Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[gtc]

This is another case of seeing facts that are consistent with your theory as being evidence for your theory.

Even if Val had faked the photos (which we have no evidence that she did) that does not mean that she was part of some conspiracy. She might have been seeking to make money or get fame etc.

That said, I think her actions since 911 are more consistent with someone who is sincere than fraudalent or out to make money.

 

[Killtown]

My point is, there's your presumption of guilt.

Sorry, I must need glasses. Where was it again? I didn't see it in my quote you posted.

 

[R.Mackey]

I bolded it for you.

Now you are lying.

 

[Killtown]

what if you did?

We'll wait to see if that happens first.

 

[Killtown]

1) Even if Val had faked the photos (which we have no evidence that she did)

2) that does not mean that she was part of some conspiracy. She might have been seeking to make money or get fame etc.

1) why do you guys keep lying, or is it you can not read very well?

2) Um, hayah, I did mention this.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

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?

I think I wrote this clearly, but ok. I'll spoonfeed it to you.

My own personal estimate. No official information to back this up. If you can find documentation that says how much fuel was on board at the time of the crash then you'd be giving an example of the type of legwork I've been b!tching at you to do across two discussion boards. I couldn't find it, maybe you can. If you do, post the figures and we'll see if my math still sings.

In the absence of hard data, all I can do is estimate based on what's reasonable.

1. 93 was a cross country flight so it carried lots of gas. The Telegraph says it carried 10,000 gallons: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/campaigns/war/waryear.xml

Anyone can dig up better information than that, please do. Anyway.

2. If flying with nearly a full loadout, 10,000 gallons, and burning fuel at a rate of 4194 liters per hour

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...+hours+757&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14&ie=UTF-8

and converting that to gallons, shows that it burned about 1100 gallons per hour. A two hour flight, it presumably burned 2200 gallons, so that puts us at 7800 gallons left. So I find that 10k is too high. but according to my engineer's estimation that 10k gallons could produce a cloud 1000 meters wide, it is not unreasonable to determine that 7800 gallons could produce a cloud of 600 meters in width.

 

[Killtown]

I bolded it for you.

Now you are lying.

Oooooh, then you would be correct if your statement read "Yet here you are, assuming guilt [when I take things you say out of context]"

 

[Gravy]

Just wanted to point this out. Killtown wrote:

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.

(Bolding mine)

Killtown, when you order a photo from her, you make the check out to Heroic Choices (formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation). She forwards the checks to them.

Are you going to retract the claim that she may have faked the photo in order to help with her family's financial problems?

 

[gtc]

1) why do you guys keep lying, or is it you can not read very well?

How am I lying?

Your evidence that the photo is faked isn't very convincing and there is no evidence that Val faked it (if it was faked).

 

[R.Mackey]

1) Even if Val had faked the photos (which we have no evidence that she did)

1) why do you guys keep lying, or is it you can not read very well?

Spectacular. You have now contradicted yourself in two successive posts. Here you CLEARLY contradict gtc, saying "we have evidence Val faked the photos." You do not. You admitted that your site has no evidence. Even if you did, it would not imply that Val faked the photos.

Then you try to deny that you accused her, in your reply to me.

Ergo, a liar.

By your own rules that you laid down when you arrived here, I am now obligated to stop debating with you. You lose.

But you may keep digging that hole as long as you like. I'm rather enjoying watching such a nasty piece of work as yourself self-destruct.

 

[Killtown]

A two hour flight, it presumably burned 2200 gallons, so that puts us at 7800 gallons left. So I find that 10k is too high.

Ok that's what I thought, but just wanted to be triple sure. I had conservatively estimated it had 6,000 at impact (not for this discussion though).

So I've come to the conclusion that the answer to this thread is based on the size of the plume the crash made. Would you agree to that?

 

[Killtown]

Killtown, when you order a photo from her, you make the check out to Heroic Choices (formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation). She forwards the checks to them.

Really, how did you find this out???

 

[Killtown]

How am I lying?

Your evidence that the photo is faked isn't very convincing and there is no evidence that Val faked it (if it was faked).

Read thoroughly...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

 

[gtc]

Read thoroughly...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

I have and it doesn't seem to answer my question.

Can you summarise the relevant bits?

 

[Killtown]

Spectacular. You have now contradicted yourself in two successive posts. Here you CLEARLY contradict gtc, saying "we have evidence Val faked the photos." You do not. You admitted that your site has no evidence. Even if you did, it would not imply that Val faked the photos.

Then you try to deny that you accused her, in your reply to me.

Ergo, a liar.

By your own rules that you laid down when you arrived here, I am now obligated to stop debating with you. You lose.

But you may keep digging that hole as long as you like. I'm rather enjoying watching such a nasty piece of work as yourself self-destruct.

You are trying waaaaaaaaaay too hard. There IS evidence that she may have. I can't help it if you guys don't want to accept it.

Anyways, start a new thread about anything not specifically related to this thread that ASSUMES her photo is real.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Ok that's what I thought, but just wanted to be triple sure. I had conservatively estimated it had 6,000 at impact (not for this discussion though).

So I've come to the conclusion that the answer to this thread is based on the size of the plume the crash made. Would you agree to that?

Yeah. 10k is too high, but 7800 is not. Still, it's a lot more substantial than "The cloud is too big IMO."

The answer is in response to your conviction that the cloud is too big at the crash site for flight 93 to have made. It isn't. It's well within the parameters of possibility.

 

[gtc]

Really, how did you find this out???

See I could post a link to the Post-Gazette and tell you to read thoroughly, but that would be nasty, so here you go:

Copies are available upon request, with proceeds going to the charity Heroic Choices, formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation

 

[defaultdotxbe]

We'll wait to see if that happens first.

then thats my answer to your question

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?

 

[Buckwheatjones]

Spectacular. You have now contradicted yourself in two successive posts. Here you CLEARLY contradict gtc, saying "we have evidence Val faked the photos." You do not. You admitted that your site has no evidence. Even if you did, it would not imply that Val faked the photos.

Then you try to deny that you accused her, in your reply to me.

Ergo, a liar.

By your own rules that you laid down when you arrived here, I am now obligated to stop debating with you. You lose.

But you may keep digging that hole as long as you like. I'm rather enjoying watching such a nasty piece of work as yourself self-destruct.

Runnin' in Jell-O man. Runnin' in Jell-O. We all are. Why do we do it?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Really, how did you find this out???

its on the website where you buy the picture

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html

To order an 8.5 X 11 print of this photo, send a $20.00 check made payable to the Todd Beamer Foundation to the following address:

(bolding NOT mine)