Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

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.

none of that would make and infancy plume travel to the spot I suggested it started at.

 

[Killtown]

I notice a faked photo of Israeli bombings in Lebanon was recently uncovered. Does this mean Israel is not bombing Lebanon?

Raise the level of intellect, will you?

 

[gtc]

Well what is the point of this thread?

We have a photo that is purportedly of the aftermath of the crash of Flight 93.

Either the lady took the photo in good faith or not.

Likewise, the photo is either of the crash of Flight 93 or something else (e.g. an explosion as part of some cover-up).

It doesn't seem to be part of any official story. so proving that the lady did not take the photo in good faith would appear to achieve nothing.

However, proving that the lady took the photo in good faith, but it is not from Flight 93 might discredit the offical story (I say might).

 

[Gravy]

That was fast. After saying he would answer my questions if I started a new thread, Killtown has refused to do so.

Would someone who has never insulted Killtown care to ask him the same questions?

 

[Killtown]

1) It doesn't seem to be part of any official story. so proving that the lady did not take the photo in good faith would appear to achieve nothing.

2) However, proving that the lady took the photo in good faith, but it is not from Flight 93 might discredit the offical story (I say might).

1) except the FBI will have to explain why they didn't catch the fraud when they took her memory card with them. Would you believe them if the pleaded ignorant?

2) Might???

 

[gumboot]

a) So that would reach were my other "explosion" icon is?

Your *other* icon? You'll have to be more specific than that...

1) wouldn't that be more consistent with a short pulse explosion like an ordnance?

No.

2) See #1
3) Did you factor in if the blast originated from my spot?

There is no point in doing this. Your "alternative" spot is a random guess based on whatever size you *think* a mushroom cloud should be.

-Andrew

 

[gtc]

1) except the FBI will have to explain why they didn't catch the fraud when they took her memory card with them. Would you believe them if the pleaded ignorant?

That really depends.

We don't know what the FBI concluded about the usefulness or accuracy of the photos, all we know is that they don't seem to have been used elsewhere.

The FBI might have concluded that the photos were not useful and so did not bother to examine how accurate the lady's timings were. Afterall, a photo of a plume of smoke from a crashed airplane doesn't seem to offer much that adds to the official story, does it?

The FBI might have decided that the lady's memory of the timing was not accurate and so discarded the photos.

I also believe that there is a big difference between not rembering timings accurately and fraud. Do you see the difference?

2) Might???

Yes, might. Was she looking in the right direction? Did the plane set fire to something else? etc, etc.

 

[Killtown]

1) Your *other* icon? You'll have to be more specific than that...

2) No.

3) There is no point in doing this. Your "alternative" spot is a random guess based on whatever size you *think* a mushroom cloud should be.

1) the orange "explosion" icon to the right...

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

2) I disagree. Val's plume looks consistent with an ordnance, but regardless, it couldn't have grown that big or traveled that far so quick.

3) I made the explosion larger than I thought was realistic btw.

 

[gumboot]

1) the orange "explosion" icon to the right...

And by which scientific method did you calculate this position?

2) I disagree. Val's plume looks consistent with an ordnance, but regardless, it couldn't have grown that big or traveled that far so quick.

1) It is consistant with a fuel explosion. The only ordnance it could accurately depict would be a fuel-air bomb or the fireball from a fuel-heavy target (such as a fuel dump). A high-explosive ordnance itself would not produce a dark carbon-heavy mushroom cloud.

2) I have calculated the size and distance, and consider it to be perfectly in keeping with the duration after impact that the image and Val's story reflects.

3) I made the explosion larger than I thought was realistic btw.

And what is your experience with determining how big a "realistic" explosion is?

For the record, Jet fuel does not explode. It fireballs. The fireball will be as large as the area covered by the fuel in correct ratio mixture with air.

-Andrew

 

[Killtown]

1) We don't know what the FBI concluded about the usefulness or accuracy of the photos, all we know is that they don't seem to have been used elsewhere.

2) Yes, might. Was she looking in the right direction? Did the plane set fire to something else? etc, etc.

1) do you know for what specific reason the FBI took her card?

2) I think if it's prove to be a separate explosion, it's fair to say that there was something going on that the gov't is not telling us. agreed?

 

[Killtown]

a) And by which scientific method did you calculate this position?

1) It is consistant with a fuel explosion. The only ordnance it could accurately depict would be a fuel-air bomb or the fireball from a fuel-heavy target (such as a fuel dump). A high-explosive ordnance itself would not produce a dark carbon-heavy mushroom cloud.

2) I have calculated the size and distance, and consider it to be perfectly in keeping with the duration after impact that the image and Val's story reflects.

a) comparing with other large plane crash explosions and making the diameter wider as all the trees in the burnt forest section. And considering that the tall grass all the way around the crater wasn't even burnt, that would IMO suggest a very very small explosion, so I think my very large explosion was being very generous.

1) can you show me a jet fuel explosion that produces a grey color like Val's plume?

2) Can you draw a diagram up with your calculations? I'd love to compare.

 

[gumboot]

a) comparing with other large plane crash explosions and making the diameter wider as all the trees in the burnt forest section. And considering that the tall grass all the way around the crater wasn't even burnt, that would IMO suggest a very very small explosion, so I think my very large explosion was being very generous.

So basically, by guess work.

Excellent.

And are you aware of how little relationship there is between the size of an "explosion" (or fuel burn, as would be the case in an air crash) and the resulting smoke cloud? Just to let you in on a secret, there is no direct relationship.

1) can you show me a jet fuel explosion that produces a grey color like Val's plume?

The smoke cloud is black. It looks grey because A) it has dissapated and B) it was taken with a digital camera on a bright sunny day.

2) Can you draw a diagram up with your calculations? I'd love to compare.

I don't see how it would make any difference. The disagreement is not over what IS seen - it is over what SHOULD be seen.

I assert that her photo is in keeping with an aircrash at the location specific, 30 - 40 seconds after impact.

You assert the photo is not in keeping with an aircrash.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Some effects of Killtown's "Very very small explosion."

 

[gtc]

1) do you know for what specific reason the FBI took her card?

No, do you? Besides, why they took the card is not the same as asking why they did not go on to use the photos?matter?

2) I think if it's prove to be a separate explosion, it's fair to say that there was something going on that the gov't is not telling us. agreed?

Its possible, but are you arguing that the photo is not accurate or that the photo is accurate but does not show an explosion?

 

[Gravy]

1) do you know for what specific reason the FBI took her card?

I know it's an unpleasant chore, but you should read the articles that mention you more carefully.

Special agent Jeff Killeen, of the FBI in Pittsburgh, confirmed that the photo of the barns and the smoke plume was "a very legitimate photograph."

"We consider that a photo that was taken moments after Flight 93 crashed to the ground," Mr. Killeen said. "It's a remarkable shot. It's remarkable that someone had the wherewithal to snap a photo of the crash. This is a one-of-a-kind. We really don't know of anything else.

 

[gtc]

Gravy,

If the photo is of the aftermath of Flight 93, then what does it add to our understanding?

 

[Beleth]

take your pick, it doesn't matter.

If that is your final response to those key questions, then I am forced to conclude that your analysis and conclusion are fatally flawed. Therefore "my pick," based on the evidence you have provided, is that the plume is indeed from Flight 93.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy,

If the photo is of the aftermath of Flight 93, then what does it add to our understanding?

I'm not sure why you asked, but as far as I'm concerned, It shows me what the mushroom cloud from flight 93 looked like, and gives me some idea of the countryside. That's all. An expert might be able to glean more from it.

 

[AK-Dave]

2) I disagree. Val's plume looks consistent with an ordnance, but regardless, it couldn't have grown that big or traveled that far so quick.

I set off my share of high explosives in the military, mostly C-4, TNT and det cord. I'm curious what ordinance you think they used to get a cloud that big without shattering all the windows in the area. Granted, my experience is over 10 years old, so maybe we should get the opinion of someone with more recent experience. Where is Pirate_Lad? He was/is EOD in the Marines, if I remember correctly. I'm sure he has seen many smoke clouds from various sized explosions and can evaluate the smoke cloud in that picture. One thing I can tell you is all the big explosions I have ever seen involving high explosives on clear days (few clouds) with little wind resulted in tall, thin mushroom clouds.

 

[gtc]

I'm not sure why you asked, but as far as I'm concerned, It shows me what the mushroom cloud from flight 93 looked like, and gives me some idea of the countryside. That's all. An expert might be able to glean more from it.

Thanks. That is pretty much what I thought, I was wondering if I missed anything.

So it seems to only be important if it is NOT the sort of thing that we would expect to see after flight 93 crashed.

As I see it, the credibility of the photographer is only an issue if it is first shown that the photo is not of flight 93's crash.

It seems that the subject has not been discredited, in which case it is not useful to attempt to discredit the photographer. Likewise, I can not see the logic in attempting to discredit both the subject and the photographer at the same time.

Am I missing something?