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.
CurtC said:
1) No, where'd you get that idea?

2) 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.
Click to expand...

1) you just answered it in your #2!
 
Killtown said:
So it didn't shift? It stayed going essentially straight up over the crash hole? (I would actually agree with this based on her photo.)
Click to expand...

With only one picture it can not be determined if movement occured before, or after, the photo; or was occurring at the time of the photo. No conclusions can be drawn from only the photo as to the direction of the plume. Given that there was a 9 knot SE wind on that day, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the plume was drifting in a south easterly direction; but this can not be verified, or refuted, by the photo.
 
Killtown said:
So it didn't shift? It stayed going essentially straight up over the crash hole? (I would actually agree with this based on her photo.)
Click to expand...

READ OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Killtown said:
Is a plume a solid object like a hot air balloon?
Click to expand...

A mass of air at a different temperature from the ambient air, and containing particulate matter, can exhibit properties consistent with that of a "solid" object. As an experiment to highlight this, take a large glass container and fill it with very hot water. Then dump in some very cold water that has been dyed. Observe the effects.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
With only one picture it can not be determined if movement occured before, or after, the photo; or was occurring at the time of the photo. No conclusions can be drawn from only the photo as to the direction of the plume. Given that there was a 9 knot SE wind on that day, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the plume was drifting in a south easterly direction; but this can not be verified, or refuted, by the photo.
Click to expand...
Well some of your guys are saying it DID shift and that's why Val must of took the photo "40" seconds after the blast, not 5, and that's why the plume looks bigger and/or it doesn't line up with the hole in her camera direction.

Just trying to get some sense of what you guys are saying. your stories are all over the place.
 
Killtown said:
Just trying to get some sense of what you guys are saying. your stories are all over the place.
Click to expand...

Pot, this is Kettle.

We have given several different possibilities that could account for the wild claims you have made. Obviously they are not all the same, but they show that your claims are not the only solution and definately not the simplest solution.
 
Killtown said:
Well some of your guys are saying it DID shift and that's why Val must of took the photo "40" seconds after the blast, not 5, and that's why the plume looks bigger and/or it doesn't line up with the hole in her camera direction.

Just trying to get some sense of what you guys are saying. your stories are all over the place.
Click to expand...

Where is the inconsistency? Given that there was wind that day it is appropriate to assume for the sake of the hypothesis that it shifted. The hypothesis states that if it shifted because of the wind the expected behavior is consistent with that of the photo. Therefore it is appropriate to give provisional agreement that the hypothesis explains the photo. No one is saying that the photo shows that it moved; they are saying that if it moved in accordance with the known conditions at the time that the photo is consistent with that movement.

Again, can you provide proof of the "5 seconds" statement?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
1) Where is the inconsistency? Given that there was wind that day it is appropriate to assume for the sake of the hypothesis that it shifted. The hypothesis states that if it shifted because of the wind the expected behavior is consistent with that of the photo.
2) Again, can you provide proof of the "5 seconds" statement?
Click to expand...
1) Ok, then the jet fire plume rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?

2) find the video link through here: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-mystery-deepens.html
 
Killtown, having seen the side thread where you refuse to answer Gravy because "Waaaah, he was mean to me!", I have every reason to assume you're going to have a reason to ignore me. (I'm the guy who called you "something naughty", based on quotes offered by Sword of Truth on your holocaust denial.)

But, if you deign to answer (not question, not refer to a crappy blog), here's where we're heading:

You're right. We surrender! Wonderful logic (er... imagination). Now what a number of us are asking, though, is

JUST WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE CT ON 9/11? WHERE DOES THIS DISCUSSION GO IF WE CONCEDE THIS WORTHLESS POINT?

This is high-school debating. You just want to win a point. So win the point, and go back to LC and have them all pat you on the back, and then tell us just what the Hell this has to do with the grand conspiracy theory. A real estate agent in Pennsylvania claims to have taken a photo. Wheeee! What does its veracity have to do with anything and why are you wasting what few braincells you have left trying to prove it's a fake? It has nothing to do with any of your (the collective pronoun, please) overall theories.

This is common to LC-ers. Pick out some minute item, blow up the picture and draw lines to prove some dubious crap, and then shout "Eureka.... if that bit of aluminum, which I'll call steel and concrete, is still standing then it proves that the guvmint did it...." This is like looking at the staged photo of Iwo Jima and proving it so (not hard - it was admittedly staged) and then denying that the entire War in the Pacific ever took place.
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
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?
Click to expand...
Again, you don't know:
The exact time the photo was taken.
The exact speed of the wind at the crash site.
The exact direction of the wind at the crash site.

Without that information, your questions cannot be answered. Why don't you understand that? And why have you slandered a woman based on sloppy research and incomplete information?
 
JUST WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE CT ON 9/11? WHERE DOES THIS DISCUSSION GO IF WE CONCEDE THIS WORTHLESS POINT?

This is high-school debating. You just want to win a point. So win the point, and go back to LC and have them all pat you on the back, and then tell us just what the Hell this has to do with the grand conspiracy theory. A real estate agent in Pennsylvania claims to have taken a photo. Wheeee! What does its veracity have to do with anything and why are you wasting what few braincells you have left trying to prove it's a fake? It has nothing to do with any of your (the collective pronoun, please) overall theories.

This is common to LC-ers. Pick out some minute item, blow up the picture and draw lines to prove some dubious crap, and then shout "Eureka.... if that bit of aluminum, which I'll call steel and concrete, is still standing then it proves that the guvmint did it...." This is like looking at the staged photo of Iwo Jima and proving it so (not hard - it was admittedly staged) and then denying that the entire War in the Pacific ever took place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A couple of people, myself included, have asked him what is the point of this picture. If he's right and it's not accurate (perhaps she photoshopped it or something to make it look better), what does this have to say in the overall scheme of things? He won't answer because he knows that means he has to begin attempting to validate his conspiracy theory.
 
Gravy said:
Yes, that's your site devoted to slandering Val McClatchey. Proud of that, are you?
Click to expand...

Several pages ago I asked Killtown how he/she felt about helping destroy the life of Ms McClatchey, to the point where she now fears for her personal safety, all because she just happened to take a picture that contradicts the CT'ers little theories -- while hiding behind anonymity so total Killtown even refuses to talk to a reporter.

But I'm not really expecting an answer, because frankly I don't think Killtown really thinks about it much. In fact, I don't think Killtown has the capacity to think about and empathize with people the way normal folks do -- otherwise, how could he/she carry on with this pastime that insults victims, offends survivors, and accuses the innocent? Anyone with an ounce of compassion would realize the personal human damage being done, and quickly come to their senses.

But perhaps absence of empathy is a prerequisite for a CT'er.
 
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