I did see yours, now turn that video 90 deg so the plane is flying downward the the fireball would have behaved like the B-52 crash, no?
Plume in Flight 93 photo is different
- Thread starter Killtown
- Start date
- Status
I did see yours, now turn that video 90 deg so the plane is flying downward the the fireball would have behaved like the B-52 crash, no?
What the hell does this B-52 you keep referring to has anything to do with 9/11?
You can't turn the video 90 degres, see the first quote from my signature.
No need, you've already accepted my claims.
The onus, as it has been since square one, is even more firmly upon you. Get to work, Stalltown.
I highly doubt a 2,000-3,000 ft across plume could have been generated in less than 1 minute by a 300-600 ft fireball.
How wide was the fireball that 93 made?
The B-52 crash is the closest crash caught on video that I could find to compare how big a plume could be made from a crash.
WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHEN THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN.
Does anybody think the photo was taken after a minute after the crash?
Your calculations didn't show how it got from point A to point B.
Where's A? Where's B? What's this got to do with the price of tea in China?
Your whole theory is based on the alledged 5 seconds it supposedly took Ms McClatchey to take the picture. There is no proof anyone in the FBI analysed the picture at 5 seconds, except what Ms McClatchey's said in the video, which could have been a mistake on her part.
Actually, the size and shape of the plume should be an indication of how long after the crash it was. It's clearly more than 5 seconds.
Jeez, and you guys call me dumb.
Point A = crash spot
Point B = where it was in Val's photo
Nope.
Do you agree that we don't have a consesus as to how long after the crash the plume is?
Do you agree that Val's 5 seconds is inconclusive?
The farking wind was blowing. Remember? 9Knots SE
It doesn't really matter unless you guys think the plume would have kept growing even as it was shifting the 100's of yards needed by the wind.
Since the plume in her photo is still "thick," it doesn't look like it dissipated much.
Have you actually been reading this thread? A few people have already said that was within the realm of possibility, based on research on eyewitness testimony. It is quite possible that the witness was honest in her report (indeed, the "evidence" on your blog does not specify whether that is her recollection, her recollection of what the FBI said officially, her recollection of what the FBI said informally...) but mistaken or simply imprecise.
Unless the time data are available on the camera's memory card, there is no way to be precise about the time the photo was taken. This is just one of several variables that cannot be pinned down with the information you have available to you. Your analysis simply cannot eliminate the official story as being true, and that is, quite simply, what you must do in order to say what you do about Val.
The plume must have kept expanding and dissipating, wouldn't you agree on that? What do you think happenned to the plume after the picture? Do you think it's still hovering around somewhere? Gosh, if someone could take his hands on it!
It was dissipating the minute the fire got consumed. Besides, how do you know how a plume of smoke is exactly supposed to behave?
It doesn't matter, see post #1076.
- Status