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.

Killtown

Banned
K
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
1,393
(I'm sure you will all strictly adhere to the forum rules if choosing to respond to this thread. Anyone who doesn't will not get a response back.)


The smoke plume in Val McClatchey's infamous photo originated at a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed:

93-plume-comparison.jpg


(Original photo source. Plume in right photo came from a real plane crash. See analysis of how this was determined here.)

PHOTO REMOVED - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: JeffWagg




So this means this plume in Val's photo was not from Flight 93 crashing.


(Key factors to note: Val says she snapped her photo about 5 seconds after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion. Wind gusts near the crash spot were only 9 knots blowing SE.)


If you think you can debunk this claim, please use similar types of photo and graphic analysis to do so. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't do.


PS - For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic.

"Let's roll!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe he is saying that the photo could be from a while after the plane crashed, when the plume would be larger, but if I am remembering correctly, the claim is that she heard the crash then ran outside and took the picture, and then dropped the camera? So the picture is supposed to be from very shortly after the crash?
 
mrfreeze said:
I believe he is saying that the photo could be from a while after the plane crashed, when the plume would be larger, but if I am remembering correctly, the claim is that she heard the crash then ran outside and took the picture, and then dropped the camera? So the picture is supposed to be from very shortly after the crash?
Click to expand...
Yes, "about 5 seconds".
 
Why would the plume be smaller when the plane first crashes? A plane going that fast, crashing into the ground would not just burn, it would eject a lot of material into the sky and as it formed the crater.
You have to know how much ejected material was formed before you can say how big the plume would be.
 
Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
 
Pyrrho said:
Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
Click to expand...
All we know is it was a "new digital camera." I'd guess it was more of a basic one than an expensive one since she probably bought it for her real-estate work (taking pictures of houses, etc.) and that right before 9/11 she was about to go bankrupt, so doubtful she'd spend a ton of money on an advanced camera. We can only speculate though.
 
Pyrrho said:
Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
Click to expand...

Additionally, the B-52 movie the second plume was take from was zooming in and out. How was this rectified when calculating the adjustments needed to overlay the two images? Where are these calculations at? (I scrolled through the link marked analysis but no calcs jump out at me)
 
I notice in the original photo that the smoke underneath the plume has dissipated. Why not let the B-52 film run until that occurs on that plume and compare sizes?
 
The point chosen for Val's position when taking the photo is inside her house, behind the front door, not on the front porch where she claims she took the photo (see the Google Earth closeup, just above the photo of her front porch).

How sure are the analysts of her position?
 
I notice a B-52 is capable of carrying roughly 4 times the fuel as a 757-222. What were the amounts of fuels in each crash as this would affect the amount of material available to generate smoke?
 
elgarak said:
The point chosen for Val's position when taking the photo is inside her house, behind the front door, not on the front porch where she claims she took the photo (see the Google Earth closeup, just above the photo of her front porch).

How sure are the analysts of her position?
Click to expand...

She was on her front porch.
 
Rule 1 of Conspiracy Theory: Resorting to alleged photograph inconsistencies is a sure-fire way to know that CTs are bunk. See JFK, Moon-landing Hoaxers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom