Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
When was the photo taken?
How much of the jet fuel burned off vs how much was left in the ground?
What is the evaporation rate of the jet fuel?
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
When was the photo taken?
How much of the jet fuel burned off vs how much was left in the ground?
What is the evaporation rate of the jet fuel?
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html
and everybody else, read this before you ask anymore questions...
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,034
No, but I heard that if you look at the physics of a bumble bee, logic says it can't fly. Therefore, the absence of "soft dirt" is PROOF of jet fuel.
Why?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
so--
"If you don't believe what I say, go to my blog and read my opinion there"
"you need major surgery"
"Doc-- before I do that, I want a second opinion"
"OK--you're ugly too!"
sigh...
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
This directly contradicts quoted news sources. Links to support your assertion (other than your blog).
Digital cameras I am familiar with have an automatic poweroff/save feature.
You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
there you go what? she couldnt have already had the camera on, it would have turned itself off, meaning she needs the extra time to turn it on
As I said, well there you go. And 2001 digital cams had this auto-turn off functions I'm assuming.
I find this whole argument to be pointless.
The OC Theorists do not hold this photo up as evidence of anything. Why debate it at all?
CT claim this photo is proof ("smoking gun") that Flight 93 was shot down.
I don't think it is conclusive proof of anything...I question the realism of the photo itself.
The evidence that is unequivical is mountinous: The wreckage is consistant with a commercial plane nose-diving at excess speed into the ground.
Why argue the number of camels though the needle of this poor--and possibly fake--piece of evidence?
It is the equivilent of looking for your keys under the street lamp because the light is better there when ther reality is you dropped them ten yards away.
The OC Theorists do not hold this photo up as evidence of anything. Why debate it at all?
CT claim this photo is proof ("smoking gun") that Flight 93 was shot down.
I don't think it is conclusive proof of anything...I question the realism of the photo itself.
The evidence that is unequivical is mountinous: The wreckage is consistant with a commercial plane nose-diving at excess speed into the ground.
Why argue the number of camels though the needle of this poor--and possibly fake--piece of evidence?
It is the equivilent of looking for your keys under the street lamp because the light is better there when ther reality is you dropped them ten yards away.
Bandersnatch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 10, 2004
- Messages
- 415
Killtown said:
Is it that you mistook physics, and came to an erroneous conclusion?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Please try to adher to the level of decorum you expect from others and refrain from personal attacks.
VespaGuy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,034
Let me help.
To the layman, with a limited knowledge (or complete ignorance) of physics, it would appear that a bumblebee should not be able to fly. But that does not mean that it can't.
Sounds like many of the CT claims to me...
To the layman, with a limited knowledge (or complete ignorance) of physics, it would appear that WTC 1, 2, & 7 must have been a controlled demolitions. But that does not mean that it was.
Last edited:
Can you post the original source where Val says that the FBI timed her reaction at 5 seconds? I do not care to sort through your garbage blog.
Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:
UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:
http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg
and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?
Crashes are rises straight up:
^
^
^
^
crash
Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:
<<<<<<plume
Do I have this essentially correct?
UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:
http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg
and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?
Crashes are rises straight up:
^
^
^
^
crash
Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:
<<<<<<plume
Do I have this essentially correct?
Last edited by a moderator:
CurtC
Illuminator
No. No one here is saying that the plume travelled towards Val any significant amount. It travelled South, about 750 feet by my estimate, and maybe that much East, but you can't really get any East-West info from that photo.
We're not saying it necessarily travelled towards Val, but did travel some amount laterally.
- Status