Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Buckwheatjones]

Heh. I've been nothing but polite, productive, and non-insulting. And yet, according to your signature, I'm on your ignore list.

And yet I've been B!tchslapping him left and right and I can't seem to make the A-List. What's your secret?

 

[MortFurd]

For anyone out there who is still following and believing Killtown, I advise a look at his avatar:

Know your place and shut your face.

Now look at the length of Killtown's ignore list and consider who is repressing the truth.

The people asking for proof of an assertion, or the person who places everyone who disagrees with him.

 

[R.Mackey]

Just out of curiousity, what is your scientific background, Killtown?

PS. Why do you think Val is ignoring you? Just want to see where your thoughts are at.

Killtown has absolutely no training in any science.

As evidence, I submit this post, and the hilarity that follows, wherein Killtown tries to pass off this derivation:

wing size + aircraft speed = fuel splatter size

125 feet + 580 MPH = 705 feet

I've been trying ever since to backfill the holes in his education, but it isn't easy.

 

[Bandersnatch]

None of this matters for this experiment.

Why not?

The scientific background question does pertain to the 'expirement.' We don't know how much expirence you have in a laboratory environment, or what kind of physics or mathematics you know.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

I've had friends email her and ask for a copy of the original file, but so far she's never responded.

Maybe you could solve this mystery by contacting her and asking her what the timestamp was? You can get her contact info off my blog.

Well, you have her phone number and this is your homework. Why don't you call her up, apologize, and ask nicely for the information?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Killtown has absolutely no training in any science.

As evidence, I submit this post, and the hilarity that follows, wherein Killtown tries to pass off this derivation:

wing size + aircraft speed = fuel splatter size

125 feet + 580 MPH = 705 feet

I've been trying ever since to backfill the holes in his education, but it isn't easy.

Put another way, 8 apples + 6 bananas = 2 cars.

 

[MortFurd]

Killtown has absolutely no training in any science.

As evidence, I submit this post, and the hilarity that follows, wherein Killtown tries to pass off this derivation:

wing size + aircraft speed = fuel splatter size

125 feet + 580 MPH = 705 feet

I've been trying ever since to backfill the holes in his education, but it isn't easy.

Never mind science, he can't do basic math. This is the shining knight of the 911 deniers movement?

 

[CurtC]

Well, you have her phone number and this is your homework. Why don't you call her up, apologize, and ask nicely for the information?

She's not going to send someone the photo file - she sells that photo and gives the proceeds to a charity. If she just sent anyone the photo file, that wouldn't be possible.

 

[gumboot]

Put another way, 8 apples + 6 bananas = 2 cars.

No wonder my shopping basket was so heavy.

-Andrew

 

[Killtown]

1) You're lying again. You won't even answer the reasonable requests of people like myself, even after being asked the same question over ten times. Therefore, you have clearly not answered their objections, or even explained why their criticisms are invalid. Which they are not.

2) "Out of context?" Do you deny that you agreed that the smoke size was plausible in this exchange:

3) And? What else have you got? Once again, I implore you to share your opinions and reasoning with us.

4) I would model Flight 93's explosion as a rapid deflagration of well-mixed fuel and air, subject to the parameters of the crash. I know of no video that matches this. I haven't looked at United 175 in enough detail to comment, but given that the structure it hit may have captured much of its fuel, I expect there to be important differences. Your B-52 example is totally wrong, as has been explained to you three times by me and dozens of times by others -- and you have not even acknowledged our reasoning.

5) Bad form. Scientists who run from their critics are not scientists. Our biggest critics are our best teachers. You seem to have an aversion to teaching, which you really should correct. Life is too short to go through it uneducated.

6) In terms of irrelevance, by your threshold of pain, I should have ignored you at the very first post. In terms of insults, you are on record in the ruddy newspaper of harassing Val in real life. You are enacting a double standard. I don't accept your excuse. It reeks of cowardice.

7) Because I'm trying to help you. Honest.

1) I'm only answering questions that are relevant to this thread/experiment.

2) plausible for this experiment based on your estimates.

3) at the conclusion of this experiment.

4) Well here they are...

UA175 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X2F5fdSF90
More 175 crash vid: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
B-52 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c

Which one is more like 93's?

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.

6) too bad.

7) Sure.

 

[Killtown]

Why not?

The scientific background question does pertain to the 'expirement.' We don't know how much expirence you have in a laboratory environment, or what kind of physics or mathematics you know.

If you don't like it, feel free not to participate in this experiment.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

She's not going to send someone the photo file - she sells that photo and gives the proceeds to a charity. If she just sent anyone the photo file, that wouldn't be possible.

Well, that and no photographer is going to give out copies of their digital files. That's why I said "ask her for the information." She might abhor killtown, but if he made amends on his site and asked her for the information (time stamp) she might provide the time of the capture. It might not be conclusive, but you get as close as you can by making all efforts to get the best information you can.

 

[rwguinn]

1) I'm only answering questions that are relevant to this thread/experiment.

2) plausible for this experiment based on your estimates.

3) at the conclusion of this experiment.

4) Well here they are...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e913b9093c6.jpghttp://img205.imageshack.us/img205/867/b52xeg8.jpg
UA175 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X2F5fdSF90
More 175 crash vid: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
B-52 crash vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c

Which one is more like 93's?

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.

6) too bad.

7) Sure.

1. With your background, for you to determine relevance is like asking a blind man to pick the green baloon.
2. Whose estimates?
3. What experiment? I haven't even see a working hypothosis that stays constant for more than 1 post...
4. And you accused someone of "Photoshopping" He!!- I can do better than that.
5.
6. The truth hurts, does it not
7. lost cause

 

[Killtown]

Reminder, current estimates:


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

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

 

[Bandersnatch]

If you don't like it, feel free not to participate in this experiment.

Why is this question so difficult to answer? Would you do so on another thread?

 

[Killtown]

Why is this question so difficult to answer? Would you do so on another thread?

Feel free to start another thread if you want, but please stop stalling up this thread.

 

[Pardalis]

Killtown, will you carry on with your freaking experiment allready?

 

[R.Mackey]

1) I'm only answering questions that are relevant to this thread/experiment.

Those you have "ignored" asked a multitude of relevant questions. Another lie for you.

2) plausible for this experiment based on your estimates.

I'll accept that. It means that, in order for you to deny that the smoke plume was consistently sized in real life, you must describe why real life differs from this experiment. Until then, your default position is that it is plausible. As it should be.

3) at the conclusion of this experiment.

This experiment is over! You accepted that plume size was acceptable. We're all in agreement. Now, what have you got?

4) Well here they are...

[couple of videos that aren't Flight 93 deleted]
Which one is more like 93's?

Who cares? Which is more like you, a fungus or a pencil sharpener? Neither is a good model. You've introduced a classic False Dilemma. Let it go.

5) I don't "run" from anybody. Think of my ignore list is like wearing earplugs for being in a room of hungry and tired little kids.

You may think of it that way, but you're wrong. It's more like wearing headphones in class. You haven't established that their complaints about your argument were invalid. If you had, I might have some sympathy.

6) too bad.

Not a very compelling argument.

7) Sure.

Even if I was lying, which I'm not, you could still learn from what I have to say. Give it a try.

Science succeeds because we don't care who says it, or why, we only consider the value of their arguments themselves. Not even the conclusions sometimes, just the arguments. Show us your arguments. Show us your work. Ignoring and posting random videos is counter-productive.

 

[Beleth]

And yet I've been rule8slapping him left and right and I can't seem to make the A-List. What's your secret?

Beats me. Maybe it's my adept use of the smiley.

 

[Dr Richard]

Perhaps this was still too difficult and involved technical data and terminology.

Let us try another one:

In the peer-reviewed, published scientific papers I have quoted, and given you the references for, wind velocity is an important factor.

2. (a) Do you agree that wind velocity is an important variable when determining the plume size?

(b) Do you agree that we need to know what the wind velocity was to calculate plume size?

Hi Killtown, are you ignoring me?

Please do not tell me I'm on your ignore list! Could you answer the questions about wind velocity? I think they would be easy enough to answer.

To help you, my answers would be (a) Yes and (b) Yes

My justification for saying so would be the papers I quoted.