Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
This would go much faster if you simply showed your work without being asked, or produced it when asked without drama.
Click to expand...

True, but that would assume he actually has "work" to show.
 
Killtown said:
Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.
Click to expand...

Perhaps instead of repost this statement endlessly, you could simply quote the posts where they made these estimates. That'd be a simple and easy proof of it, and then you could get on to answering some actual questions.


(Of course, that's assuming these posts exist)
 
Killtown said:
Like said over and over again, these are YOUR guy's estimates, not mine. If you object to your fellow OCTs estimate, feel free to post your estimates.
Click to expand...
We did. You misinterpreted them. That's why I objected.

Now then, do you understand the difference between an expected size from observation, and a theoretical lower bound? Yes, or no?
 
R.Mackey said:
We did. You misinterpreted them. That's why I objected.

Now then, do you understand the difference between an expected size from observation, and a theoretical lower bound? Yes, or no?
Click to expand...
Let's make life simple, post your min plume width at the time of Val's photo and let's move on.

Be back in a while.
 
Killtown said:
Let's make life simple, post your min plume width at the time of Val's photo and let's move on.
Click to expand...


Killtown, we have MEASURED the approximate width of the plume using vectors and trig, and based on the distance from Val's house to the crash site. Why on earth would we need a maximum or minimum?

-Andrew
 
Killtown said:
Be back in a while.
Click to expand...

Dear Killtown, alas, GMT+1 will not allow me to ask this question much longer before I fall asleep at my keyboard.

You have agreed that windspeed is important when determining plume size.

What was the windspeed when the B-52 bomber crashed?

Apologies for shouting, its getting late...
 
Killtown said:
Let's make life simple, post your min plume width at the time of Val's photo and let's move on.

Be back in a while.
Click to expand...
Make it even simpler, answer my "yes or no" question.

There's little point in me giving you a number if you don't know what it means, now is there?
 
gumboot said:
Killtown, we have MEASURED the approximate width of the plume using vectors and trig, and based on the distance from Val's house to the crash site. Why on earth would we need a maximum or minimum?

-Andrew
Click to expand...

In KT's defense, a max or min could be useful to him, if the approximate width we calculated using vectors and trig actually fell outside the range bounded by those numbers. That would allow him (and lead us) to reject the official story.

If he actually understands that, it would explain his reticence to include more relevant variables; the fewer the variables, the narrower the range. But the ranges already on the table seem to easily include Val's pic as fitting the official story, so there is nothing to lose in adding the other variables that actually do make a difference. He still cannot reject the null, but at least he will have a more accurate picture of reality.
 
Mercutio said:
In KT's defense, a max or min could be useful to him, if the approximate width we calculated using vectors and trig actually fell outside the range bounded by those numbers. That would allow him (and lead us) to reject the official story.

If he actually understands that, it would explain his reticence to include more relevant variables; the fewer the variables, the narrower the range. But the ranges already on the table seem to easily include Val's pic as fitting the official story, so there is nothing to lose in adding the other variables that actually do make a difference. He still cannot reject the null, but at least he will have a more accurate picture of reality.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But he is attempting -- whether a deliberate act of misinformation, or yet another example of sheer naivete, who can tell -- to mix up the observation with the theoretical lower bound.

If he does that, then when we measure, we'll find that -- surprise! -- it's at the very bottom of the "expected" scale. If it wasn't for the reasoning error, this would be grounds to question more thoroughly. Killtown would be faced instead with the fact that, instead of (as he originally claimed) the plume was too big, but that it was too small. Rather a large intellectual leap, but nothing beyond what Killtown has exhibited to date.

In any case, let's just correct this error before it goes any further. We must not mix predictions of theory with the observation, because we need to test the observation against the theory. If we blend these by mistake, then we cannot conduct our test.

ETA: Missed a word. Grammar bad.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Agreed. But he is attempting -- whether a deliberate act of misinformation, or yet another example of sheer naivete, who can tell -- to mix up the observation with the theoretical lower bound.
[snip]
Click to expand...

This is precisely why I have been asking him to state his null hypothesis. I want to see that he knows what he is doing.
 
Still making my way through this mess. Bump for Killtown.

Mercutio said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Buckwheatjones said:
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.
Click to expand...
That isn't relevant today, because there's no way to tell how accurate the camera's clock was. However, no matter what time (or day, or year) the clock showed at the time of the photo, the FBI agents could have calculated the elapsed time between the photo and the time shown on the camera's clock when they examined it. Assuming the battery hadn't been removed or the time reset, subtracting the elapsed time from the real time would give the photo's actual time to the second.
 
Well he's not in any kind of scientifical field. That we know for sure.

He's not in any communication spheres either, which involve computer graphics and cameras.

I'm pretty sure he's not into law, philosophy, ethics, logic and any other human studies.

I don't get the feeling he's a history buff.

Let's see what else...
 
All this time and you guys couldn't fill in your blanks?

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 50m/164ft (39ft wider than the wingspan)
Wind speed & direction: 9 kt NW
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft (about 6 1/2 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 5.3 sec
Plume color: Non-factor

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

Crash angle: 40 deg
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Fireball temp: ???
Peak fireball width: 860m/2,822ft (about 9 1/2 football fields)
Wind speed & direction: 25 kt W
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1,000m/3,300ft (about 11 football fields)
Crash to photo time lapse: 1 min
Plume color: Non-factor

--------------------------------
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom