Plume in Flight 93 photo is different - Page 13

CurtC · 16th August 2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by c0rbin

Of course I don't wish to stifle discussion...especially not on this board, but I must ask who benefits from this discussion?

Well, most of us here enjoy this kind of thing, so we benefit.

Other than that, I think it would be satisfying if we manage to take the air out of his argument, so that even he realizes that he gains nothing by trying to make it. I was able to accomplish that to some degree with Sun Zoo over at LC, and his argument that photos of flight 175 proved that the plane could not have been a 767-200, therefore must have been a different flight/plane. I think he still argues that it was different, but I haven't seen him say that the photo proves it anymore.

Of course, Killtown's web page has 200 crappy arguments, so even if we make him abandon this one, we still have 199 more of these to look forward to.

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 09:52 AM

Pardalis, I doubt I have the "expertise" to satisfy you, so you probably shouldn't participate in this discussion anymore.

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Pardalis, I doubt I have the "expertise" to satisfy you, so you probably shouldn't participate in this discussion anymore.

Then why should anyone bother with your claim?

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Then why should anyone bother with your claim?

They don't. I haven't forced anybody to participate on this thread.

So ba-bye!

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 09:54 AM

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your "findings" with the proper authorities in the field?

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your "findings" with the proper authorities in the field?

I'm not "qualified" enough for you, so ba-bye, thanks for playing!

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 09:59 AM

You didn't answer my question.

If you are after the truth, wouldn't you want to ask the proper experts' opinion?

Buckwheatjones · 16th August 2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Good, so apologize for calling me a "boy" and I'll respond to your questions.

No. Quit whining and grow a thick skin. You want to delve in hot button topics, learn to deal with the heat.

You estimate the size of the cloud at the hole, as shown in the photograph to be 2200 feet across. That's 600 meters. I posted a mathematical equation showing that 600 meters is possible, 1000 meters is even reasonable.

Do you have anything besides your own opinion that the cloud is just too big to be believable, or is that the best you have?

Answer it, don't answer it. Doesn't matter much to me. If you do then we all get to finally see your hand. If you don't, someone else on here will press you and you'll have to come up with something. Hurry up, boy! Start a-cipherin'!

mortimer · 16th August 2006, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

How the heck can you determine which way the plume is travelling by a still photo?

CurtC · 16th August 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

The other points have been pretty well addressed already, so I'll take this one. How can you tell it's travelling straight up? A plume drifting in the wind would, at any snapshot in time, look like that, but over time it would simply appear farther and farther downwind. That seems to be what we're seeing in this photo.

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Buckwheatjones

No.

Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by mortimer

How the heck can you determine which way the plume is travelling by a still photo?

Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

rwguinn · 16th August 2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!

oh, lookee!
Baby is taking his ball and going home...

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 10:10 AM

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your findings with the proper authorities in the fields of physics, geomatics, meteorology, and the like?

Are you really interested in finding out what that plume of smoke is?

Are you willing to have your theory be falsified scientifically, as any theory should be?

Or do you want to hold on to your unprofessional layman analysis as the Gospel?

twinstead · 16th August 2006, 10:11 AM

I wonder how long it would have taken one of us, with the exact same posting style, no answers or brief, snippy answers to questions that just beg for more questions instead of proper debating, and attitude as killtown, to be banned at LC.

Kind of telling, don't you think?

kookbreaker · 16th August 2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!

Man alive, you are childish.

twinstead · 16th August 2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your findings with the proper authorities in the fields of physics, geomatics, meteorology, and the like?

Are you really interested in finding out what that plume of smoke is?

Are you willing to have your theory be falsified scientifically, as any theory should be?

If he was really after the truth he sure would.

mortimer · 16th August 2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...parison3.1.jpg

Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume?

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

I'm not "qualified" enough for you, so ba-bye, thanks for playing!

Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

CurtC · 16th August 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Man alive, you are childish.

Be easy on him, he's just a boy.

Buckwheatjones · 16th August 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

oh, lookee!
Baby is taking his ball and going home...

You know, I think we've all been duped. At first we made a blanket assumption that we're dealing with a grown-up. But after reading the "buh-bye!" thing, it's evident we've got a 6th grade girl on the line.

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume?

What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 10:33 AM

Killtown, please answer my question:

Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 16th August 2006, 10:34 AM

Val's House where picture was taken: VH - 40 03 00.29 N, 78 52 28.16 W
Red Barn in picture (south tip of roof): RB - 40 3 0.44 N, 78 52 34.39 W
White Barn in picture (north tip of roof): WB - 40 2 58.22 N, 78 52 42 W
Crash site: CS - 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W

Distance from VH to RB: 148 meters V1
Distance from VH to WB: 334 meters V2
Distance from VH to CS: 2421 meters V3
Distance from RB to CS: 2335 meters V4
Distance from WB to CS: 2158 meters V5
Distance from RB to WB: 193 meters V6

Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, just need some more math savvy people's input to get there.

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 10:42 AM

Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 10:43 AM

Killtown, do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

mortimer · 16th August 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 16th August 2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

Dr Richard · 16th August 2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.

They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.

I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Please answer the questions...

Dr Richard · 16th August 2006, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

-snip-

Which way is the wind blowing in each of the photos?

Do you deny the possibility that in picture 1 the wind may be blowing towards you? Or away from you? And you would not see the plume bending to one side?

Please, please answer as I am genuinely trying to understand how you can fail to grasp this point. Please say if this is wilful obtuseness and we can move on...

Arkan_Wolfshade · 16th August 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

Those pics are enlightening. In comparison to the overlaid pic (2nd one) we can see that Val's pic is showing a plume that is asymmetric. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the plume formed in a symmetric manner initially and is being deformed by wind we would see the plume stretching in a SE direction from the crash. This is consistent with what we see in the pic given that the direction of the picture is WNW.

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by mortimer

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

(scroll to bottom)
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07...ce-blasts.html

Not to get back on topic, I posted that clip to compare the Val plume with the known jet crash plume that IS being affected by wind. But I guess we'd have to start debating what caused the plumes in the first place to debate this clip, so I guess my clip is invalid for this thread.

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.

I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Please answer the questions...

Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?

Pardalis · 16th August 2006, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

How can we hypothesize that your measurements are accurate when your haven't shown your "science" to have any credibility?

Darth Rotor · 16th August 2006, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

Let me suggest, to aid in your understanding of a colloquialism, that the message being sent is this:

the assessment of your approach to analysis and argument in this case is being compared to garbage, which is an apt comparison in that if your analysis were thrown into a trash heap, said disposition would not result in any loss of understanding, or enlightenment, regarding the various questions surrounding the 9-11 event being discussed. The gentleman is finding your argument of low to no value, due to the weaknesses in structure and lack of rigor, not you personally, as I read his comments.

DR

bob_kark · 16th August 2006, 11:28 AM

Let me make sure that I understand the point of this thread. You're attempting to determine whether or not a woman is selling a faked picture showing a smoke plume from flight 93? Who cares?

As to the claim that this was a smoke plume from ordnance, where are the witnesses in the area that heard this additional mystery exposion? Certainly someone would have heard it, seen an additional smoke plume, found it, etc...

Killtown · 16th August 2006, 11:34 AM

Thanks again mortimer!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=10738

CurtC · 16th August 2006, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.

This better be worth it. Doing it numerically by hand, I get 32.7 meters and 74.6 meters respectively for your triangle heights.

juryjone · 16th August 2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

Tell me, are we supposed to believe that this "ordnance plume" shifted 90 degrees?

Shouldn't an ordnance plume be a different color?

Oh, and do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

Yes.	129	90.85%
No.	13	9.15%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

16th August 2006, 09:52 AM	#482
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Pardalis, I doubt I have the "expertise" to satisfy you, so you probably shouldn't participate in this discussion anymore.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 09:53 AM	#483
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Originally Posted by Killtown Pardalis, I doubt I have the "expertise" to satisfy you, so you probably shouldn't participate in this discussion anymore. Then why should anyone bother with your claim?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 09:54 AM	#484
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Pardalis Then why should anyone bother with your claim? They don't. I haven't forced anybody to participate on this thread. So ba-bye!
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 09:54 AM	#485
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your "findings" with the proper authorities in the field?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 09:50 AM	#481
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,785	Originally Posted by c0rbin Of course I don't wish to stifle discussion...especially not on this board, but I must ask who benefits from this discussion? Well, most of us here enjoy this kind of thing, so we benefit. Other than that, I think it would be satisfying if we manage to take the air out of his argument, so that even he realizes that he gains nothing by trying to make it. I was able to accomplish that to some degree with Sun Zoo over at LC, and his argument that photos of flight 175 proved that the plane could not have been a 767-200, therefore must have been a different flight/plane. I think he still argues that it was different, but I haven't seen him say that the photo proves it anymore. Of course, Killtown's web page has 200 crappy arguments, so even if we make him abandon this one, we still have 199 more of these to look forward to.

16th August 2006, 09:57 AM	#486
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Pardalis Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your "findings" with the proper authorities in the field? I'm not "qualified" enough for you, so ba-bye, thanks for playing!
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 09:59 AM	#487
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	You didn't answer my question. If you are after the truth, wouldn't you want to ask the proper experts' opinion?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 09:59 AM	#488
Buckwheatjones Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 123	Originally Posted by Killtown Good, so apologize for calling me a "boy" and I'll respond to your questions. No. Quit whining and grow a thick skin. You want to delve in hot button topics, learn to deal with the heat. You estimate the size of the cloud at the hole, as shown in the photograph to be 2200 feet across. That's 600 meters. I posted a mathematical equation showing that 600 meters is possible, 1000 meters is even reasonable. Do you have anything besides your own opinion that the cloud is just too big to be believable, or is that the best you have? Answer it, don't answer it. Doesn't matter much to me. If you do then we all get to finally see your hand. If you don't, someone else on here will press you and you'll have to come up with something. Hurry up, boy! Start a-cipherin'!
Buckwheatjones Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 123

16th August 2006, 10:00 AM	#489
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517	Originally Posted by Killtown 4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind How the heck can you determine which way the plume is travelling by a still photo?
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517

16th August 2006, 10:01 AM	#490
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,785	Originally Posted by Killtown 4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind The other points have been pretty well addressed already, so I'll take this one. How can you tell it's travelling straight up? A plume drifting in the wind would, at any snapshot in time, look like that, but over time it would simply appear farther and farther downwind. That seems to be what we're seeing in this photo.

16th August 2006, 10:05 AM	#491
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Buckwheatjones No. Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 10:07 AM	#492
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by mortimer How the heck can you determine which way the plume is travelling by a still photo? Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 10:07 AM	#493
rwguinn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 11,098	Originally Posted by Killtown Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing! oh, lookee! Baby is taking his ball and going home...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

16th August 2006, 10:10 AM	#494
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your findings with the proper authorities in the fields of physics, geomatics, meteorology, and the like? Are you really interested in finding out what that plume of smoke is? Are you willing to have your theory be falsified scientifically, as any theory should be? Or do you want to hold on to your unprofessional layman analysis as the Gospel?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 10:11 AM	#495
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374	I wonder how long it would have taken one of us, with the exact same posting style, no answers or brief, snippy answers to questions that just beg for more questions instead of proper debating, and attitude as killtown, to be banned at LC. Kind of telling, don't you think?

16th August 2006, 10:12 AM	#496
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,543	Originally Posted by Killtown Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing! Man alive, you are childish.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <-

16th August 2006, 10:13 AM	#497
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374	Originally Posted by Pardalis Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your findings with the proper authorities in the fields of physics, geomatics, meteorology, and the like? Are you really interested in finding out what that plume of smoke is? Are you willing to have your theory be falsified scientifically, as any theory should be? If he was really after the truth he sure would.

16th August 2006, 10:14 AM	#498
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517	Originally Posted by Killtown Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...parison3.1.jpg Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume?
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,517

16th August 2006, 10:16 AM	#499
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Originally Posted by Killtown I'm not "qualified" enough for you, so ba-bye, thanks for playing! Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 10:24 AM	#500
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,785	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Man alive, you are childish. Be easy on him, he's just a boy.

16th August 2006, 10:27 AM	#501
Buckwheatjones Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 123	Originally Posted by rwguinn oh, lookee! Baby is taking his ball and going home... You know, I think we've all been duped. At first we made a blanket assumption that we're dealing with a grown-up. But after reading the "buh-bye!" thing, it's evident we've got a 6th grade girl on the line.
Buckwheatjones Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 123

16th August 2006, 10:28 AM	#502
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by mortimer Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume? What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 10:33 AM	#503
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Killtown, please answer my question: Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 10:34 AM	#504
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,154	Val's House where picture was taken: VH - 40 03 00.29 N, 78 52 28.16 W Red Barn in picture (south tip of roof): RB - 40 3 0.44 N, 78 52 34.39 W White Barn in picture (north tip of roof): WB - 40 2 58.22 N, 78 52 42 W Crash site: CS - 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W Distance from VH to RB: 148 meters V1 Distance from VH to WB: 334 meters V2 Distance from VH to CS: 2421 meters V3 Distance from RB to CS: 2335 meters V4 Distance from WB to CS: 2158 meters V5 Distance from RB to WB: 193 meters V6 Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters? Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters. Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, just need some more math savvy people's input to get there.

16th August 2006, 10:42 AM	#505
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 10:43 AM	#506
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Killtown, do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

16th August 2006, 10:50 AM	#508
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,154	Originally Posted by Killtown Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate? I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

16th August 2006, 11:00 AM	#509
Dr Richard Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by Killtown Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions. They were shown to be false. You have not denied this. A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished. I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument. Please answer the questions...
Dr Richard Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 203

16th August 2006, 11:05 AM	#510
Dr Richard Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by Killtown Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind: -snip- Which way is the wind blowing in each of the photos? Do you deny the possibility that in picture 1 the wind may be blowing towards you? Or away from you? And you would not see the plume bending to one side? Please, please answer as I am genuinely trying to understand how you can fail to grasp this point. Please say if this is wilful obtuseness and we can move on...
Dr Richard Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 203

16th August 2006, 11:14 AM	#511
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,154	Originally Posted by mortimer Now which plumes are being affected by wind? Those pics are enlightening. In comparison to the overlaid pic (2nd one) we can see that Val's pic is showing a plume that is asymmetric. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the plume formed in a symmetric manner initially and is being deformed by wind we would see the plume stretching in a SE direction from the crash. This is consistent with what we see in the pic given that the direction of the picture is WNW.

16th August 2006, 11:17 AM	#512
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by mortimer Now which plumes are being affected by wind? Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog... (scroll to bottom) http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07...ce-blasts.html Not to get back on topic, I posted that clip to compare the Val plume with the known jet crash plume that IS being affected by wind. But I guess we'd have to start debating what caused the plumes in the first place to debate this clip, so I guess my clip is invalid for this thread.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 11:19 AM	#513
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Dr Richard They were shown to be false. You have not denied this. A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished. I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument. Please answer the questions... Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 11:21 AM	#514
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part. Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

16th August 2006, 11:24 AM	#515
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Originally Posted by Killtown I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate? How can we hypothesize that your measurements are accurate when your haven't shown your "science" to have any credibility?
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817