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?
So I'm popping back in here on my lunch hour, after a relaxing Sunday with the wife, and with no rabid CTers.
Looks like we've made progress, although it took nearly 200 more posts to do so. Killtown has admitted (a) that the color of smoke in the photograph is entirely consistent with the official story, and just now, (b) that the size of the smoke is also entirely consistent with the official story.
I'm glad we finally agreed on those two points.
Killtown, do you have anything else?
Did you finish your homework assignment?
----------
P.S.:
1. You haven't even defined the variables you are considering. And photos are not "variables." Define the variables
you think are important, describe
why you think they are important, and we'll talk about it.
2. Even though I propose that Flight 93 experienced a much faster burn than your totally irrelevant B-52 video, that doesn't mean it behaved like an extremely high explosive. There is a lot of room in the middle that you have conveniently ignored, much as there are many flying objects that are not a good match to either a paper airplane or a meteor. Your attempt to model Flight 93 with a
20,000 pound high explosive weapon is absurd.
3. If you're so concerned about thoroughness and consensus, why have you put so many people on "Ignore?" How is that reaching a consensus?
4. Most disturbing, why do you
proudly display your "Ignore" list in your signature? It's a big improvement over the dreck you had there before, but -- real scientists and investigators
don't ignore. We learn from opposing points of view.
I have consistently tried to learn from
your point of view, but for some reason you refuse to tell us why you think such things.
So show your work. And you're right, we won't agree. We never agree because we're always trying to get a better answer. When we criticize, update your theory or work harder to show that you are right. You don't have to get it all right on the first try. You can always get help.
And believe me, brother, you need it. In almost 20 years of conversation over the Internet, I have never encountered anyone in such desperate need of remedial mathematics and physics as yourself. Put your ideas out there and learn. And accept that you are absolutely unqualified to make accusations based on scientific evidence, therefore you owe Val an apology. The longer you wait, the more painful it's going to be.
ETA: Missed a word, had another one wrong. Even scientists make mistakes. The difference is that we admit to it, and improve our results because of them.
