Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[c0rbin]

Where did I ever claim that???

Does this mean we are getting somewhere?

So you then claim that the photo is evidence of a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume in the photo.

Is this correct?

 

[Killtown]

Cute. Nah, I asked first. Your turn.

I'm lost, where's your 1st question then?

 

[mortimer]

I'm lost, where's your 1st question then?

It was asked along with my crude photoshop job.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1849882#post1849882

 

[Killtown]

As to your question about which plume looks more like the one on the middle, it's irrelevant

Funny, you accuse me of ducking question and look what you do, duck the question!

 

[Killtown]

So you then claim that the photo is evidence of a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume in the photo.

Is this correct?

Yes, if it's real.

 

[Overman]

I want Killtown to clearly state exactly what he is trying to establish.

So what you ask a bunch of dumb quesitons! What, stated clearly in your own words, are you getting at?

 

[Killtown]

It was asked along with my crude photoshop job.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1849882#post1849882

Ooooh, that was your first question. Well answering my question after your would have answered you question, so that's why I asked it.

So to your question and by your clip, only the jet crash plume looks affected by wind.

Ok, your turn.

 

[Killtown]

I want Killtown to clearly state exactly what he is trying to establish.
What, stated clearly in your own words, are you getting at?

See here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1849607&postcount=471

 

[mortimer]

Ooooh, that was your first question. Well answering my question after your would have answered you question, so that's why I asked it.

So to your question and by your clip, only the jet crash plume looks affected by wind.

Ok, your turn.

So the middle picture doesn't look affected by the wind. But in the original photo, that didn't have the source of the plume obscured by landscape, it looked like it was affected by wind, yes?

To answer your question, the second plume looks more like the first plume.

 

[c0rbin]

Yes, if it's real.

Killtown claims that if the photo is real (i.e. not photoshopped or altered), then it is proof that there is a discrepency with the official report due to location of plume.

Is this correct?

 

[Dr Richard]

Killtown, you appear to take offense as a strategy for avoiding difficult questions.

I have repeatedly stated that I was describing your arguments about the colour of the smoke plume and the shifting of the plume. I have stated thay they are of low quality and not true.

If you provide a satisfactory counter-argument for the above two points I will be happy - nay, overjoyed - to retract the statement that the arguments are rubbish.

So g'wan, please, please, pretty please with sugar on it:

(a) why can the wind not be blowing towards or away from the viewer in the picture where the plume is not shifted?
(b) why are there pictures of airplane crashes where the smoke is not the dense black you claim it must be?

Best wishes in anticipation

Richard

Please KT, as you can see I'm relatively new at this posting game and would really appreciate it if you could answer my questions.

BW

R

 

[Overman]

See here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1849607&postcount=471

You still don't establish any case.

Are you attempting to say:

"If Val's photo is forsome reason incorrect then the government crashed that plane."

???

What are you attempting to establish?

 

[Killtown]

To answer your question, the second plume looks more like the first plume.

I concur and that answers your original question.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

Okay, so this confirms that the angle of view I have is pretty close. Using that, I extended the lines out past the distance of the crash site. Here are the results:
Height from V1 to V2 (extended) is ~537 meters.
The angle of view starts ~33 meters south of the crash site and continues to 569 meters south of the crash site.

Now, assuming a 9 knot wind we have already calculated the drift to be between 22.79 and 53.75.

Now, assuming a 25 knot wind we have already calculated the drift to be between 64.5 and 161.25 meters SE.

Allow for Google Earth margin of error, both of these wind speeds allow for the cloud to have drifted in to the angle of view in the given time range.

Averaging these, we have an approximate wind drift distance of 75.57. Applying a line 75.74 meters on a SE heading from the crash site places us ~55 meters east of due south from the crash site. At this point the angle of view is 526 meters.

The source provided by Buckwheatjones (which has not be proven to be incorrect) predicts that our 526 meters is on the low side of what the plume could easily be.

Here is the Google Earth image showing my initial setup:

Given this I conclude:
1) The plume could have easily drifted into the angle of view for the picture for the full range of time lapse possible
2) The plume could have easily filled the angle of view for the picture

I have now voted in the poll. I feel I can give provisional agreement to the following statement:
The picture is unaltered and fits the description of the events. The picture is also consistent with what would be expected from the plane crash in Shanksville. There is no evidence from the picture, or Val's story, to suggest that the events did not occur as reported. There is no evidence to suggest that an explosion other than the plane was the cause of the plume.

I fully welcome criticisms and analysis of my work. If you do so, please post your steps in full for further peer review.

Thanks,
AW

 

[Darth Rotor]

Please KT, as you can see I'm relatively new at this posting game and would really appreciate it if you could answer my questions.

BW

R

Dr Richard:
Kill town is apparently trying to combine two discussion group styles for his own amusement in this thread.

Many CT spreading folks look upon incisive critique of their poorly structured positions as shouting down. These same savants engage in that precise activity when penetrating questions are asked, or their assumptions questioned, on their home forums.

Armed with that insight, proceed at your own discretion.

DR

 

[mortimer]

I concur and that answers your original question.

Good, so we've so far established that:

1. The first photo looks more like the ordnance blast in the second photo than the plane crash in the third.

Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because we've already seen the Concorde plane crash photo that looks more like the first photo than either of the other two.

2. It is impossible to tell the wind effect on the first photo in part because the source of the plume is obscured by the landscape on the horizon.

So, now, tell me how you are able to state this with certainty:

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

 

[Dr Richard]

Dr Richard:
Kill town is apparently trying to combine two discussion group styles for his own amusement in this thread.

Many CT spreading folks look upon incisive critique of their poorly structured positions as shouting down. These same savants engage in that precise activity when penetrating questions are asked, or their assumptions questioned, on their home forums.

Armed with that insight, proceed at your own discretion.

DR

Thanks DR. I was confused by this response as the creationists/IDiots/MMR vaccine campaigners I've come across in the past cannot wait to debate and defend their points.

I can only assume that Killtown has no answers.

However, Arkan Wolfshade has done a good job at building on Buckwheatjones's original arguments.

I will therefore take it as read that the original claims about smoke colour and plume bending have been dealt with and falsified, and will wait to see KTs response to Arkan instead.

 

[Killtown]

Arkan_Wolfshade,

First thanks for make diagrams to help this debate.

2nd, not sure I understand it:

1) How would do you suggest this plume to be?

2) Are you suggesting it just traveled south into the camera line?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan_Wolfshade,

First thanks for make diagrams to help this debate.

2nd, not sure I understand it:

1) How would do you suggest this plume to be?

2) Are you suggesting it just traveled south into the camera line?

I am estimating the plume to be approximately 526 meters, well blow Buckwheatjones' sources' 600-1000 meter max size estimation.

I am saying that the prevailing wind conditions (at 9 or 25 knots) were sufficient to cause the plume to drift on a south-east course, which would place it within the angle of view of the camera.

 

[Gravy]

3) the size of Val's plume in the photo is way too big IMO to have originated from the crash spot

Discuss.

Since your opinion is not based on sound reasoning or science, it isn't relevant.

Publicly accusing Val McClatchey of fraud and posting her personal information online, because you think she's a fraud, is indecent.

I would love to hear that you understand the flaws in your methods and logic, but I don't expect to as long as I live.