Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[CurtC]

I am saying that you have not provided any other explanation for it

He says that the plume is from an ordnance blast a mile or so East of flight 93's crater.

 

[Killtown]

Varify?

You're going to change his findings for him?

Should I just blindly take his word that he's correct?

 

[Killtown]

1) Flight 93 crashed near where that picture was taken.
2) The crash would have caused a plume.
3) There's a plume in the picture.

1) "near" doesn't mean exact.
2) A different kind of plume.
3) So that bigfoot is real? Saw him in that picture.

 

[Killtown]

1) Did the FBI confirm that her recalled timing was accurate?

She said they timed her.

 

[Hishighness]

Has anyone checked both these pix for signs of digital manipulation?

 

[Killtown]

He says that the plume is from an ordnance blast a mile or so East of flight 93's crater.

For this particular analysis, I'm saying it's from an explosion originating from a different point. It really doesn't matter if the plume is from an ordnance, plane crash, or anything else.

 

[Killtown]

Has anyone checked both these pix for signs of digital manipulation?

I've looked at the original photo, but I'm not an expert at any field to be able to determine if it's been doctored.

 

[Hishighness]

Do you have a copy of each one, like not animated giffed? If so post them.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let me see I understand your contentions correctly. I'll try to bullet-point them, please let me know if there are errors:
(in no particular order)
* The incendiary source of the plume is irrelevant
* The plume is inconsistent with that of a crashed aircraft
* The only relevant atmostpheric condition to consider is the windspeed (9 knots)
* The windspeed is insufficient to account for the shift and/or dispersion of the plume for the timelapse in question

Are these a correct representation of your stance?

 

[Hishighness]

Well, I'm no fan of KT, but I would look at it objectivly and say that the entire plume shifting and keeping it's consistent shape isn't really plausible. I can see it shifting, but to my mind it would break up nd stop resembling a mushroom cloud in the distance shown.

But I'm no expert, and I'm not arguing either way that's just my monday morning quarterback analysis.

 

[Beleth]

1) "near" doesn't mean exact.
2) A different kind of plume.
3) So that bigfoot is real? Saw him in that picture.

1) No, of course the picture wasn't taken exactly where Flight 93 crashed; it was taken from Val's house. But no matter. We both agree that Flight 93 crashed near where that picture was taken.
2) But a plume nonetheless. So we both agree that the crash would have caused a plume.
3) As you said in your first post here, "For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic." So we both agree that there's a plume in that picture.

Since we both agree that those three statements are true, if that plume is not from Flight 93, what is it from, and where is Flight 93's plume?

 

[CurtC]

She said they timed her.

But that's not the same, is it?

Did the FBI ever say that they believed her account of the timing to be accurate?

 

[CurtC]

Well, I'm no fan of KT, but I would look at it objectivly and say that the entire plume shifting and keeping it's consistent shape isn't really plausible.

If the wind is fairly steady, it's just an air mass that's moving over the land. Once the plume is in that moving air, it then has no idea that the air is moving. To the plume, it would look like still air, but the ground would be moving underneath it. A breeze wouldn't cause the plume to be broken up faster than still air.

It would cause the central column to be angled, but since in this photo the angle would be mostly towards the camera, it would be hard to distinguish.

 

[Stellafane]

..."This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

Killtown, how do you feel about the fact that you may have helped destroy this woman's life, to the point where she now fears for her own personal safety, all because you don't like the fact that she snapped a picture that contradicts your view of 9/11 -- while hiding behind your own veil of anonymity so thick that you won't even talk to a reporter on the phone? Doesn't this strike you as hypocritical?

And do you ever reflect that you are hurting real people out there, Ms. McClatchey and thousands of others, victims, their friends and families, survivors, countless people you accuse of murder with no proof or justification, all to indulge your psychotic little fantasy? How can you possibly be so mean spirited and still live with yourself? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really do want to know.

 

[Hishighness]

Stellafane you are equating our good friend Killtown here with attributes he doesn't possess such as "common sense" and "compassion" I understand for human beings such as us it's hard to imagine what it must be like in his world, it's hard to make seemingly contradictory information make sense in your head but he's wired differently than us. So don't hate, Killtown needs help, so we should all try to convince him to get it. There are many mental health programs available in the U.S.

 

[Stellafane]

Stellafane you are equating our good friend Killtown here with attributes he doesn't possess such as "common sense" and "compassion" I understand for human beings such as us it's hard to imagine what it must be like in his world, it's hard to make seemingly contradictory information make sense in your head but he's wired differently than us. So don't hate, Killtown needs help, so we should all try to convince him to get it. There are many mental health programs available in the U.S.

Yes, you're probably completely correct in your assessment. I guess I'm not really expecting Killtown to provide a meaningful answer (why should he start now, just for me?). But in the off chance there are any fence sitters out there -- or people attracted to the CT movement who may not have completely thought through the consequences -- it might be instructive to see just what kind of a person (and what kind of thinking) they may be aligning themselves with.

 

[Hishighness]

Ya, that's my personal view. You're not going to convince the ones already in the "Truth" movement, their minds are already gone. Only thing you can do is try to hit the new ones with facts and keep them from being fooled.

 

[Alphaba]

1st, thanks for being the 1st one to present a diagram for evidence.

2nd, what are the coordinates to varify your findings?

Hey, thanks to incite me to discover and use the tools in Google Earth, to which I am totally new.

So this time I have used the ruler of Google Earth instead of mine:

The distance given is 2700 m, give or take 5 m to stay prudent.


Coordinates for Concorde crash site:

• Latitude: 48°59'08.60" N
• Longitude: 2°28'19.46" E

Coordinates for the site where the truck stopped and the thermal was filmed:

• Latitude: 48°59'16.78" N
• Longitude: 2°30'31.84" E

 

[Killtown]

Do you have a copy of each one, like not animated giffed? If so post them.

Coming straight off the source links:

 

[Killtown]

Let me see I understand your contentions correctly. I'll try to bullet-point them, please let me know if there are errors:
(in no particular order)
1) The incendiary source of the plume is irrelevant
2) The plume is inconsistent with that of a crashed aircraft
3) The only relevant atmostpheric condition to consider is the windspeed (9 knots)
4) The windspeed is insufficient to account for the shift and/or dispersion of the plume for the timelapse in question

Are these a correct representation of your stance?

1) Correct.
2) Doesn't matter for this particular analysis.
3) essentially.
4) Yes.