Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Gravy]

Am I missing something?

Yes, the explanation for why people like Killtown think this way, and how they are able to function in the real world. Get cracking on that, will you?

 

[Dragon]

Here's a still from another well known aircraft crash -

- which is from The Guardian's website..

The video can be seen here
Now the camera person zooms in at the end of the clip but it still shows how the mushroom cloud expanded in just a few seconds.

 

[CFLarsen]

About???

With this thread! What is your point?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's a still from another well known aircraft crash - [qimg]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2000/07/27/concorde8x256.gif[/qimg]
- which is from The Guardian's website..

The video can be seen here
Now the camera person zooms in at the end of the clip but it still shows how the mushroom cloud expanded in just a few seconds.

I think I just came to a horrible realization. All this arguing with conspiracists has desensitized me.

I've seen the 9-11 footage so much I look at it now and I think "ok, that's not an explosion" or "that's not what Mr. X. says it is, it's obviously something else".

Looking at the concorde video, however I felt a churning in my stomach from seeing people die on my computer screen. I've lost that feeling from the 9-11 footage.

What are we doing to ourselves?

 

[Dragon]

I think I just came to a horrible realization. All this arguing with conspiracists has desensitized me.

I've seen the 9-11 footage so much I look at it now and I think "ok, that's not an explosion" or "that's not what Mr. X. says it is, it's obviously something else".

Looking at the concorde video, however I felt a churning in my stomach from seeing people die on my computer screen. I've lost that feeling from the 9-11 footage.

What are we doing to ourselves?

I had similar thoughts just now as I found that video. What were the passengers thinking as they saw the flames? What were the people above the impact point in the North Tower of the WTC thinking after they saw the South Tower collapse? We should keep reminding ourselves that we are watching real people dying and suffering.

 

[gumboot]

Here's a still from another well known aircraft crash - [qimg]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2000/07/27/concorde8x256.gif[/qimg]

Another example is Air France Flight 296.

Incredibly, only 3 people died in this accident - 127 passengers and all 6 crew survived.

It can be viewed here

This crash produces a very fast expanding mushroom cloud much like UA93.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Looking at the concorde video, however I felt a churning in my stomach from seeing people die on my computer screen. I've lost that feeling from the 9-11 footage.

What are we doing to ourselves?

I still get a sick feeling in my stomach when I see the WTC collapse, or when I see those aircraft hit the towers.

In fact, if anything it's worse now, because I've seen footage from inside, and I've studied the collapses and fires, and I've read reports of where people were trapped, and I've seen photos of human remains, and I've heard phone calls from people as the buildings fell.

When I try to consider UA 93 slamming nose first into the ground at over 500 MPH my mind quite literally recoils in horror and I simply can't think about it.

I even get nightmares occasionally, about being in such a scenario myself...

-Andrew

 

[gtc]

I still get a sick feeling in my stomach when I see the WTC collapse, or when I see those aircraft hit the towers.

In fact, if anything it's worse now, because I've seen footage from inside, and I've studied the collapses and fires, and I've read reports of where people were trapped, and I've seen photos of human remains, and I've heard phone calls from people as the buildings fell.

When I try to consider UA 93 slamming nose first into the ground at over 500 MPH my mind quite literally recoils in horror and I simply can't think about it.

I even get nightmares occasionally, about being in such a scenario myself...

-Andrew

I wonder if some people's reaction to those feelings is to retreat into 911 denial. Perhaps denial gives them a belief that they can prevent future attacks or, even, lets them deny that any attacks occurred.

 

[gumboot]

I wonder if some people's reaction to those feelings is to retreat into 911 denial. Perhaps denial gives them a belief that they can prevent future attacks or, even, lets them deny that any attacks occurred.

I think it carries on from what I suspect is a major factor of 9/11 Denial.

Why does Fetzer go on about "beating hijackers to death with luggage"? Because it means he can avoid facing the horrible fact that in the same situation he would be utterly helpless.

I hope I don't get rule4'd for this... but it is a passage from a book about the psychological cost of killing. It is an excellent book, and the chapter on "The Wind of Hate", to me, sums up why 9/11 Denial exists:

In the same way, civilian bombing victims were protected by distance, and they could deny that anyone was personally trying to kill them. ..

...But in the death camps it was starkly, horribly personal. Victims of this horror had to look the darkest, most loathsome depths of human hatred in the eye. There was no room for denial, and the only escape was more madness.
It is here, in this sordid account of man's inhumanity to man, that we see the flip side of the aversion to killing in combat. Not only does the average soldier's psyche resist killing and the obligation to kill, but he is equally horrified by the inescapable fact that someone hates him and denies his humanity enough to kill him.

-On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman

Extract from Chapter Five: The Wind of Hate
Page 79
First Paperback Edition,
(c) 1996 David A Grossman
Back Bay Books

IMHO, 9/11 Deniars deny the official story, because the official story requires acceptance of the existence of Islamic Radicals who have a very real, very personal hatred of us all.

Notice how westerners rationalise this hatred, by presenting arguments for what "we" did to cause this hatred. This also is a form of denial.

Notice how all 9/11 CTs involve a very inpersonal plot by shadowy agents whose ambition is power. They bear no hatred towards us. There is no personal face to this enemy.

-Andrew

 

[TheChadd]

With this thread! What is your point?

Seconded.

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?

 

[MortFurd]

IMHO, 9/11 Deniars deny the official story, because the official story requires acceptance of the existence of Islamic Radicals who have a very real, very personal hatred of us all.

Notice how westerners rationalise this hatred, by presenting arguments for what "we" did to cause this hatred. This also is a form of denial.

Notice how all 9/11 CTs involve a very inpersonal plot by shadowy agents whose ambition is power. They bear no hatred towards us. There is no personal face to this enemy.

-Andrew

I dunno. Maybe that is truly the difference between sceptics and CTers and woo-woos. The sceptic faces up to reality and deals with it, whereas the CTers and woos deny it and try to escape from it.

For me, I'd rather face the reality of religion inspired fanaticism and hatred. That's been around for a long time and has been responsible for a lot of horrors throughout history.

For that matter, religion looks like another escape from reality. Rather than face up to personal responsibility for our actions and problems, and the reality that the universe is pretty much indifferent to us, believers want to pull up the illusion that some one who cares is in charge. Then the arguments start over who the boss really is and how to keep on his/her/its good side.

Religion, woo, and CT: All facets of one problem.

 

[MortFurd]

Back to the OP and facts:
Looking at Killtown's diagram, I estimate that a positional error of about forty feet at the house end would account for the different position that Killtown shows in his edited photo.

My house is 36 feet wide, and I have a patio that runs the width of the house. If the photo had been taken from one end of my patio, then the amount of displacement would just about be covered if the picture were taken from the other end.

In other words, if I stood at one end and took a photo and then later told you that I had stood at the other end then you would see a discrepancy about as large as Killtown claims to see.

Is that proof of a conspiracy? Not at all.

In my example, I've lied to you. Clear and simple.

In the case of Mrs. McClatchey I wouldn't expect anything other than simple confusion over exactly where she stood.

This woman grabbed a camera after being jolted by the impact. She is surprised, and she is then shocked by what she sees outside. The shock is even deeper once she learns all the details of what has happened - airplane crash, hijacking, terrorists, etc. Under those conditions, it would be quite easy to lose track of exactly where you were standing when you snapped a picture.

I am NOT putting down Mrs. McClatchey. She was in a shocking situation and still managed to snap a photo. About the only thing she could have done better was to scuff a mark on the spot she was standing - and who among us would have that much presence of mind?

Killtown:
Get off Mrs. McClatchey's back, face reality, and come to grips with a world in which terrorists do attrocious things. Your world view is on par with that of the terrorists. You both refuse to face reality and instead seek comfort in the shadow world of your beliefs.

 

[Alphaba]

Yes, empathy with and compassion for the victims are the normal reactions in our Western cultures, where they are somehow valorized. Factual analysis is thus perceived as cold, or as hurting these feelings: I found reading the analysis of the fires in the NIST report particularly unsettling at times, feeling nauseous when the writer(s) used events like people breaking windows, or jumping, as clues or proxies like any others of the progression of fires.

Now, thanks Dragon for the link to this dramatic video. As it happened in an area I'm relatively familiar with, I had no difficulties to reconstruct the route of the truck (in red on the map) and to identify the location where the filming of the thermal was made (red cross):

The yellow line materializes the distance to the Concorde crash site. It's about 2800 m, i.e a distance fully comparable, if not identical, to the one in Val McClatchey's photograph.

So let's see them again:

Flight 93 crash, ~ 2700-3000 m

Concorde crash, ~ 2800 m

Louder than words, heh?

 

[gumboot]

Back to the OP and facts:
Looking at Killtown's diagram, I estimate that a positional error of about forty feet at the house end would account for the different position that Killtown shows in his edited photo.

Not really. Killtown's calculations are not really in doubt. The problem is Killtown has decided there's no way the cloud could be produced by the crash of UA 93.

However he has no evidence to support this, and others (like myself) have demonstrated that air crashes produce very much this sort of phenomenon.

What is in question, at the origin end, is more the delay between impact and the photo being taken. Killtown asserts 5 seconds. However the sound of the crash would take almost 7 seconds to even reach Val. She then has to reach, get her camera, run outside, frame up, and snap a photo.

I would estimate she took her photo 30 - 40 seconds after impact, or 23 - 33 seconds after hearing the sound.

-Andrew

 

[Belz...]

Wasn't my point perfectly clear in my opening thread? Something I mentioned about this plume originating from a different location, or something like that?

You are aware that smoke disperses with wind, aren't you ?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Killtown,

Some free advice. You may feel that the questions being posed to you are "irrelevant", but in the court of public opinion, as well as the realm of scientific inquiry, you will need to be able to show conclusively why they are not relevant to your calculations. Dismissing, and not addressing, them will not bolster your case.

 

[Beleth]

Killtown,

Some free advice. You may feel that the questions being posed to you are "irrelevant", but in the court of public opinion, as well as the realm of scientific inquiry, you will need to be able to show conclusively why they are not relevant to your calculations. Dismissing, and not addressing, them will not bolster your case.

Exactly.

I came into this discussion a blank slate. He presented a picture and told me what he thought it wasn't. I then asked him what he thought it was, and he then said that it didn't matter.

If I have a parrot in a cage, and I put a clean newspaper on the bottom of the cage and go away for a few hours, and come back and see that there's now poop on the newspaper, the reasonable conclusion is that it's parrot poop... no matter what it's shaped like. If someone comes along and says "that's not parrot poop" without being able to answer 1) what kind of poop it is and 2) where the parrot poop I was expecting to be there is, well, then, it would be unreasonable of me to take him seriously.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Fine, I admit it. I pooped in the damned cage. Can we just drop this already?

 

[CurtC]

I'm trying to piece together the picture that Killtown seems to believe. The government, in order to fake the smoke cloud, explodes some kind of ordnance, but not at the alleged crash site. The ordnance is exploded around a mile to the East. Why? Well, they knew that a lady who lived a little farther East had her camera ready and would snap a picture, so the ordnance plume, although smaller than you'd expect from a plane crash, being closer, would appear about right to her.

Of course, they had already swept the area in every direction other than due East from where they were exploding the ordnance to make sure that no one else had a camera, because a photo of this displaced ordnance from any direction other than due East would appear in completely the wrong direction. They also erased the memory of any witnesses who didn't have cameras and saw this plume.

And after going to all this trouble, the resulting photo wasn't even used to make their case. Dozens of conspirators here, working hard to make this scenario happen, and then all keeping quiet for five years about their respective roles.

Got it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm trying to piece together the picture that Killtown seems to believe. The government, in order to fake the smoke cloud, explodes some kind of ordnance, but not at the alleged crash site. The ordnance is exploded around a mile to the East.

...adding another person to our conspiracy. Here is a closeup of the place marked as the possible blast site. I wonder how much the people in the house were paid not to talk about the enormous explosion in their backyard.