Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Killtown, let's remind you of the big picture. You have claimed that the photo is provably faked. We are waiting for you to prove it. We don't need to prove anything, the burden of proof is completely on you. Do you understand that? It's a fundamental point behind a lot of our posts here, but you seem to brush it off, so it makes me think you don't understand that.

We've given calculations that indicate you could expect the plume to be 500 to 600 meters, possibly up to 1000. We've made measurements on the photograph to determine that the smoke was somewhere around 600 m wide. I'd say that you are a very long way from proving your case.

But it's up to you to prove your case. It's not us who are making a claim about this photo. It is you claim that the photo had to have been faked. Please make your case and stop playing games.

I'd like to make a suggestion here. Everyone take a break from this thread for a day or two, or longer. I've only seen Christophera's thread go nowhere for so long.

Killtown, the thread will still be here if you decide to buy an abacus or to download any of the free calculator programs available online, and then to do some actual work. In hundreds of posts, you have done no work, and you've shown no understanding of the problem itself.

Meanwhile, there are many other issues raised by your provocative websites that I (and I'm sure others) would like to discuss with you. That's discuss.

Absolutely nothing is being accomplished here. People have done an admirable job trying to teach Killtown, but we can't force him to learn.

I wish I had the power to wriggle my nose and enact a hiatus, but it remains just a humble suggestion.

You know, it's actually quite a bit simpler to get aballpark figure than you're making it out to be. We really don't need your numbers.

The equations I posted earlier on smoke diffusion could be used backwards as well. Given a cloud of a certain temperature and volume, you can track backwards to when it was at a correct temperature (at least 1000 C, about what jet fuel burns at in the open).

Hmmm, still no answers from you guys. Weird.

What are your guys min/max estimates for your initial fireball diameter size upon impact?


Show me YOUR #'s so we can move on.

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

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

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

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

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

Killtown said:

Hmmm, still no answers from you guys. Weird.

Click to expand...

You have been given more than enough help by R. Mackey to keep going. That is more than enough answer.

If you want an example of a question that really has not been answered...

Mercutio said:

Another page...

If (I stress, if) you were convinced to your own satisfaction that your analysis was wrong, would you feel compelled to apologize to Val?

Click to expand...

Killtown, I'm going to follow Gravy's suggestion and leave this thread for a few days. I'll check in every so often to see if you've actually bothered to do anything more than look at irrelevant videos and photos and say "gee, my gut tells me that this cloud is over-embiggened!" If you can actually make some sort of argument then I'll re-engage. As it is, you're clearly aware that your "argument" has been demolished and now you're just trying to save face (sadly, what you don't realize is that the only actual way you could save face would be to admit that you made an argument based on nothing more than wild guesswork and made a vile and baseless accusation against someone on that inadequate basis).

Before I go, though, let me remind you one more time (this is probably about the 10th time that I've tried to get you to see this point): WE. DON'T. HAVE. A. THEORY. ABOUT. THE. SIZE. OF. THE. PLUME. The most we, collectively, have to say is that we're yet to see any evidence that the photograph in Val's photo is inconsistent with what we know about Flight 93 and what we know about the generation of smoke plumes from plane crashes (collectively, not much, but several thousand times more than you apparently know).

Your current line of argument is based upon the idea that if we can't prove an "alternative" to your baseless assertion then this in some way lends weight to your assertion. This is just about the most pathetically transparent fallacy in the field of logic. Let me try one last time to show you why. This is an example that might annoy you a little (I hope so, because if it does it might make you think about the flawed logic on which it is based--that is to say, the special "Killtown-brand" logic on which it is based):

Killtown, I have figured out (using forensics and YouTube) that you are in fact Sivan Kurzburg. Sivan Kurzburg was clearly part of a crack Mossad "cover-blowing" team who were tasked with ensuring that people found out that Mossad were behind the 9/11 attacks. I can tell (using forensics and many many calculations which I would put on my blog if they weren't so sensitive) that Sivan is back at work and hiding behind the name "Killtown" (Kurzburg/Killtown--both eight letters, both begin with the letter K, "burg"="town," "Kurz"="short"="cut short"=Kill: it's completely obvious as soon as you think about it). The forensics that I use have shown me that Sivan's use of the English language (as documented in the hundreds of MSM reports on his activities) is eerily similar to Killtown's. We know that Sivan was dedicated to the work of making sure that people found out the "truth" about 9/11, and what is this "Killburg"--sorry, "Kurztown"--doing? I rest my case.

So, Killtown: do you disagree that you are in fact Sivan Kurzburg? Well then, prove it. Come on--give us definitive proof that you are not Sivan Kurzburg. If you can't then that will clearly--according to your logic--prove that you ARE in fact Sivan Kurzburg.

My suggestion is that NOBODY calls this "Killtown" character anything but "Sivan" or "Kurzburg" until he offers DEFINITIVE proof of his "I'm not Kurzburg" hypothesis. Killtown himself insists that if you can't prove the contrary, the original hypothesis MUST be true.

Come on Kurzburg. Where's this "proof" of yours? We're waiting.

Please let it die, it's rightful death! He will never give to you, that which you ask. It is a game , nothing more, nothing less! No more hits to that offensive excuse for a web page, either! This kat is stumping! For what reason, is the real question?
DT

Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:





http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

The plume likes to grow no more than 3x wider than the width of the fireball.

A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.

How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?


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

Crash angle: "nearly 90 deg"
Fuel upon impact: 7,500 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 75%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 600m/2,000ft

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

Crash angle: 40-45 deg
Fuel upon impact: 10,000 gals
Fuel % burned upon impact: 95%
Wingspan: 38m/125ft
Initial fireball width: ???
Plume width size at time of Val's photo: 1000m/3,300ft

I'm done reading this thread.

I must thank killtown for the obvious push of all the 'on the fencers' towards the real truth; you've done more to debunk the 911 'truth' movement for them than gravy and others could ever hope for.

Killtown said:

My calculator broke.

Now, show me YOUR fireball size estimates. I don't want to come up with the wrong answers for you guys, so YOU should submit your answers.

Click to expand...

I'm going to write this so even you can understand:

THERE IS NO WAY FOR US TO ESTIMATE THE FIREBALL'S SIZE.

Thank you.

(I think you guys are starting to get scared!)

Click to expand...

You are as though we have something to hide. You DO realise that many of us don't even live in the US ?

Killtown said:

No, these are #'s for YOUR claims!

Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time... WE HAVE MADE NO CLAIM.

Do you GET that ?

Killtown said:

The plume likes to grow no more than 3x wider than the width of the fireball.

A moab is 30 feet (10 metres) in length to give you a comparison to go off of.

Click to expand...

Still watching videos, and not understanding.

Your photos do not show the smoke plume at its widest. Even at that time, it is still expanding, quite fast actually. It's just that the plume is so large, that there's no ready reference for how fast it is expanding. Could be expanding at 50 meters per second at that point, you'd never be sure.

So your assertion that "the plume likes to grow no more than 3x wider than the fireball" is utter nonsense.

Besides, just how big is "the fireball?" Hint, it's not the size of the bomb itself. Just like Flight 93's fireball wasn't the size of the aircraft's fuel tanks.

I make that three compound fallacies in one. Once again, watching videos is not helping you.

Killtown said:

Let me help you guys out AGAIN. Here's an fireball explosion from moab nosediving and spreads out pretty far and starts to create a pretty big plume:

[...]

How wide do you think 93's fireball would have been when it hit to expand up to your plume size estimates?

Click to expand...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Look for THIS, specifically.

R.Mackey said:

Still watching videos, and not understanding.

Click to expand...

Hopefully he's not representative of his generation.

Your photos do not show the smoke plume at its widest

Click to expand...

That's what happens when the video doesn't run for minutes after the crash. Killtown thinks the smoke dissapeared at that very moment.

R.Mackey said:

1) Your photos do not show the smoke plume at its widest.

2) Besides, just how big is "the fireball?" Hint, it's not the size of the bomb itself. Just like Flight 93's fireball wasn't the size of the aircraft's fuel tanks.

Click to expand...

1) that's ok, we are not to that point yet.

2) K, what are you min/max fireball width diameters?

Yup.

I might also point out that the pictures he linked appear to be zooming out during the event. Not at all unusual. But it makes yet a fourth mistake in his "3x" reasoning, one that I missed the first time around.

Things like this are why one needs to measure and be careful.

Killtown said:

1) that's ok, we are not to that point yet.

2) K, what are you min/max fireball width diameters?

Click to expand...

The point we are at is precisely where we've been all day.

I've told you how to make an estimate of Flight 93's min / max fireball sizes at initiation. You keep dodging, digging ever deeper into your seemingly bottomless well of pathetic excuses. So stop stalling.

R.Mackey said:

I've told you how to make an estimate of Flight 93's min / max fireball sizes at initiation.

Click to expand...

I don't know how and if I did, you guys would say i was trying to low-ball the width to my favor, so to avoid all that and since YOU seem to know how to do it, give me your estimates.

Do you guys really think you should be continuing to talk with this confessed Mossad agent? I mean, he's offered us no proof that he's not Kurzburg (and I offered LOTS of evidence that he was--much of it squarely rooted in forensics; some of it in superforensics), so--according to his own logic--he clearly must be Kurzburg.

Should we be assisting this agent of the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy (TM)?