Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Buckwheatjones]

oh, lookee!
Baby is taking his ball and going home...

You know, I think we've all been duped. At first we made a blanket assumption that we're dealing with a grown-up. But after reading the "buh-bye!" thing, it's evident we've got a 6th grade girl on the line.

 

[Killtown]

Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume?

What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?

 

[Pardalis]

Killtown, please answer my question:

Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Val's House where picture was taken: VH - 40 03 00.29 N, 78 52 28.16 W
Red Barn in picture (south tip of roof): RB - 40 3 0.44 N, 78 52 34.39 W
White Barn in picture (north tip of roof): WB - 40 2 58.22 N, 78 52 42 W
Crash site: CS - 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W

Distance from VH to RB: 148 meters V1
Distance from VH to WB: 334 meters V2
Distance from VH to CS: 2421 meters V3
Distance from RB to CS: 2335 meters V4
Distance from WB to CS: 2158 meters V5
Distance from RB to WB: 193 meters V6

Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, just need some more math savvy people's input to get there.

 

[Killtown]

Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

 

[Pardalis]

Killtown, do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

 

[mortimer]

What do you mean "source"? As in what caused the plumes? Why would that matter?

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

 

[Dr Richard]

Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.

They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.


I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Please answer the questions...

 

[Dr Richard]

Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

-snip-

Which way is the wind blowing in each of the photos?

Do you deny the possibility that in picture 1 the wind may be blowing towards you? Or away from you? And you would not see the plume bending to one side?

Please, please answer as I am genuinely trying to understand how you can fail to grasp this point. Please say if this is wilful obtuseness and we can move on...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

Those pics are enlightening. In comparison to the overlaid pic (2nd one) we can see that Val's pic is showing a plume that is asymmetric. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the plume formed in a symmetric manner initially and is being deformed by wind we would see the plume stretching in a SE direction from the crash. This is consistent with what we see in the pic given that the direction of the picture is WNW.

 

[Killtown]

Now which plumes are being affected by wind?

Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

(scroll to bottom)
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/ordnance-blasts.html


Not to get back on topic, I posted that clip to compare the Val plume with the known jet crash plume that IS being affected by wind. But I guess we'd have to start debating what caused the plumes in the first place to debate this clip, so I guess my clip is invalid for this thread.

 

[Killtown]

They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.


I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Please answer the questions...

Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Killtown]

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.

Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?

 

[Pardalis]

I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?

How can we hypothesize that your measurements are accurate when your haven't shown your "science" to have any credibility?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?

Let me suggest, to aid in your understanding of a colloquialism, that the message being sent is this:

the assessment of your approach to analysis and argument in this case is being compared to garbage, which is an apt comparison in that if your analysis were thrown into a trash heap, said disposition would not result in any loss of understanding, or enlightenment, regarding the various questions surrounding the 9-11 event being discussed. The gentleman is finding your argument of low to no value, due to the weaknesses in structure and lack of rigor, not you personally, as I read his comments.

DR

 

[bob_kark]

Let me make sure that I understand the point of this thread. You're attempting to determine whether or not a woman is selling a faked picture showing a smoke plume from flight 93? Who cares?

As to the claim that this was a smoke plume from ordnance, where are the witnesses in the area that heard this additional mystery exposion? Certainly someone would have heard it, seen an additional smoke plume, found it, etc...

 

[Killtown]

Thanks again mortimer!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10738

 

[CurtC]

Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.

This better be worth it. Doing it numerically by hand, I get 32.7 meters and 74.6 meters respectively for your triangle heights.

 

[juryjone]

Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

Tell me, are we supposed to believe that this "ordnance plume" shifted 90 degrees?

Shouldn't an ordnance plume be a different color?

Oh, and do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?