Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Pardalis]

felt the explosion

Even better...

 

[gumboot]

Minor nitpick -- if this was a deliberate CFIT event, I'd expect the engines to be at full throttle (N1 rotor speed = 100%). Seems more consistent with partial control of the aircraft, i.e. agrees perfectly with the official story of a battle in or near the cockpit.

Absolutely. Sorry by "controlled flight" I mean not crashing per se. The FDR indicates a lot of erratic movement prior to crash - I think it exceeded 3 Gs at one point - suggesting the hijackers threw the plane around to disrupt the passengers. My guess is during this the not-so-experienced hijacker pilots lost control at low altitude (perhaps the wing-down angle indicates a turning stall?)

But yeah, definitely not shot down, especially if the vibration sensor can be counted as accurate. Surprise surprise.

Not to mention a pet CT theory was a heat-seeking missile took out one engine, causing the plane to crash (and explaining the single engine found so far from the crash site)

This was in fact the gist behind the thread in which I found this info - a CTer was wanting to know how fast a plane would crash with one engine gone.

Of course the experts on the board explained airliners are designed to be able to maintain flight on one engine - the loss of an engine is a drill poilots simulate frequently.

Further more turns out the "engine" found so far from the sit was actually just a chunk of the turbine fan found 300m down range from impact (incidently, in the same general direction that the smoke cloud drifted).

The last nail in this particular CT coffin (if it needs one) is the FDR indicates both engines running normally (and attached to the plane!) at impact.

-Andrew

 

[Pardalis]

I looked at the video "Windsor Park Story", she does say that the FBI timed the photo at 5 seconds after the crash, but there is no way we can tell if that's the official claim of the FBI, or just what they told her, or what she remembers of what they told her.

 

[Killtown]

I looked at the video "Windsor Park Story", she does say that the FBI timed the photo at 5 seconds after the crash, but there is no way we can tell if that's the official claim of the FBI, or just what they told her, or what she remembers of what they told her.

Didn't she say "we timed it"?

 

[Pardalis]

Killtown, do you have any geomatics engineering expertise?

Did you yourself go over at Shanksville and conducted a topographical survey of the plane crash and Ms McClatchey's house in order to have an exact analysis of the picture?

 

[Pardalis]

Did she say "we timed it"?

I believe she said "they timed it".

But from this single statement from her, how are we supposed to know that it is the official FBI timing? How how we supposed to know they made this timing scientifically, or did they just estimated it at 5 seconds, without doing further analysis? Did she just mean "timed it" as a manner of speach, not litterally?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

felt the explosion

Without somebody going to Shanksville and doing sonic tests we do not know if the explosion she "felt" was transmitted via the Earth's crust, or as a shockwave through the atmosphere. Therefore, we are still at the range I calculated before of 5.3-12.5 seconds after impact for the time of the picture. With the revised windspeed information posted from the blackbox this means that the wind drift would account for ~68.37-161.25 meters of movement.

Using our coordinates for the flight 93 crash site: 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93_National_Memorial)
and our coordinates for the house at which the picture was taken: N 40 03 00.29, W 78 52 28.16
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1844222#post1844222

The range, per Google Earth, is 2421.47 meters. Now, if you are following along in Google Earth; add the latitude/longitude lines to your map.

A line 68.42 meters long, that is southeast of the crash site, is at ~N 40 03'16.33" and ~W 78 54'05.86"

A line 161.35 meters long, that is southeast of the crash site, is at ~N 40 03'14.44" and ~W 78 54'02.82"

Taking those points, I have run lines to the house. Here are the results.

First, KT's analysis pic:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/rumpl4skn-analysis2.gif

Now, mine (NOTE: left most line is further south (I rotated to keep it in perspective with KT's) and represents the 12.5 seconds of drift)

As you can see, even the 5.3 seconds of drift is more than sufficient to account for the shift in the plume as observed in the picture. Granted, this is just ballpark work since the exact wind direction is not known, etc. But, I think this shows that the picture is not anomalous enough to warrant further inquiry as it stands.

 

[Dr Richard]

Sorry to keep repeating myself and if this has been clearly answered before, but regardless of which direction Val's plume shifted, are you guys saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:




then shifted 90 degs and traveled in which ever direction for whatever amount of time until this photo was taken?

Hi Killtown

You seem to have missed the point of earlier posts that explain what may be going on here.

Try this simple experiment at home:

Hold a finger in front of your face. Now, move it to the right by a few inches. It appears shifted to the right, yes? If you moved it parallel to your face, it appears to have shifted by 90deg.

Now, put the finger back to its original position.

Move it directly towards you. Stop before you poke your eye out. The finger looks slightly bigger, but is NOT shifted 90deg.

Similarly, the plume would not look bent, or shifted.

In this case, it all depends on your point of view.

You have not proved your case, even after 450+ posts. Could you provide a new argument or can we now please move on to another topic?

 

[gumboot]

Without somebody going to Shanksville and doing sonic tests we do not know if the explosion she "felt" was transmitted via the Earth's crust, or as a shockwave through the atmosphere.

Just my personal opinion, but she does specifically mention a sound in her accounts of what happened. If it were the transmission for the earth that set her off:
A) Why didn't she make mention of the thunderous boom she would have heard AFTER reacting
B) Why would she talk about initially reacting to a sound AND a feeling?

To me, it seems more likely she felt the impact as a slight shaking, then heard the explosion, then reacted.

Now all of this is still assuming her 5 minute response time...

And here's where I'd like to throw another speculative spanner in the works.

She says she was watching the WTC and Pentagon attacks on TV at the time. UA93 crashed 1003. At 0959 The South Tower collapsed. At the time that UA93 crashed, we can imagine Val was engrossed in the horror of the WTC having actually totally collapsed right before her eyes. To the best of her knowledge thousands upon thousands of lives had just been snuffed out like candles in the wind.

And yet, when a plane flew over, she just instantly lost interest in the television, rushed outside, and snapped a photo?

She didn't linger for a few moments? Her actions weren't delayed just a little?

Basically, we have found the following evidence:

Following the instant 5s response hypothesis, we find there is still ample in the equation to allow a 600m mushroom cloud to form as, and where Val snapped it. Indeed, we have evidence to suggest the cloud could comfortably be much larger.

In ADDITION to this, there are a number of LIKELY factors that could have contributed, in varying degrees, to the photo having been taken much later, and the mushroom cloud having drifted closer to Val (thus allowing for a much smaller cloud).

These two considerations, combined, indicate there is absolutely no plausible grounds for considering Val's photo is anything other than what it appears to be - the only existing documentation of the immediate aftermath of the destruction of UA93 and all aboard.

May they rest in peace.

-Andrew

 

[MortFurd]

Please don't post that "crap" on this thread. Go start an "I hate killtown" thread if you want.

Back to topic.

Yes, please. Back to topic.

The one question you have yet to answer:
Why would the conspirators make a fake crash site in one place and then set off an explosion on a different site?

 

[MortFurd]

May they rest in peace.
-Andrew

.
.

 

[Belz...]

You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.

"I have a secret, and I won't tell."

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

[qimg]http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg[/qimg]


Then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction?

Nope.

And how the hell can you tell that from a STILL ?

Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.

Really? Where has someone proven this?

Er... you CAN read, right ? No one has proven it inconsistent, and now you asked where this was proven ?

 

[Belz...]

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.)

That's amazing! So, according to you, either it SHIFTED or rose straight UP. Isn't there a possibility you might have missed ? Like the plume travelling in the direction of the wind from the moment of the explosion ?

 

[Hutch]

Killtown, you have demonstrated one of the fundamental weaknesses of the various Conspiracy Hypothesis. Gumboot, Arkan and Buckwheatjones have all used math and science to a degree (other posters also, but those three in particular) to demonstrate that the size of the cloud is viable and that the location and postion is consistent with the cloud orginating with the crash of Flight 93.

And you have no answer for that, because you do not--and many of your fellows join you in this--have the capability to refute the math or physics. None.

Until you do develop said skills or find somebody credible to provide them, you are in the position of saying "it looks like.." Sorry, I'll stick with the math and science folks; I'm kinda funny that way..

Press on.

 

[c0rbin]

Killtown wants there to be a conspiracy. He wants it so bad he is willing to put his fingers in his ears and "la la la" his way from reason. He wants there to be a conspiracy as badly as some people want to see Jesus in the tortilla.

No amount of reason will sway him from his belief. After 10 pages, this is the only conclusion I can come to.

 

[c0rbin]

I think that, before any of you waste any more of your time with this guy, you ask him to read up on the subject of Vectors.

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/vectors/vectors.html

Then, after he can demonstrate a working knowledge, start with baby steps.

These CT love to swim and get lost in the details. We as a group need to focus on one question at a time. Maybe a consensus on a list of questions that lead socratically to the conclusion that the photo proves A, B and C through X, Y, and Z.

 

[Dr Richard]

Killtown-

As I understand from your arguments here and on your blog, your other criticism of this photo is that the cloud "looks like" a cloud from a ordanace blast rather than an airplane crash.

This is, apparently, because airplance crash plumes are dark.

Sorry I can't post full links yet, but a quick google image search of "airplane crash picture" brings up

wxx.nasa.gov/externalflash/NASA45/40/40image.jpg - smoke plume looks lighter to me

wxx.cbsnews.com/images/2006/07/09/image8701d35a-cc2e-4da3-a1a2-1012673ae86b.jpg - white smok

wxx.airport.ca/images/airfrance_crash_3.jpg

etc.

So where does your assertion that an airplane crash must have dark smoke come from?

 

[Belz...]

Sorry to keep repeating myself and if this has been clearly answered before, but regardless of which direction Val's plume shifted, are you guys saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

[qimg]http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg[/qimg]


then shifted 90 degs and traveled in which ever direction for whatever amount of time until this photo was taken?

You ARE, of course, aware that the photo doesn't actually indicate anything about the direction the plume is travelling in ? You DO know, of course, that the column would follow the mushroom head WITH the wind ? And, if you do, why do you keep asking this question ?

 

[Belz...]

Wow, Gravy is getting REALLY desperate in trying to character assassinate me!

You have no character, Killtown. None displayed here, anyway.

Check my "crappy" blog.

We'll take that as a "no".

 

[kookbreaker]

So, we've just watched 10 pages go by because a completely unqualified nutbar of CTer thought that a smoke cloud didn't look right in his own opinion?