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.
R.Mackey said:
1) If I treated you one iota as rudely as you've treated Val McClatchey, slandering her in the press so badly that the newspapers have seen fit to print her story, I might begin to have some sympathy. Go ahead and find my alleged mistreatment of you, if you feel so hurt.

2) Because Flight 93 crashed so fast and so hard, it is expected that the latter case is more relevant. These crashes are also extremely unusual, which is why you've been unable to find any videos that are good models.

Do you understand? I can clarify if you still need more help.
Click to expand...
1) Treated Val rudely? I just presented all the facts that were already in the news. I can't help it if her story stinks.

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?
 
Killtown said:
So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Killtown said:
Well I guess the 2nd one, but you'll just say I'm being biased.

I still don't get your guy's "aerosilized" theory about the fireball.
Click to expand...

Well, that explains why you don't agree with it, now, doesn't it ?

How can you claim it doesn't make sense if you don't understand it ?

Bizarre.
 
Killtown said:
1) Treated Val rudely? I just presented all the facts that were already in the news. I can't help it if her story stinks.

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?
Click to expand...
That is a complex and malicious lie, Killtown, one that we have explained to you very, very patiently.

For those of you coming late to the party, Killtown's harrassment of Val is documented here in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Your lie is as follows:

  1. You did not "just present facts that were already in the news." Your website focuses on your own ham-handed and stilted analysis rather than any "facts," and includes Val's personal information, speculation about her financial condition, and even her address and satellite views of her house!
  2. You are not in a position to evaluate whether or not "her story stinks." As we have proven beyond any possible doubt, and your continued naivete confirms, you are in no way expert enough to evaluate her story. The FBI investigated and concluded it was genuine. Our experiments here, less thorough than the FBI but far more detailed than yours, are consistent with her story. Just because you don't or won't understand her story doesn't make her a cheat.
  3. Even if the above were both false, you would still not be obligated to harrass her as you have done. For instance, I would be much, much more justified in publishing a thorough repudiation of your conduct, based on nothing more than we've read here. Val may have a civil case against you. Your thin veneer of protection is that we have more class than that, you have not volunteered your personal information (even though you feel free to distribute hers) (but I'm sure we could find it if we wanted), and there is a chance that you are a minor.

Now, then, to address the "burrowing" question.

We have asked you to demonstrate why you think the aircraft "burrowed" into the ground, presumably taking its fuel with it. If this was the case, I agree, it would be more intuitive to expect a slower, burning plume. However, going again to the speed of the crash, there is no reason to think that the aircraft burrowed intact.

From what I have seen, the densest, most well-protected parts of the aircraft were only found 15 to 25 feet below the level plain. In contrast, the structure of the aircraft was shredded into mostly small debris on impact, debris which was observed by some witnesses to rain down in seconds after impact.

Aircraft fuel is mostly contained in the wings. The wings are less dense and present more surface area than the fuselage. They could not "burrow" nearly as far as the denser parts of the plane. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the fuel did not "burrow," but rather was released on impact, like an aluminum-skinned water balloon.

As I have asked before, if you have evidence that (a) the wings entered the ground intact, or (b) large quantities of aircraft fuel were found as contaminants inside the crater, please share them with us.

In the past, you have not done this, relying instead on your intuition that the fuel would bury itself. Not only is your intuition suspect, but it isn't enough. You must show that it didn't or couldn't aerosolize in order to reject my hypothesis. If you cannot, then it is a valid hypothesis, ergo you agree that our theory is possible.

Do you understand the argument above? I really would like to make sure you're keeping up at all times, since we've had to repeatedly go back and clarify in past dealings with you. Don't be afraid to ask, I will be glad to help.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Aircraft fuel is mostly contained in the wings. The wings are less dense and present more surface area than the fuselage. They could not "burrow" nearly as far as the denser parts of the plane. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the fuel did not "burrow," but rather was released on impact, like an aluminum-skinned water balloon.
Click to expand...

Sure they would, see look at this highly scientific drawing from the Kill*own web site:

KilltownFlt93Explanation.jpg


In sceanario B, you can plainly see the wings would have burrowed themselves into the ground......:D
 
Killtown said:
2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?
Click to expand...

First, do you understand Mack's explanation ?

Second, who said it burrowed ? As I understand it, most of the plane broke away on impact. Only the denser portions entered the earth beneath.
 
Wyn said:
Sure they would, see look at this highly scientific drawing from the Kill*own web site:

[cartoon stolen off of Killtown's refrigerator deleted]

In sceanario B, you can plainly see the wings would have burrowed themselves into the ground......:D
Click to expand...
Let's give Killtown the opportunity to show us that he's learned more about the problem since then.

If he still holds to this theory, I'd like to know how he decided this completely asinine cartoon was a more accurate description of physics than our hypotheses. Should prove illuminating.
 
Killtown said:
1) Treated Val rudely? I just presented all the facts that were already in the news. I can't help it if her story stinks.

2) so how did the fuel manage to escape in the air when most of the plane we are told burrowed underground?
Click to expand...

Hey, look who found his way back.

1. No. You didn't. You presented part of the story and drew conclusions that stink, then you implicated her in a case of fraud without doing your homework. Saying that's rude would be an understatement.

2. It went SMACK! And I don't see anywhere, that's a more credible source than yourself, that says most of the plane was buried underground. Dense chunks, landing gear, black boxes, sure. But most of it was aluminum shards that blew up.

Game On.
 
I know this is off topic. Had to show some of KT logic here, from LC. This is a response to the wendyB post.
On average, those types of people aren't the best of friends with gay people. Perhaps he was so professional that he put his personal feelings of gay people (if they were negative) aside for his job. Perhaps your father wasn't homophobic, but that wouldn't be the norm with his kind of profile.

I ask two questions about all the passengers including your father; were they in on it, or were they chosen? With your fathers background, one can not help hold the possibility that his type fits the profile of someone who'd be in on it. That doesn't mean he WAS. It just means he fits the profile. We only know what is giving to us by the media.

If he was a good honest person who wouldn't sell out the American people as you seem to suggest, then based on his profile type, I'd have to say he was choosen to be on that flight and murdered by our gov't and I'm going to do all I can to make sure his murderers are brought to justice.
Click to expand...
Then yet another sign of the apacolypse, from JDX...
We have/had MANY military pilots at my airline. We also have/had MANY gay flight attendants.

I havent seen ONE military pilot in all my years of flying make one remark in the cockpit, with the door closed, saying he would rather not share his airplane with someone who was gay. Its called professionalism.

Killtown, unless you can show us a degree in psychology for profiling people.. and/or many years of experience in the airlines, you have no clue how to profile such a Capt.

Prt2 JDX to wendyB
If you are not the real Wendy Burlingame, you have some serious issues and should seek help. We do have your IP address and will be pursuing to find out if in fact you are the real Wendy Burlingame.
Click to expand...
Then KT gets it right!
Have you no shame JDX?
Click to expand...

I swear it's like the twilightzone, with out the great intro, and music!
http://www.unipeak.com/gethtml.php?...nZV9Gb3J1bS9pbmRleC5waHA/c2hvd3RvcGljPTY1ODA=
/derail
 
Regnad Kcin said:
R.Mackey:

Your lengthy posts above (#2700 and 2704) are good stuff. Thanks for the effort.
Click to expand...

... and thanks R. Mackey for being so thorough and polite, I don't know how you do it.

@Killtown: you are the most despicable human being I have ever come across.
 
Killtown said:
So did you guys every come up with an explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics that explains how 93 with 5,500 gals of fuel on board managed to burrow underground, but somehow created a football field length fireball that didn't burn the grass growing around the edge of the crater and then created a 3 football stadium sized plume?
Click to expand...

So did you ever explain why the task of faking the flight 93 crash site was given to the three stooges? If your drawing is correct, then there's an explosion on one site, a crater with debris on a second site, and a burned area on a third site. Since the conspirators were too inept to create a single, convincing crash site, then it must have been done by a bunch of bumblers. The most bumbling fools ever were the three stooges, therefore they set up the flight 93 crash site. QED.

Is that your argument, Killtown? If your "analysis" were correct, then you would have proven that the conspirators were too damned stupid to even create one fake crash site. Now how could they then turn around and be so efficient as to leave no other evidence?
 
Flightpath overlay onto GEPlus maps:
shanksville_flightpath.jpg


Flightpath overlay onto GEPlus maps zoomed:
shanksville_flightpath_14.jpg


shanksville_Crater_burn_debris_fiel.jpg

Smallest circle is crater. Next ring is burn area. Next ring is debris field.

Overview:
shanksville_10309_field_of_view.jpg


Angled view from the house to the crashsite:
Shanksville_VH_field_of_view.jpg


Closer view at the field of view at crashsite:
shanksville_angle_field_of_view.jpg

Inner bar with line indicates approx. plume stem width.
Longer line spanning that bar and the left most, and righter bar, indicates approx. plume cap width.
Purple bar indicates field of view from house to crater.
Denser bar covering this and righter part of plume cap bar indicates field of view from house of debris field.
 
[kneels down before Arkan]

We're not worthy, we're not worthy!

[/stands back up and goes back to work]
 
Pardalis said:
[kneels down before Arkan]

We're not worthy, we're not worthy!

[/stands back up and goes back to work]
Click to expand...


I think he needs to go back to his Lee Van Cleef "The Master" avatar.

Well done Arkan
 
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