Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Killtown]

Well, you passed on those. Please explain the differences in the smoke color between these two photos.

I don't know, but I'm sure the buildings it crashed into "didn't" affect the smoke much.

Can you show examples of my relevant plane crashes?

 

[Killtown]

Considering that the trees on the hill block out any view of the ground around the crash site, you cannot possibly know this. Unless your version of the photo allows you to see through this barrier and note the lack of burning debris on the ground, your "doesn't look like one" is utterly worthless.

Please show me ONE photo of a known plane crash that looks anything like Val's plume.

 

[Mercutio]

Gravy, you are absolutely right...but as a personal favor, could we try not to have the "laughing dog" on the same page as the last seconds of hundreds of lives? Yes, it deserves the laughing dog...but the juxtaposition always kinda makes my screen go a bit blurry...

 

[Gravy]

I don't know, but I'm sure the buildings it crashed into "didn't" affect the smoke much.

Can you show examples of my relevant plane crashes?

I asked you to explain the differences between the photos, not to compare them to a different plane crash.

Can you?

 

[kevin]

Considering that the trees on the hill block out any view of the ground around the crash site, you cannot possibly know this. Unless your version of the photo allows you to see through this barrier and note the lack of burning debris on the ground, your "doesn't look like one" is utterly worthless.

They added the "see behind object" filter in photoshop 8.

 

[mortimer]

Well considering Val's plume is the first "plane crash" plume that doesn't look one...

You've already admitted you haven't seen a plane crash plume from a crash similar to UA 93. So, again, how would you have any idea what it *should* look like?

 

[Killtown]

Gravy, you are absolutely right...but as a personal favor, could we try not to have the "laughing dog" ... the juxtaposition always kinda makes my screen go a bit blurry...

And it's VERY immature.

 

[Mercutio]

Please show me ONE photo of a known plane crash that looks anything like Val's plume.

Have you been paying attention? Looking like Val's plume, in absence of the information about the relevant variables, is utterly useless.

I will look for such a photo only after you give me all the relevant information about Val's pic, and the sources of that information.

Even that would be more than what is required of me. It is, after all, your claim.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, you are absolutely right...but as a personal favor, could we try not to have the "laughing dog" on the same page as the last seconds of hundreds of lives? Yes, it deserves the laughing dog...but the juxtaposition always kinda makes my screen go a bit blurry...

Ouch, you're right. I got carried away. My apologies.

See how easy it is, Killtown?

 

[Mercutio]

And it's VERY immature.

Like I said, but you chose not to quote, your posts do deserve the laughing dog. So yes, I agree, it's VERY immature.

 

[Killtown]

I asked you to explain the differences between the photos, not to compare them to a different plane crash.

Can you?

as for as i'm concerned, they are apples and oranges. But, they still look much darker than Val's plume.

 

[kevin]

GAWDDAMMIT!

Why am I second to last on that list?

I deserve more recognition than that.

It's alphabetical. Change your name to A_Sword_Of_Truth to get listed first. Or AAA_Sword_Of_Truth to be first in the phone book too.

 

[Hutch]

No RMackey, Mercutio and Gravy are still among the un-ignored, so it is still possible to soldier on.

Killtown, Mercutio has made an excellent point, namely:

In order to answer, I need to know...

Where is the sun in each pic? (no shadows to tell me)

How far away is the camera? (in left, impossible to tell, as bottom is obscured by trees which may be near to or quite far from plume)

What time of day for each? (mostly for spectral reasons, but also for angle)

What atmospheric conditions? (dry desert air absorbs different spectral frequencies than humid air)

What is the composition of each plume? (for spectral absorbtion)

What is the density of each plume? (for spectral absorbtion)

What is the make of camera for each pic? (spectral sensitivity of chip)

Some of these can be adjusted for; if we know the camera makes, we can adjust. If we know the illuminating spectrum, we can adjust. Angle could be a bit more difficult, as it interacts with composition of plume and density.

Unless you know each of these variables, you have unaccounted-for variability that could invalidate any "it looks similar" sort of analyses.

Just showing any picture, even one that might look like Val's, proves nothing UNLESS YOU HAVE THE VARIABLES. Merc's list may not be all-inclusive, but it is a very, very good start.

We do know that the crash happened on relativilty(sic) soft ground, so the odds are that the cloud contained a certain amount of particulate matter that was caught up in the explosion, which may have influenced the color of the plume (It should be noted that your B52 example is inconclusive if the crash happened on ground or concrete, the MOAB definitley occured on earth and the lighter Concorde cloud was both earth and building...

IOW, there is no such thing as a exact science in regards to plume color. There are so many variables (as Merc has noted) that you do not...cannot..cover that just showing individual pictures and pointing at those you like.

RMackey, buckwheatjones, Arkan, and to a much lesser extent myself have SHOWN OUR MATH. That is how you proceed on a case like this. You have shown NOTHING that looks like a number or calculation to date, and you have literally hundreds of posts here. So once again, as you have been asked since the beginning, SHOW YOUR MATH.

One last thing, you keep using that word, "Experiment". I do not believe it means what you think it means.

Press on.

 

[Gravy]

as for as i'm concerned, they are apples and oranges. But, they still look much darker than Val's plume.

Once again, can you explain the variations in the smoke color in four photos above?

They are not "apples and oranges." They are of the same event and were taken within seconds of each other from roughly similar directions.

Can you explain the variations? If not, how about simply explaining what MIGHT cause the variations?

 

[Gravy]

You've already admitted you haven't seen a plane crash plume from a crash similar to UA 93. So, again, how would you have any idea what it *should* look like?

Bingo.

 

[kevin]

Now that Killtime has (hopefully) put me on Ignore, I'd like to ask a question that might actually get answered: is anybody following this?

I was at first as I'd heard of killtown but never read any of his stuff. Now I just kind of skim the messages to see if anything real has been presented.

What's the deal with his "experiment,"

There is no experiment, killtown doesn't know what the scientific method is. It might be possible to argue there is a sort of "thought experiment" going on, but that is way more of a straight line than I would normally post.

and what if anything is he trying to prove?

Originally? That a photo some lady claims to be of the smoke plume from United 93's crash is fake. Or that it is real and proves ordinance of some sort was used instead of a plane. I forget which now, probably both at the same time.

Is he trying to get people to commit to some numbers so he can shoot them down?

He's trying prove he's smrt. He seems to think science is some kind of theory vs. theory game and proving the other guy's theory wrong is the same as proving your own theory right.

Or is he just off in his own little playpen somewhere?

Yes.

 

[kevin]

They are not "apples and oranges." They are of the same event and were taken within seconds of each other from roughly similar directions.

Can you explain the variations? If not, how about simply explaining what MIGHT cause the variations?

some were taken when the thermite was being set off, others when the plastic explosives went off. That really dark one is from the baby nuke in the basement.

 

[Buckwheatjones]

A friendly reminder...


My ignore list: Arkan_Wolfshade, Belz, defaultdotxbe, Dog Town, Huntsman, kookbreaker, LashL, Pardalis, rwguinn, Skibum, Stellafane, Sword_Of_Truth, Yoink

Dolt, please make sure that you put me on here. I prefer to be in their company rather than yours.

It won't be too many more pages of this thread before we're all on there and you'll be just be playing with yourself.

Which of course means that you have failed. Look at the tote board, hoss. You lose. You have had your ass handed to you by a ratio of 9:1

And that means that you have failed in your effort to convince these good people that you're right about the cloud and your conspiracy. You'll probably say "I'm just on here to educate you dumb people," but see, there's no reason to start the thread and continue it ad nauseam unless you had hoped to convince anyone that your beliefs are accurate. And you haven't. Failure.

So put me on Ignore now along with everybody else who has taken your bucket of pus and poured it back down your throat. I don't care if you read me or not. I'm not here for you. I'm here to ask the questions you can't answer to help illustrate just how wrong you and your little fantasy-theory is.

 

[Gravy]

But, they still look much darker than Val's plume.

Let's take a look.

1) (Irrelevant, but since you brought it up) Do they all still look "much darker" than Val's photo?

2) Please explain the variations between the WTC photos. If you cannot, pleae explain what might cause the variations. This is my fourth request.

 

[Beleth]

as for as i'm concerned, they are apples and oranges. But, they still look much darker than Val's plume.

Okay, let's see if I can make this clearer.

The comparison Gravy is asking you to make is not between the Flight 93 plume and the WTC plumes.
It is between one picture of the WTC plume, and another picture of the same WTC plume.

The WTC pictures are clearly of the same event, within a small number of seconds of each other. And yet the smoke is clearly different colors.

What this demonstrates is that smoke color in a photograph is dependent on more than just the composition of the material(s) which produced it.

What we can conclude from this demonstration is that determining the fuel composition of the Flight 93 plume based solely on the plume's color in the photograph is impossible.

Does that make Gravy's line of reasoning more understandable?