Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
regarding memory for time...In my psych classes, I have tried a replication of Asch's line-judgment experiment, but with an auditory target. In a class of 60-70 people, I ask them to guess (without watches, without counting to themselves, etc.) the length of a timed interval. Between "begin" and "end", I time 32 seconds with a stopwatch. I then ask them to estimate the amount of time that has elapsed. I have seen estimates as low as 12 seconds, as high as 2 minutes.
Yes, this is nothing like the circumstances in the present case. There is nowhere near the level of stress, excitement, or fear. If we look at the experimental findings on eyewitness testimony, we can expect Val's testimony to be shakier than this.
It is entirely possible that the picture was taken within the 10-12 seconds some are estimating. It is equally possible that the picture was taken close to a minute after the explosion.
I suggest not relying on one particular time for any arguments; unless the camera's memory chip recorded time to the second, we will never know when the picture was taken.
Yes, this is nothing like the circumstances in the present case. There is nowhere near the level of stress, excitement, or fear. If we look at the experimental findings on eyewitness testimony, we can expect Val's testimony to be shakier than this.
It is entirely possible that the picture was taken within the 10-12 seconds some are estimating. It is equally possible that the picture was taken close to a minute after the explosion.
I suggest not relying on one particular time for any arguments; unless the camera's memory chip recorded time to the second, we will never know when the picture was taken.
"about 5 seconds"
And all the continuing smoke from the remaining burning fuel would just lie low to the ground that we can see?
Here is what a REAL jet fire looks like (left pic Val's, middle orndnance form Beiruit, right pic jet crash from Nam):
Assuming your example is correct:
1) Why does the Concorde plume have a thick column and Val's has a thin empty column?
2) Did the Concorde nosedive at "nearly 90deg"?
3) Did the building it crashed in increase the size of the plume at all?
Earl The Tall
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Messages
- 92
The extra smoke from the cash could be the result of the fire that was already on the Concorde at time it took off. We do know that flight 93 was not on fire at the time it crash. Which could be the reason.
Secondly we are comapring two different planes and the concord had a lot more fuel in it when it crash as well.
Secondly we are comapring two different planes and the concord had a lot more fuel in it when it crash as well.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
You guess doesn't appear to be educated.
No, they're not even remotely the same.
Eh gads, can I show you one that isn't! That concord one for example, is lighter. Look at ANY air crash photo taken a decent time after impact. Must I do all your work for you? Presumably you HAVE researched this right?
Well, this is the final straw for me. You are attempting to interpret a digital photograph, yet you know nothing about the properties and limitations of digital cameras.
Great. So in other words, you have no idea what you are doing. Thus further discussion with you is pointless.
For the record, consumer digital cameras do not have UV filters, which means photos of objects/landscapes a significant distance away are given "haze". This can be seen in Val's photo by the blue tint to the mushroom cloud - this is the blue sky hazing across the black smoke.
Further more, digital cameras have poor contrast ratios due to a very narrow exposure curve. On a bright sunny day there is high contrast, resulting in a "crushing" of the darkest and lightest elements in the picture. In Val's picture this is further exaggerated because she has caught the edge of her drain in the photo. This serves as the black end of the contrast ratio, thus everything else is shunted up to the bright end.
End result of no UV filter and digital camera? A dark mushroom cloud rising in the sky 2.3 km away appears significantly lighter coloured in the photo than it did in real life.
Afraid? I'm not afraid. I just don't see the point. As far as I can tell my graphic would be very much the same as yours (except I calculated the pillar location as well as the maximum width of the cloud).
The only difference is you then invented a "reasonable size explosion" (for some unknown reason) and then moved it a significant distance closer to Val's house (also for unknown reasons).
-Andrew
Kill town, could you apply the same scrutiny to your own plane crash comparison?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
It would be my expectation that, in a crash like UA 93. the jet fuel would all fireball simultaneously, burning off in moments. The column from the ground is almost broken, confirming this. In addition this explains the size of the mushroom head.
Slightly to the left of the mushroom column can be seen a bulbous lighter grey shape just rising over the tree line. I would propose this is the beginnings of secondary fires burning in the woods as a result of the jet fuel. The smoke from this secondary fire, I would expect to be white. (Remember the sun is behind the photographer, reflecting directly off the smoke).
As per:
here
and
here
and
here
-Andrew
1) she said the FBI timed her.
2) someting from a different area, or she made it up. Who else claimed the were almost "knocked off" their "couch"
6-8,000 gallons can't burn simultaneously, some will stick around and keep burning.
Why didn't the grass around the rim of the crate get singed?
So, it just means the FBI thinks she could have taken a photo within x seconds of becoming aware of the crash. It doesn't mean that it happened exactly that way.
Do you see that this is a loaded question?
For one thing, she seems to be the only person in that area, at that time. Therefore, the lack of other witnesses isn't evidence of anything.
Secondly, what are the scare quotes around "couch" supposed to mean.
Really, what are you trying to argue?
That is not at all what I am saying.
What about the workers next door, this is the first time you have brought them up.
What did they say they saw or heard?
Were they sheilded by anything?
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
she seems to say alot of things you dont provide a source for
isnt this what most CTers claim happened to fuel at the WTC?
this all a massive coverup to hide the fact that she really owns a futon
1) What are you saying then that the FBI believed her 5 second time?
2) If Val almost got knocked off and she was a lot further away, certainly the workers at the scrap yard should have been knocked over and all their windows should have shattered.
Sounds like the blast, if there was one, originated closer to her house.
- Status