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.
I'm the one with a ridiculously retarded look on his face.
Click to expand...


So you fit in with the CTers, they all seem to have "retarded" looks on their faces.
 
Yes, I've read the Loose Change Viewer's Guide and watched all of the Screw Loose Change videos. I've bookmarked every site I've found so far from here and from Screw Loose Change.
Since the family members who believe these things are my mother and sister (along with her entire family) there isn't much I can do to get them to look at this. I've tried before and they don't want to hear it. I wouldn't count them as truly deep into the conspiracy theories, just misinformed and unwilling to find out what the truth really is. They aren't very internet savy and would rather listen to rumors.
 
If you come across it, I'm the one with a ridiculously retarded look on his face.
Click to expand...
Been awhile since I saw those pics, on Abby's blog. Were you the one wearing the choker?
 
Killtown said:
Earlier:
Click to expand...
Yes, Killtown, I did say I expected more burning than that shown in your picture. But then Gravy and others cited EVIDENCE that such burning would not necessarily be the case. azaal (sp?) in particular, linked to a very telling picture showing portions of a downed plane sitting in undisturbed, green grass.

This EVIDENCE convinced me that my expectations were wrong. Or, let me put it more baldly: I was wrong. By the evidence. I learned. I changed my opinion.

Got the program, Killtown? Now, tell me something about the crash that you have learned from this discussion.
 
gumboot said:
No.

Higher altitude means thinner air. Thinner air means distant features (especially large ones) appear much closer.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
"appear" much closer. I PROVED the distance of it and that the plume HAD to be about 670m/2200ft across.
 
Killtown said:
I PROVED the distance of it and that the plume HAD to be about 670m/2200ft across.
Click to expand...
I must have missed that proof, that or your definition of "proof" is wildly different from mine.

I measured it carefully on Google Earth, and it looks like, based on my guess of how far away the cloud likely is, that it would be right around 600 m wide. However, I noted that the width you measure depends on how far away you assume it to be. How far away you assume it to be is dependent on assumptions about the wind speed at that height, and especially the time between the crash and the photo.

We don't know the time at all, so the only thing I can say with confidence is that the cloud is very probably less than 650 m wide.

So what is your proof?
 
TxLady said:
Yes, I've read the Loose Change Viewer's Guide and watched all of the Screw Loose Change videos. I've bookmarked every site I've found so far from here and from Screw Loose Change.
Since the family members who believe these things are my mother and sister (along with her entire family) there isn't much I can do to get them to look at this. I've tried before and they don't want to hear it. I wouldn't count them as truly deep into the conspiracy theories, just misinformed and unwilling to find out what the truth really is. They aren't very internet savy and would rather listen to rumors.
Click to expand...
You might try this experiment:

Casually mention that there is a group of people who believe the Earth is flat. If a relative of yours skoffs (let's hope!), ask them why. Then gently move them through the process of belief vs. evidence.

If you need to burst their 9/11 "inside job" bubble directly, there are ways to do that, too. But it's more effective for your student to do the work of discovering logic themselves that they might better retain the method.

Welcome to the forum.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
1) Provide evidence and/or logical reasoning or retract this claim.
2) I made it very clear with image I was dealing with
3) Saying "[w]rong" is not evidence. Provide evidence or retract this claim.
4) If you feel the 40 degree is erroneous then provide evidence showing such. Saying "looks as if" or "there would be" (without substantiating evidence) is not evidence supporting your claim. Provide evidence or retract this claim.
5) the fireball itself would have likely been insufficient to spontaneously ignite the grass.
6) You have intentionally chosen the lowest resolution picture available to support your claim. Allow me to report other pictures that show this one to be of sufficiently low resolution so as to cause loss of image quality:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044ecf837e692b.jpg
http://usinfo.state.gov/photogaller...um_name=/nineeleven/penn&obj_name=5987206.jpg
http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/reuters_molt/3132233352.jpg
http://www.bartcop.com/fl93-2.jpg
7) The picture you provide has no indication of orientation. This makes it quite difficult to assertain if it is consistent with our expectations.
8) Please show where the other examples provided had to occur at a lower temperature.
9) Please provide corroborating evidence beyond a graphic to support this assertion.
10) It means, based upon my revised image, that the smoke plume didn't have to drift off of the crater, only that it had to form asymmetrically to appear as it does in the picture. Given the wind direction that day, it is consistent with the picture.
Click to expand...
1) No, YOU made the claim first. YOU need to prove your claim.
2) Taking a photo out of context is lying.
3) I did with my Popular Mechanics map.
4) I did provide evidence and reasons why. I can't help it if that's not good enough for you (cause obviously NOTHING is good enough for skeptics.)
5) LoL!!!
6) Oh yeah, THOSE pics were much, much clearer. :rolleyes:
7) Look at the arrows.
8) :confused:
9) All of the crater and grass pics show no debris. Debris is only seen in forest pics.
10) It means your plume was NOT BIG ENOUGH to appear so big in Val's pic.
 
Gravy said:
Killtown has this posted on the flight 93 photos/maps/graphics page of his website. If this had been posted on page 1 of this thread, we would have known just what we were up against.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044eda0dad0ba4.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...
And I bet you think I drew that, huh?
 
Gravy said:
It did, as has already been demonstrated. Stop lying.
thum_879044ec13c57554f.jpg
Click to expand...
Gravy, when was this pic taken?

(Hint: What happened the to wing imprints?)
 
Killtown said:
Just showing you craters can be made without the use of airplanes, or ordnance.
Click to expand...

Holywood can make alot of things. But usually people get hired to do that, usually large crews of people, with permits from the city, and usually it takes more than a day to set up.

So how come when 9/11 unfolded and the images of the crash of flight 93 were broadcasted nobody said: "Didn't we do that? Pennsylvania? Hey, I think that's our work!"

How come nobody has spoken out? How come they built this crater without anyone noticing it in the neighbourhood?
 
Last edited:
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