Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[c0rbin]

Really? Where has someone proven this?

You, like so many woos, have it backwards. You make a claim, you must provide evidence.

You cannot hide behind draconian moderation on this board, you must come with the goods.

Your evidence is flimsy. Do you have anything else, in the face of all of the evidence that Flight 93 crashed as the "official" explanation claims, that might legitimately question that claim?

 

[Killtown]

Regardless of which direction it shifted, are you [guys] saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

Then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction?

Please someone answer this question I asked earlier.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I thought I did? If not, feel free to repost them.

Now, care to answer my question, or did it just smash your guy's theory?

A handful from the last 3 pages, in reverse chronological order.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1847035#post1847035
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846851#post1846851
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846846#post1846846
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846833#post1846833
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846745#post1846745
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846577#post1846577
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1845837#post1845837

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please someone answer this question I asked earlier.

A "shift" in direction, implies it was already moving a direction. This is erroneous. It has already been explained that the SE wind that day would blow the plume towards (and southward) Val's position. Since the picture is a 2-d representation of a 3-d event there is no guarantee that any effects of wind will be observable from her position. Please explain how this refutes Buckwheatjones's post.

 

[CurtC]

Killtown, we're not even sure what your quesiton is, specifically. Are you asking why the wispy column part of the plume does not originate in the direction of the crater (which would be a little to the right)?

Don't know. It looks to me like there isn't a fire still burning, it all burned up at once, which would be consistent with a high-speed impact that the OV describes. The fire burns all at once in a fireball, not a ground-based fire, which travels sideways with the wind. While it's moving sideways, the heat makes it rise to create a mushroom shape, which will be centered above the column beneath it, because they're both being blown along by the same wind.

Is that what you mean?

 

[Cuddles]

Please someone answer this question I asked earlier.

No. You have my guy's story (mathematical calculations) about how 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could easily create a cloud 600-1000 meters across. This, as opposed to your contention that the cloud was way too big (and therefore must have been the result of another explosion set off closer to the photographer) because....well....it just looked to big.

I recomend actually reading other people's posts occasionally.

 

[Killtown]

A handful from the last 3 pages, in reverse chronological order.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1847035#post1847035
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846851#post1846851
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846846#post1846846
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846833#post1846833
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846745#post1846745
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1846577#post1846577
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1845837#post1845837

Please post the questions, not just the links.

 

[Killtown]

1) A "shift" in direction, implies it was already moving a direction. This is erroneous.

2) Please explain how this refutes Buckwheatjones's post.

1) Yes, it was moving UP, then stopped moving UP, and shifted 90 degs to the side.

2) Was his post related to my question?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

What makes you think it moved 90 degrees to the side?

 

[Killtown]

Killtown, we're not even sure what your quesiton is, specifically. Are you asking why the wispy column part of the plume does not originate in the direction of the crater (which would be a little to the right)?

No, I'm asking is it your guy's story that the plume rose STRAIGHT UP from the crash, then the ENTIRE PLUME shifted 90 deg in which ever direction from the 9 knot wind?

 

[Killtown]

What makes you think it moved 90 degrees to the side?

Is the plume slanted at all?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please post the questions, not just the links.

In the same order as the links.

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/...ight93_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?

The crashsite is WNW of her house. The wind was blowing SE at the time of the crash. The smoke would not have been moving on a 90 degree angle to her. To be blown at a 90 degree angle relative to her position the wind would have to be coming from the NEN and blowing SWS.

ETA: Wait, 90 deg shift from what?

Looks at the excavating photos. See any wet soggy "soft dirt" from all the thousands of gals of jet fuel?

http://killtown.911review.org/images...avate_usa2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html

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?

1) No, Val said after she took her one photo, she tried but could't call from her cell, so she went up to her saw mill to call. she said Indian Lake has bad cell phone reception.

Link to corroborating evidence?

killtown exactly what qualifies you to judge the legitimacy of crash sites again?

She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

Link?

So far all I am finding are the following:
Quote:
Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.

She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch.

The lights went out. The phones, too.

She grabbed her camera. She stepped onto the front porch and shot one frame of the smoke cloud, a charcoal puff in a pure blue sky.
source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt...b/s_90823.html

Quote:
Val McClatchey snapped the single picture with her new digital camera. The wife and mother had been sitting on the edge of her sofa, clutching her second cup of coffee and watching the smoking towers of the World Trade Center on TV, when she heard the sudden surge of a plane engine, followed by a violent, house-shaking boom. Mrs. McClatchey grabbed the camera and ran onto the front porch of her house along Indian Lake.
source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

The only sources I have seen quoting "5 seconds" are your blog, and similar; none of which appear to be quoting verbatim with a reference, but rather are paraphrasing.

She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

Where does she say that?

Killtown, you missed my point.

Were there any reports of other explosions that day, at that location?

If not, isn't logical to assume that this plume of smoke is from the crash of flight 93?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Who knows if it shifted? There's only this one image. Maybe if wafted off to the SE at a leisurely pace? Who knows? Regardless, if the photo was taken a relatively short time after the crash, and it measures 600 meters across according to your bearings and your vectors on your map, then we've shown that mathematically it is quite possible to have a cloud of this size. So there's no need to say that if got closer to Val's house in order to appear larger, so this 90 degree business is a road to nowhere.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is the plume slanted at all?

If the slanting was towards the camera, or away from the camera, it would be difficult to notice; only if it was moving laterally to the camera would the distortion be apparent.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) Yes, it was moving UP, then stopped moving UP, and shifted 90 degs to the side.

2) Was his post related to my question?

RE 1) The plume's rising, or lack thereof, is affect by air pressure, temp, etc.
RE 2) Then who is the "he" to which you keep referring?

 

[CurtC]

No, I'm asking is it your guy's story that the plume rose STRAIGHT UP from the crash, then the ENTIRE PLUME shifted 90 deg in which ever direction from the 9 knot wind?

No, where'd you get that idea?

I think a fireball occurred and rose. Since the fireball was already in the air, it blew along with the wind while it rose. A rising fireball leaves behind a central column, but this column was blowing sideways as the same rate that the above part was, therefore the column is not slanted.

 

[rwguinn]

If the slanting was towards the camera, or away from the camera, it would be difficult to notice; only if it was moving laterally to the camera would the distortion be apparent.

does a hot-air balloon tilt as it rises into the air from the ground?
what a plume like that is, is an envelopeless hot gas balloon

 

[Killtown]

In the same order as the links.

Most of your question aren't relevant to the topic of this thread.

as for sources, see my blog link.

 

[Beleth]

Well, after reading this far and seeing Killtown's Web page about it, I am of an even firmer opinion than I was a few pages ago that that picture is indeed a valid image of the plume caused by Flight 93.

Killtown's analysis is easily seen to be the flawed work of someone who seriously doesn't know what he's talking about.
I hesitate to continue to wine analogy any further, since it's not so much grape juice as the stomped-on remains of some random plants shoved into a bottle and labeled "wine". It reminds me a lot of the "magic bullet" theory by JFK CTers who had no idea where Connally was sitting relative to JFK and so put him where he "logically must have been" sitting. (He wasn't.)

Sorry, Killtown, if you were trying to convince me that this picture casts doubt on the official story, you have succeeded in convincing me of the exact opposite.

And that, as they say, is that.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Most of your question aren't relevant to the topic of this thread.

as for sources, see my blog link.

The questions were directed at information you posted. Is the information you posted not then relevant to the topic of the thread?