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.
Photo timestamp is a non-starter. There's no guarantee her camera was accurate, or that it was off by a correctable offset determined after the fact. I also don't believe we have a sufficiently precise impact time, but I could be wrong.

I'd expect to see, at best, time accuracy of +/- ten seconds. That's up to 125 meters of drift in the cloud right there (assuming 25 knot wind, as reported by the FDR). Our uncertainty in the mechanics of the crash and burn are much higher than this already.
 
I don't see that it would make much difference having the timestamp on the photo. You would have to know how accurate the clock inside the camera was. (The timestamp on the security camera at the Pentagon was out by 24 hours IIRC.)
 
MortFurd said:
Christ alimighty!

It didn't take Killtown very long to put me on ignore.

It must be convenient to ignore everything that doesn't suit you.

I hope Killtown never ignores anything of any importance, say like bad brakes or a rattle snake in his bed.
Click to expand...

I think he uses Ignore so he can go back to his playpen mates in the LC forum as boast how he "shut them all up." And they'll eat it up and fete him as a conquering hero, of course -- oblivious to the fact that his method for "shutting them up" is on par with thinking you can make a charging bull vanish by closing your eyes.

Someone who's not on Killtime's list should mess with his mind a little, something like "OMG you should see what the people on your Ignore list are saying about you" or "someone's figured out who you are!" or even "the people on your Ignore list looked into your expirement and have concluded you are right! Val's a liar and fraud! 9/11 was done by Israelis after all!!" See if he'll un-Ignore us all in a hyperventilating tizzy...
 
MortFurd said:
Careful, Curt. You're flirting with Killtown's ignore list.
Click to expand...

Everyone is on his ignore list.

I wonder why that is .....hmmmm.

Killtown is not here to discuss his theory. As it has already been said before - he won't stop until he can win by pretzel logic. Evidence plays no part here.
It's like dealing with a 3 year old ( my apologies to all the 3 year olds' out there)
 
R.Mackey said:
1. Looks like we've made progress, although it took nearly 200 more posts to do so.

2. 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.

3. Killtown, do you have anything else?

P.S.:

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.

5. The longer you wait, the more painful it's going to be.
[/size]
Click to expand...
1) Well if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but flood this thread with non-relevant and insulting posts, that number goes down a lot.

2) b) taking that a tad bit out of context, but whatever.

3) Yes.

PS

2. So do you think 93's fireball was more like the B-52's (not the band), UA175's, or something totally different?

3. See answer #1

4. it was to let those people know to don't bother asking me any questions because I won't see them. If they promise to behave, productively contribute to the experiment, and not insult me, I'll take them off my list.

5. so why do you care if it will get more painful for me?
 
Killtown said:
1) Well if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but flood this thread with non-relevant and insulting posts, that number goes down a lot.
Click to expand...
You placed me on ignore for pointedly reminding you that you are here to defend your theory. We never had one. You have invented one for us and now you are attempting to "prove" it for us so that you can demolish it with a display of stunning illogic.

Face reality for a change, Killtown.
 
Last edited:
I think I have finally figured KT out. When speaking at us and using the phrase "your theory" I think what KT is trying to say is that KT is expecting us to defend the NIST report and that KT feels the questions he/she is bringing to the table is sufficient to call the validity of the NIST report into question. It's an ongoing effort at shifting the burden since we've already shown KT's website to be bunk.
 
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.
 
[ocelot persona on]
You know what, I think Val's dog is the guilty party in all of this. After all, he/she chewed her camera's cable. God knows what else he/she could have tampered with...
[ocelot persona off]
 
Last edited:
MortFurd said:
You placed me on ignore for pointedly reminding you that you are here to defend your theory. We never had one. You have invented one for us and now you are attempting to "prove" it for us so that you can demolish it with a display of stunning illogic.

Face reality for a change, Killtown.
Click to expand...

Quoted for Killtown's benefit.

-Andrew
 
Killtown said:
4. it was to let those people know to don't bother asking me any questions because I won't see them. If they promise to behave, productively contribute to the experiment, and not insult me, I'll take them off my list.
Click to expand...
Heh. I've been nothing but polite, productive, and non-insulting. And yet, according to your signature, I'm on your ignore list.

As I've said before, I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to influence those who might take you seriously from falling into the same errors of reasoning you have.

Being on your ignore list just means that I can bring up points which you won't respond to, thereby giving me unchallenged access to the brains of my target audience.

It serves my purpose to be on your ignore list. Please do not take me off.
 
I'm renumbering this for you... 2 does not come after 3...

Killtown said:
1) Well if you put all the people I did on ignore who did nothing but flood this thread with non-relevant and insulting posts, that number goes down a lot.

2) b) taking that a tad bit out of context, but whatever.

3) Yes.

PS

[4)] So do you think 93's fireball was more like the B-52's (not the band), UA175's, or something totally different?

[5)] See answer #1

[6)] it was to let those people know to don't bother asking me any questions because I won't see them. If they promise to behave, productively contribute to the experiment, and not insult me, I'll take them off my list.

[7)] so why do you care if it will get more painful for me?
Click to expand...
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:

Dr. Richard said:
4. Do you agree that the estimates of plume size produced here are in agreement with Val's picture?
Click to expand...
Killtown said:
4. Yes.
Click to expand...

That was less than an hour ago.

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.
 
Killtown said:
I'm not changing anything until the experiment is over, so if you want it to be over faster, quite stalling it.
Click to expand...

Why killtown, I had no idea I had that sort of control over you. If it weren't for me you'd have been able to publish your information long ago, but I think if you'd have taken my advice and put me on Ignore, you'd have removed me as an impediment to your progress.

See? The world abounds with solutions. Please Ignore me and post all of your argument. I feel just terrible that I've had you on the end of my string all this time and never realized it.
 
Dr Richard said:
Still not answering the earlier questions KT. Perhaps putting so many to you in one go was unfair; maybe you will do better with one at a time.

1. Why do you feel that the burn velocity of the fuel in an aviation crash has no bearing on the fire and smoke plume size?
Click to expand...

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

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