on the timeline:
"It wasn't long after the pentagon had gotten hit that I heard a very loud surge of an engine--um--I just turned out to look out my front window and I'd just caught it--just a glimpse of just a flash--um--and then the explosion had hit--um--it was forceful enough that it about knocked me off my sofa--and--I'd had--my digital camera was right by the door and I ran out and took a photo and--the smoke rising over the hillside was just--it was so incredible--when you think of the clear blue sky and everything it was just--I don't know what possessed me to do it but I just did and I ran and grabbed my cellphone and got in my truck and tried to call 911--couldn't get through, the cellphone...we don't have cell service very well at Indian Lake and from then on I ran to our sawmill--uh--they still had power and there phones were still working and that's when we initially heard that it was a commercial liner than had gone down.
Well the photo, as I said, it was--that was just an accidental...it was nothing intended it was basically something that I had just taken just because of the strange...not knowing what had happened or anything. It sat in my camera for a few days. To me it was just a photograph of...something. Uh...the State Police and the FBI were asking for any photos related to Flight 93 and when I went to download it I then realized that my seven month old puppy had chewed the end of my cord to download it into my computer. So I had taken the cord and everything, had it replaced--could not get it to recognize my camera to my computer--ran back and got a memory card reader and as soon as I did I downloaded, made a copy of the photo, took it to the state police and within an hour three FBI agents were in my house. It turns out to be the very first photo taken related...it...timed it out it was approximately five seconds after it impacted that I snapped the photo and it was the very first one related. In some of it I...Apparently the FBI thought it was worthwhile. They took the original memory card...so, it uh, it turns out that that photo is a piece of history that I captured that second in time. I still look at it in kinda disbelief that I'm the one who did that...I had the presence of mind to do it. And that's something you think about.
Interviewer: tell us about the initial reaction of the FBI when they discovered you had this incredible photograph?
VAL: Well, the FBI when they came in they looked at it on my computer which is a lot clearer, they could actually see, you know, what they appear to be [sic] debris flying out from that, uh, cloud of smoke--which I'm sure, with modern technology, they could do a little more scientific evidence, I believe. I, I really don't know, I mean, when I think about it, the agony of it, is knowing that just seconds [weeping] a lot of people died [more weeping] sorry. I haven't done this for a while. But, um, since then, that photo's been everywhere. People, neighbours, want a copy, so...of course they want to pay me for the paper and ink and everything...taking the money for myself didn't feel right so we decided that the money needed to go to the families of Flight 93 and at that time there were no funds set up for it so I was on my way to the bank, I had sold a few pictures, and that's when Lisa Beemer (sp?) would have taken the same flight that Tod would have taken and she announced at that time the forming of the Tod Beemer Foundation and the checks that come in and the money that comes in we've been sending out to support the families of Flight 93. And that's, just, it felt like the right thing to do."
I should note that the moments that I mark as "weeping" in the testimony are extremely convincing. If Val McClatchey is part of the cover-up, then it would seem that the FBI planted a trained actress in that house years before 9/11 so that she could be used to persuade viewers of some miniscule local TV network of the authenticity of a photo that the FBI has never bothered to rely upon as evidence of anything.
It's this kind of detail-work that adds piquancy to clumsy cover-blowing goofs like setting off your nuclear device a mile away from the "crash site."
Finally, it's worth pointing out that it was only after 9/11 that the McClatchey's sawmill business folded, and Val McClatchey started studying for her real-estate licence in an attempt to make ends meet. Killtown's claim that she bought the camera for her real-estate work shows just how sloppily he conducted his "research."
It also seems odd that Val McClatchey's pay-off for being an FBI co-conspirator was losing the family business and (as of this interview) probably losing the family home. Although the "let-me-tug-at-your-heartstrings" style of the interview is offputting, you can't help but feel incredibly sorry for this poor woman. Not only has she faced devastating financial and health complications since 9/11, but she mentions that her daughter has been diagnosed with cancer. This is the woman whom Killtown saw fit to put into the public pillory through his masturbatory conspiracy fantasies. It's all rather stomach-turning.
Val McClatchley is being interviewed at least a year after 9/11. She tells us that she was "sitting on the sofa watching tv having my second or third cup of coffee" when the first plane hit the Twin Towers. She says she was "pretty much glued to the TV" from that point on. What follows is simply her part in conversation with the reporter. I should stress that the reporter's interest in this is purely the "human interest" angle ("How did you feel" etc.)--he's not pressing her in any way at all for precision on the timeline:
"It wasn't long after the pentagon had gotten hit that I heard a very loud surge of an engine--um--I just turned out to look out my front window and I'd just caught it--just a glimpse of just a flash--um--and then the explosion had hit--um--it was forceful enough that it about knocked me off my sofa--and--I'd had--my digital camera was right by the door and I ran out and took a photo and--the smoke rising over the hillside was just--it was so incredible--when you think of the clear blue sky and everything it was just--I don't know what possessed me to do it but I just did and I ran and grabbed my cellphone and got in my truck and tried to call 911--couldn't get through, the cellphone...we don't have cell service very well at Indian Lake and from then on I ran to our sawmill--uh--they still had power and there phones were still working and that's when we initially heard that it was a commercial liner than had gone down.
Well the photo, as I said, it was--that was just an accidental...it was nothing intended it was basically something that I had just taken just because of the strange...not knowing what had happened or anything. It sat in my camera for a few days. To me it was just a photograph of...something. Uh...the State Police and the FBI were asking for any photos related to Flight 93 and when I went to download it I then realized that my seven month old puppy had chewed the end of my cord to download it into my computer. So I had taken the cord and everything, had it replaced--could not get it to recognize my camera to my computer--ran back and got a memory card reader and as soon as I did I downloaded, made a copy of the photo, took it to the state police and within an hour three FBI agents were in my house. It turns out to be the very first photo taken related...it...timed it out it was approximately five seconds after it impacted that I snapped the photo and it was the very first one related. In some of it I...Apparently the FBI thought it was worthwhile. They took the original memory card...so, it uh, it turns out that that photo is a piece of history that I captured that second in time. I still look at it in kinda disbelief that I'm the one who did that...I had the presence of mind to do it. And that's something you think about.
Interviewer: tell us about the initial reaction of the FBI when they discovered you had this incredible photograph?
VAL: Well, the FBI when they came in they looked at it on my computer which is a lot clearer, they could actually see, you know, what they appear to be [sic] debris flying out from that, uh, cloud of smoke--which I'm sure, with modern technology, they could do a little more scientific evidence, I believe. I, I really don't know, I mean, when I think about it, the agony of it, is knowing that just seconds [weeping] a lot of people died [more weeping] sorry. I haven't done this for a while. But, um, since then, that photo's been everywhere. People, neighbours, want a copy, so...of course they want to pay me for the paper and ink and everything...taking the money for myself didn't feel right so we decided that the money needed to go to the families of Flight 93 and at that time there were no funds set up for it so I was on my way to the bank, I had sold a few pictures, and that's when Lisa Beemer (sp?) would have taken the same flight that Tod would have taken and she announced at that time the forming of the Tod Beemer Foundation and the checks that come in and the money that comes in we've been sending out to support the families of Flight 93. And that's, just, it felt like the right thing to do."
I should note that the moments that I mark as "weeping" in the testimony are extremely convincing. If Val McClatchey is part of the cover-up, then it would seem that the FBI planted a trained actress in that house years before 9/11 so that she could be used to persuade viewers of some miniscule local TV network of the authenticity of a photo that the FBI has never bothered to rely upon as evidence of anything.
It's this kind of detail-work that adds piquancy to clumsy cover-blowing goofs like setting off your nuclear device a mile away from the "crash site."
Finally, it's worth pointing out that it was only after 9/11 that the McClatchey's sawmill business folded, and Val McClatchey started studying for her real-estate licence in an attempt to make ends meet. Killtown's claim that she bought the camera for her real-estate work shows just how sloppily he conducted his "research."
It also seems odd that Val McClatchey's pay-off for being an FBI co-conspirator was losing the family business and (as of this interview) probably losing the family home. Although the "let-me-tug-at-your-heartstrings" style of the interview is offputting, you can't help but feel incredibly sorry for this poor woman. Not only has she faced devastating financial and health complications since 9/11, but she mentions that her daughter has been diagnosed with cancer. This is the woman whom Killtown saw fit to put into the public pillory through his masturbatory conspiracy fantasies. It's all rather stomach-turning.
I'm liabel to be stuck on the ignore list, but:
Listen UP!!
WE!
DON'T!
HAVE!
A!
THEORY!!
Prove your theory or else admit that you've pulled all of this out of your ass.
Well one of you guys said the B-52 fireball was not a good comparison because it was caused from a "slow" crash. I posted the MOAB explosion because someone said 93's explosion would have been more like a "flash" explosion (or something) like that.
However, UA175's explosion is VERY similar to the B-52's characteristics, so just want to know what you guys think which fireball characteristics are more accurate.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Yup. Most of that report is Greek to me, and yet by its own admission it is only a SIMPLE MODEL used to calculate a very rough idea of the amount of fuel that burned off in the initial fireball.
Heck, if NIST aren't willing to be absolute on their calculations, I ain't going to even consider it on mine!
-Andrew
So each time you guys come up with a new estimate and I add it and then repost the updated estimate list and ask for everybody to concur is not a sign of trust?
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Please add this data into you answer to my earlier post:
Exactly, which characteristics?
Define your variables in B-52 crash, MOAB explosion, UA175.
Please state how they differ.
Buckwheatjones
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 123
I think the part where I find your newly discovered sense of "fair play" to be disingenuous. You don't need to prove "YOUR guys theory/claim/whatever" to us. We're already satisfied with the position. If you're just trying to square it up in your own head, just move past this circle jerking and say:
"Guys, here's how I see it. X=B+Y and from that I conclude W. Please check my figures and let me know how you think it lines up with the subject at hand."
Instead we get...
"Ok, class...How many concur that B and Y should even be in the picture? Anyone? Everyone? I want 90% of the people on here whom I haven't yet put on Ignore (that means about three people needed to hit this average) to concur...."
[Four pages of Drupal posts later...] "You there! Feel free not to participate! And you! You in New Zealand! I see you hiding behind Australia...If you cannot agree with me I shall Ignore you as well!"
Come on chief. Just put your stuff on the table.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I think you suspicions may be right.
Thank you for your post, and your work in transcribing the video.
Humbly speaking, I'm something of a whizz at writing dialogue, and I feel relatively comfortable agreeing with your assessment of her genuine-ness. She would have to be an excellent actor.
Her manner of speaking appears to be very genuine indeed, and somewhat upsetting.
It is amazing how events like 9/11 spread out in these ever-expanding ripples. While we look at the wars and the politics, it's easy to forget the thousands upon thousands of individual lives that have been changed forever.
-Andrew
1. Photographic evidence is a pretty good variable to have, agreed?
2. No
3. cause we have info of what supposedly caused the plume (type of plane, speed, angle of crash, est fuel), and a photo that shows how big the plume is.
4. Yes.
6. you too.
Then we are done with this one, too. You have not rejected the official version based on plume color, and now you have not rejected the official version based on plume size.
Do you have anything more?
Well someone said (I think maybe Andrew) that the B-52 fireball "poured/spilled" out over the ground and someone else (I think maybe R.Mackey) said 93's fireball was totally different. The way he described it was what sounded like the kind of explosion a bomb would make, hence that's why I posted the MOAB explosion.
I recon none of this is that important now that I've conceded the plume color is a non-factor to this experiment, but just want to be as thorough as possible just in case at the end of this experiment the results don't favor your guys theory, so no one comes back with, "well you never determined the characteristics of the fireball blah, blah, blah".
Isn't it proper for me to be tidious like this for this experiment? Get all sides of the variables?
- Status