Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[NobbyNobbs]

The only thing I found questionable about this photo was that, after hearing a "boom" and being knocked off her couch, the woman's first reaction was to grab her camera. I also found it surprising that she was able to get off the floor, get the camera, and get to the porch to take the picture within 5 seconds.


ETA: Posted before the above post was read. Sorry. Still surprised that she grabbed a camear though, but that's only because it wouldn't be my first reaction.

 

[AK-Dave]

Additional details about the B-52 crash from here:

On the 24th of June 1994, Czar 52, a B-52H assigned to the 325th Bomb Squadron, 92d Bomb Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, WA, launched at approximate 1358 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), to practice maneuvers for an upcoming airshow. The aircrew had the planned and briefed a profile, through the Wing Commander level, that grossly exceeded aircraft and regulatory limitations. Upon preparing to land at the end of the practice airshow profile, the crew was required to execute a "go-around" or missed approach because of another aircraft on the runway. At mid-field, Czar 52 began a tight 360 degree left turn around the control tower at only 250 feet altitude above ground level (AGL). Approximately three quarters of the way through the turn, the aircraft banked past 90 degrees, stalled, clipped a power line with the left wing and crashed. Impact occurred at approximately 1416 hours PDT. There were no survivors out of a crew of four field grade officers.

It was going slow in preparation for landing and basically fell out of the sky on it's side in the middle of a steep banking turn due to pilot asshattery. A little different than plowing in upside down at over 500 mph.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Great observations, alphaba.

 

[Killtown]

Why the debate then?

Hey Sort of Truth, I noticed you didn't refer to me as you usually do. Why is that? Know that you'll get banned?

 

[Killtown]

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?

1) I don't know. What did the NTSB report say?
2) Why is that important?
3) Wind 9 knots SE.
4) relevance?
5 & 6) The B-52 came in at less steep angle to produce a BIGGER fireball and plume.
7) relevance?
8)
9) Using occam's razor.
10) Who said it was a 1-to-1 comparison?
11) Val had two cups of coffee before taking the shot. (Oops! that question wasn't asked!)

 

[Killtown]

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.

I'm only going to respond to relevant questions concerning the subject of this thread. Feel free to start another thread for any other questions.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) I don't know. What did the NTSB report say?
2) Why is that important?
3) Wind 9 knots SE.
4) relevance?
5 & 6) The B-52 came in at less steep angle to produce a BIGGER fireball and plume.
7) relevance?
8)
9) Using occam's razor.
10) Who said it was a 1-to-1 comparison?
11) Val had two cups of coffee before taking the shot. (Oops! that question wasn't asked!)

RE 1) You are making the claim, please provide your own supporting evidence.
RE 2) To establish value in comparing the two crashes.
RE 3) Air temp? Humidity? Barometric pressure? etc
RE 4) see #2
RE 5) The fireball of flight 93 was never witnessed, how can you claim that the B-52's is larger? Concerning plume, see my comments below.
RE 7) see #2
RE 8) Why was the specific frame from the B-52 film chosen?
RE 9) Occam's Razor states

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

Or, as Einstein put it "As simple as possible, but no simpler"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor How does this assist you with adjusting for the elements in question when comparing the two pictures?
RE 10) If you are not claiming a 1-to-1 comparison how can you make claims about the Shanksville crash using the B-52 crash as a reference?

 

[Killtown]

1) Killtown, first of all let me welcome you here. You have jumped into the Lion's den and I'll give you full credit
2)as DJLegacy
3)That noted, your comparison is not that strong, IMHO.
4) 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.
5)Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

1) Cheers!
2) Please don't lump me in with total embarrasments to my movement such as him.
3) Sorry, I didn't find your reason holding a lot of merit. Sorry.
4) "
5) " (to #1)

 

[Killtown]

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.

You guys are making this waaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (remember Occam's Razor?)

It's actually really simple. Plane with jet fuel crashes. Catches fire. Thick dark smoke forms briefly in a mushroom cloud. Plume rises.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Killtown]

1) If that plume originated at a different location, where is that location?
2) What is at that location?
3) What was at that location on September 10, 2001?
4) What was at that location on September 12, 2001?
5) What caused the plume?
6) If the answer to those last two questions are not "Flight 93", where is Flight 93?
7) If you are not disputing the fact that Flight 93 crashed there, where is its plume?

1) It doesn't matter.
2) "
3) "
4) "
5) "
6) "
7) "

 

[Killtown]

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.

None of that matters because whether her plume was from 93 crashing or an ordnance, it still didn't come from the alleged crash scene. It's waaaaaaay to big.

 

[Killtown]

The only thing I found questionable about this photo was that, after hearing a "boom" and being knocked off her couch, the woman's first reaction was to grab her camera. I also found it surprising that she was able to get off the floor, get the camera, and get to the porch to take the picture within 5 seconds.

ETA: Posted before the above post was read. Sorry. Still surprised that she grabbed a camear though, but that's only because it wouldn't be my first reaction.

Yes, a lot about her story doesn't add up. I may start a thread about this later.

 

[Taarkin]

You guys are making this waaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (remember Occam's Razor?)

According to Occam's Razor, all aircraft are exactly the same. You learn something new every day.

 

[Killtown]

RE 1) You are making the claim, please provide your own supporting evidence.
RE 2) To establish value in comparing the two crashes.
RE 3) Air temp? Humidity? Barometric pressure? etc
RE 4) see #2
RE 5) The fireball of flight 93 was never witnessed, how can you claim that the B-52's is larger? Concerning plume, see my comments below.
RE 7) see #2
RE 8) Why was the specific frame from the B-52 film chosen?
RE 9) Occam's Razor states source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor How does this assist you with adjusting for the elements in question when comparing the two pictures?
RE 10) If you are not claiming a 1-to-1 comparison how can you make claims about the Shanksville crash using the B-52 crash as a reference?

1) No, he asked how much fuel was in 93 when it crashed. I said "I don't know." Then I asked what did the NTSB report say about how much fuel it had at the time of crash.
2) The color of the plumes is really irrelevant. the positioning of the plumes is what's at hand.
3) Relevance?
4) See #2.
5) It was never witnessed? That would explain things! But to your question, 93 was said to nosedive at "nearly 90 deg" the shape of the crater is consistent with that. B-52 hit less angle then that and skidded to create bigger fireball.
7) See #2.
8) See #2 (2nd part)
9) Cause you guys are making things needlessly complex. "Keep it simple, stup.." (It's just a quote.)
10) See #2

 

[Stellafane]

...A kook calling himself Killtown has posted her home address, phone number, and personal email address online.

Hi Killtown. Did you really do this? And if so, why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Smoke never dissipates, the photo must be a fake.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RE Killtown. These questions are relevent because, if you comparitive analysis of the plume is wrong then any conclusions you base upon it are also wrong. Each level of evidence must stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Killtown]

Hi Killtown. Did you really do this? And if so, why?

Cause it was posted on her sites that advertised her photo. And it wasn't her home # I posted, it was only her wk #. Although her home # is posted numerous times on the net.

 

[Killtown]

RE Killtown. These questions are relevent because, if you comparitive analysis of the plume is wrong then any conclusions you base upon it are also wrong. Each level of evidence must stand up to scrutiny.

The only relevant point is the plume positioning. The color is not a factor for this experiment.

 

[Mercutio]

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.

Speed of sound in air is not the only measure of interest. The shockwave through ground travels much faster than through air; her comment that she was "knocked off her couch" (while quite probably hyperbole) supports a groundwave rather than sound propogated through air.

Rather than 340 m/s, the speed of sound through earth is (depending on material) somewhere between 5 and 13 km/s. So we may be looking at, for 3 km, well under a second.

The other thing...not an argument, but an observation. When my kids got their new digital cameras (some time ago), for a few weeks they were never more than a few feet away. Something neat? Take a picture! It is entirely plausible that someone with a new digital point-and-shoot would be fairly quick on the draw.