Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beleth said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thanks, Beleth. I was hoping Killtown would fill in the blanks himself, but perhaps that's wishing on the moon.
 
My ignore list: Arkan_Wolfshade, Belz, defaultdotxbe, Dog Town, Huntsman, kookbreaker, LashL, Mancman, Pardalis, rwguinn, Skibum, Stellafane, Sword_Of_Truth, Wyn, Yoink
Click to expand...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel honored to be in your company, however I feel unworthy, I just kept asking a simple 8 word question and got ignored, you guys actually had to put some thought and time into you getting ignored.

Seems dimbulb here can't even answer simple questions.

That's 15 on ignore, not many more have been in this thread!!
 
Wyn said:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I feel honored to be in your company, however I feel unworthy, I just kept asking a simple 8 word question and got ignored, you guys actually had to put some thought and time into you getting ignored.

Seems dimbulb here can't even answer simple questions.

That's 15 on ignore, not many more have been in this thread!!
Click to expand...

Maybe yours was just a more focused, critical strike, rather than death by a thousand papercuts.
 
Gravy said:
Let's take a look.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e913a5dbfe6.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e913a5ddb3c.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e91d88d8efc.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e913a5df692.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e913b9093c6.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e91d88d8efc.jpg[/qimg]​

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.
Click to expand...

You have made such an amazing jog, Gravy, I wouldn't want to be too picky, but wouldn't these pics be more accurate for a comparison with Val's picture, since the ball of fire has consumed itself and the plume of smoke has risen to a higher altitude?
888644e6b1dcc04c9.png

888644e6b1dd0f08c.png

888644e9294a01959.jpg
 
Killtown said:
I have, I couldn't find anything that came close. Maybe they would have better luck than I had.
Click to expand...

You won't find any photographs of an airplane crash where the airplane was deliberately flown past it's Vne speed - except Val's.

I have a book called Aviation Disasters by David Gero - the second edition, it was published in 1996. It has 2 pictures of of American Airlines flight 191 - a DC-10 which crashed on takeoff after the number 1 engine separated from the wing on takeoff. The date was May 25, 1979. The aricraft reached a speed of about 180 miles per hour while banking and sideslipping due to the failure of the left wing hydraulics and subsequent retraction of the leading edge slats.
Essentially the left wing stalled and even with maximum counter rudder and full over yoke could not save the aircraft.

#1 picture shows the DC-10 roughly 300 feet in the air with a 90 degree bank and sideslipping.

#2 picture shows a huge fireball roughly 5 to 10 seconds after impact. Judging from the second picture - which was zoomed out - the fireball appears to be 7 to 10 times the wingspan of the aircraft-and still expanding.

Air Disaster volume 2 by Macather Job has a very detailed analysis of this crash. The photographs were taken from over 3 miles away.
 
Pardalis said:
You have made such an amazing jog, Gravy, I wouldn't want to be too picky, but wouldn't these pics be more accurate for a comparison with Val's picture, since the ball of fire has consumed itself and the plume of smoke has risen to a higher altitude?
Click to expand...
I don't think I made myself clear. I was only asking Killtown to account for the variations in the color of the smoke from the north tower, not from the fireball. I only used photos of the south tower crash to show that all the photos were taken at the same time.

He brought up the irrelevant argument that the photos looked darker than Val's plume, and I responded to that to show that his photo analysis skills are lousy.

That said, the plume in your photos does resemble Val's photo. Therefore, flight 93 crashed into a skyscraper, right, Killtown?
 
I wonder if killtown would take his discussion over to airdisaster.com

Lots of real live pilots on there who might have something worthwhile to contribute.
 
Buckwheatjones said:
I wonder if killtown would take his discussion over to airdisaster.com

Lots of real live pilots on there who might have something worthwhile to contribute.
Click to expand...

Hey Buckwheat! * Waves*

Killtown wouldn't dare go over there. They would chew him up in 3 minutes flat.
 
Gravy said:
I don't think I made myself clear. I was only asking Killtown to account for the variations in the color of the smoke from the north tower, not from the fireball. I only used photos of the south tower crash to show that all the photos were taken at the same time.

He brought up the irrelevant argument that the photos looked darker than Val's plume, and I responded to that to show that his photo analysis skills are lousy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand, why would there be a comparison between the first tower fire and flight 93's plume of smoke? Aren't these two of different nature?

Wouldn't the plume of smoke from the second hit be more of a comparison? They seem pretty similar to me. :)
 
ghost707 said:
You won't find any photographs of an airplane crash where the airplane was deliberately flown past it's Vne speed - except Val's.

I have a book called Aviation Disasters by David Gero - the second edition, it was published in 1996. It has 2 pictures of of American Airlines flight 191 - a DC-10 which crashed on takeoff after the number 1 engine separated from the wing on takeoff. The date was May 25, 1979. The aricraft reached a speed of about 180 miles per hour while banking and sideslipping due to the failure of the left wing hydraulics and subsequent retraction of the leading edge slats.
Essentially the left wing stalled and even with maximum counter rudder and full over yoke could not save the aircraft.

#1 picture shows the DC-10 roughly 300 feet in the air with a 90 degree bank and sideslipping.

#2 picture shows a huge fireball roughly 5 to 10 seconds after impact. Judging from the second picture - which was zoomed out - the fireball appears to be 7 to 10 times the wingspan of the aircraft-and still expanding.

Air Disaster volume 2 by Macather Job has a very detailed analysis of this crash. The photographs were taken from over 3 miles away.
Click to expand...

Oh gee. If you're killtown that's like a swift kick in the ass. I remember that crash. It was caused by dumb mechanics who used a forklift (instead of the recommended block and tackle dolly rig) to swap out an engine. Their method torqued the main bolts, if I remember the accident report, and when the plane rotated (lifted off) the stress ripped the engine from the wing and took with it all the hydraulic lines. Slats, etc. as you said, and over it went.
 
Buckwheatjones said:
Oh gee. If you're killtown that's like a swift kick in the ass. I remember that crash. It was caused by dumb mechanics who used a forklift (instead of the recommended block and tackle dolly rig) to swap out an engine. Their method torqued the main bolts, if I remember the accident report, and when the plane rotated (lifted off) the stress ripped the engine from the wing and took with it all the hydraulic lines. Slats, etc. as you said, and over it went.
Click to expand...

Yep. Alot of FAA and Douglas paperwork went out to the airlines on that one.It was just another accident that gave the DC-10 a bad name - granted the rear bulk cargo door was poorly designed, but other than that the DC-10 was a good airplane.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I'm not sure I understand, why would there be a comparison between the first tower fire and flight 93's plume of smoke? Aren't these two of different nature?

Wouldn't the plume of smoke from the second hit be more of a comparison? They seem pretty similar to me. :)
Click to expand...
The issue was only why four photos of the north tower smoke were so different. No comparison to flight 93 was intended. I'm just talking about KIlltown's ability to account for variables that would affect a photo. Beleth's post phrased it well.
 
Gravy said:
The issue was only why four photos of the north tower smoke were so different. No comparison to flight 93 was intended. I'm just talking about KIlltown's ability to account for variables that would affect a photo. Beleth's post phrased it well.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha! I must have missed this part, this thread grows at a surreal speed! :D
 
Gravy said:
Hi ghost 707.

So does everyone here, but he is undeterred by reason.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out by everyone here, killtown should have already had his evidence in a row before he slandered/libled/harassed Val.

His "arguments" are an embarassment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom