RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Now let us deal with this bad assumption of yours:
Allow me to first point out that you are NOT asking a question here. You are making a statement. So your previous argument (your fallback position) that you are "just asking questions" and not stating what you think should be true, has fallen apart. Here you are certainly implying that you think there should be soot or some evidence of being in a fireball. You appear to not even consider that these parts could have been thrown BEYOND the expanding fireball... hence since they were never IN the fireball they would never have a chance to be "sooted". I will now show why your assumption is bad.
First I am going to show you another angle of the Phantom F-4 video where it hit the block wall.
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg
I would like you to pay close attention to the parts of the airplane flying away from the impact point. You can clearly see plenty of parts flying forward, but you can even see evidence of parts flying backwards from the point of impact. Here I have taken a piece of one frame and highlighted both forward-flying and backward-flying parts:
When you watch the video in realtime, you will also notice that these parts are ejected so quickly that they are OUTSIDE the smoke/dust plume created by the impact. So these parts are flying away from the point of impact with great velocity. Greater velocity than with which the smoke/dust plume is forming.
But I will even go one better, just to prove (once and for all) that your assumption that these airplane parts should be sooted is flawed. We can even look at the actual Pentagon video and see the exact same effect of flying parts that you observe in the F-4 video above. First, I want you to watch the video and pay close attention to the 2 frames right after the "light" of the impact fireball begins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
Much as I did with the F-4 video above, I have also taken one of the frames right after impact, while the fireball is still expanding, and marked what are clearly parts that are flying away from the point of impact outside the flamefront of the fireball
Please note and admit that there are several parts that are flying away from the point of impact that are OUTSIDE the flame front! Again, this is another question of your honor. I have now disproven your flawed assumption, and we now have direct physical evidence for why it is not good to assume that parts of the airplane have to show signs of soot or scorching.
You may not accept this, but once again I assure you there are readers following this thread who see exactly the point I am making about your flawed assumptions (and in this case we should also note it was NOT a question.... titorite was clearly trying to "change people's minds" based on a FALSE assumption about what should be). We now see there is absolutely NOTHING inconsistent about airplane parts out of the Pentagon lawn not showing soot or scorch marks.
Your credibility as an accident investigator is waning fast, titorite. As I mentioned to you earlier on, I have easily identitied (and can provide evidence) for why your assumptions ("questions") are invalid. I have now shown you several of them. But there are more. And if you wish to continue I assure you the outlook for your credibility will become even bleaker.
But you go ahead and believe what you wish. It is merely a case of titorite ignoring the facts, and we all know that this does not change the truth.
RMT
Lets criticaly examin this photo. The peice of wreckage you see must of landed in the spot and the plane exploded right?
Despite its twisted form there is no scorching, no sign of any soot, nothing at all to suggest it had been at the epicenter of a giant fireball(aside from its twisted form).
Allow me to first point out that you are NOT asking a question here. You are making a statement. So your previous argument (your fallback position) that you are "just asking questions" and not stating what you think should be true, has fallen apart. Here you are certainly implying that you think there should be soot or some evidence of being in a fireball. You appear to not even consider that these parts could have been thrown BEYOND the expanding fireball... hence since they were never IN the fireball they would never have a chance to be "sooted". I will now show why your assumption is bad.
First I am going to show you another angle of the Phantom F-4 video where it hit the block wall.
http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg
I would like you to pay close attention to the parts of the airplane flying away from the impact point. You can clearly see plenty of parts flying forward, but you can even see evidence of parts flying backwards from the point of impact. Here I have taken a piece of one frame and highlighted both forward-flying and backward-flying parts:
When you watch the video in realtime, you will also notice that these parts are ejected so quickly that they are OUTSIDE the smoke/dust plume created by the impact. So these parts are flying away from the point of impact with great velocity. Greater velocity than with which the smoke/dust plume is forming.
But I will even go one better, just to prove (once and for all) that your assumption that these airplane parts should be sooted is flawed. We can even look at the actual Pentagon video and see the exact same effect of flying parts that you observe in the F-4 video above. First, I want you to watch the video and pay close attention to the 2 frames right after the "light" of the impact fireball begins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
Much as I did with the F-4 video above, I have also taken one of the frames right after impact, while the fireball is still expanding, and marked what are clearly parts that are flying away from the point of impact outside the flamefront of the fireball
Please note and admit that there are several parts that are flying away from the point of impact that are OUTSIDE the flame front! Again, this is another question of your honor. I have now disproven your flawed assumption, and we now have direct physical evidence for why it is not good to assume that parts of the airplane have to show signs of soot or scorching.
You may not accept this, but once again I assure you there are readers following this thread who see exactly the point I am making about your flawed assumptions (and in this case we should also note it was NOT a question.... titorite was clearly trying to "change people's minds" based on a FALSE assumption about what should be). We now see there is absolutely NOTHING inconsistent about airplane parts out of the Pentagon lawn not showing soot or scorch marks.
Your credibility as an accident investigator is waning fast, titorite. As I mentioned to you earlier on, I have easily identitied (and can provide evidence) for why your assumptions ("questions") are invalid. I have now shown you several of them. But there are more. And if you wish to continue I assure you the outlook for your credibility will become even bleaker.
But you go ahead and believe what you wish. It is merely a case of titorite ignoring the facts, and we all know that this does not change the truth.
RMT
