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.
Is there a brief summary of this thread someplace in the 51 pages?

If not could somebody summarize killtown's theory and what the opposing view is?

From what I can tell somebody allegedly took a picture of smoke emanating from the flight 93 crash.

The center of the smoke column (derived by taking into account the white and red barns) isn't exactly on top of the hole caused by the flight 93 crash.

In addition there has been a claim that the look of the smoke is not right for an airplane crash.

So Killtown believes the photo was faked? For what purpose does Killtown believe the photo was faked?

No doubt I am confused, please feel free to mock me for that or my laziness in not going through the preceding 51 pages to develop a better understanding of this thread. And, as always, please feel free to mock me for any spelling or grammatical errors.

Davefoc, if you haven't followed this from the beginning, believe me, it's not worth your while getting into it now. I'm honestly not sure why I'm still persisting. I think it's that weird frustration you have when you're dealing with a malfunctioning computer or something. You know it is supposed to do X when you push that button, but it just won't. You keep pushing the button anyway, stupidly assuming that eventually it will do what it is supposed to do.

Similarly, I keep thinking "even Killtown can't be that obtuse, even he must eventually realize that he has made not one single substantive argument in this entire thread"--but he just keeps on coming back with his blue-screen-of-death-ultra-stupidity: "I pwned you, you can't deal with my B-52 Kung-Fu! Now I'll show you my photoshopped version, Crane Style! Hi-ya!"

I guess it's the weird fascination that someone can be intelligent enough to write in (mostly) complete sentences, but so monumentally incapable of following even the most simple precepts of argumentative logic.
 
Is this a "slow moving" plane crash?...

[qimg]http://www.cbv.ns.ca/bec/9web/9_6_A/0197743/html/WTC%20FIRE%20CRASH.jpg[/qimg]

Doesn't the fireball look like this?...

[qimg]http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5615/b52collagepx2.jpg[/qimg]

Are you an idiot? I'm actually asking ...

The first picture does indeed show a fast moving plane crash.

The second picture DOES NOT show a fast moving plane crash (you remember the video, right?).

So, why do they look the same?
 
Are you an idiot? I'm actually asking ...

The first picture does indeed show a fast moving plane crash.

The second picture DOES NOT show a fast moving plane crash (you remember the video, right?).

So, why do they look the same?
So you saying the fireballs are completely different?
 
Why are you afraid to talk about the crash? Why are you afraid to answer some questions?

If you put your hand into something that was 450 degrees, would you get burned?

If you put a piece of paper inside/against something that was 450 degrees, would it catch fire?

If you touched a blade of dry grass with something at, say, 600 degrees, would it always catch fire?

Are you familiar with a "grenade trench" inside a military bunker?

Or are you afraid because you don't understand where I'm going with this, because you don't have even a basic understanding of the dynamics of heat and temperature?


C'mon, Deadburg, just four yes or no questions and we all know how much you like asking questions.

I'm rather disappointed, that was the best you could do...but then, perhaps I was expecting to much.

Now answer Huntsmans questions.
 
For those using critical thinking skills; as a coworker kindly pointed out to me, since the plane was coming in on a 40 degree angle, there is not reason to expect a symmetrical burn radius centered around the crater.
 
this one is the closest:


(Killtown produces a COMPOSITE photo made up of a PHOTOSHOPPED, RESIZED, ROTATED, DIFFERENT PLANE at a DIFFERENT SPEED and ANGLE OF DESCENT, stuck on top of a different picture)

(Killtown produces a picture of an airplane crashing into a building)

1. Killtown, why do you think your manipulated composite picture has any validity?

2. How much grass got burnt in the second picture you keep on showing? How does this picture advance your argument? I am intrigued.
 
Killtown, I know you deal with pictures better than words and maths.

Think of the following diagram where the fireball is the red circle and the ground the black line.

Which picture do you think best represents what happened when flight 93 hit the ground?

Why do you think that?

As as aside, you still haven't told us where you think the crater is in the picture you keep showing us. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_854244ecbc62b2a12.jpg[/qimg]

still waiting for answer. have added bold wording to help you out
 
For those using critical thinking skills; as a coworker kindly pointed out to me, since the plane was coming in on a 40 degree angle, there is not reason to expect a symmetrical burn radius centered around the crater.
Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory, which there is not...
aerial_wf.jpg

(lower left corner is trajectory path)

aerial_wdr.jpg

(upper left corner is trajectory path)
 
I did, I asked how his questions are relavent to a liquid jetfuel fire.
This was his response to your question
As to what it has to do with the crash, I'm getting there. The fact that you have to ask this shows me that the questions really need an answer and you really don't understand heat and temperature, or blast.
Now answer the questions
 
Yes, there should be a massive burn mark in the same path as the trajectory, which there is not...
[qimg]http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wf.jpg[/qimg]
(lower left corner is trajectory path)

[qimg]http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wdr.jpg[/qimg]
(upper left corner is trajectory path)

Please provide evidence of the orientation of the pictures and the direction of flight.
 

Killtown, your "looks like" standard for crash forensics is not, perhaps, quite as rigorous as we need. The moon "looks like" a balloon--that doesn't mean that the moon is a balloon.

The first photograph certainly shows a fast moving plane crash. Please notice where the bulk of the fireball is situated with reference to the impact point. Please also look at this photograph. Now explain to me why, on your theory, the outer skin of the WTC shows no signs of blackening or smoke damage below the impact point. You know that there was an explosion there, you claim that all explosions must burn everything directly below them, so how is this not a counter-instance?
 
The first photograph certainly shows a fast moving plane crash. Please notice where the bulk of the fireball is situated with reference to the impact point. Please also look at this photograph. Now explain to me why, on your theory, the outer skin of the WTC shows no signs of blackening or smoke damage below the impact point. You know that there was an explosion there, you claim that all explosions must burn everything directly below them, so how is this not a counter-instance?
Cause the fireball went THROUGH the building?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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