Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Dr Richard]

1) I'm sorry, could you link those again?


Don't be lazy, go back and look. I've mentioned them before. Many times.

2) UA 93 flew heading south east. Val heard a plane fly overhead and looked out her front window which would be facing west. Paths contradict. No rocket science here:

snip of map. Repeat of original point you have missed:

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. "

The rocket science part is where the source you quote on your blog mentions nothing about the flight being overhead. Hope you get the point this time.



3) She says, "about 5 seconds". That's her quote. I like how everybody is essentially calling her a liar too!


I am not calling her a liar. I am only pointing out the flaw in your own interpretation of the timing.

4) She could have just done an outside BBQ, or her lights came back on. Do you have any comments to my other questions about this, or just the ones you find easily refuttable?

No, I am not going to get dragged into a barbecue argument because that would derail the thread and allow you to weasel out of the important questions.

I am glad that you found I easily refuted your point however. Why did you not pause to think of the plausible explanations earlier? You are obviously capable of doing so when pressed.

5) Are you sure?

Yes, this is why I said it. Sigh. Instead of asking pointless questions, why not answer my points with fact-based argument? And if you cannot, then say so or say nothing and concede the point.

6) I've mentioned it numerous times already.


Where? Where are the calculations of your plume size?

Where?????

7) Her motives haven't been discredited as of yet.

This is an ambiguous statement. If you mean, her motives for publishing the photo cannot be questioned because there is no credible evidence that she sought to gain financially from doing so, then I agree.

Please answer the questions about how you arrived at your plume size calculation and why Arkan's calculations are wrong.

 

[Killtown]

.


To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Evidence that she MAY have ? That sounds inconclusive to me.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

I'll take this, because it proves my claim!

No. It doesn't. Your claim is 200 meters or 600 feet. His minimum is a lot bigger than your maximum which means the cloud in the photo is not to big to be real.

 

[Dr Richard]

1) MY estimates came from real life videos of crashes of large planes and from forensics.


2) The distance between my plume width lines.

1) This is not an explanation. Which videos? How did you calculate plume size from the video? Which planes? Under what crash conditions?

"...from forensics"

Which "forensics"? What sources? etc? etc? etc?

2)Arkan puts the plume width considerably smaller. You have not refuted his claim. Please show us the trig you use to arrive at this data.

 

[MortFurd]

So let me get this straight then, checks are made out to the Todd Beamer foundation and she simply forwards the checks. she can't touch the money, is this correct?

She'd have a tough time cashing a check made out to the "Todd Beamer Foundation" if she's not a representative of the foundation.

Note:
The Todd Beamer Foundation is now known as "Heroic Choices."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) I stand by my lines.

2) Approx: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=40.050972,-78.904583

3) We'll get to this is a bit.

RE 1) Standing by them means nothing. Provide supporting evidence for them.

RE 2) "Coordinates: 40°3′3″N, 78°54′13″W" - memorial coordinates (within site of crater. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93_National_Memorial
"Flight 93 crash site are 40.052, -78.8963" source: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6701
"40.052, -78.8963" source: http://www.floppingaces.net/2005/09/11/flight-93-memorial-update/print/
"40:03:07N by 78:54:17W" source: http://www.rawls.org/WorldAheadRelease.htm
Coordinates I used: 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W
Coordinates you used: 40.050972,-78.904583
Google Earth pic of all those coordinates mapped:

The sites quoting 40.052, -78.8963 both seem to be referring to the same source and appear to be completely wrong. Of the remaining sources, mine is the furthest north and west, meaning the other coordinates put the plume even more central in the angle of view of the camera and closer to the camera position.

Here: http://killtown.911review.org/images...ume-1000ft.gif

That provides no measurements or GPS coordinates. It is a map with lines on it.

I specifically asked you:

"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?"

It really only needs a "yes or no" answer.

You question is a false dichtomy. If the plume estimate of 526 meters is consistent with your accusation it does not prove your accusation. You must provide the rest of the evidence showing that (1) all of your accusation has backing evidence and (2) the other explanations for the observed plume are in error. The determination of which explanation is the correct one does not "boil down to" the plume size.

 

[Belz...]

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

Would you rather assume otherwise ? What's the default position, for you ?

3) She says, "about 5 seconds". That's her quote. I like how everybody is essentially calling her a liar too!

I like how you equate saying someone's mistaken with calling that person a liar.

1) I stand by my lines.

Even if they clearly don't correspond to the angle of the photo ?

 

[MortFurd]

Where? Where are the calculations of your plume size?

Where?????

He flushed the paper after performing the rectal extraction.

 

[Dr Richard]

I'll take this, because it proves my claim!

As buckwheatjones just said, it doesn't. It is consistent with Arkan Wolfshades REBUTTAL of your arguement. And you seem to have missed the part where this is a minimum size based on pure jet fuel combustion without addressing the assertion that other materials would increase the size of the plume.

I am please that you accept my figues however, as that is essentially discussion over.

 

[Belz...]

.


To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

Nope.

Are you saying that, if we could get you to agree about the plume's expected size, you'd retract your allegations and make an apology to Val ?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

.


To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

No.

 

[MortFurd]

.


To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

No. It boils down to this:
1. Everything that everyone else has come up with indicates the photo is real and depicts a photo of the crash of flight 93 as according to the official story.
2. You persist in believing it is either a.) a fake or b.) a real photo showing something that is not the crash of flight 93.
3. You have never yet explained why any conspirator capable of the masterful sequence of events needed to divert flight 93 and dispose of the passengers and create a fake crash site would not be capable of setting off an explosion on the fake crash site rather than some where a mile away.

 

[Belz...]

3. You have never yet explained why any conspirator capable of the masterful sequence of events needed to divert flight 93 and dispose of the passengers and create a fake crash site would not be capable of setting off an explosion on the fake crash site rather than some where a mile away.

Might I add that there is also no REASON for the conspirators to do this, except add another layer to the conspiracy and allow the CTers to masturbate (intellectually or not) a while longer.

 

[MortFurd]

Might I add that there is also no REASON for the conspirators to do this, except add another layer to the conspiracy and allow the CTers to masturbate (intellectually or not) a while longer.

That's kind of the point I'm making. If you stipulate a conspiracy capable of doing the things the CTers claim, then it is really freaking illogical to claim that the conspirators did everything else right but f***ed up the spot to set off an explosion.

The idea that Val's photo is a fake of a real crash or a real photo of a fake crash has been pretty much trashed in favor of the reality that it is a real photo of a real crash. Never mind that Killtown doesn't agree. Facts and numbers won't can't sway a true believer.

1 down, 199 to go. I estimate ~4000 pages of postings would be needed to handle all of them in the depth this one has been handled.

Who's up for it?

 

[ghost707]

1 down, 199 to go. I estimate ~4000 pages of postings would be needed to handle all of them in the depth this one has been handled.

Who's up for it?

I'm up for it, I've already debunked his "Boeing was in on it" conspiracy..so that leaves us with 198 I think.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

crosspost for "It's CTists, not CTers" thread:

What evidence could be presented to you that would cause you to change your position on the events of 9/11?

As an act of good faith I will answer the question myself. If the consensus of the engineering community shifted to state that the towers should not have collapsed, and their conclusions are corroborated by objective evidence; if Watergate-esque tapes came out, showing that officials knew of, or plotted, the events; if objective evidence was presented showing the use of explosives to aid the collapse of the towers; these are some examples of things that would cause me to rethink my position on the events.

How about you Killtown?

 

[MortFurd]

I'm up for it, I've already debunked his "Boeing was in on it" conspiracy..so that leaves us with 198 I think.

Holy cow! What, did Boeing build non-existent planes that the CTers claim never crashed where all the world saw them?

 

[Dr Richard]

Killtown, I can see where you went wrong!

I think...

It all boils down to lines and scaling triangles. Essentially, because of the distance involved, a VERY SMALL difference in where you take the point of the red/white barns to be in terms of field of view makes a VERY BIG difference to the plume size.

I have copied this pic from your blog and added my own (black) lines:



As you can see, a very small error in the original line position on the barns makes a very big difference to the final "expected" plume size. Taking the innermost lines, the sizes given here (approx 500m say) are entirely accurate.

I would have to say that this method of estimating size based on google earth and low-res photos is WAY too innacurate to start inventing a conspiracy theory.

If you disagree, please state your confidence interval for the measurements you have made, the standard deviation/standard error of said measurements and both the inter- and intra- observer reliability of your measurement technique.

If you have not done this, your method of measurement is scientifically flawed and completely discredited. If you go away and do it, then respect and I await the results with much anticipation...

 

[Killtown]

No. It doesn't. Your claim is 200 meters or 600 feet. His minimum is a lot bigger than your maximum which means the cloud in the photo is not to big to be real.

If the plume was 400m, that would put it at where my diagram says "plume lines" pointing to the grey lines...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif