Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Checkmite]

2) No, I'm simply implying that this plume was not from that alleged crash. Two different incidences as far as I'm concerned.

It is more likely that the viewer is lying about what the photograph depicts than that she simply misjudged the time it took her to get to wherever she got to in order to take that photo? As far as I know, digital cameras take something like 5 seconds to boot up when they're first turned on - and in any case, depending on the distance from her house to the crash site, the moment she heard the "boom" was any number of seconds after the actual crash took place. It's entirely possible that cloud of smoke could already be seen just sprouting over the treeline a split second before she would've been able to hear the explosion. Think lightning vs. thunder. Or a July 4th fireworks show.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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

None of my queries are limited to the color of the plume in scope. All of them are relevent to (1) how the plume will form and (2) how the plume will behave after it has finished its initial formation.

 

[Stellafane]

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.

That explains where you got the information. Why did you do it?

 

[Killtown]

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.

Did you read how she was able to grab her camera so fast and why it was "ready" by her front door?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hi Killtown,

How many years of experience have you had doing analysis of photographs, especially with regard to the fact a photograph captures a three dimensional space on a two dimensional plane?

 

[Gravy]

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.

The issues of flight 93 debris and the "missing tail section" is directly relevant to your claims that flight 93 did not crash in that field just before the photo in question was taken. Please respond to them.

As for my other questions, do you agree to address them if I start another thread on this forum?

 

[Killtown]

1) As far as I know, digital cameras take something like 5 seconds to boot up when they're first turned on

2) It's entirely possible that cloud of smoke could already be seen just sprouting over the treeline a split second before she would've been able to hear the explosion.

1) she had her camera already ready by her front door anticipating a flyover by a helicopter (no, I'm not joking).

2) The plume could not of traveled that far, that fast, in so little time.

 

[Killtown]

None of my queries are limited to the color of the plume in scope. All of them are relevent to (1) how the plume will form and (2) how the plume will behave after it has finished its initial formation.

You think it could have traveled this far so fast?...

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

 

[Killtown]

That explains where you got the information. Why did you do it?

Why not do it?

 

[Killtown]

The issues of flight 93 debris and the "missing tail section" is directly relevant to your claims that flight 93 did not crash in that field just before the photo in question was taken. Please respond to them.

As for my other questions, do you agree to address them if I start another thread on this forum?

all this belongs on a different thread. And yes.

 

[TheChadd]

Why not do it?

Because it takes time.

What was your motive?

 

[Earl The Tall]

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.

One needs to consider these things to try and find a conclusion. And putting it to such simple terms like that is just as bad as making it too complicated.

 

[Killtown]

Because it takes time.

What was your motive?

I have plenty of time. Motive? Facts.

 

[Mercutio]

Did you read how she was able to grab her camera so fast and why it was "ready" by her front door?

I am trying to see how it is relevant. It seems to me that anything that makes her story faster (the shockwave, having the camera ready) simply increases the interval that could contain the actual time. It could be fairly quick, or (as Joshua says), it could have been significantly longer and simply recalled incorrectly. Memory research certainly shows that stressful situations make our memories less accurate, not more.

So...the time frame is flexible enough for the photo to be real. What about everything else? All the things you say are not relevant...would certainly influence the formation of the cloud. Why do you say they are not relevant?

 

[Killtown]

One needs to consider these things to try and find a conclusion. And putting it to such simple terms like that is just as bad as making it too complicated.

The only things I see really relevant is wind speed and direction and estimated how big a plume would be from a large plane with lots of fuel on board.

 

[TheChadd]

remember Occam's Razor

Well unfortunately if what you're implying is that it didn't crash where it did, that flies in the face of alot of other information we have with reguard to the crash and makes it much more complicated. Essentially, attacking this particular claim in a complicated manner is necessary because it doesn't fit in with the simple, reasonable explanation we've come up with based on other evidence.

Occam's razor in action. If we accept your claim then we're down a much more complicated path.

I have plenty of time. Motive? Facts.

Your personal life is made up of facts also, why don't you publish them but instead decided to publish hers?

 

[Killtown]

I am trying to see how it is relevant. It seems to me that anything that makes her story faster (the shockwave, having the camera ready) simply increases the interval that could contain the actual time. It could be fairly quick, or (as Joshua says), it could have been significantly longer and simply recalled incorrectly. Memory research certainly shows that stressful situations make our memories less accurate, not more.

So...the time frame is flexible enough for the photo to be real. What about everything else? All the things you say are not relevant...would certainly influence the formation of the cloud. Why do you say they are not relevant?

well unless someone can tell me how any of that other than wind speed/direction and amount of fuel could substantially effect the size and movement of a plume that's only seconds old, I'll factor it in.

 

[Gravy]

all this belongs on a different thread. And yes.

New thread here.

 

[Killtown]

1) Well unfortunately if what you're implying is that it didn't crash where it did,

2) Your personal life is made up of facts also, why don't you publish them but instead decided to publish hers?

1) No, I'm implying this was another plume.

2) cause my info is not relevant.

 

[Gravy]

well unless someone can tell me how any of that other than wind speed/direction and amount of fuel could substantially effect the size and movement of a plume that's only seconds old, I'll factor it in.

Where was the wind speed measured? Do we know that the wind at that location wasn't gusting to, say, 17 knots? Do we know that, even though the impact itself was fairly vertical, the plane's wake didn't have some effect on the cloud? As mentioned above, there are many possible variables that your analysis doesn't consider.