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.
DavidJames said:
You have no evidence, you've done no analysis, you only look at pictures
Click to expand...
I thought you just said I have no evidence and done no analysis?

:confused:


:D


The plume is too big. Only YOU guys are going to by your "magic fireball" to create a 6-7 football field length plume!

:boggled:
 
NO LARGE jet fuel explosion happened at the crater or all the grass around the rim would have been singed
Click to expand...

I think you are correct by saying this. The fireball actually happened just to the south of the impact crater. As has been said before the angle of the impact allowed the fuel to be scattered in the direction of the flight path, causing the woods and grass to catch fire beyond the crater.

879044ecf837e692b.jpg
 
This thread is hard to keep up with, but I think it's time that I get back to my point about where the dirt from the crater ended up.

Has everyone seen Sandia Labs' test of crashing an F-4 into a concrete wall at 480 mph?

Here's a hi-res photo (2.1 MB)
Here's a lower-res photo of the same thing.

See that blast of very small debris coming out of the crash? Some of that is pulverized concrete, some of it is airplane pieces. Even though the motion of the plane was into the wall, there is still a large amount of debris blasted away from the wall, back in the direction that the plane came from. In fact, just about every ounce of the plane would have been blasted backwards, some at very high speed. And fuel onboard (there was no fuel in this test) would have been carried with the blast debris, back in the direction the plane came from.

Now the wall that it hit is harder than the ground was in Pennsylvania, but at 500 mph, the ground still didn't "give" very much. There would be a large amount of debris blasted up out of the ground, and most of the plane pieces, and much of the fuel, would be in that blast (not a blast due to fuel exploding, just due to the kinetic energy as in the F-4 test). The plane would be ripped to shreds and scattered in the surrounding area, as you can see from the debris around the crater, and the debris that covered the house and garage. The fuel that got entrained in this blast would have quickly mixed with the air, providing for a quick burn (not at all like the B-52 crash), and a burn that was up off the ground, in the surrounding air. The fact that it would have burned quickly, then rose, is consistent with the neaby grass that's not scorched.

And that's where the dirt from the crater went - it was blasted out by the impact, and is scattered, with the plane debris, in the surrounding area.
 
All done then, Killtown?

Your conclusion, after 60 pages, is that you guess that flight 93's fireball should have looked like a slow-speed B-52 crash, and that you guess that flight 93's fireball should have burned the grass behind the direction of its 580 mph impact.

You've obviously been hard at work. Please show the calculations that support your guesses.

Remind us all again what your "experiment" consisted of? Oh, I don't mean again. Tell us for the first time.

Of course, none of that matters at all in terms of you accusing Val McClatchey of fraud. Because,

1) You already admitted that the plane crashed there. Remember goading us to observe the wing and tail impressions?

2) Since your only criterion for Val McClatchey's guilt was if the photo was digitally altered, and you have never done an analysis to determine that, you need to do the only decent thing and apologize to that 9/11 victim who you have deliberately harmed without cause.

Will you apologize to Val McClatchey immediately, and retract your statements about her on your websites?

Now that we're done. I request that you answer my questions about the eyewitness accounts of the crash, as you said you would, as well as the question about why feces on the graves of flight 93 victims is funny.

You're not going to be a coward about that, as you were when you promised answer my questions, then ran away with your tail beneath your legs when I asked them, are you?

You haven't done so yet, but you still have a chance to show a shred of decency and credibility.
 
Killtown said:
I thought you just said I have no evidence and done no analysis?

:confused:


:D


The plume is too big. Only YOU guys are going to by your "magic fireball" to create a 6-7 football field length plume!

:boggled:
Click to expand...
In my chosen field of work, I occasionally observe "That doesn't look right"--and people listen. 35 years of experience does that--you gain credibility.
So then we run numbers. Geometry, Matrix Algebra, Stress and dynamic analysis--all that rotten stupid numbers stuff.
About 40% of the time, I have a valid point, and we modify things. 20% or so of the time, someone has had a really clever idea that nobody else though of-and it will work.
The rest of the time, it is generally a mis-communication type of thing,or I was wrong, or a misunderstanding on my part. We go on.
You need credibility to get people to listen, you need the back-up analysis to prove your point, and you need to admit you were mistaken, or even flat wrong.
even the admission of incorrectness adds to credibility.
Klownmurderer has no credibility whatsoever
 
Last edited:
Skibum said:
I think you are correct by saying this. The fireball actually happened just to the south of the impact crater. As has been said before the angle of the impact allowed the fuel to be scattered in the direction of the flight path, causing the woods and grass to catch fire beyond the crater.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
You have a small section of forest burnt at on odd angle from the trajectory. Regardless of whether 93 did it or not, 93 DID NOT CREATE the massive fireball needed to make your 6-7 football length PLUME!!!

Plume comparison.... http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4601/plumecomparisonns0.gif
 
Killtown said:
Show me where that's EVER happened before in a plane crash!!!
Click to expand...

You don't know?

Let me put this another way...you know for a fact that this has never occurred in the history of aviation before? If you are going to contend that this could not possibly happen, you'd better consult a physicist to make sure that that it could not before you make that claim. If the aluminum in an airplane hitting the ground comes apart and goes back up into the air as debris, don't you think the fuel is going to travel in the same direction in little bitty particles?

UP?

Killtown: See My Blog

Buckwheat Jones: Pull My Finger

:D
 
Killtown said:
You have a small section of forest burnt at on odd angle from the trajectory.
Click to expand...

A small secton? What's your measurement of its size? Odd angle? And the large area of blackened grass in front of the crater, and the discolored secton of grass to the southeast of that? What do you make of those?

Get to it, Killtown. The longer you keep up your despicable stalliing, the harder it's going to be to apologize.
 
CurtC said:
This thread is hard to keep up with, but I think it's time that I get back to my point about where the dirt from the crater ended up.

Has everyone seen Sandia Labs' test of crashing an F-4 into a concrete wall at 480 mph?

Here's a hi-res photo (2.1 MB)
Here's a lower-res photo of the same thing.

See that blast of very small debris coming out of the crash? Some of that is pulverized concrete, some of it is airplane pieces. Even though the motion of the plane was into the wall, there is still a large amount of debris blasted away from the wall, back in the direction that the plane came from. In fact, just about every ounce of the plane would have been blasted backwards, some at very high speed. And fuel onboard (there was no fuel in this test) would have been carried with the blast debris, back in the direction the plane came from.

Now the wall that it hit is harder than the ground was in Pennsylvania, but at 500 mph, the ground still didn't "give" very much. There would be a large amount of debris blasted up out of the ground, and most of the plane pieces, and much of the fuel, would be in that blast (not a blast due to fuel exploding, just due to the kinetic energy as in the F-4 test). The plane would be ripped to shreds and scattered in the surrounding area, as you can see from the debris around the crater, and the debris that covered the house and garage. The fuel that got entrained in this blast would have quickly mixed with the air, providing for a quick burn (not at all like the B-52 crash), and a burn that was up off the ground, in the surrounding air. The fact that it would have burned quickly, then rose, is consistent with the neaby grass that's not scorched.

And that's where the dirt from the crater went - it was blasted out by the impact, and is scattered, with the plane debris, in the surrounding area.
Click to expand...
LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do you get you information???

Nothing scattered around the crater. Only in and around the forest section.

And the plane was said to have, oh how did they put it?...

"The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground."

"The plane pitched, then rolled, belly up. It hit nose-first, like a lawn dart. It disintegrated, digging more than 30 feet into the earth, which was spongy from the old mine work."

"The remainder of the plane burrowed deep into the ground, creating a long, narrow crater."

"The strip mine is composed of very soft black soil, and searchers said much of the wreckage was found buried 20 to 25 feet below the large crater."

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/articles.html
Click to expand...
 
Killtown said:
Evidence is clear, Val's plume too big to have originated from crash spot:
Click to expand...
What was the wind speed at the time of the crash?

How much time elapsed between the crash and the time Ms. McClatchey took the picture?

What other factors go in to your determination of a "realistic" plume size?




Hey, if you're going back to Page 1, I will too.
 
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