Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[kevin]

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.

so what are these numbers, both from the supposed united 93 crash and the b-52 crash?

The actual time from crash to picture taking is not significant?

Also, do you know if she took multiple pictures? If so, which in the series is this photo and what is the time between photos her camera is capable of?

How much time would have to pass before the smoke from the source begins to dissipate as it is in this photo? How would this differ from say a similar example with 4x the fuel available to burn?

 

[kevin]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm just asking questions, I thought you were doing research. How do you justify making claims without basic knowledge of the events surrounding your claims?

If you claim the photographer is lying about taking the picture at all, why do you believe her "a few seconds" (which to you is apparently 5-10 seconds, despite the sound taking 8-9 seconds to reach her).

 

[Mercutio]

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.

You've never noticed the difference in smoke plumes in dry vs humid air? Hot vs. cold? Never seen the haze a temperature inversion can throw over a town? And while you say "amount of fuel" here, in posts 65 and 74 you dismiss questions directly about the amount of fuel. Do you know what % the cloud changes with changes in amount of fuel? How do you know that the planes are close enough to reasonably compare?

I am not an expert in this at all, but your question tells me that you are not either (or you'd have told me why you choose to ignore those variables). Unless you have good reason to ignore them, they remain simply sources of error, and they detract from your claims.

 

[TheChadd]

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

Ok, whatever. What's the relevance of this then? Do you think this flies in the face of the official story (in which case you need to apply occam's razor yourself) or do you just have some personal grudge against this womans claim about the photograph for no particular reason? If it's the latter, then ok fine, let's just imagine that she did get it wrong about what time she took the picture, what angle she took it from etc, why do we now care?

 

[Mercutio]

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

2) cause my info is not relevant.

How is her info relevant? Does it add to, or detract from, your claim about her picture?

 

[Stellafane]

Why not do it?

That's not an answer and you know it. So once more, why did you do it?

 

[Beleth]

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

Of course they all matter. Each one you are unable to answer casts doubt on your interpretation of the picture. If the plume isn't Flight 93, then since we are assuming the picture's authenticity, it must be something. What is it?

 

[Killtown]

1) so what are these numbers, both from the supposed united 93 crash and the b-52 crash?
2) The actual time from crash to picture taking is not significant?
3) Also, do you know if she took multiple pictures? If so, which in the series is this photo and what is the time between photos her camera is capable of?
4) How much time would have to pass before the smoke from the source begins to dissipate as it is in this photo? How would this differ from say a similar example with 4x the fuel available to burn?

1) Flight 93 "still mostly laden with fuel". B-52 created "big" plume. That's really all we need to know.
2) "about 5 seconds". Factor in a couple more seconds in for the shock wave to hit and presto.
3) Only one shot. Weird, huh?
4) relevance?

 

[gumboot]

For the record,

I have also analysed this photograph, using the same process Killtown used. However, I believe my interpretation may be a little more accurate, giving my experience with this sort of process, while studying cinematography (doing an exercise almost exactly like this was a common part of the course, though with a far more difficult orginal image).

Killtown appears to have made some errors.

According to my calculations, the mushroom cloud is approximately 600m across at widest point, with a central piller about 60m across, centred approximately 200m downwind of the impact point.

This is approximately the distance the smoke would travel in 40 seconds given the local wind speed of approximately 10 MPH.

A number of things to point out:

1) The vertical column connecting the "head" of the cloud to the ground is dissapating, indicating some time has passed since impact, and the jet fuel has all burned off.

2) This is collaborated by the lighter tone of the cloud (indicating dissapation) and the "fraying" that is occuring at the edges.

3) At the distance Val was from the impact site (2.3 km), she would not have heard the explosion until almost 7 seconds after it hit. Val has repeatedly testified that she heard the explosion before reacting AT ALL.

In final, I believe Killtown's primary mistake was in not identifying the exact position of the photograph's origin. He himself claimed to be accurate within 5 or 6 feet, IIRC, however an incorrect origin point can have substantially different results at distances over 2 km.

I began my process by calculating the origin position of the photograph - a difficult task given the lack of foreground detail.

The calculations were produced using satellite images from Google Earth collaborated with the original photograph, a second photograph from the same approximate position (for reference only), and extropolated vector lines applied in a vector graphic programme.

-Andrew

ETA: by my calculations the lens angle is about 40 - 45 degrees, or transferred to full-frame 35mm, that would be between a 50mm and 35mm lens (about what I'd expect for a consumer digital camera(and yes, it was taken with a digital camera)). A 50mm lens is "normal" - it depicts what the human eye sees. 35mm is considered the beginning of "wide angle" lenses, although fish-eye distortion at 35mm is very minor.

Although such lens sizes aren't used, I'd put the focal length (full-frame 35mm relative) at about 55mm - 60mm.

 

[Killtown]

If you claim the photographer is lying about taking the picture at all, why do you believe her "a few seconds" (which to you is apparently 5-10 seconds, despite the sound taking 8-9 seconds to reach her).

Oh, so you agree she is lying too? Sweet!

 

[Killtown]

Ok, whatever. What's the relevance of this then?

Hmmm. A different explosion coming near the alleged crash scene. Hmmm. What could the relevance be?

 

[Gravy]

Originally posted by Me:

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?

Originally Posted by Killtown

all this belongs on a different thread. And yes.

New thread here.

I encourage you all to see Killtown's responses on the new thread.

 

[Killtown]

I encourage you all to see Killtown's responses on the new thread.

Yes, me too!

 

[Killtown]

How is her info relevant? Does it add to, or detract from, your claim about her picture?

Well, had to show her home address to show the starting point of where she took the photo for my diagrams.

the rest is in case anybody wanted to contact her. (like the reporter from the Post-Gazette.)

 

[Killtown]

If the plume isn't Flight 93, then since we are assuming the picture's authenticity, it must be something. What is it?

take your pick, it doesn't matter.

 

[kevin]

Oh, so you agree she is lying too? Sweet!

No, I don't believe either of you. So far you've provided no answers to questions I've had so I see no reason to eliminate her photo as a picture of a smoke plume from an airplane crash.

I've seen no evidence from her proving this is a photo of a picture of a smoke plume from United 93, but I've not asked her any questions about it either.

At this point in time this photo is proof of nothing -- neither a crash of United 93, nor a cover up.

 

[Killtown]

a) This is approximately the distance the smoke would travel in 40 seconds given the local wind speed of approximately 10 MPH.
A number of things to point out:
1) The vertical column connecting the "head" of the cloud to the ground is dissapating, indicating some time has passed since impact, and the jet fuel has all burned off.

2) This is collaborated by the lighter tone of the cloud (indicating dissapation) and the "fraying" that is occuring at the edges.

3) At the distance Val was from the impact site (2.3 km), she would not have heard the explosion until almost 7 seconds after it hit. Val has repeatedly testified that she heard the explosion before reacting AT ALL.

b ) In final, I believe Killtown's primary mistake was in not identifying the exact position of the photograph's origin. He himself claimed to be accurate within 5 or 6 feet, IIRC, however an incorrect origin point can have substantially different results at distances over 2 km.

I began my process by calculating the origin position of the photograph - a difficult task given the lack of foreground detail.

The calculations were produced using satellite images from Google Earth collaborated with the original photograph, a second photograph from the same approximate position (for reference only), and extropolated vector lines applied in a vector graphic programme.

-Andrew

ETA: by my calculations the lens angle is about 40 - 45 degrees, or transferred to full-frame 35mm, that would be between a 50mm and 35mm lens (about what I'd expect for a consumer digital camera(and yes, it was taken with a digital camera)). A 50mm lens is "normal" - it depicts what the human eye sees. 35mm is considered the beginning of "wide angle" lenses, although fish-eye distortion at 35mm is very minor.

Although such lens sizes aren't used, I'd put the focal length (full-frame 35mm relative) at about 55mm - 60mm.

a) So that would reach were my other "explosion" icon is?
1) wouldn't that be more consistent with a short pulse explosion like an ordnance?
2) See #1
3) Did you factor in if the blast originated from my spot?
b ) She was on her porch closer to her front door (hence the corner of her rain gutter seen top right on her photo)

I'd love to see your drawn out diagram compared to mine.

 

[Killtown]

No, I don't believe either of you. So far you've provided no answers to questions I've had so I see no reason to eliminate her photo as a picture of a smoke plume from an airplane crash.

I've seen no evidence from her proving this is a photo of a picture of a smoke plume from United 93, but I've not asked her any questions about it either.

At this point in time this photo is proof of nothing -- neither a crash of United 93, nor a cover up.

Spoken like a true "skeptic"!

 

[Gravy]

Well, had to show her home address to show the starting point of where she took the photo for my diagrams.

the rest is in case anybody wanted to contact her. (like the reporter from the Post-Gazette.)

She sure appreciates it.

But Mrs. McClatchey's fame has recently taken a sour turn. The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," who are seeking to prove that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, pierced the Pentagon and crashed United Airlines Flight 93. "The End of Serenity" has turned out to be their smoking gun.

The smoke plume doesn't line up right, they say. It is too large in the frame. The smoke is characteristic of an ordnance blast, not a jet fuel fire, further evidence that the government shot down Flight 93. They analyze wind direction, debris patterns and camera trajectories, all in the service of the theory that the crash was faked.

They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage."

On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud."

"Val McClatchey has made it unmistakably clear to us that she intends to milk her 9-11 claim to fame for all it's worth, truth be damned," writes Lisa Guliani, of WingTV (World Independent News Group), who traveled to Stoystown to interview Mrs. McClatchey.

"If the smoke plume was photo-shopped on there, then that could mean either that the photo was simply a fraud by Val, or it was a fraud by her and the FBI and/or other government agents since she did mention that the FBI did inspect the memory card from her camera," writes a blogger identified as Killtown.

Mrs. McClatchey was taken aback by the personal criticism by those who, she said, "hide behind their aliases."

"This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

 

[kevin]

Spoken like a true "skeptic"!

I hope so, although I do notice you've still not answered any of the questions that would help prove your side of the issue.

Since this photo was never part of the body of evidence I considered when evaluating the truth of a United 93 my opinion on that hasn't changed.

Since this photo appears in none of the "official" explanations of United 93 what does proving it a fake accomplish? Do you simply wish to put someone supposedly profiting from a fake image out of business or do you hope proving a fake photo will prove the event it faked never occured? I notice a faked photo of Israeli bombings in Lebanon was recently uncovered. Does this mean Israel is not bombing Lebanon?