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.
Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)
 
Ah, Killtown is back.

How about finally answering these questions, Killtown, instead of running from them like you've been doing? They aren't going away, no matter how much you want them to.

1) Your only stated criterion for Val McClatchey's possible guilt was if the photo was Photoshopped. True or false?

2) You had no access to the original file, memory card, or any high-res version of the photo. True or false?
 
Killtown said:
Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)
Click to expand...
I asked this before also. What part of 850 feet per second at a 40-degree angle don't you understand?

What have you missed? You missed apologizing to Val McClatchey, for one. So do it now, if you're a man. If you're not a man, continue your charade.
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)
Click to expand...

KT, what "laws of physics" would have to have been defied. Name one; and tell us exactly why the formation of a fireball big enough to produce the plume in the McClatchey photograph would have had to have "defied" it given the available evidence.

Please note that "all airplane crashes look like slow-speed B-52 crashes" is not a "law of physics." So: what else do you have?
 
Me, I try to hang in the humor section, but have followed this thread.

Over the weekend CourtTV showed a documentary about the events of 9/11/2001. I must admit I cried again, as I did that day.

I've heard there are steps that people go though when suffering a loss. Right now I feel anger. It is directed everywhere, including myself. I did not know how much others hated the US. I have since spoken to as many people as possible to find out why. There are reasons.

I am angry at Killtown, because s/he has not tried to learn. Killtown has an agenda that is obvious. Killtown refuses to answer direct questions that should be easy to answer, if s/he believed what s/he wrote.

I am angry at anyone that enabled/funded/supported the killing of innocent men, women and children that day. If someone reading this wonders why the US used its military force after 9/11/2001, you have your answer. Anger. Not oil, not politics.

I am not a pacifist, nor is the US.
 
Killtown said:
Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
I like how you, in your very first sentence back here, simultaneously (a) complain about insults and (b) insult all of us, in a single clause. You're quite a hypocrite, Killtown.

I was hoping you'd taken some time off to try to learn the fundamentals of science. Apparently I was too optimistic. If you had, you would understand that we already have such a theory, and it is captured in this very thread.

In case you feel like challenging that theory -- with something other than pictures of weapons tests -- you may begin by describing, as precisely as possible and fully referenced, the extent of burn damage at the crater. Anything less is simply hearsay and subject to your own demented imagination.

Get to work, Stalltown.
 
Didn't I read that a friend of hers was going to fly by her house? I didn't pay that much attention because it didn't seem relevant. KT, is there something sinister that lies underneath that explanation?
 
CurtC said:
Didn't I read that a friend of hers was going to fly by her house? I didn't pay that much attention because it didn't seem relevant. KT, is there something sinister that lies underneath that explanation?
Click to expand...

KT is happy as long as he can call something "suspicious." He doesn't care if the "suspicions" are mutually incompatible. E.g.:

It is "suspicious" that she had a camera ready: the implication being either that she was "primed" to take the photo (of a smoke cloud that really existed but wasn't from a plane) or that the photo is photoshopped (i.e., she couldn't really have made it out in time to take this photo).

It is "suspicious" that she only took one shot: this, of course, could only suggest that the photo is photoshopped (if this were a real, non-plane cloud then why wouldn't the conspirators want lots and lots of photos of it?).

It is "suspicious" that the cloud looks (to KT) like "ordnance": this, of course, implies that Val McClatchey actually did take a photo of a real cloud, and that she did have the camera to hand. Either she did this to help the conspirators (but then why only one photo? and why didn't the conspirators ever make any use of this photo?), or she is the sterling citizen who has exposed the evil conspiracy (but then we have to go back to accepting her account of having the camera ready to hand, and see taking only one photo as not being suspicious).

It is "suspicious" to KT that the cloud isn't directly over the crash site: this, to KT, suggests that the plane could not have been the origin of the cloud. Here again this "suspicion" suggests one of two possibilities: either the cloud was photoshopped or the cloud was produced by something other than a plane crash. But then we have to ask: why would Val (or the FBI or whoever) photoshop in a cloud in the "wrong" place? She knows where she lives, she knows where the crash site was relative to her house--why would she make such an obvious "error"? And if the conspirators set off some explosive device to simulate the plane crash, why wouldn't they do so at the carefully sculpted crash site? And why wouldn't this bomb have left any fragments behind, or evidence of damaged trees or burnt ground or what have you?

KT doesn't choose to pick any one of these narratives because he knows that there isn't one of them (other than the OV) that doesn't bring massive contradictions in its wake. What he doesn't realize is that saying "one of five mutually contradictory things happened) doesn't magically make the contradictions go away.

Of course, if we were to start listing the things that KT doesn't realize, we'd be here all year.
 
Killtown said:
Had to take a break from the constant insulting from all of you 3rd graders.

What have I missed? Did anybody come up with a theory as to how 93 could have made a big enough explosion to have made a big enough plume without burning the grass around the crater and without defying the laws of physics?

;)
Click to expand...

Nope. No one has because that's YOUR burden, bucko.
 
Yoink said:
why would Val (or the FBI or whoever) photoshop in a cloud in the "wrong" place? She knows where she lives, she knows where the crash site was relative to her house--why would she make such an obvious "error"?
Click to expand...

Why, to allow Killtown to spot the error and become a hero.
 
Here's a question:

Do you guys think KT believes his own nonsense or not? I ask this, because I see a very clear pattern in his posts--especially since his "big finish" with the photograph of the unburnt grass. He only responds to questions if he thinks he has some kind of easy put-down answer to them: either a flippant eye-rolling answer or a "let me show you the B-52 again" answer. That is, none of the direct, specific "yes/no"-type questions which lead directly and obviously to show the absurdity of his "evidence" get a direct response.

It seems pretty clear to me that the difference between the sincere-but-deluded person and the "I just want to prolong my 15 minutes and I'm afraid people will laugh at me if I admit I'm wrong"-type like KT is that the former really wants to take on what seem to be the central challenges to his theory because they're so certain that they have the evidence to prove their case, while the latter only really cares about maintaining the facade of confidence. The very fact that he knows to avoid answering certain questions (like, what temperature grass burns at, or why we don't see burnt grass beside other wrecked aircraft that were engulfed in flames, or what have you) seems to me to show that he knows that he has no answer to them, and therefore shows that (at least at some level) he knows that is argument is exploded.
 
Killtown said:
Do you not know why Val had her digital camera "ready" by her front door?
Click to expand...

Pathetic. You're still trying to accuse Val of foul play? You have no more arguments (like you never had any), so is this it? Will you ever make an apology to her?

I tell you, if you ever made a public apology to her, and on your blog, you would gain all of our respects.
 
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