Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[defaultdotxbe]

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

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

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

if the scene was faked, then someone is guilty of faking it correct?

 

[Killtown]

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.

I concur with you fuel estimate.

Hypothetically, if it's proven that the plume was around my estimated size, would that essentially prove my claim that it had to originate somewhere around where I estimated it?

 

[R.Mackey]

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

I'm done running. I played by his rules, and beat him at his own game.

Why do I do it? This is why... Besides the "lurkers" and "undecideds" who might come across this thread, there is another potential beneficiary. That person is Killtown himself.

I am an optimist in humanity. Perhaps this is a mistake, but that's how I am. Anyway, having gone through similar epiphanies myself (though nothing on a scale that would get me reported in a newspaper for harrassment!), I believe that someday, older and wiser, Killtown will look back upon the foolish things he did in his youth. And be profoundly ashamed.

We really can't convince someone who is so ready to accuse anyone of complicity, such as this perfect bystander, or someone who yells "planted!" about any evidence that doesn't match his insane agenda. Convincing them is not the goal. The goal, instead, is to provide an example.

When the time comes, and Killtown goes through a period of confused re-evaluation, I hope he will understand that there are other people who behave responsibly, intelligently, respectfully. This may help him get through this period and become a happier, more valuable human being.

The JREF is, after all, an educational foundation. Education is ALWAYS a positive force.

 

[CardZeus]

Why oh why do we give this nutjob the time of day - I wouldn't be surprised if he and Christophera were one and the same. Both certifiably insane.

Please argue the topic not the poster.

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

 

[Buckwheatjones]

I concur with you fuel estimate.

Hypothetically, if it's proven that the plume was around my estimated size, would that essentially prove my claim that it had to originate somewhere around where I estimated it?

Was your estimated size 2200 feet or 600 meters? If so we agree. Didn't you claim that the point of origin of the plume was one mile east of the crash site? Then no. We don't agree. The plume scales out accurately to be 600 meters across and it's well within the bounds of possibility that such a cloud could exist just southeast of the crash site. Coupling that with the improbability of using Photoshop to paste in a cloud to fake the image, I believe the image to be legitimate. I've been doing Photoshop as a day job since 1995 and you can't pull that one off.

 

[Killtown]

its on the website where you buy the picture

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

Wow, you are right! This blew right past me...

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:

Point for you guys!

So this would eliminate her financial motive right? Because she literally just forwards the checks?

 

[Killtown]

if the scene was faked, then someone is guilty of faking it correct?

Um yeah, but his question was about Val being guilty.

 

[gtc]

So this would eliminate her financial motive right?

I think so.

Now we have to decide if the photo is accurate and if not, what is her motive.

I still say we have no hard evidence that the photo isn't accurate.

But, if the photo was not accurate, the options are:
She honestly thought she captured the crash but captured something else or unwittingly captured the cover up explosion,
She is a shill for the conspiracy,
She faked it for fame.

Unless we have any hard evidence otherwise, honour demands that we assume she acted honestly.

This is critical thinking!

Because she literally just forwards the checks?

As far as I can tell.

That said, the Post-Gazette article said she is now accepting money, but only for her lawsuit in defence of her photo. So that isn't evidence of a financial motive either as no photo would have meant no lawsuit.

 

[Killtown]

1) Was your estimated size 2200 feet or 600 meters? If so we agree.

No, 600 feet.

 

[mrflame]

IMHO, one can't consider that (or any) fotos to be an evidence.

But if you still want to, you should take into account a scope af differrent influences such as the strengh and direction of wind, the kind of soil (and its solidity), the presence/lack of dust, the time that passed from the accident, etc.

and I see no sence in faking that fotos, would you be so kind to educate me on the point?

 

[Pardalis]

I am an optimist in humanity. Perhaps this is a mistake, but that's how I am.

And it's all to your credit. I have found your posts more than exemplary, they are trully edifying.

Keep up the good work. The same goes for all of you guys, Arkan, Gravy and the others.

Pardalis

 

[Dr Richard]

And it's all to your credit. I have found your posts more than exemplary, they are trully edifying.

Keep up the good work. The same goes for all of you guys, Arkan, Gravy and the others.

Pardalis

Indeed, I must thank everyone and I have to say it feels like we are getting somewhere! Slowly, but even so...

I thought it would be useful to summarise where we are at in debunking or verifying Killtown's claims. I have included direct quotes from his blog so that there can be no accusations of misrepresentation.

1."...her photo proves that the crash of Flight 93 is fake because the smoke plume in her photo looks more like the plume coming from an ordnance blast because of its grey color rather than from a plane crash since smoke from jet fuel fires are almost black in color."

This has been disproved by my ealier post showing that there are many pictures on the internet of airplane crashes where the plume is not "almost black" in colour.

2. "Then she suddenly hears a load roar of a plane's engine fly over Indian Lake and managed to look out her front window and catch a glimpse of the plane's glare, which she states that she thought was a small plane, before it flew over the horizon behind the red barn. Note that Val lives to the west of Indian Lake and east of the crash site. If the plane flew over the lake towards the west, then the flight path she describes is almost in the opposite direction from the official version's flight path."

My bolding. According to the source given by Killtown in his blog "She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch. "

Note - above the red barns. Nothing about direction there. This story is consistent with the version Killtown labels "Popular mechanics" on his google earth map. Unless KT provides further evidence, his link does not support his claim. Note also that it may be that people, when descibing a plane flight, say "it flew overhead" without meaning directly, straight up perpendicular overhead. I know I have in the past. So claim 2 is false.

3. "She says she took the photo about 5 seconds after she heard it crash"

Much has already been said about this. Even KT himself says "about" 5s. Posts have discussed the exact timing. I would add that again people tend to say "about 5 seconds" when they could mean anything up to 30s to 1 min. My wife knows that "I'll be there in a minute" refers to a variable time period of between 10seconds to 30 minutes.

4. "put on a barbecue for the rescue crews as if she was anticipating the events. How was she able to cook for the crews with her electricity knocked out?"

Sorry, this made me laugh. In the UK, when we have a barbecue we burn some wood/charcoal outside. Some people even have gas-fired barbecues. Do people not do this in the USA? Do you have electric barbecues??

5. Regardless, there then follows a lengthy personal attack questioning Val's motives for selling the photo. (" Val seems uninterested in learning about the truth about the crash she allegedly caught on camera, but would rather milk her prized photo she is so protective of for all that it's worth") This has been effectively debunked by Gravy, so no more to be said here.

6. Now to the meat of the article "the smoke plume does not line up with where the crater is"

This hs been dealt with in Arkan's post. KTs only attempt at a response has been to question the size of the plume in Arkan's post. This discussion is ongoing. So, on to the size of the plume:

"On my last photo analysis, I included two equally sized explosions (orange) that I generously estimated that would have come from the crash scene area (based mostly on the size of the burnt forest section)"


Killtown is basing his plume size estimate on the size of burnt forest! He has repeated this statement in this forum. It seems self-evident to me that smoke from a burning fire would expand to be bigger than the area of forest burning to create it, but here is a nice picture demontrating:

http://air.geo.tsukuba.ac.jp/~puff/siberia/puffnow.html

Note Killtown's claim " I basically started the radius point at the crater and drew a circle around the section of forest that was burned and excavated afterward. And based on videos of large planes crashing and judging the size their explosions and smoke plumes grew to."

Unless KT can show his calculations for the plume of smoke in more detail, his claim that be plume size is equal to the size of the crater and burned area is absurd and can be dismissed.

7. There then follows more personal attacks on Val's motives. Discredited for the above reasons (5).

So, Killtown, your one remaining claim on your blog that may hold water is the size of the plume, but only if you show us your calculations as to how you derived it. With figures. And sums. Simplt reinterating "based on videos" is not good enough. Give us the sources. Give us the figures.

Please...

Apologies to everyone else for the long post, but as I stated at the beginning, we are getting somewhere! Only one claim left to debunk...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

Boeing says

Model 757-200, 757-200F, 757-300
Fuel capacity 11,489 US gal (43,490 l), 11,276 US gal (42,680 l), 11,466 US gal (43,400 l)

Which, subtracting our estimated 2200 gal, gives us:
9289 gal, 9076 gal, and 9266 gal respectively.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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?

RE 1) Already responded to by Buckwheatjones
RE 2) A moot one. The plume could drift sufficiently under either condition. I will reiterate, the 25 knots was from the FDR. The 9 knots was provided by you, iirc.
RE 3) The plumes estimated size is 526 meters. You assumption that this was too large for the distance to the crash site is in error. Your assumption that the plume could not have been in the angle of view between the two barns is in error. You conclusion that the plume must have been significanly closer (~1000 meters) to Val than the crash site is wrong.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

RE 1) By bisecting the barn, rather than using the north tip, you generate an error of ~89 meters at the longitude of the crashsite between my southern vector and yours.
RE 2) Coordinates of your crater?
RE 2) You have not provided any backing to substantiate that this method of estimation is accurate.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I want to emphasis something. In my calculations I have provided GPS coordinates that anyone with a Magellen/Garmen/TomTom can go out and verify the accuracy of, at the actual locations. I have provided my measurements of distance, which can also be verified in person. I have made clear the tools I have used to do so.

Killtown, please provide similar measurements for your analysis of the area.

 

[mortimer]

Clarify, you agree that by the way the middle plume is shifting 90 degs, Val's plume could have done this too?

Sure. It could have also performed a loop-d-loop, then inverted itself, twice. What's your point?

 

[Dr Richard]

Plume size

Right - first of all I am going to take it as read that Arkan's calculation of field of view is accurate.

Killtown, please post if you disagree.

As stated earlier, the key point is the size of the plume at a given time point.

Arkan's work puts the plume size between 250-500m (ish) given the original photo. This is way off Killtowns 2200ft but he has never provided any evidence for this assertion.

I have been looking for info on smoke plume modelling.

Best site I could find was http://www.fire.nist.gov/aloft/

I have used this program to try and model the smoke plume.

Data for a jet fuel fire was taken from

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire04/PDF/f04057.pdf#search="radiative fraction jet fuel"

and I used estimates of wind speed between 9 and 25 knots as discussed here.

I get plume heights (as represented by particulate density) between 320-390m at a distance of 2-2.5km from the crash site. This would fit with Arkan's model and the picture we have seen.

Asuumptions - surface temp 21degC, standard temp lapse rate, moderate solar radiation, crash site area = burning fuel area, jet fuel particulate properties taken from standard values in the program.

So, Killtown, how did you perform YOUR plume size calculations? What different values did you use, which program for modellling and where did the 2200ft value come from?

 

[CurtC]

So, Killtown, how did you perform YOUR plume size calculations? What different values did you use, which program for modellling and where did the 2200ft value come from?

Oh! Oh! I know!

He has clearly said that it looks too big.

 

[Belz...]

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

You're a very funny person, Killtown. I DID answer the question, by saying it was irrelevant. As I said TWICE to you already, not one explosion looks exactly like any other.