And what claims do you think I've made in there?
"Her photo, which she has called "End of Serenity," has been cheered by a lot of 9/11 researchers, including myself, who have argued that her photo proves that the crash of Flight 93 is fake because the smoke plume in her photo looks more like the plume coming from an ordnance blast because of its grey color rather than from a plane crash since smoke from jet fuel fires are almost black in color."
Claim: Her photo is fake.
Reality: You have not completed the investigation that would allow you to rule out the possibility that the official story is correct. You have not even begun that analysis, because you keep stalling and waiting for permission to continue. You have admitted, in this thread, that you did not know how to conduct that investigation.
"Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville and not only that, but there is something else about this photo that makes it a 100% proof positive smoking gun photo!"
Claim: there is conclusive evidence to show that the cloud is not from a 757 crash at Shanksville.
Reality: You have presented no such conclusive evidence; as above, you have not even completed the analysis that would allow you to make that claim.
"So how do I know that the mushroom cloud seen on her photo is in fact an ordnance plume and what is the other even bigger smoking gun? "
Claim: it is a fact that the cloud is an ordnance plume.
Reality: You have no evidence that it is. None. As above, you have not even completed the analysis that would allow you to reject the official story.
"This is a huge smoking gun! It proves that this blast is more likely an ordnance plume and that it did not come from the crater that the government told us was made when Flight 93 nosedived there. However, this huge smoking gun gets even bigger and better! According to my analysis, this ordnance plume blast could not possibly have came anywhere near the crash site!"
Claim: the plume did not come from the 93 crash site.
Reality: Same as above.
Claim: You conducted an analysis.
Reality: You have been asked to produce your numbers, their source, and what you did with them. You have admitted that you did not know the math involved with the proper equations. If you have indeed conducted an analysis, you have kept it quite hidden--certainly not transparent to review.
****
There are more, of course. But the first alone would be enough to merit an apology to Val, and a retraction on your blog, if you were an honest person.
