Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

1) Isnt it close minded to assume someone isnt open minded just because they dont believe you?

2) Ive given you the time of day to see your argument, and Im not convinced. You need to do better. We're not the problem. Your bad argument is.

1) Calling theories names is a sign of closemindedness...ness.

2) Bad argument? Well, I guess some people can't read diagrams very well.

 

[Killtown]

What, exactly, are you saying?

About???

 

[Johnny C.]

1) Calling theories names is a sign of closemindedness...ness.

2) Bad argument? Well, I guess some people can't read diagrams very well.

The diagram is arbitrary in every context. You say, essentially, "this is what smoke looked like from one crash, so if i put the smoke from that arbitary crash and make it an arbitrary size so it looks like its an arbitray distance away, you can see the two look nothing alike, hence, the picture is fake"

Thats not evidence, its pseudoscience

 

[Killtown]

The diagram is arbitrary in every context. You say, essentially, "this is what smoke looked like from one crash, so if i put the smoke from that arbitary crash and make it an arbitrary size so it looks like its an arbitray distance away, you can see the two look nothing alike, hence, the picture is fake"

No, I'm assuming the photo is real.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, I'm assuming the photo is real.

Why the debate then?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

(I'm sure you will all strictly adhere to the forum rules if choosing to respond to this thread. Anyone who doesn't will not get a response back.)


The smoke plume in Val McClatchey's infamous photo originated at a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed:

<snip photo for space>
(Original photo source. Plume in right photo came from a real plane crash. See analysis of how this was determined here.)

<snip photo for space>



So this means this plume in Val's photo was not from Flight 93 crashing.


(Key factors to note: Val says she snapped her photo about 5 seconds after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion. Wind gusts near the crash spot were only 9 knots blowing SE.)


If you think you can debunk this claim, please use similar types of photo and graphic analysis to do so. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't do.


PS - For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic.

"Let's roll!"

Some questions that I believe need to be answered to add value to your analysis:
1) What was the estimated amount of fuel on flight 93 at the time of the crash?
2) What was the estimated amount of fuel on the B-52 at the time of the crash?
3) What were the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash of flight 93?
4) What were the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash of the B-52?
5) What were the speed, angle of attack, etc of flight 93 at the time of impact?
6) What were the speed, angle of attack, etc of the B-52 at the time of impact?
7) We know what the field was in Shanksville, what ground material did the B-52 crash in to? (dirt, runway, etc)
8) Why was the specific frame of the B-52 chosen for the comparison?
9) How did you scale the B-52 plume to the picture? How did you handle the different zoom, range, etc between the two cameras?
10) Why do you feel that the plume you chose from the B-52 crash is a 1-to-1 comaprison with that in Ms. McClatchey's photo?

 

[AK-Dave]

Perhaps I came across as a little too hostile in my posts to this thread. The reason for this can be summed up in a quote from a blog entry I read the other day:

Proclaiming her photograph to be a fraud on a variety of pseudo-scientific grounds is not enough for conspiracy-minded bloggers, who have publicly maligned her character and have even called her at home to harass her. A kook calling himself Killtown has posted her home address, phone number, and personal email address online.

From here.

This puts me in the same state of mind as the story about Bart Sibrel stalking Buzz Aldrin and trying to get him to swear on a bible that he landed on the moon. That is where my earlier statement about violating forum rules comes from. Attacking evidence is one thing, attacking people is another.

 

[Gravy]

Glad you're here, Killtown.

In other forums where you post, I've posted as "Murdervillage" and repeatedly asked you questions that you simply ignored. You also deleted my posts on your blog, which presented evidence that contradicted your claims. Are these the ways of a truthseeker?

Here's an example of a post that you did not respond to:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=135&st=0#entry2399

Please now answer these questions:

1) You claim to be investigating the events of 9/11. You have a great deal of information on your websites, and claim to have over 200 "smoking guns" that show that the attacks were not carried out according to the official version. You claim that flights 93 and 77 did not crash where the OV says they did. Who, among the thousands of first responders and investigators at those scenes, have you spoken to, and what did they say?
I've asked you this at least a dozen times. Please respond now.

2) You have repeatedly stated that the red bandanna found at the flight 93 scene could not have survived the crash. The post above shows many other items that survived, and the Moussaoui trial exhibits show more. What is your reaction to this evidence, and will you change the way you present this claim?

3) Why do you think that a 757's tail section would remain intact after a nearly 600 mph head-on collision with the ground?

4) Likewise, why do you think the "nose cone" of the plane that hit the Pentagon remained intact and caused the exit hole damage in C ring?

I look forward, finally, to your replies.

 

[LashL]

Nice photoshopping you did on the photo to the right, but what makes you think that every plume of smoke at every plane crash should look exactly like the one you photoshopped into that picture?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Perhaps I came across as a little too hostile in my posts to this thread. The reason for this can be summed up in a quote from a blog entry I read the other day:
From here.

Proclaiming her photograph to be a fraud on a variety of pseudo-scientific grounds is not enough for conspiracy-minded bloggers, who have publicly maligned her character and have even called her at home to harass her. A kook calling himself Killtown has posted her home address, phone number, and personal email address online.

This puts me in the same state of mind as the story about Bart Sibrel stalking Buzz Aldrin and trying to get him to swear on a bible that he landed on the moon. That is where my earlier statement about violating forum rules comes from. Attacking evidence is one thing, attacking people is another.

What's also interesting is KKKilltown is now claiming he has her permission to use the photo on his weblog.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-plume-comparison.html

Can we please have documentation that Ms. McClatchey has accepted your apology for exposing her to harrasment and potential physical assault and granted permission for you to use the photo, Kill?

Let's please refrain from using personal insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[blutoski]

If you think you can debunk this claim, please use similar types of photo and graphic analysis to do so. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't do.

I think we can dismiss it with basic logic alone. What were the lens magnifications for both crash photos? F-stops?

 

[Hutch]

Killtown, first of all let me welcome you here. You have jumped into the Lion's den and I'll give you full credit for doing something that Mr. Avery and crew, Merc, and others forbear or run from, as DJLegacy most infamously did.

That noted, your comparison is not that strong, IMHO. The B-52 crash happened at a much lower altitude, at much slower speed, and more importantly was more of a lateral crash (I am not using the proper terms, I know, I'm not an expert), i.e., the wingtip impacted first and was followed by the rest of the plane and the opposite wing. Since the aircraft still had forward motion, the initial explosion and fire were more lateral at first, so the smoke was slower to rise (IMHO, expert commentary would be welcome) that with a plane diving from several thousand feet at over 500 MPH.

In addition, the comparative sizes of the clouds are dependent upon the distance and zoom aspects of the respective cameras, as Pyhrro noted and blutoski seconded. I am not yet ready to accept that A = B at this point.

Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

 

[twinstead]

Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

I wish to second that

 

[TheChadd]

This is really just... bizarre evidence.

Anyway, since you asked for similar photo and graphic analysis, I have done so. It's pretty rough at the moment, but hopefully you can get the idea and give me your thoughts. Here it is:

Just some lighthearted fun

Seriously tho, I don't see what it means if this photo is a complete fake, photoshopped and all by rightwing neo-nazi's.

 

[Gravy]

Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

I wish to second that

I'll be glad to "third" it when Killtown addresses the issues I've raised, which he has refused to do again and again and again.

 

[twinstead]

I'll be glad to "third" it when Killtown addresses the issues I've raised, which he has refused to do again and again and again.

Yea, but on this site, that kind of stuff is noted. Since obfuscation is a serious prerequisite on the LC forum, If killtown wants to play the same games here any rational person who either contributes or lurks on this forum will see it for what it is.

Basically, here he will debunk himself in the absence of real evidence.

 

[Earl The Tall]

There are way too many variables that are left missing for just a simple yes or no answer. We are going to need more info on the B-52 crash to justife a lot. In the mean time I pulled up some spechs of the two planes for comparison.

B-52:
Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)
Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)
Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)
Empty weight: 185,000 lb (83,250 kg)
Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 488,000 lb (220,000 kg)
Fuel capacity: 47,975 US gal (181,725 L)

Source: wikipedia

757-200:
Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Empty weight: 128,730 lb (58,390 kg) 141,330 lb (64,110 kg )
Max. takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)
Fuel capacity 11,489 US gal (43,490 l)

Source: wikipedia

The only big difference is that the B-52 has a much larger wingspan and holds up to 24% more fuel than a 757-200.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I thought the plane burrowed itself all the way underground???

As did the lockheed Electra in tell city, but it still sent up a plume and scattered debris for miles, nothing was found as far as I remember larger than a table spoon except the wings which had broken off, and cause the plane to drop from the sky like a rock.

http://www.perrycountyindiana.org/attractions/aircrash.cfm

 

[Beleth]

The smoke plume in Val McClatchey's infamous photo originated at a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed:

PS - For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic.

If that plume originated at a different location, where is that location?

What is at that location?
What was at that location on September 10, 2001?
What was at that location on September 12, 2001?
What caused the plume?

If the answer to those last two questions are not "Flight 93", where is Flight 93?
If you are not disputing the fact that Flight 93 crashed there, where is its plume?

 

[Alphaba]

Preliminary comment and disclaimer:
A converging body of evidence allowed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville after having been hijacked. This converging body of evidence is itself part and parcel of a larger body of converging evidence that allowed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 19 al-Qaeda operatives and militants did conduct a large suicide terrorist operation against the USA on 9/11/2001, killing thousands of American citizens. Discussing the photograph put in the OP doesn't in any manner imply discussing the validity of these conclusions.

Now, about Val McClatchey's photograph:
Besides questioning the size and location of the thermal (a term used in the NIST report), Killtown also casted doubts on its color. A photograph taken by Sara Schwittek 25 s after the crash of Flight 175 into WTC2 shows a thermal which color is more similar to the one seen in Val McClatchey's phototograph than to the black thing in its photoshopped version.

Another moot point in Killtown's claims is timing. He apparently assumes that Val McClatchey reacted in about 5 s and took her photo some 10 s ("under 10 s") after the explosion, whatever its origin. It is extremely unlikely if it is a picture of the thermal generated by the crash. Demonstration:

Thanks to the Google Map put on Killtown's blog, it is possible to evaluate the distance between Val McClatchey's house and the crash site with a simple ruler: It's about 3000 m. The speed of sound in air, at a temperature between 15 and 20 °C, is 340-343 m/s. So 8.7-8.8 s elapsed before Val McClatchey could hear the sound of the explosion. Even if she reacted in 5 s, she could not have taken her picture "under 10 s": 14 s are the strict minimum, and 20 s sounds more realistic. And at 20 s, the shape and color of the thermal generated by the crash of an airliner starts to look furiously as the one seen on her photograph.