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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How, exactly, did you reach the conclusion that it comes from a different point, considering you, by your own admission, know about the existence of wind and its effects on smoke ?
 
Can someone double-check me, I am pretty sure the 2nd pic (post-gazette.com one) is zoomed, cropped, and rotated some from the original.
 
Hishighness said:
1) Well, I'm no fan of KT,

2) 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.
Click to expand...
1) What!!! :jaw-dropp :D

2) I concur, the shape of Val's plume is more consistent with and "infancy" plume, then one that has shifted quite a distant and quite an elasped time.

Thanks for being objective!
 
Beleth said:
1) 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?
Click to expand...
1) allegedly crash
2) yes
3) of course, it is just irrelevent what caused that plume for this thread.
 
Killtown, why wouldn't flight 93 have crashed? They crashed all three other planes right? So why not this one?

Why go through all this trouble?
 
Alphaba said:
1) Coordinates for Concorde crash site:
  • Latitude: 48°59'08.60" N
  • Longitude: 2°28'19.46" E

2) 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
Click to expand...
1) the plane crashed on a building?



2) I concur this looks like the spot the video was taken. What's the source for the coordinates of where the plane crashed?
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
I concur, the shape of Val's plume is more consistent with and "infancy" plume, then one that has shifted quite a distant and quite an elasped time.
Click to expand...

Actually, this depends on a lot of factors. How quickly a plume (or column, or cloud, or any other gaseous structure) spreads and how well it keeps its shape depend on a number of factors, notably:

1) Temperature of the cloud and the surrounding air.
2) Particulate size of the cloud components and their state (particulates, liquids, gasses), and the various molecular weights and other factors.
3) Wind speed and direction.
4) Variability of winds/presence of "gusting" or different-direction of ground-level winds vs. higher wind
5) Initial density of the cloud
6) Humidity (as others have mentioned).

Those are the major ones. Changes in these can affect how the cloud reacts and how long it maintains shape.

Also, having seen ordinance blasts numerous times from distances of 1/2 mile to 10 miles for >2000 lb. shots, this doesn't really resemble an ordinance plume. It was most likely caused by some type of hydrocarbon/incendiary. Blast plumes from ordinance are formed from the debris the ordinance produces, with a little bit of smoke. They'll take the color of the ground/material in/on which they are detonated.

Not to mention that, at the distance of this shot (about 2 miles), that would've been a significant amount or ordinance. Windows would have been shattered.

It's fairly conclusive that this isn't an ordinance plume, but was caused by an incendiary. From the mushroom shape, you can go on to deduce that it was a rapidly-burning incendiary spread across an area, as one would expect from the high-speed impact of fuel tanks (as an airline crash) or an FAE (as others have mentioned). Napalm could also do similar, or simply spreading a large amount of fuel and igniting with a LOT of multiple heat sources simultaneously.

And again, based on my experience in actual demolitions and blasts, on days with still air the clouds could keep the mushroom shape for upwards of a minute, and drift a fair amount in that time.
 
Some semi-random info to add:
knots to meters/second convertion is: knots * 0.515 = meters/second source: http://www.todayspilot.co.uk/conversions/convertfact.html

Given the windspeed that day is 9 knots (as stated in this thread, not worrying about localized wind gusts etc for the moment) then this would convert into 4.635 meters/second.

Flight 93 crash site is here http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...059,-78.896255&spn=0.093951,0.190544&t=h&om=1

In five seconds the cloud would travel ~23.175 meters. Most of this movement is going to be east (towards Val) and south. Is this sufficient to explain the photo?
 
Belz... said:
How, exactly, did you reach the conclusion that it comes from a different point, considering you, by your own admission, know about the existence of wind and its effects on smoke ?
Click to expand...
You don't read my posts very well.
 
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