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.
Killtown, this is important

I am extremely disappointed in you. I was very, very careful to treat you with the respect that you demanded. But now I find that you have been libeling a woman who's only crime was taking a photograph from her own front porch. Even if -- suspending all reality and consistency for a moment -- there was a conspiracy such as you believe in, she would be absolutely blameless.

Your comments below are unbecoming. I know, and you insist, that you are not foolish enough to misunderstand a newspaper article, one that was repeatedly brought to your attention. Yet you write the following:

Killtown said:
1) Yes, I know that article well, I just didn't see that things in it that you claim was. Show how what she says parallels what you claim.

2) Such as? You're not being very specific.

3) Well if she's in on it some one, of course she is going to say that!

4) I'm crushed.

5) What if it turns out that she did fake her story, she fabbed the pic, or the FBI fabbed the pic and she went along with it. What would you think about my story about her then?
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

This is utter madness.

In your conversation with me, you admitted that the claims you make on your website are nothing but opinion, and open to interpretation:
Killtown said:
No, I'm leaving them up to the viewers to decide if they are a smoking gun or not.

[...]

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Yet here you are, assuming guilt, when you have nothing more than your own opinions.

It's time to do the right thing, Killtown. Fix your website so that it reflects the entirely conjectural and unproven nature that you have admitted to. Stop blaming an innocent person, since you admit you have no proof. You owe her a public apology, and should desist at once.

Only you can do the right thing, Killtown. Show us that you're not a hate-mongerer. Actions speak louder than words. But your words have roared. You will have to work to undo this.
 
Everyone,

Killtown is not worth responding to. End of discussion for me. In respect to the rules of this forum, I shall say no more.

-Andrew
 
A couple of technical things first...

A plane with a heavy load of fuel for a transcontinental flight might at the most carry a full load of 11,500 gallons. Accounting for fuel burned before the crash, I placed the load at 10,000 gallons. This is my estimate, which may or may not be real. However, my engineer said that this amount of fuel could indeed create a cloud 600 meters wide. Now. let's assume that the load was substantially less than 10,000 gallons. The engineer also said that even had the load been 10k, a blast and resulting cloud could reasonably be 1000 meters wide. So. If the plane carried markedly less than 10k, the 600 meter cloud is quite possible.

Second, a tube of avgas impacting the earth at nearly 600mph would shoot all the fuel upwards at a very high rate of velocity in a splash or spray. Toss a water balloon off a building and you'd get the idea. This would atomize the fuel, and then when ignited it would go WOOF! all at once. Not unlike a fuel air bomb. It would burn off quite fast because the oxygen and fuel droplets would create a very rich environment for fire to do it's fire thing.

Next, killtown has clearly demonstrated on a very consistent basis that discussing something, discussing anything for that matter, with him is not unlike trying to run laps in a vat of Lime Jell-O. You truck hard and you huff and puff, and when you stop to see how far you've gotten....well you know.

killtown is Waste Of Time Incarnate. And I'm as guilty as anyone of wasting my time. But. I am on here for my own satisfaction to exhaust the possibilities in the favor of conspiracy theorists so that I can walk away fully satisfied that the picture is real. The fact that killtown gets outed as The Joke Of The Day is just a happy by-product of the whole experience.
 
Buckwheatjones said:
A plane with a heavy load of fuel for a transcontinental flight might at the most carry a full load of 11,500 gallons. Accounting for fuel burned before the crash, I placed the load at 10,000 gallons. This is my estimate, which may or may not be real.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I'm not getting this correct, but did you guys come to this estimate by basing the fuel load capacity of a 757 with its mpg and how many miles 93 flew, or was this part estimated from an official source?
 
Stellafane said:
One final time (really!)

1. You're just being deliberately idiotic now. I gave you the link, I quoted from the article. You can't possibly be so thick you can't find the quote I copied in the article.
2. It's plenty specific to me, and I suspect also to others equipped with compassion and empathy. But I can only speak for myself.
3. And if she's not, you're defaming an innocent person.
4.
5.In that case, I owe you an abject apology. Now what if you're a Jew-hating Nazi who jerks off each night while gazing fondly at the life-size photo of Hitler hanging above your bed? Would I then be justified in calling you an anti-Semite without qualification or apology? We can play "what if" forever. But "what if" doesn't justify destroying someone else's life.
Click to expand...
1) Oh I got the link, read the article, and saw her quotes, I just don't know how you got what you said out of what she said. Maybe my comprehension is bad, but can you specifically show how you came to your conclusions about what she said?

2) funny you can't list the specifics!

3) And I'll apologize and she'll become my new best friend because her photo is more of a smoking gun to me real than fake!

5) "jerk off"? Porn freak.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
RE 1) It's all in the post that Buckwheatjones provided. He was quoting the engineer verbatim.

RE 2) A moot difference. The 9 knots came from you, iirc. The 25 came from the FDR.

RE 3) That is the height of the triangle formed by VH, V1, V2 at the point where the average of the values of the drift landed.
Click to expand...
1) I just want to verify if this is an official estimate, or a "guesstimate" on his part.

2) Just seems like quite a difference.

3) So basically if it's proven the plume was more my estimated size, than that would prove my accusation? That plume size is what it boils down to?
 
Killtown said:
Oh, I got to hear this.

Why Gravy, why?
Click to expand...

...And the fact that you can't understand why it's ignorant may be the saddest thing I've heard a 9/11 CT say. Welcome to ChristopheraLand, Killtown.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
My critique of your diagram from post #471 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1849607#post1849607

1) Your southern vector line appears to be bisecting the white barn. Since the plume does not appear to go further south than the northern point of the white barn this adds a significant amount of error once you get out ~2000m

2) I question the accuracy of either your northern vector line and/or your crater placement as my calculations place the crater north of the northern vector line. Since you do not provide the coordinates for you crater location I can neither verify, nor confirm its placement on your diagram.

3) You do not provide any evidence, math, etc to back your assertion that a plume ~1000' is a "realistic size"
Click to expand...

1) Unless the curvature of the earth totally throws my lines off, I stand by them.

2) The crater is close enough if not dead on.

3) Yes I do, based on the distance from the middle of the crater to the outermost burnt forest section and from analysing large plane crashes.
 
Gravy said:
...And the fact that you can't understand why it's ignorant may be the saddest thing I've heard a 9/11 CT say. Welcome to ChristopheraLand, Killtown.
Click to expand...
Yep, just what I thought, nothing but ad hominem attacks from you. And you wonder why I think you have ZERO credibility!
 
Nice attempt at a dodge. It won't work.

Killtown @ his site said:
Who's Going to Jail?

If it really was an ordnance blast not too far beyond the white barn and white farm house, then this would be a true smoking gun and one of the clearest examples of complicity in the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. government because what else could have caused such a large explosion and who else would have been behind it?

If the smoke plume was photoshopped on there, then that could mean the following:

1) the photo was simply a fraud by Val.

2) the photo was a fraud by her and the FBI who did inspect her photo and took away her original memory card.

If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case then Val, you got some splainin' to do!
Click to expand...
Do you deny that you wrote these words and posted them on your website? YES OR NO?
 
My point is, there's your presumption of guilt.

Now that we have that out of the way, and we have your earlier admission that your site, including your "100% proof positive smoking guns" are, in fact, only your completely inexpert opinion, it's time for you to come clean.

Fix your site and apologize to her. Your accusation, listed above, is baseless.

Checkmate.
 
Killtown said:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, where am I assuming guilt???
Click to expand...
You're assuming someone's guilt, and it's not the terrorists.

"Because no 757 crashed in Shanksville. The scene was all faked"

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=53
Click to expand...

You claim that either the government, or Val McClatchey, or both, are guilty of fraud. Excerpts from your blog:

Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville and not only that, but there is something else about this photo that makes it a 100% proof positive smoking gun photo!

This is a huge smoking gun! It proves that this blast is more likely an ordnance plume and that it did not come from the crater that the government told us was made when Flight 93 nosedived there. However, this huge smoking gun gets even bigger and better! According to my analysis, this ordnance plume blast could not possibly have came anywhere near the crash site!

Is there a motive for Val to be in on faking this photo? Unfortunately, there is.

Right before 9/11, her and her husband had suffered "severe business loss." They were later forced to file for bankruptcy for their saw mill company:

They ended up loosing their business as of Dec 31, 2001, putting 40 people out of work. Val also mentions that they may lose their house.

And it gets worse. Val mentions that her and one of her children have major health problems.

However after all of her and her family's financial and health problems right before 9/11, she's able to open up her own realty company (spring of 2005) after copyrighting this "one-of-a-kind" shot that she sells these less than $.50 computer paper printouts of it for $20 bucks a pop.

It's sad to think about a family who is having major financial and health problems, but unfortunately, these are the types of extreme circumstances that can cause people to do unethical things in the such dire times and these are the types of things the police will look for in a criminal investigation.

So with this revelation that the smoke plume seen in Val's photo couldn't possibly have came from the crash area, I can only think of two possible explanations:

1) The smoke plume came from and ordnance blast closer to her house.

2) The smoke plume was photoshopped on there.

If it really was an ordnance blast not too far beyond the white barn and white farm house, then this would be a true smoking gun and one of the clearest examples of complicity in the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. government because what else could have caused such a large explosion and who else would have been behind it?

If the smoke plume was photoshopped on there, then that could mean the following:

1) the photo was simply a fraud by Val.

2) the photo was a fraud by her and the FBI who did inspect her photo and took away her original memory card.

If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case then Val, you got some splainin' to do!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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