Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[MortFurd]

Got it.

You got it. Now go to Killtown's site and look at what he calls "smoking guns." They consist mainly of numerous quotes with bolding that emphasizes his point of view, but if you read the full quote, you almost always get a different picture.

 

[c0rbin]

Does our evil government hold this photograph up as official evidence of anything?

 

[Alphaba]

Well, I've precised the route of the truck (in red) during which the video of Concorde crash was shot (total distance from beginning to end of video is ~ 530-540 m):


(note: the orientation of the map is slightly different from the precedent. The distance to crash site remains unchanged)

 

[Killtown]

1) So basically, by guess work. Excellent.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.

1) So educated guesses have no place in debate?

2) Call it "explosion," call it "mushroom cloud," it's all the same the way I mean it. It refers to what ever was larger.

3) a) Can you show me a plane crash that was dark then dissapated to be uniformily grey like Val's plume? b ) And?

4) Hey, if you're afraid to, that's cool.

 

[Killtown]

1) No, do you?

2) Besides, why they took the card is not the same as asking why they did not go on to use the photos?matter?

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

1) Yes, they took it because she said they claimed to have seen debris flying out from the plume. Do you see debris flying out from the plume?

(Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm)

(I don't either!)

2) Sorry, not following you. Explain.

3) For this specific analysis, we are assuming it's real.

 

[Killtown]

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.

So you are saying it must be from 93 because I don't know what really caused it?

 

[Killtown]

I'm curious what ordinance you think they used to get a cloud that big without shattering all the windows in the area.

Yes, funny Val says she almost was knocked off her couch from the explosion, but never reported windows/glassware breaking or pictures falling off her walls. Weird.

 

[Belz...]

Raise the level of intellect, will you?

Killtown,

I notice you're either stuck in "just asking questions" mode, or engage in pointless rethorics like above, whenever pressed for more information or for an actual opinion.

Do you have anything to bring to this debate, or are you just trolling ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, funny Val says she almost was knocked off her couch from the explosion, but never reported windows/glassware breaking or pictures falling off her walls. Weird.

Actually it's not. If you had bothered to read the other responses in this thread, you'd understand why it's actually expected to happen this way.

 

[Killtown]

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..

Yes, look how thick the plume's column is compared to Val's plume.

 

[Killtown]

With this thread! What is your point?

Why is it that you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand the point of my thread? Go read the beginning. It's CLEARLY stated.

 

[Killtown]

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.

1st, thanks for being the 1st one to present a diagram for evidence.

2nd, what are the coordinates to varify your findings?

 

[Killtown]

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

So basically you're saying not only Val was wrong, but the FBI was wrong too?

 

[Matthew Best]

what are the coordinates to varify your findings?

Varify?

You're going to change his findings for him?

 

[Killtown]

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

Yes.

 

[Killtown]

Does our evil government hold this photograph up as official evidence of anything?

Yes, the FBI said it's a legit photo of the crash aftermath of UA 93.

 

[Beleth]

So you are saying it must be from 93 because I don't know what really caused it?

I am saying that you have not provided any other explanation for it, and because you have not done so, there is no other conclusion to come to.

Flight 93 crashed near where that picture was taken.
The crash would have caused a plume.
There's a plume in the picture.

If all three of those statements are true, and if that plume is not from Flight 93, what is it from, and where is Flight 93's plume?

 

[CurtC]

So basically you're saying not only Val was wrong, but the FBI was wrong too?

It's pretty easy to believe that her recollection of the exact timing can be off. Did the FBI confirm that her recalled timing was accurate? I must have missed that.

And another thing - you brought this subject up, so I gather that you think this is among the strongest evidence pointing towards an inside job? That the plume is too big for a photo taken 5 seconds or so after the crash, when that time is based on a witness's later recollection? Is this the best you've got? Holy cow.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, funny Val says she almost was knocked off her couch from the explosion, but never reported windows/glassware breaking or pictures falling off her walls. Weird.

The morning of the day my son was born, I was awakened by a 5+ Richter tremor that shook the house, but broke nothing. That was a wake up call. (Thankfully, all of the kitchen cabinet doors were shut, or a few glasses/cups might have broken.)

Val appears to have been awakened/shocked/jarred by a single pulse impact transmitted through the ground. I don't know what Richter reading this would have made on a seismograph. (Anyone have a clue of if a seismograph picked up on Flt 93? )

DR

 

[pgwenthold]

Does our evil government hold this photograph up as official evidence of anything?

I don't mean to speak up in support of a CT, but I'm not sure why this is relevant. In fact, if what Killtown is saying were correct, then it would actually be the whole point. IF this is an undoctored photo, and IF it were inconsistent with the conventional explanation, then it certainly would be an important piece of information that more or less falsifies the conventional explanation, and the fact that the government doesn't hold this up as evidence of anything would indicate that they are ignoring evidence contrary to their explanation. So the problem is not that this photo is used as evidence for the conventional story, but that it contradicts the story but is ignored. IF it actually contradicted the conventional explanation, you cannot just ignore it.

Unfortunately for Killtown, there is really no reason to think that this picture is in any way inconsistent with the conventional explanation. There are so many variables that need to be known far more precisely than they are in order to establish inequivocally that this picture shows the official story to be wrong. Timing, positions, distances, wind speeds, and explosion characteristics are just some of the variables that affect what this type of picture would show, and the testimony we have isn't sufficiently precise to predict a precise result.

The proper assessment of the photo would be to ask, if the conventional explanation is correct, then what would have to be true about the taking of the photo in order to achieve this? How long after the crash, and from where? Once you have that information, compare it to what we know about the taking of the picture. If the requirements are in the range of what we know, then all you can say is that the picture does not rule out the conventional explanation.

From the analysis we have seen here, I think there is plenty of reason to think that picture is not inconsistent with the conventional explanation. It will take a lot more real analysis to show that there is anything worth questioning.