Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Pardalis]

about 5 seconds (http://www.windsorparkstories.com/shank1.html)[\QUOTE]

It's a gross estimate, it's not a specific recollection.

[QUOTE] after almost being knocked off her couch (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html) from the explosion.

From that link:

Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.

She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch.


What else could possibly this explosion be? Was there any other reports of explosions in that area other than the crash of flight 93?

[gumboot]

And all the continuing smoke from the remaining burning fuel would just lie low to the ground that we can see?


It would be my expectation that, in a crash like UA 93. the jet fuel would all fireball simultaneously, burning off in moments. The column from the ground is almost broken, confirming this. In addition this explains the size of the mushroom head.

Slightly to the left of the mushroom column can be seen a bulbous lighter grey shape just rising over the tree line. I would propose this is the beginnings of secondary fires burning in the woods as a result of the jet fuel. The smoke from this secondary fire, I would expect to be white. (Remember the sun is behind the photographer, reflecting directly off the smoke).

As per:

here (http://www.apple2.org.za/gswv/USA2WUG/Glen.Bredon.In.Memoriam/Glen.Bredon.Photography/Forest.Fire.jpg)

and

here (http://www.gov.mb.ca/emo/images/fire.jpg)

and

here (http://www.bbai.com/PHOTOS/Fires/forest%20fire.jpg)

-Andrew

[Killtown]

1) It's a gross estimate, it's not a specific recollection.

2) What else could possibly this explosion be?


1) she said the FBI timed her.

2) someting from a different area, or she made it up. Who else claimed the were almost "knocked off" their "couch"

[Killtown]

It would be my expectation that, in a crash like UA 93. the jet fuel would all fireball simultaneously, burning off in moments. The column from the ground is almost broken, confirming this. In addition this explains the size of the mushroom head.


6-8,000 gallons can't burn simultaneously, some will stick around and keep burning.

Why didn't the grass around the rim of the crate get singed?

[gtc]

1) she said the FBI timed her.

So, it just means the FBI thinks she could have taken a photo within x seconds of becoming aware of the crash. It doesn't mean that it happened exactly that way.

2) someting from a different area, or she made it up. Who else claimed the were almost "knocked off" their "couch"

Do you see that this is a loaded question?

For one thing, she seems to be the only person in that area, at that time. Therefore, the lack of other witnesses isn't evidence of anything.

Secondly, what are the scare quotes around "couch" supposed to mean.

Really, what are you trying to argue?

[Killtown]

1) So, it just means the FBI thinks she could have taken a photo within x seconds of becoming aware of the crash. It doesn't mean that it happened exactly that way.

2) For one thing, she seems to be the only person in that area, at that time. Therefore, the lack of other witnesses isn't evidence of anything.

1) So those 3 FBI guys were too stupid to figure out she couldn't have done it in 5 seconds?

2) What about the workers at the scrap yard next door?

[gtc]

1) So those 3 FBI guys were too stupid to figure out she couldn't have done it in 5 seconds?


That is not at all what I am saying.

2) What about the workers at the scrap yard next door?

What about the workers next door, this is the first time you have brought them up.

What did they say they saw or heard?
Were they sheilded by anything?

[defaultdotxbe]

1) she said the FBI timed her.
she seems to say alot of things you dont provide a source for


6-8,000 gallons can't burn simultaneously, some will stick around and keep burning.
isnt this what most CTers claim happened to fuel at the WTC?

Secondly, what are the scare quotes around "couch" supposed to mean.

Really, what are you trying to argue?
this all a massive coverup to hide the fact that she really owns a futon

[Killtown]

1) That is not at all what I am saying.

2) What about the workers next door, this is the first time you have brought them up.

1) What are you saying then that the FBI believed her 5 second time?

2) If Val almost got knocked off and she was a lot further away, certainly the workers at the scrap yard should have been knocked over and all their windows should have shattered.

Sounds like the blast, if there was one, originated closer to her house.

[Killtown]

1) she seems to say alot of things you dont provide a source for

2) isnt this what most CTers claim happened to fuel at the WTC?

1) read the 1st post and follow the links.

2) No.

[Gravy]

What about the workers next door, this is the first time you have brought them up.

What did they say they saw or heard?
Were they sheilded by anything?
Irrelevant to this thread, unless the workers saw Val take the photo.

"But what about them as witnesses to the crash?"

Many people saw the plane going down, heard and felt the blast, and saw the huge black mushroom cloud. But this is about the possibility of Val's photo being faked.

"So what's that relevant to."

Do you support fakers?

"But the FBI said the photo was authentic."

And who said the FBI was authentic? Hoover wore panties.

I don't understand.

"Of course you don't. You're only concerned about the relevant details. The truth lies within the smallest details of irrelevant, implausible, unprovable claims."

That's madness.

"I will no longer debate with you."

[Matthew Best]

certainly the workers at the scrap yard should have been knocked over and all their windows should have shattered.

Why?

How much closer to the blast were they?

What did they say about the blast?

[Gravy]

Why?

How much closer to the blast were they?

What did they say about the blast?
They were the first ones at the scene, along with some coal truck drivers. Get it? Scrap metal workers and coal trucks? Coal dust explosion and planted airplane scraps. Use your head, man. :D

[Killtown]

How much closer to the blast were they?

What did they say about the blast?

Google map (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=skyline+road+shanksville+pa&ie=UTF8&ll=40.054293,-78.902392&spn=0.007917,0.014462&t=k&om=0). Top left corner.

It "shook" the ground.

[Gravy]

Google map (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=skyline+road+shanksville+pa&ie=UTF8&ll=40.054293,-78.902392&spn=0.007917,0.014462&t=k&om=0). Top left corner.

It "shook" the ground.
Hmm. Why not, It shook the "ground?"
Or, "It" shook the ground?

[Matthew Best]

Google map (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=skyline+road+shanksville+pa&ie=UTF8&ll=40.054293,-78.902392&spn=0.007917,0.014462&t=k&om=0). Top left corner.

It "shook" the ground.

That Google map doesn't seem to tell me what they said about the blast.

[gtc]

So now you are saying that the workers actually felt the blast.

Why is that inconsistent with her report?

[apathoid]

Assuming your example is correct:

1) Why does the Concorde plume have a thick column and Val's has a thin empty column?

2) Did the Concorde nosedive at "nearly 90deg"?

3) Did the building it crashed in increase the size of the plume at all?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2000/07/27/concorde8x256.gif

1) Use your noggin a little bit. The Concorde hit a densly populated area and levelled a hotel.

Is it possible that the resultant explosion set a bunch buildings on fire, feeding the column?
Yes/no?

2) No, but it came to an abrupt stop and exploded, igniting 20,000 gallons of fuel. Suddenly you're interested in details, when did this happen? I thought all crashes were alike(leaving intact tail sections)?

3) It increased the size of the vertical column of smoke coming from the ground, but thats not what you wanted to hear...

[Cuddles]

1) So those 3 FBI guys were too stupid to figure out she couldn't have done it in 5 seconds?

All you have said is that the FBI timed her, not that they timed her doing it in 5 seconds. Maybe she said 5 seconds, they timed her and found 50 seconds. Nothing you have said so far would rule this out. Or they did time her at 5 seconds, and used exactly the same logic as we have to reason that she couldn't have done that when not prepared and knowing she was being timed. Or they didn't time her at all and just believed it was taken very soon after the crash rather than several minutes later and didn't care about the exact time. Have you actually spoken to the FBI rather than just selecting a few bits of her account?

[Belz...]

You don't read my posts very well.

I guess that makes us even because you never RESPOND to mine.

[Belz...]

Assuming your example is correct:

1) Why does the Concorde plume have a thick column and Val's has a thin empty column?

This isn't a video game, Killtown, where each explosion is a copy of the same 3d model.

[Belz...]

What else could possibly this explosion be? Was there any other reports of explosions in that area other than the crash of flight 93?

Also notice that it says "nearly" knocked her off the couch. Nearly.

[gumboot]

Also notice that it says "nearly" knocked her off the couch. Nearly.

Also note she never claimed it was specifically the force of the blast wave that knocked her off the couch. I read it more as the fright of the sound.

An aircraft doesn't explode when it hits the ground - it disintegrates, spills jet fuel everywhere, and that jet fuel fireballs. That's not a high-compression explosion, and isn't going to create a significant shockwave, IMHO.

-Andrew

[Belz...]

2) If Val almost got knocked off and she was a lot further away, certainly the workers at the scrap yard should have been knocked over and all their windows should have shattered.

Only if it were an explosion.

[Shrinker]

To be fair to Killtown, the lack of a connecting column of smoke to the ground was a little puzzling to me at first but I think I was prepared to give it more thought than you were KT.

First of all, there have been no pictures of any significant fires or firefighting effort at the UA93 crash site. Certainly not the kinds of fires at the WTC or pentagon, or the Concorde crash or the B52 crash. For whatever reason, there was no inferno there. Therefore, if Val's photo did show a thick column of smoke, it would be very suspicious. Correct me if I'm wrong Killtown.

As for why there was no inferno, I'm guessing it's because of the nose-dive into soft earth. If the crash was violent enough to bury much of the plane, it could have buried much of the fuel too.

Edit: by the way, look at the colour of the smoke in this explosion http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/wfryer/911/MVC-009S.JPG

[CurtC]

1) So those 3 FBI guys were too stupid to figure out she couldn't have done it in 5 seconds?
You keep coming back to this, but I don't see the relevance. The FBI did not themselves say that they thought it was five seconds. They had her show her actions, they may have timed them. If they were smart, they would have done what we have right here - the other details seem to point to a time closer to a minute, so they would figure that this witness, like other witnesses to other events, can't accurately recall how long something took.

About her comment that she was nearly knocked off her couch - I think you're making a mistake if you take that literally. She's simply saying that it was very loud and startling.

Seems you're finding little details that were not reported with great care, then over-interpreting them to support the case that you want to support.

[gumboot]

These are not ideal examples, but they demonstrate what I'm trying to get at:

All of the following a fuel-bomb pyrotechnics at airshows:

here (http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/98_wanaka/WANGEN16.JPG)

here (http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/00_wanaka/WN00GN15.JPG)

and

here (http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/00_wanaka/WN00GN16.JPG)

Having lived on the air bases where a lot of these pyrotechnic displays were performed (along with others) I'm accustomed to seeing rapid-burning fuel "fireballs" and their resulting mushroom cloud. IMHO Val's photo fits the template to a T.

Bear in mind most crashes, such as the B-52 crash and the Concorde crash involve a relatively slow speed of impact. In the example of concorde the impact angle is very shallow, and in the example of the B-52 the fuel-carrying wings (or at least one) hit well before the body of the aircraft. As such you get a fuel tank rupture and spread over a large area - resulting in a smaller slower fireball and longer burn.

What I'd expect from a high speed collision with terra firma would be a very sudden, very fast burning fireball.

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

Killtown, you missed my point.

Were there any reports of other explosions that day, at that location?

If not, isn't logical to assume that this plume of smoke is from the crash of flight 93?

[Mercutio]

Killtown, you missed my point.

Were there any reports of other explosions that day, at that location?

If not, isn't logical to assume that this plume of smoke is from the crash of flight 93?

Oh, of course not! It is more logical to assume that the "alleged" crash of 93 never occurred! This was the only explosion, in somebody's (who did not notice it) back yard, a mile or so from the place where people were busy planting evidence.

[Brainache]

Is Killtown ever coming back to this thread?
He was funny.
I particularly liked the way he used his "search for truth" as an excuse to remain willfully ignorant.
Champagne Comedy!:D

[MortFurd]

Oh, of course not! It is more logical to assume that the "alleged" crash of 93 never occurred! This was the only explosion, in somebody's (who did not notice it) back yard, a mile or so from the place where people were busy planting evidence.

Yah. Why'nahell would you set off an explosion in one spot then plant evidence of a crash somewhere else. Question for Mr. Killtown?

[gumboot]

Yah. Why'nahell would you set off an explosion in one spot then plant evidence of a crash somewhere else. Question for Mr. Killtown?

Because if you set off the explosion at the correct site the mushroom cloud in Val's photo would be the right size, and then no one would ever find out about the clever ruse...

Duh.

-Andrew

[MortFurd]

Because if you set off the explosion at the correct site the mushroom cloud in Val's photo would be the right size, and then no one would ever find out about the clever ruse...

Duh.

-Andrew
Ah. Silly me. Why can't I see these obvious things?

[apathoid]

Since Killtown wont explain himself here, allow me. I've been through this whole charade with him at ScrewLooseChange. In short, he believes that:

- Vals photo has been photoshopped to include the plume. The CIA might've assisted in the operation, or it couldve been Val acting on her own. I've asked him if he's found the original plume(that Val used) out there in cyberspace, and he's said he looked, but cannot find it.
Which of course means that she was provided with a unique picture to photoshop her "end of serenity" photo with....so perhaps she wasn't acting alone.

--or--

- The photo is authentic and the plume is from something other than UA 93 because of the reasons cited above....proving the gumberments story a lie.

Ironically, Killtown is reasoning that if the photo is a fake, the gubmints story is still somewhat intact. However, if it isnt a fake, then the gummints story is a farce for all the reasons cited above(plume too big, wrong color, wrong spot, still in its infancy, etc..)

Thats the gist of it.

EDT: typo

[Earl The Tall]

Anyone else find it intersting that the more pages that are added to this thread. The more people seem to be voting 'yes' in Killtown's poll.

[Matthew Best]

Yes, but five people have voted "No". That's Killtown plus four others presumably.

Who are they?

[Beleth]

Since Killtown wont explain himself here, allow me. I've been through whole charade with him at ScrewLooseChange. In short, he believes that:

- Vals photo has been photoshopped to include the plume. The CIA might've assisted in the operation, or it couldve been Val acting on her own. I've asked him if he's found the original plume(that Val used) out there in cyberspace, and he's said he looked, but cannot find it.
Which of course means that she was provided with a unique picture to photoshop her "end of serenity" photo with....so perhaps she wasn''t acting alone.

--or--

- The photo is authentic and the plume is from something other than UA 93 because of the reasons cited above....proving the gumberments story a lie.

Ironically, Killtown is reasoning that if the photo is a fake, the gubmints story is still somewhat intact. However, if it isnt a fake, then the gummints story is a farce for all the reasons cited above(plume too big, wrong color, wrong spor, still in its infancy, etc..)

Thats the gist of it.
I've been around these boards long enough to develop a taste for conspiracy theories. They are like wine, in a sense. You can tell the care and quality that goes into one when you experience it.

Some are well thought out, with almost-plausible villains, motives, and opportunities. They are like good wine, able to be enjoyed in moderation but never actually to be lived on, of course.

Then some, like this one, have started the process, but have not nearly reached its culmination. I can't speak to the "Photoshop" conclusion above, since that is beyond the scope of this thread, but the facts so far presented certainly do not warrant the "not Flight 93" conclusion. It's like grape juice about to be poured into a barrel, and therefore pretty unenjoyable.

Killtown obviously doesn't have an evidence-backed explanation for where the plume came from, or where Flight 93's plume went. And without that, his theory will remain grape juice.

[Cuddles]

I've been around these boards long enough to develop a taste for conspiracy theories. They are like wine, in a sense. You can tell the care and quality that goes into one when you experience it.

Some are well thought out, with almost-plausible villains, motives, and opportunities. They are like good wine, able to be enjoyed in moderation but never actually to be lived on, of course.

Are you trying to claim I can't live off wine?

Then some, like this one, have started the process, but have not nearly reached its culmination. I can't speak to the "Photoshop" conclusion above, since that is beyond the scope of this thread, but the facts so far presented certainly do not warrant the "not Flight 93" conclusion. It's like grape juice about to be poured into a barrel, and therefore pretty unenjoyable.

Killtown obviously doesn't have an evidence-backed explanation for where the plume came from, or where Flight 93's plume went. And without that, his theory will remain grape juice.

I think Killtown's problem is that he doesn't have an explanation at all, let alone one based on evidence.

[MortFurd]

Apathoid:
I've been following this whole thread, so I've got a fair idea of what Killtown has said about what the picture may or may not show. Also note, that Killtown has been arguing through out this thread as though the picture was real. He's used that phrase a couple of times in reference to the photo.

What he has not said is just what is to be gained by having explosion take place in the wrong location. The Loose Change site (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html) shows a lot of photos of the flight 93 crash site and seems to be trying to imply that no airplane crashed there. Killtown has also posted a a diagram (http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif) that shows the explosion happening at a different spot. It looks like he's trying to tell us that the goverment setup a fake crash site and then set off an explosion somewhere else to provide the smoke column.

I'm really curious as to why it would be necessary to fake things in this way. It's much too complicated. Setup the fake site, set of an explosion on the site, and be happy. I don't understand the need for the second site.

[apathoid]

Apathoid:
I've been following this whole thread, so I've got a fair idea of what Killtown has said about what the picture may or may not show. Also note, that Killtown has been arguing through out this thread as though the picture was real. He's used that phrase a couple of times in reference to the photo.

What he has not said is just what is to be gained by having explosion take place in the wrong location. The Loose Change site (http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html) shows a lot of photos of the flight 93 crash site and seems to be trying to imply that no airplane crashed there. Killtown has also posted a a diagram (http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif) that shows the explosion happening at a different spot. It looks like he's trying to tell us that the goverment setup a fake crash site and then set off an explosion somewhere else to provide the smoke column.

I'm really curious as to why it would be necessary to fake things in this way. It's much too complicated. Setup the fake site, set of an explosion on the site, and be happy. I don't understand the need for the second site.

Yeah, its hard to understand what Killtown is trying to imply when he posts. He may have come off the fake photo thing, but that was indeed his original point in all of this.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/killtown-looks-at-flight-93-crash.html

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=100

[Buckwheatjones]

For you guys on here who have been questioning mister killtown, I'd like to introduce another piece of information that ought to be considered. I've had some discussion with him on his own site and and on RightNation.US and when he says he has "proof" that the cloud is too big, it simply means that the cloud is "too big" in his own mind.

Any serious, or even remotely serious, attempt at determining whether or not that cloud is too big would begin with the consultation of a physicist or some other authority in the field of explosion dynamics.

As it is, he has not done so, but has based his findings on seemingly arbitrary cornerstones like "I drew a diagram of an explosion on my map, and made the size of the blast what I deemed reasonable."

What sort of foundation does that provide? One that is about as solid as sinking pylons in Jell-O, and good for just as much.

So. I took the liberty of consulting a nuclear engineer from a physics question and answer forum. The math follows, and while one can say that I just found some "web guy" with an opinion, the numbers are all there and can be checked.

The end result is that the size of the cloud could indeed be the same size as that in Val's photo, and quite possibly much larger. Killtown doesn't have any "proof." Not when there is reasonable doubt generated by mathmatical calculations such as this:

Post from RightNation.US Aug. 13 to Killtown. No response so far as of today...

I did. I've been waiting a couple of days to hear back from a nuclear engineer to whom I posed the question, "Could an airliner containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create a cloud 500-600 meters across?" I was unable to learn how much fuel was on board Flight 93 at the time of the crash so I arrived at the estimation based on the overall capacity capacity of the Boeing 757, which is 11,500 gallons. Accounting for the fact that this was a cross country flight and the airliner had been in the air for some time, I use 10,000 gallons as a reasonable number.

Looking at your map, and using the scale at the bottom of it, and your pair of vectors out to the crash site I determined that accounting for wind drift, fireball interia, etc., I put the the cloud slightly southeast of the hole and measured it. At least 500 meters across, but closer to 600 meters.

So let me just say that the little cloud you cooked up is pitifully small. In fact, the size of the cloud as is on Val's image is certainly possible.

Here's what my nuclear engineer wrote. Now I don't expect you to digest this all, but the figures are there and you can certainly have them checked out by one of the many nuclear engineers I am sure you took the time to consult:
"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m."

He also added this...

"...so 10,000 gal of dispersed jet fuel is going to create a good sized plume - 1000 m is not unrealistic. A fireball would produce an updraft, pulling freshair into it and burning up the fuel vapor."
So there we are, Killtown. A One Thousand Meter Cloud is not even unrealistic, and I'm only putting this at about half of that. This information that I've introduced may not be conclusive, but it makes my point rather beautifully. And that point is that YOUR point about the size of the cloud being too big PROVES that this photo points to conspiracy.

You haven't proven anything, boy. Except that you're too lazy to go and do your own legwork.

Next....we try to determine if the cloud could have ONLY been made by a stack or ordnance and not jet fuel. When my answers to that come in, I'll be sure to let you know.

Have a nice day.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Welcome to the forum Buckwheatjones. Thanks for an excellent first post. I'm looking forward to your further contributions. Be sure to check out some of the other subforums; there's lots of interesting things to discuss around here.

[R.Mackey]

I'll second that. Nice derivation. I too would expect the size and shape of the cloud to vary substantially as a function of the initial fuel distribution, which is going to be complicated, depending on the aircraft's trajectory, terrain, distribution within the plane, etc.

Maybe four other people voted against the poll because (like me) they've never even heard of this photo before, and don't want to take KillTown's word regarding its provenance. I'd like to learn more about where it came from, and Val's actual statement, if it's available.

[Buckwheatjones]

For you guys on here who have been questioning mister killtown, I'd like to introduce another piece of information that ought to be considered. I've had some discussion with him on his own site and and on RightNation.US and when he says he has "proof" that the cloud is too big, it simply means that the cloud is "too big" in his own mind.

Any serious, or even remotely serious, attempt at determining whether or not that cloud is too big would begin with the consultation of a physicist or some other authority in the field of explosion dynamics.

As it is, he has not done so, but has based his findings on seemingly arbitrary cornerstones like "I drew a diagram of an explosion on my map, and made the size of the blast what I deemed reasonable."

What sort of foundation does that provide? One that is about as solid as sinking pylons in Jell-O, and good for just as much.

So. I took the liberty of consulting a nuclear engineer from a physics question and answer forum. The math follows, and while one can say that I just found some "web guy" with an opinion, the numbers are all there and can be checked.

The end result is that the size of the cloud could indeed be the same size as that in Val's photo, and quite possibly much larger. Killtown doesn't have any "proof." Not when there is reasonable doubt generated by mathmatical calculations such as this:

Post from RightNation.US Aug. 13 to Killtown. No response so far as of today...

I did. I've been waiting a couple of days to hear back from a nuclear engineer to whom I posed the question, "Could an airliner containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create a cloud 500-600 meters across?" I was unable to learn how much fuel was on board Flight 93 at the time of the crash so I arrived at the estimation based on the overall capacity capacity of the Boeing 757, which is 11,500 gallons. Accounting for the fact that this was a cross country flight and the airliner had been in the air for some time, I use 10,000 gallons as a reasonable number.

Looking at your map, and using the scale at the bottom of it, and your pair of vectors out to the crash site I determined that accounting for wind drift, fireball interia, etc., I put the the cloud slightly southeast of the hole and measured it. At least 500 meters across, but closer to 600 meters.

So let me just say that the little cloud you cooked up is pitifully small. In fact, the size of the cloud as is on Val's image is certainly possible.

Here's what my nuclear engineer wrote. Now I don't expect you to digest this all, but the figures are there and you can certainly have them checked out by one of the many nuclear engineers I am sure you took the time to consult:
"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m."

He also added this...

"...so 10,000 gal of dispersed jet fuel is going to create a good sized plume - 1000 m is not unrealistic. A fireball would produce an updraft, pulling freshair into it and burning up the fuel vapor."
So there we are, Killtown. A One Thousand Meter Cloud is not even unrealistic, and I'm only putting this at about half of that. This information that I've introduced may not be conclusive, but it makes my point rather beautifully. And that point is that YOUR point about the size of the cloud being too big PROVES that this photo points to conspiracy.

You haven't proven anything, boy. Except that you're too lazy to go and do your own legwork.

Next....we try to determine if the cloud could have ONLY been made by a stack or ordnance and not jet fuel. When my answers to that come in, I'll be sure to let you know.

Have a nice day.

[R.Mackey]

Honestly, I would like to know if Val's testimony is available.

I can't open all of KillTown's links from the OP -- I get some ominous ActiveX activity on the "WindsorStories" link -- but the Pittsburgh Live (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html) link suggests something totally different than the "five seconds" that was claimed:

Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.

She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch.

The lights went out. The phones, too.

She grabbed her camera. She stepped onto the front porch and shot one frame of the smoke cloud, a charcoal puff in a pure blue sky.

[...]

"I thought it was an accident," McClatchey says, a Time and a Newsweek and a Reader's Digest in the binder on the coffee table, the pages with her photo marked with Post-Its. "I thought it was a small plane. I figured they were just trying to get out of the air."
Since it mentions that "the phones went out," this suggests Val's first thought was to call emergency services -- admirable presence of mind if this is so -- and only then go for her camera. Impossible in five seconds.

This also changes the interpretation of her being "knocked off her couch," if her initial impression was that of a small plane crash. She was behind a window, so clearly not a shockwave. It must simply have been startling. I can easily imagine that!

Bottom line, we need more evidence before we can treat the photograph with such precision. At this time, the smoke cloud appears to be entirely within expected bounds.

KillTown, the evidence that you have presented appears to conflict with your interpretation of events. Do you have access to anything more concrete?

ETA: Clarified my interpretation of the seeming inconsistency regarding being "knocked off the couch."

[Buckwheatjones]

I think the image must be treated as real. I had begun my discussions with KT by asking if he had reviewed anything bigger than the thumbnail size image available on the web, and he responded that he had not. He has not made an effort to inspect any image larger than the 256k slop being passed around the internet.

He had also initially posted on his own site that having a clear blue sky as a background would make it easier to paste in a cloud. As a professional 40 hour a week Photoshop operator since 1995, and having worked in Photoshops 2.0 to 9.0 (CS2), I can handily tell you all this is not the case in any way shape or form. It is very nearly impossible to seamlessly paste in a cloud on a clean slate. So, as I told him, if you are not going to do the homework and get a better look at the image in question, then you much give it the benefit of the doubt and presume it is real.

Another point which needs to be brought up, and to which I have seen him produce no answer for, is the following question I asked him last week:

"...Finally, since you ask a lot of suppositional questions on your site,
let me ask one of you here: If this is image points to a conspiracy,
and 93 really didn't go down at the crash site as you've marked it,
then that implies that somebody (the government) went to the trouble to dig a hole and fill it with evidence that would suggest a crash. If this occurred, why march a full mile east of the "scene" and set off a bunch of "ordnance" there? Would it not be common sensical to dump a lot of jet fuel into the hole you just dug and set it off at the scene of the accident? Also, by doing so along an east/west axis, don't you increase your indemnity against the possibility of someone snapping a photo, or taking a video either due north or south of the crash scene, thereby clearly placing the cloud well away from the hole? Is the government really so foolish as to coordinate four separate incidents of complicity, and then be so wreckless here?"

[pgwenthold]

"...Finally, since you ask a lot of suppositional questions on your site,
let me ask one of you here: If this is image points to a conspiracy,
and 93 really didn't go down at the crash site as you've marked it,
then that implies that somebody (the government) went to the trouble to dig a hole and fill it with evidence that would suggest a crash. If this occurred, why march a full mile east of the "scene" and set off a bunch of "ordnance" there? Would it not be common sensical to dump a lot of jet fuel into the hole you just dug and set it off at the scene of the accident? Also, by doing so along an east/west axis, don't you increase your indemnity against the possibility of someone snapping a photo, or taking a video either due north or south of the crash scene, thereby clearly placing the cloud well away from the hole? Is the government really so foolish as to coordinate four separate incidents of complicity, and then be so wreckless here?"

This is part of the "they were smart enough to pull off the most complex and massive conspiracy of all time (even hiding the plane and its passengers and planting their DNA) but were too stupid to know to put the explosion cloud at the crash site" approach that CTers tend to have.

[Hutch]

buckwheatjones, welcome. Although as a skeptic I would note that your mentioning your source is a nuclear engineer is a blatant Appeal to Authority...;) :p

Albeit that said authority can do the math, something that is often lacking in most CT'ers...

I would also note that as an owner of a digital camera, unless she had it turned on, she would have had to wait several seconds (if the camera is anything like mine) for the lens guard to clear and the camera come to life.

If I had to make up a timeline (and this is speculation only, mind you, nothing provable here), it would look something like this.

0-1 seconds---Flight 93 crashes. Ground wave transmitted, fireball begins.

1-3 seconds--combination ground wave/shock of seeing crash "almost knocks her off the couch"

3-8 seconds--sees smoke cloud rising, hears 'boom' of crash, momentarity stunned (I mean, how many of us would react immediately in those conditions?)

8-12 seconds--picks up phone to call 911, finds phone dead.

12-15 seconds--grabs camera that is close at hand, turns on as runs for door.

15-19 seconds--exits door, takes position, brings camera up to focus on growing cloud.

20 seconds---takes picture.

Now this is done not knowing the layout of the house or how close things were to her at the time. This may cause the time to vary--my scenario allows, IMHO, that things were very close at hand.

And as Mercutio said earlier, without timepieces we can be lousy judges of how much time has elapsed. I referee soccer, and when I check my stopwatch for elapsed time, I am almost always off by several minutes in how much time has passed--and I have been refereeing a long time...

Again, just a mental exercise, but for your consideration...

Edited to add: and lets give Killtown some time; after all, he is trying to defend this argument of his on multiple boards, given the evidence here, and he can't spend ALL his time with us..

[Buckwheatjones]

Well, this is so you can enjoy the luxury of getting both ways when it suits your argument. KT also implies that Val is a liar because she said her power went off, but then she used her printer to print the image a short time later. However, if she is a liar, then how can her "I took the photo 5 seconds after the crash" timeframe be believed? It can't, but killerboy is intent on sticking with it because it fits into his argument that the cloud could not have grown so large in 5 seconds.

She's a liar and she's not a liar. Killerboy gets to pick and choose as it suits him.

[Killtown]

All you have said is that the FBI timed her, not that they timed her doing it in 5 seconds. Maybe she said 5 seconds, they timed her and found 50 seconds. Nothing you have said so far would rule this out. Or they did time her at 5 seconds, and used exactly the same logic as we have to reason that she couldn't have done that when not prepared and knowing she was being timed. Or they didn't time her at all and just believed it was taken very soon after the crash rather than several minutes later and didn't care about the exact time. Have you actually spoken to the FBI rather than just selecting a few bits of her account?
She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

[Pardalis]

She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

Where does she say that?

[Buckwheatjones]

buckwheatjones, welcome. Although as a skeptic I would note that your mentioning your source is a nuclear engineer is a blatant Appeal to Authority...;) :p

Albeit that said authority can do the math, something that is often lacking in most CT'ers...

I would also note that as an owner of a digital camera, unless she had it turned on, she would have had to wait several seconds (if the camera is anything like mine) for the lens guard to clear and the camera come to life.

If I had to make up a timeline (and this is speculation only, mind you, nothing provable here), it would look something like this.

0-1 seconds---Flight 93 crashes. Ground wave transmitted, fireball begins.

1-3 seconds--combination ground wave/shock of seeing crash "almost knocks her off the couch"

3-8 seconds--sees smoke cloud rising, hears 'boom' of crash, momentarity stunned (I mean, how many of us would react immediately in those conditions?)

8-12 seconds--picks up phone to call 911, finds phone dead.

12-15 seconds--grabs camera that is close at hand, turns on as runs for door.

15-19 seconds--exits door, takes position, brings camera up to focus on growing cloud.

20 seconds---takes picture.

Now this is done not knowing the layout of the house or how close things were to her at the time. This may cause the time to vary--my scenario allows, IMHO, that things were very close at hand.

And as Mercutio said earlier, without timepieces we can be lousy judges of how much time has elapsed. I referee soccer, and when I check my stopwatch for elapsed time, I am almost always off by several minutes in how much time has passed--and I have been refereeing a long time...

Again, just a mental exercise, but for your consideration...

Edited to add: and lets give Killtown some time; after all, he is trying to defend this argument of his on multiple boards, given the evidence here, and he can't spend ALL his time with us..

Accounting for adrenaline rush, the "WTF? Factor" and general confusion, failed recollection of the time compression is certainly to be expected. I think your account is generous enough, and would even suppose it to have been longer than that. However, the only conclusive way to determine how long the time lag would have been would be to check the metadata in the file and compare the time stamp with the official time when 93 crashed, thereby producing the time lag.

Now since mister killtown has done his best to alienate this woman, it is doubtful--assuming she still has the original file-- that she would ever share that information with him. But I think that's about the only way to get a hard answer.

As for being patient with him, you're probably right. However, I used up a lot of that on another board, and since he invited everybody there to come over here I took him up on his offer. But if it's wearing him down, he shouldn't spread himself so thin.

[Pardalis]

Are they talking about you Killtown?

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

ETA: Naughty Killtown.

[twinstead]

Are they talking about you Killtown?

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

ETA: Naughty Killtown.

Jeeze killtown if you are the 'killtown' they are talking about, you are pretty much a total d#ck.

IMHO of course.

[Pardalis]

Have you got no shame Killtown?

[defaultdotxbe]

buckwheatjones: you wouldnt happen to post on xbox-scene as buckwheat, would you? (http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=512030&view=findpost&p=3415999)

[Buckwheatjones]

Nope. The extent of my gaming is an old copy of Centipede. I post on RightNation, and except for here, that's it.

[defaultdotxbe]

Nope. The extent of my gaming is an old copy of Centipede. I post on RightNation, and except for here, that's it.

good, that guy annoys me, although your ability to string words into coherent sentences should have told me you were someone else

[Buckwheatjones]

Wow, I just checked your link. That guy's a major league jerk. Hope I sound more educated than that!

[twinstead]

Wow, I just checked your link. That guy's a major league jerk. Hope I sound more educated than that!

Well, unless you sound like a spittle-spewing card-carrying paranoid schizophrenic, you are probably safe ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

Link?

So far all I am finding are the following:

Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.

She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch.

The lights went out. The phones, too.

She grabbed her camera. She stepped onto the front porch and shot one frame of the smoke cloud, a charcoal puff in a pure blue sky. source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html


Val McClatchey snapped the single picture with her new digital camera. The wife and mother had been sitting on the edge of her sofa, clutching her second cup of coffee and watching the smoking towers of the World Trade Center on TV, when she heard the sudden surge of a plane engine, followed by a violent, house-shaking boom. Mrs. McClatchey grabbed the camera and ran onto the front porch of her house along Indian Lake.
source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

The only sources I have seen quoting "5 seconds" are your blog, and similar; none of which appear to be quoting verbatim with a reference, but rather are paraphrasing.

[Killtown]

1) Since it mentions that "the phones went out," this suggests Val's first thought was to call emergency services -- admirable presence of mind if this is so -- and only then go for her camera. Impossible in five seconds.

2) This also changes the interpretation of her being "knocked off her couch," if her initial impression was that of a small plane crash. She was behind a window, so clearly not a shockwave. It must simply have been startling. I can easily imagine that!

3) At this time, the smoke cloud appears to be entirely within expected bounds.

1) No, Val said after she took her one photo, she tried but could't call from her cell, so she went up to her saw mill to call. she said Indian Lake has bad cell phone reception.

2) "a violent, house-shaking boom"

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

3) Nope.

[Belz...]

1) No, Val said after she took her one photo, she tried but could't call from her cell, so she went up to her saw mill to call. she said Indian Lake has bad cell phone reception.

What ?? That's just a cover story. The explosion you see in the picture is actually a miniature nuclear device. Obviously, the EMP would prevent the use of the cell phone, and would explain why she only took one picture before her camera exploded.

[twinstead]

But killtown, was it really necessary for you to be a jerk to her? I know you have the dead-set belief you are totally right (like many crazy people do), but what if you are wrong? What if you are harassing an innocent person?

Your people skills are as obviously flawed as your investigative skills. You would not only be laughed out of a courtroom due to lack of REAL evidence, but held in contempt as well for your attitude.

As always, IMHO

[Killtown]

As for why there was no inferno, I'm guessing it's because of the nose-dive into soft earth. If the crash was violent enough to bury much of the plane, it could have buried much of the fuel too.

Looks at the excavating photos. See any wet soggy "soft dirt" from all the thousands of gals of jet fuel?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate_usa2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html

[Killtown]

If not, isn't logical to assume that this plume of smoke is from the crash of flight 93?
And if you look at the physics of a bumble bee, logic says it can't fly.

[twinstead]

killtown exactly what qualifies you to judge the legitimacy of crash sites again?

[rwguinn]

And if you look at the physics of a bumble bee, logic says it can't fly.
Logic also says that a lead ball will fall faster than a chunk of lava rock the same size, and that the sun circles the earth on a daily basis.
It depends on what your knowledge base is to begin with.
When you start at zero, everything looks logical -- or so I would imagine.

[Killtown]

1) 8-12 seconds--picks up phone to call 911, finds phone dead.

2) 12-15 seconds--grabs camera that is close at hand, turns on as runs for door.

3) 15-19 seconds--exits door, takes position, brings camera up to focus on growing cloud.

1) No, she specifically said she tried to call AFTER the photo.

2) She had her camera "ready" by the door awaiting a helicopter flybye. It's not a stretch to assume for already had her camera on.

3) She said she "didn't even aim".

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) No, Val said after she took her one photo, she tried but could't call from her cell, so she went up to her saw mill to call. she said Indian Lake has bad cell phone reception.

Link to corroborating evidence?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Looks at the excavating photos. See any wet soggy "soft dirt" from all the thousands of gals of jet fuel?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/excavate_usa2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html

When was the photo taken?
How much of the jet fuel burned off vs how much was left in the ground?
What is the evaporation rate of the jet fuel?

[Killtown]

Where does she say that?
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html


and everybody else, read this before you ask anymore questions...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

[VespaGuy]

Looks at the excavating photos. See any wet soggy "soft dirt" from all the thousands of gals of jet fuel?

No, but I heard that if you look at the physics of a bumble bee, logic says it can't fly. Therefore, the absence of "soft dirt" is PROOF of jet fuel.

[Killtown]

Jeeze killtown if you are the 'killtown' they are talking about, you are pretty much a total d#ck.

IMHO of course.

Why?

[rwguinn]

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html


and everybody else, read this before you ask anymore questions...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html


so--
"If you don't believe what I say, go to my blog and read my opinion there"
"you need major surgery"
"Doc-- before I do that, I want a second opinion"
"OK--you're ugly too!"
sigh...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And if you look at the physics of a bumble bee, logic says it can't fly.

Urban legend: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) No, she specifically said she tried to call AFTER the photo.

This directly contradicts quoted news sources. Links to support your assertion (other than your blog).


2) She had her camera "ready" by the door awaiting a helicopter flybye. It's not a stretch to assume for already had her camera on.

Digital cameras I am familiar with have an automatic poweroff/save feature.

[Killtown]

Urban legend: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp

You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.

[Killtown]

1) This directly contradicts quoted news sources. Links to support your assertion (other than your blog).

2) Digital cameras I am familiar with have an automatic poweroff/save feature.
1) all source are linked in my blog.

2) Well there you go.

[defaultdotxbe]

2) Well there you go.

there you go what? she couldnt have already had the camera on, it would have turned itself off, meaning she needs the extra time to turn it on

[Killtown]

there you go what? she couldnt have already had the camera on, it would have turned itself off, meaning she needs the extra time to turn it on

As I said, well there you go. And 2001 digital cams had this auto-turn off functions I'm assuming.

[c0rbin]

I find this whole argument to be pointless.

The OC Theorists do not hold this photo up as evidence of anything. Why debate it at all?

CT claim this photo is proof ("smoking gun") that Flight 93 was shot down.

I don't think it is conclusive proof of anything...I question the realism of the photo itself.

The evidence that is unequivical is mountinous: The wreckage is consistant with a commercial plane nose-diving at excess speed into the ground.

Why argue the number of camels though the needle of this poor--and possibly fake--piece of evidence?

It is the equivilent of looking for your keys under the street lamp because the light is better there when ther reality is you dropped them ten yards away.

[Bandersnatch]

You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.

Is it that you mistook physics, and came to an erroneous conclusion?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.

Please try to adher to the level of decorum you expect from others and refrain from personal attacks.

[VespaGuy]

You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.

Let me help.

To the layman, with a limited knowledge (or complete ignorance) of physics, it would appear that a bumblebee should not be able to fly. But that does not mean that it can't.

Sounds like many of the CT claims to me...

To the layman, with a limited knowledge (or complete ignorance) of physics, it would appear that WTC 1, 2, & 7 must have been a controlled demolitions. But that does not mean that it was.

[Pardalis]

And if you look at the physics of a bumble bee, logic says it can't fly.

How does that answer my question? :confused:

[Pardalis]

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html


and everybody else, read this before you ask anymore questions...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

Can you post the original source where Val says that the FBI timed her reaction at 5 seconds? I do not care to sort through your garbage blog.

[Cuddles]

She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

...Or they did time her at 5 seconds, and used exactly the same logic as we have to reason that she couldn't have done that when not prepared and knowing she was being timed...

Did you even read my post?

[Killtown]

Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg

and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?


Crashes are rises straight up:

^
^
^
^
crash


Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:


<<<<<<plume


Do I have this essentially correct?

[CurtC]

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:

and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?

Do I have this essentially correct?
No. No one here is saying that the plume travelled towards Val any significant amount. It travelled South, about 750 feet by my estimate, and maybe that much East, but you can't really get any East-West info from that photo.

We're not saying it necessarily travelled towards Val, but did travel some amount laterally.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg

and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?


Crashes are rises straight up:

^
^
^
^
crash


Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:


<<<<<<plume


Do I have this essentially correct?

The crashsite is WNW of her house. The wind was blowing SE at the time of the crash. The smoke would not have been moving on a 90 degree angle to her. To be blown at a 90 degree angle relative to her position the wind would have to be coming from the NEN and blowing SWS.

ETA: Wait, 90 deg shift from what?

[Killtown]

No. No one here is saying that the plume travelled towards Val any significant amount. It travelled South, about 750 feet by my estimate, and maybe that much East, but you can't really get any East-West info from that photo.

We're not saying it necessarily travelled towards Val, but did travel some amount laterally.
Regardless of which direction it shifted, are you saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg


Then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction?

[defaultdotxbe]

As I said, well there you go. And 2001 digital cams had this auto-turn off functions I'm assuming.
your contradicting your own point here

2) She had her camera "ready" by the door awaiting a helicopter flybye. It's not a stretch to assume for already had her camera on.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

it is a stretch to assume she already had the camera on, because it would have long since turned itself off

[Pardalis]

Killtown, may I ask what you do for a living, except harassing innocent women?

[pgwenthold]

I find this whole argument to be pointless.

The OC Theorists do not hold this photo up as evidence of anything. Why debate it at all?



Because if it is authentic, and IF Killtown's claims are correct, then it shows the OC to be incorrect. Moreover, failure to consider the evidence in the photo would be evidence of a coverup. See my previous post on this.

Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.

[Buckwheatjones]

Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:



and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?


Crashes are rises straight up:

^
^
^
^
crash


Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:


<<<<<<plume


Do I have this essentially correct?

No. It didn't blow towards the photographer's house. The plane crashed, the smoke went up. The plume was as big as the photo shows. Do the math. The calculations are a few posts back.

[furrod]

After reading this debate I must give Killtown credit for successfully casting doubt upon Ms. McClatchey's five seconds (and all that telling error implies). Bravo. :rolleyes:

Beyond that, his argument was less than persuasive.

[Killtown]

Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.
Really? Where has someone proven this?

[Killtown]

Everybody, read post 342 again:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1847037&postcount=342

[defaultdotxbe]

Really? Where has someone proven this?

your the one who needs to show its not consistant, you have not done this, therefore it has not been shown to be inconsistant

[c0rbin]

Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.


I think this is where I am with this. This is moot. There is no new info here and the old info is shown to be bunk or questionable.

[Buckwheatjones]

[QUOTE=Killtown;1847077]Everybody, read post 342 again:


Ok. Did it. What's your point?

[Pardalis]

Killtown, what is your field of expertise? What do you do for a living?

[Killtown]

[QUOTE=Killtown;1847077]Everybody, read post 342 again:


Ok. Did it. What's your point?

Did I have your guy's story about how the Plume got to the point where Val took a picture of it; it rose STRAIGHT UP, then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction it did?

[Killtown]

Killtown, what is your field of expertise? What do you do for a living?
I'm a shepherd. I heard sheep.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

[QUOTE=Buckwheatjones;1847089]

Did I have your guy's story about how the Plume got to the point where Val took a picture of it; it rose STRAIGHT UP, then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction it did?

How about answering some of our questions regarding corroborating evidence?

[Pardalis]

I'm a shepherd. I heard sheep.

Why would I take any seriously the analysis of a sheperd?

[Killtown]

[QUOTE=Killtown;1847094]

How about answering some of our questions regarding corroborating evidence?
I thought I did? If not, feel free to repost them.

Now, care to answer my question, or did it just smash your guy's theory?

[pgwenthold]

"Nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconstent with the official story"

Really? Where has someone proven this?

Well, the fact that nothing you have provided is sufficiently precise to be considered inequivocally inconsistent with the official story pretty much says it all.

[Buckwheatjones]

[QUOTE=Buckwheatjones;1847089]

Did I have your guy's story about how the Plume got to the point where Val took a picture of it; it rose STRAIGHT UP, then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction it did?

No. You have my guy's story (mathematical calculations) about how 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could easily create a cloud 600-1000 meters across. This, as opposed to your contention that the cloud was way too big (and therefore must have been the result of another explosion set off closer to the photographer) because....well....it just looked to big.

[c0rbin]

Really? Where has someone proven this?

You, like so many woos, have it backwards. You make a claim, you must provide evidence.

You cannot hide behind draconian moderation on this board, you must come with the goods.

Your evidence is flimsy. Do you have anything else, in the face of all of the evidence that Flight 93 crashed as the "official" explanation claims, that might legitimately question that claim?

[Killtown]

Regardless of which direction it shifted, are you [guys] saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg


Then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction?

Please someone answer this question I asked earlier.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;1847100]
I thought I did? If not, feel free to repost them.

Now, care to answer my question, or did it just smash your guy's theory?

A handful from the last 3 pages, in reverse chronological order.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1847035#post1847035
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846851#post1846851
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846846#post1846846
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846833#post1846833
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846745#post1846745
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846577#post1846577
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1845837#post1845837

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please someone answer this question I asked earlier.

A "shift" in direction, implies it was already moving a direction. This is erroneous. It has already been explained that the SE wind that day would blow the plume towards (and southward) Val's position. Since the picture is a 2-d representation of a 3-d event there is no guarantee that any effects of wind will be observable from her position. Please explain how this refutes Buckwheatjones's post.

[CurtC]

Killtown, we're not even sure what your quesiton is, specifically. Are you asking why the wispy column part of the plume does not originate in the direction of the crater (which would be a little to the right)?

Don't know. It looks to me like there isn't a fire still burning, it all burned up at once, which would be consistent with a high-speed impact that the OV describes. The fire burns all at once in a fireball, not a ground-based fire, which travels sideways with the wind. While it's moving sideways, the heat makes it rise to create a mushroom shape, which will be centered above the column beneath it, because they're both being blown along by the same wind.

Is that what you mean?

[Cuddles]

Please someone answer this question I asked earlier.

[QUOTE=Killtown;1847094]

No. You have my guy's story (mathematical calculations) about how 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could easily create a cloud 600-1000 meters across. This, as opposed to your contention that the cloud was way too big (and therefore must have been the result of another explosion set off closer to the photographer) because....well....it just looked to big.

I recomend actually reading other people's posts occasionally.

[Killtown]

A handful from the last 3 pages, in reverse chronological order.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1847035#post1847035
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846851#post1846851
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846846#post1846846
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846833#post1846833
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846745#post1846745
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1846577#post1846577
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1845837#post1845837

Please post the questions, not just the links.

[Killtown]

1) A "shift" in direction, implies it was already moving a direction. This is erroneous.

2) Please explain how this refutes Buckwheatjones's post.
1) Yes, it was moving UP, then stopped moving UP, and shifted 90 degs to the side.

2) Was his post related to my question?

[Buckwheatjones]

What makes you think it moved 90 degrees to the side?

[Killtown]

Killtown, we're not even sure what your quesiton is, specifically. Are you asking why the wispy column part of the plume does not originate in the direction of the crater (which would be a little to the right)?

No, I'm asking is it your guy's story that the plume rose STRAIGHT UP from the crash, then the ENTIRE PLUME shifted 90 deg in which ever direction from the 9 knot wind?

[Killtown]

What makes you think it moved 90 degrees to the side?

Is the plume slanted at all?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please post the questions, not just the links.

In the same order as the links.




Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/...ight93_450.jpg

and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?


Crashes are rises straight up:

^
^
^
^
crash


Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:


<<<<<<plume


Do I have this essentially correct?

The crashsite is WNW of her house. The wind was blowing SE at the time of the crash. The smoke would not have been moving on a 90 degree angle to her. To be blown at a 90 degree angle relative to her position the wind would have to be coming from the NEN and blowing SWS.

ETA: Wait, 90 deg shift from what?




Looks at the excavating photos. See any wet soggy "soft dirt" from all the thousands of gals of jet fuel?

http://killtown.911review.org/images...avate_usa2.jpg

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/gallery.html

When was the photo taken?
How much of the jet fuel burned off vs how much was left in the ground?
What is the evaporation rate of the jet fuel?




1) No, Val said after she took her one photo, she tried but could't call from her cell, so she went up to her saw mill to call. she said Indian Lake has bad cell phone reception.

Link to corroborating evidence?


killtown exactly what qualifies you to judge the legitimacy of crash sites again?




She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

Link?

So far all I am finding are the following:
Quote:
Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.

She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch.

The lights went out. The phones, too.

She grabbed her camera. She stepped onto the front porch and shot one frame of the smoke cloud, a charcoal puff in a pure blue sky.
source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt...b/s_90823.html

Quote:
Val McClatchey snapped the single picture with her new digital camera. The wife and mother had been sitting on the edge of her sofa, clutching her second cup of coffee and watching the smoking towers of the World Trade Center on TV, when she heard the sudden surge of a plane engine, followed by a violent, house-shaking boom. Mrs. McClatchey grabbed the camera and ran onto the front porch of her house along Indian Lake.
source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm

The only sources I have seen quoting "5 seconds" are your blog, and similar; none of which appear to be quoting verbatim with a reference, but rather are paraphrasing.




She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".

Where does she say that?


Killtown, you missed my point.

Were there any reports of other explosions that day, at that location?

If not, isn't logical to assume that this plume of smoke is from the crash of flight 93?

[Buckwheatjones]

Who knows if it shifted? There's only this one image. Maybe if wafted off to the SE at a leisurely pace? Who knows? Regardless, if the photo was taken a relatively short time after the crash, and it measures 600 meters across according to your bearings and your vectors on your map, then we've shown that mathematically it is quite possible to have a cloud of this size. So there's no need to say that if got closer to Val's house in order to appear larger, so this 90 degree business is a road to nowhere.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is the plume slanted at all?

If the slanting was towards the camera, or away from the camera, it would be difficult to notice; only if it was moving laterally to the camera would the distortion be apparent.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) Yes, it was moving UP, then stopped moving UP, and shifted 90 degs to the side.

2) Was his post related to my question?

RE 1) The plume's rising, or lack thereof, is affect by air pressure, temp, etc.
RE 2) Then who is the "he" to which you keep referring?

[CurtC]

No, I'm asking is it your guy's story that the plume rose STRAIGHT UP from the crash, then the ENTIRE PLUME shifted 90 deg in which ever direction from the 9 knot wind?
No, where'd you get that idea?

I think a fireball occurred and rose. Since the fireball was already in the air, it blew along with the wind while it rose. A rising fireball leaves behind a central column, but this column was blowing sideways as the same rate that the above part was, therefore the column is not slanted.

[rwguinn]

If the slanting was towards the camera, or away from the camera, it would be difficult to notice; only if it was moving laterally to the camera would the distortion be apparent.

does a hot-air balloon tilt as it rises into the air from the ground?
what a plume like that is, is an envelopeless hot gas balloon

[Killtown]

In the same order as the links.

Most of your question aren't relevant to the topic of this thread.

as for sources, see my blog link.

[Beleth]

Well, after reading this far and seeing Killtown's Web page about it, I am of an even firmer opinion than I was a few pages ago that that picture is indeed a valid image of the plume caused by Flight 93.

Killtown's analysis is easily seen to be the flawed work of someone who seriously doesn't know what he's talking about.
I hesitate to continue to wine analogy any further, since it's not so much grape juice as the stomped-on remains of some random plants shoved into a bottle and labeled "wine". It reminds me a lot of the "magic bullet" theory by JFK CTers who had no idea where Connally was sitting relative to JFK and so put him where he "logically must have been" sitting. (He wasn't.)

Sorry, Killtown, if you were trying to convince me that this picture casts doubt on the official story, you have succeeded in convincing me of the exact opposite.

And that, as they say, is that.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Most of your question aren't relevant to the topic of this thread.

as for sources, see my blog link.

The questions were directed at information you posted. Is the information you posted not then relevant to the topic of the thread?

[Killtown]

Who knows if it shifted? There's only this one image.

So it didn't shift? It stayed going essentially straight up over the crash hole? (I would actually agree with this based on her photo.)

[Killtown]

1) No, where'd you get that idea?

2) A rising fireball leaves behind a central column, but this column was blowing sideways as the same rate that the above part was, therefore the column is not slanted.

1) you just answered it in your #2!

[defaultdotxbe]

as for sources, see my blog link.

funny, you demand people post "the questions not the link" and yet you refer everyone to your blog when asked for sources

[Killtown]

does a hot-air balloon tilt as it rises into the air from the ground?

Is a plume a solid object like a hot air balloon?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So it didn't shift? It stayed going essentially straight up over the crash hole? (I would actually agree with this based on her photo.)

With only one picture it can not be determined if movement occured before, or after, the photo; or was occurring at the time of the photo. No conclusions can be drawn from only the photo as to the direction of the plume. Given that there was a 9 knot SE wind on that day, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the plume was drifting in a south easterly direction; but this can not be verified, or refuted, by the photo.

[Cuddles]

So it didn't shift? It stayed going essentially straight up over the crash hole? (I would actually agree with this based on her photo.)

READ OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS.

Who knows if it shifted? There's only this one image. Maybe if wafted off to the SE at a leisurely pace? Who knows? Regardless, if the photo was taken a relatively short time after the crash, and it measures 600 meters across according to your bearings and your vectors on your map, then we've shown that mathematically it is quite possible to have a cloud of this size. So there's no need to say that if got closer to Val's house in order to appear larger, so this 90 degree business is a road to nowhere.

A "shift" in direction, implies it was already moving a direction. This is erroneous. It has already been explained that the SE wind that day would blow the plume towards (and southward) Val's position. Since the picture is a 2-d representation of a 3-d event there is no guarantee that any effects of wind will be observable from her position. Please explain how this refutes Buckwheatjones's post.

No, where'd you get that idea?

I think a fireball occurred and rose. Since the fireball was already in the air, it blew along with the wind while it rose. A rising fireball leaves behind a central column, but this column was blowing sideways as the same rate that the above part was, therefore the column is not slanted.

[Killtown]

funny, you demand people post "the questions not the link" and yet you refer everyone to your blog when asked for sources
why yes, that is funny! :D

[defaultdotxbe]

why yes, the is funny! :D

you can turn anythign around, cant you? like the "camera already on" thing

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is a plume a solid object like a hot air balloon?

A mass of air at a different temperature from the ambient air, and containing particulate matter, can exhibit properties consistent with that of a "solid" object. As an experiment to highlight this, take a large glass container and fill it with very hot water. Then dump in some very cold water that has been dyed. Observe the effects.

[Killtown]

With only one picture it can not be determined if movement occured before, or after, the photo; or was occurring at the time of the photo. No conclusions can be drawn from only the photo as to the direction of the plume. Given that there was a 9 knot SE wind on that day, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the plume was drifting in a south easterly direction; but this can not be verified, or refuted, by the photo.
Well some of your guys are saying it DID shift and that's why Val must of took the photo "40" seconds after the blast, not 5, and that's why the plume looks bigger and/or it doesn't line up with the hole in her camera direction.

Just trying to get some sense of what you guys are saying. your stories are all over the place.

[Cuddles]

Just trying to get some sense of what you guys are saying. your stories are all over the place.

Pot, this is Kettle.

We have given several different possibilities that could account for the wild claims you have made. Obviously they are not all the same, but they show that your claims are not the only solution and definately not the simplest solution.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well some of your guys are saying it DID shift and that's why Val must of took the photo "40" seconds after the blast, not 5, and that's why the plume looks bigger and/or it doesn't line up with the hole in her camera direction.

Just trying to get some sense of what you guys are saying. your stories are all over the place.

Where is the inconsistency? Given that there was wind that day it is appropriate to assume for the sake of the hypothesis that it shifted. The hypothesis states that if it shifted because of the wind the expected behavior is consistent with that of the photo. Therefore it is appropriate to give provisional agreement that the hypothesis explains the photo. No one is saying that the photo shows that it moved; they are saying that if it moved in accordance with the known conditions at the time that the photo is consistent with that movement.

Again, can you provide proof of the "5 seconds" statement?

[Killtown]

1) Where is the inconsistency? Given that there was wind that day it is appropriate to assume for the sake of the hypothesis that it shifted. The hypothesis states that if it shifted because of the wind the expected behavior is consistent with that of the photo.
2) Again, can you provide proof of the "5 seconds" statement?
1) Ok, then the jet fire plume rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?

2) find the video link through here: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-mystery-deepens.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) Ok, then the jet fire plume rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?

2) find the video link through here: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-mystery-deepens.html

Thank you for finally providing the source. For those not interested in digging through KT's blog, here is the direct link http://www.windsorparkstories.com/shank1.html

[Cuddles]

1) Ok, then the jet fire plume rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?

Will you ever learn to read?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1847257&postcount=386

[Gravy]

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html


and everybody else, read this before you ask anymore questions...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html
Yes, that's your site devoted to slandering Val McClatchey. Proud of that, are you?

[Foolmewunz]

Killtown, having seen the side thread where you refuse to answer Gravy because "Waaaah, he was mean to me!", I have every reason to assume you're going to have a reason to ignore me. (I'm the guy who called you "something naughty", based on quotes offered by Sword of Truth on your holocaust denial.)

But, if you deign to answer (not question, not refer to a crappy blog), here's where we're heading:

You're right. We surrender! Wonderful logic (er... imagination). Now what a number of us are asking, though, is

JUST WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE CT ON 9/11? WHERE DOES THIS DISCUSSION GO IF WE CONCEDE THIS WORTHLESS POINT?

This is high-school debating. You just want to win a point. So win the point, and go back to LC and have them all pat you on the back, and then tell us just what the Hell this has to do with the grand conspiracy theory. A real estate agent in Pennsylvania claims to have taken a photo. Wheeee! What does its veracity have to do with anything and why are you wasting what few braincells you have left trying to prove it's a fake? It has nothing to do with any of your (the collective pronoun, please) overall theories.

This is common to LC-ers. Pick out some minute item, blow up the picture and draw lines to prove some dubious crap, and then shout "Eureka.... if that bit of aluminum, which I'll call steel and concrete, is still standing then it proves that the guvmint did it...." This is like looking at the staged photo of Iwo Jima and proving it so (not hard - it was admittedly staged) and then denying that the entire War in the Pacific ever took place.

[Gravy]

No, I'm asking is it your guy's story that the plume rose STRAIGHT UP from the crash, then the ENTIRE PLUME shifted 90 deg in which ever direction from the 9 knot wind?
Again, you don't know:
The exact time the photo was taken.
The exact speed of the wind at the crash site.
The exact direction of the wind at the crash site.

Without that information, your questions cannot be answered. Why don't you understand that? And why have you slandered a woman based on sloppy research and incomplete information?

[TheChadd]

JUST WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE CT ON 9/11? WHERE DOES THIS DISCUSSION GO IF WE CONCEDE THIS WORTHLESS POINT?

This is high-school debating. You just want to win a point. So win the point, and go back to LC and have them all pat you on the back, and then tell us just what the Hell this has to do with the grand conspiracy theory. A real estate agent in Pennsylvania claims to have taken a photo. Wheeee! What does its veracity have to do with anything and why are you wasting what few braincells you have left trying to prove it's a fake? It has nothing to do with any of your (the collective pronoun, please) overall theories.

This is common to LC-ers. Pick out some minute item, blow up the picture and draw lines to prove some dubious crap, and then shout "Eureka.... if that bit of aluminum, which I'll call steel and concrete, is still standing then it proves that the guvmint did it...." This is like looking at the staged photo of Iwo Jima and proving it so (not hard - it was admittedly staged) and then denying that the entire War in the Pacific ever took place.

Exactly. A couple of people, myself included, have asked him what is the point of this picture. If he's right and it's not accurate (perhaps she photoshopped it or something to make it look better), what does this have to say in the overall scheme of things? He won't answer because he knows that means he has to begin attempting to validate his conspiracy theory.

[Stellafane]

Yes, that's your site devoted to slandering Val McClatchey. Proud of that, are you?

Several pages ago I asked Killtown how he/she felt about helping destroy the life of Ms McClatchey, to the point where she now fears for her personal safety, all because she just happened to take a picture that contradicts the CT'ers little theories -- while hiding behind anonymity so total Killtown even refuses to talk to a reporter.

But I'm not really expecting an answer, because frankly I don't think Killtown really thinks about it much. In fact, I don't think Killtown has the capacity to think about and empathize with people the way normal folks do -- otherwise, how could he/she carry on with this pastime that insults victims, offends survivors, and accuses the innocent? Anyone with an ounce of compassion would realize the personal human damage being done, and quickly come to their senses.

But perhaps absence of empathy is a prerequisite for a CT'er.

[Gravy]

But perhaps absence of empathy is a prerequisite for a CT'er.
Case in point from the LC forum. Killtown thinks photoshopped photos of feces on the graves of murder victims is funny.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e1cab7198b7.jpg

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, so; from the video mentioned above; we have Val stating that it was "timed" to "about five seconds after the crash". She does not cite who timed it. In the video she also states that she (1) took the picture then (2) tried the cell phone then (3) tried the landline in the sawmill.

Given that we have estimated the speed of sound in air that day to be ~
Now, assuming air temp of 75 degrees F (if someone has the exact figure for that day it would be great) we see the speed of sound in air is 345.641 m/s

Given that the crash site is ~2582.26 meters from the house it would take ~7.5 seconds for the sound of the crash to reach the house.

and a rough estimate of speed of sound in the ground to be ~
6 to 8 kilometers per second. source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/PamelaSpiegel.shtml

Assuming that this range represents the conditions at Shanksville, at the time of the crash, the P wave in the ground would have reached her in ~0.32-0.43 seconds after impact.

So, we have the following questions to answer:
1) a) Were the conditions and geological makeup at Shanksville, on that day, such that the sound wave could reach her house through the ground?
1) b) If yes, then is the time estimate of 0.32-0.43 correct?
2) a) Was her reaction to that of the P-wave in the crust of the Earth, or to that of the sound wave in the atmosphere?
2) b) If she reacted to the P-wave, then we can base our analysis on a time lapse of 5.3-5.4 seconds after the crash.
2) c) If she reacted to the sound wave, then we can base our analysis on a time lapse of 12.5 seconds after the crash.

[pgwenthold]

Exactly. A couple of people, myself included, have asked him what is the point of this picture. If he's right and it's not accurate (perhaps she photoshopped it or something to make it look better), what does this have to say in the overall scheme of things?

I have addressed the issue of it being authentic above. If it is authentic, then it is most certainly relevant to the overall scheme of things.

If it is not authentic, then it doesn't really say anything about a CT, but it does constitute a strong personal indictment against McClatchy, and moreso against the picture, which has even been purchased by the Smithsonian. If nothing else, you would admit that you would be opposed to the Smithsonian displaying a forgery, right?

So if you folks can't see the significance of the discussion of this picture, you aren't thinking very hard.

I think you make a big mistake trying to downplay the significance of the picture. It's far better to address the meat of the issue: Killtown's claims about what the picture actually shows are baseless. As I mentioned early on, and Gravy succinctly summarized just a bit ago:

Again, you don't know:
The exact time the photo was taken.
The exact speed of the wind at the crash site.
The exact direction of the wind at the crash site.

Without that information, your questions cannot be answered. Why don't you understand that? And why have you slandered a woman based on sloppy research and incomplete information?

Similarly, the analysis posted by BuckwheatJones has gone right at it, showing that nothing in the picture is inconsistent with the conventional picture. These actually address the problem.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I have addressed the issue of it being authentic above. If it is authentic, then it is most certainly relevant to the overall scheme of things.

If it is not authentic, then it doesn't really say anything about a CT, but it does constitute a strong personal indictment against McClatchy, and moreso against the picture, which has even been purchased by the Smithsonian. If nothing else, you would admit that you would be opposed to the Smithsonian displaying a forgery, right?

So if you folks can't see the significance of the discussion of this picture, you aren't thinking very hard.

I think you make a big mistake trying to downplay the significance of the picture. It's far better to address the meat of the issue: Killtown's claims about what the picture actually shows are baseless. As I mentioned early on, and Gravy succinctly summarized just a bit ago:



Similarly, the analysis posted by BuckwheatJones has gone right at it, showing that nothing in the picture is inconsistent with the conventional picture. These actually address the problem.


Based on everything discussed so far, my layman's SWAG is that her "about five seconds" is wrong. *shrug* It's the one anomalous data point so far.

[Stellafane]

BTW Killtown, did you really say on the LC forum that mentioning some so-called "conspiracy of silence" article/video in this forum will get you "banned in 5 minutes"?

[pgwenthold]

Based on everything discussed so far, my layman's SWAG is that her "about five seconds" is wrong. *shrug* It's the one anomalous data point so far.

It's very likely. As has been pointed out, people's perception of time without a clock isn't very good. Basically, the timing of the picture is completely unknown. Makes any detailed assertions about it shows pretty tough.

[gumboot]

Some interesting information...

According to the Flight Data Recorder from UA93, it impacted the ground at about 500kts (575 MPH) in a 40 degree nose down attitude, with a 150 degree roll angle to starboard.

In addition:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts

To my way of thinking, this means a number of things:

A) UA93 was involved in a controlled flight collision with the ground - the entire airframe was intact at impact

i.e. it wasn't shot down.

B) The wind speed was almost twice previously reported, and would have moved the mushroom cloud CLOSER to Val as well as lateral to Val.

C) The angle of impact was shallower than I previously realised, resulting in a forward motion of light debris/fireball from the impact (explaining further the position of the mushroom cloud as WELL as the light debris scattered towards the lake)

D) The speed of impact was significantly higher than previously claimed - I had always heard about 500 MPH - it was actually 575 MPH. Combined with the shallower impact angle this further supports the movement of the mushroom cloud.

End result? The actual data from the Flight Data Recorder further supports the claim that Val's photo is accurate and genuine.

(Incidentally, the FBI have authenticated the photo, so it's not a fake - unless you believe the FBI is in on it, at which point you're lost to woo land).

The FDR report can be found here (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf).

For laymen, someone on a professional pilot's forum has provided the key specs at impact here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2778627&postcount=145).

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Interesting, gumboot. I do wonder how accurate the wind speed measurement is when measured from a rolling, diving plane.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Some interesting information...

According to the Flight Data Recorder from UA93, it impacted the ground at about 500kts (575 MPH) in a 40 degree nose down attitude, with a 150 degree roll angle to starboard.

In addition:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts

To my way of thinking, this means a number of things:

A) UA93 was involved in a controlled flight collision with the ground - the entire airframe was intact at impact

i.e. it wasn't shot down.

B) The wind speed was almost twice previously reported, and would have moved the mushroom cloud CLOSER to Val as well as lateral to Val.

C) The angle of impact was shallower than I previously realised, resulting in a forward motion of light debris/fireball from the impact (explaining further the position of the mushroom cloud as WELL as the light debris scattered towards the lake)

D) The speed of impact was significantly higher than previously claimed - I had always heard about 500 MPH - it was actually 575 MPH. Combined with the shallower impact angle this further supports the movement of the mushroom cloud.

End result? The actual data from the Flight Data Recorder further supports the claim that Val's photo is accurate and genuine.

(Incidentally, the FBI have authenticated the photo, so it's not a fake - unless you believe the FBI is in on it, at which point you're lost to woo land).

The FDR report can be found here (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf).

For laymen, someone on a professional pilot's forum has provided the key specs at impact here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2778627&postcount=145).

-Andrew


25 knots => 12.9 meters/second * 5 seconds => 64.5 meters of drift

[Killtown]

Several pages ago I asked Killtown how he/she felt about helping destroy the life of Ms McClatchey, to the point where she now fears for her personal safety,

:rolleyes:

[Killtown]

Wow, Gravy is sure on a major campaign to try to character assassinate me! I guess he got a little miffed when I showed the world (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61743) what his character is all about.

;)

[Stellafane]

:rolleyes:


So that's how you feel about destroying someone's life and possibily putting them in harm's way, because they took a picture you don't like...you roll your eyes.

Classic.

You're quite a specimen, dude. I hope anyone out there who may be sitting on the fence, or possibly considering whether there might be something to this CT stuff, recognizes just what sort of people they're falling in with.

[Killtown]

BTW Killtown, did you really say on the LC forum that mentioning some so-called "conspiracy of silence" article/video in this forum will get you "banned in 5 minutes"?
No.

[Stellafane]

Wow, Gravy is sure on a major campaign to try to character assassinate me! I guess he got a little miffed when I showed the world (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61743) what his character is all about.

;)

You also showed the world that you're a first-class coward by running away from questions directed to you. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

[rwguinn]

You also showed the world that you're a first-class coward by running away from questions directed to you. Actions speak louder that words, my friend.
not to mention hiding behind an anonymous ID while publishing personal data and destroyiong a person's life, jeopardizing her life, and laughing about it.
Cowardly, lying weasel is an appropriate description.

[Killtown]

So that's how you feel about destroying someone's life and possibily putting them in harm's way,
No, I'm rolling my eyes at your claim that I "destroyed her life".

[Stellafane]

No, I'm rolling my eyes at your claim that I "destroyed her life".

She says she's afraid for her safety, thanks to your comments about her and your posting her personal information. Tell me, would you like to be walking around afraid someone might kill you at any time? And that's not just some idle possibility; MarkyX has received more than one death threat from CTer's, and there have been others (for instance, johndoex threatening to shoot billzilla for making him look like an idiot). You, who won't even talk to a reporter anonymously on the phone, lest they discover some remote shred of information about you? Thinking it's no big deal to have your personal info exposed to a bunch of lunatics?

Tell you what...if it's no big deal, why don't you post your name and address and phone number right here? After all, even if people start harassing you, it's no big deal, right?

[Killtown]

If people want to start a bash Killtown thread, then go ahead. I'd like to stick to only relevant questions for this thread please.

[Stellafane]

If people want to start a bash Killtown thread, then go ahead. I'd like to stick to only relevant questions for this thread please.


No need really, you're doing a fine job all on your own.

[R.Mackey]

Some interesting information...

[...]

6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts

To my way of thinking, this means a number of things:

A) UA93 was involved in a controlled flight collision with the ground - the entire airframe was intact at impact

i.e. it wasn't shot down.
Minor nitpick -- if this was a deliberate CFIT event, I'd expect the engines to be at full throttle (N1 rotor speed = 100%). Seems more consistent with partial control of the aircraft, i.e. agrees perfectly with the official story of a battle in or near the cockpit.

But yeah, definitely not shot down, especially if the vibration sensor can be counted as accurate. Surprise surprise.


B) The wind speed was almost twice previously reported, and would have moved the mushroom cloud CLOSER to Val as well as lateral to Val.

C) The angle of impact was shallower than I previously realised, resulting in a forward motion of light debris/fireball from the impact (explaining further the position of the mushroom cloud as WELL as the light debris scattered towards the lake)

D) The speed of impact was significantly higher than previously claimed - I had always heard about 500 MPH - it was actually 575 MPH. Combined with the shallower impact angle this further supports the movement of the mushroom cloud.

End result? The actual data from the Flight Data Recorder further supports the claim that Val's photo is accurate and genuine.
Absolutely correct. Predicting windspeeds at a single point, for the span of a few seconds, is hard enough when there isn't a huge jet and sudden fireball in the vicinity. There's quite a lot of room for error in estimating the path of the smokering created at impact. I don't understand why anyone would even suspect that Val's photo was anything other than genuine.

Good find!

[CurtC]

1) Ok, then the jet fire plume rose STRAIGHT UP, the shifted 90 degs in the wind. Does that pretty much sum it up?
I feel like I'm trying to have a conversation with SBrown/jenabell. Please read what I write.

By the way, I assume you meant "then shifted 90 degs..." above.

The difference between what I was saying, and how you phrased it here, is the word "then." I think the fireball moved sideways, with the wind, while it was rising. There was no initial motion, then a turn of 90 degrees. It moved sideways as it rose. The column underneath the mushroom head also moved sideways at the same time, because it's also immersed in the same mass of moving air.

[Killtown]

Sorry to keep repeating myself and if this has been clearly answered before, but regardless of which direction Val's plume shifted, are you guys saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg


then shifted 90 degs and traveled in which ever direction for whatever amount of time until this photo was taken?

[Gravy]

Wow, Gravy is sure on a major campaign to try to character assassinate me! I guess he got a little miffed when I showed the world (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61743) what his character is all about.

;)
By slandering Val McClatchey, laughing at feces on the graves of heroes who were murder victims, denying the Holocaust, accusing people of mass murder without evidence, deleting comments that disagree with the evidence presented on your blog, repeatedly refusing to confront facts and evidence, and agreeing to answer questions and then refusing to do so, you've done a bang-up job of displaying your character for all to see.

This is a place to discuss issues relating to 9/11. So why won't you discuss the issues people have raised about your claims? What are you afraid of?

[Killtown]

Wow, Gravy is getting REALLY desperate in trying to character assassinate me!

[Buckwheatjones]

Some interesting information...

According to the Flight Data Recorder from UA93, it impacted the ground at about 500kts (575 MPH) in a 40 degree nose down attitude, with a 150 degree roll angle to starboard.

In addition:

1. Cabin pressure - NORMAL
2. Hydraulics - NORMAL
3. Cargo fire - NORMAL
4. Smoke - NORMAL
5. Engines - RUNNING
6. Engine RPM (N1) 70%
7. Fuel pressure - NORMAL
8. Engine vibration - LO

9. Wind direction - WEST
10. Wind speed - 25 kts

To my way of thinking, this means a number of things:

A) UA93 was involved in a controlled flight collision with the ground - the entire airframe was intact at impact

i.e. it wasn't shot down.

B) The wind speed was almost twice previously reported, and would have moved the mushroom cloud CLOSER to Val as well as lateral to Val.

C) The angle of impact was shallower than I previously realised, resulting in a forward motion of light debris/fireball from the impact (explaining further the position of the mushroom cloud as WELL as the light debris scattered towards the lake)

D) The speed of impact was significantly higher than previously claimed - I had always heard about 500 MPH - it was actually 575 MPH. Combined with the shallower impact angle this further supports the movement of the mushroom cloud.

End result? The actual data from the Flight Data Recorder further supports the claim that Val's photo is accurate and genuine.

(Incidentally, the FBI have authenticated the photo, so it's not a fake - unless you believe the FBI is in on it, at which point you're lost to woo land).

The FDR report can be found

For laymen, someone on a professional pilot's forum has provided the key specs at impact

-Andrew

This is something I was looking for, a 40 degree impact into the ground. It would follow the Third Law of Motion according to Newton, ie, every action creates an equal and opposite reaction. At camera view, the plane struck from right to left at 40 degrees creating a fireball continuing up and to the left, which, with prevailing winds, might carry the cloud away from the crash site from the beginning of the instance. This is why it is not directly over the crash site. Coupling that with the fact that an explosion is a dynamic which is all about energy. It is not static. It, to a certain extent, creates its own inertia and propels itself away from the impact point. If 93 crashed at the site of the hole, one should not expect the plume to be right over that same hole. Unless you are killtown and you operate independently from the laws of physics, that is...

Now. This business about the cloud moving toward the photographer (in order to appear larger to the camera) is immaterial because its size has been shown to be consistent with an explosion of so many pounds of jet fuel. A nuclear engineer has provided me with the math which shows the cloud, measuring some 500-600 meters across in the slice of time captured by the camera, to be perfectly consistent with reality. In fact, he wrote that 1000 meters across would not be unreasonable. You can find this on my very first post here.

So. On killtown's blog, he writes consistently that the size of the cloud just can't be, but has a big fat zero to support this, all the while using this Wish as a smoking gun to support his claim that either the photo was doctored or indicative of a pile of munitions set off closer to the camera to make it appear bigger. In either case he uses it as a point of fact to indicate fraud on either Val's part or the government's part, which points to a conspiracy either way. And as anyone knows, if you play both sides of the truth, you'll always come out on top. And for killtown, it's important to be right no matter what.

The end result is that we have removed one of his largest "points of fact" from his argument and shown it to be as transparent as his ability to support the rest of his arguments. He has yet to address the mathematics chucked in his face, and figures that if he just ignores them, they will ignore him in return.

Well, let's just imagine that the math didn't support the size of the cloud and it did indeed appear to be too large for the explosion that occurred. And what if someone did set off a stack of TNT one mile east of the crash site. Wouldn't you hate to be the project manager in charge of that fuk up?

Agent In Charge: "Wait a minute, Johnson....I had the guys dig a hole in the woods and knock down some trees in the middle of the night, scatter some bones and sht around so it would look like a real live wreck, and then when I put you in charge of the pyros, you go and set off a pile of dynamite a freakin' mile away? Are you stoned?"

Johnson: "Well...I...but I thought....Yes. As a matter of fact, I was stoned. You want some? Chief? It's really good stuff..."

Agent In Charge:"We've got ten tanker trucks of JP 8 parked in the woods next to the hole, you dipsh!t. You were supposed to see that it was all dumped in that damn stupid hole we spent all night digging out. All you had to do was light the damn match and run away! How the hell am I gonna explain TWO holes in the ground?"

Johnson: Well, Chief, I read on Killtown's blog that if someone was to draw up a conspiracy like this, it would be better to do it this way so there would be a Smoking Gun so we could all get caught!"

Agent In Charge: "Oh...well...Well, then, that makes sense. Good thinking, Johnson. I'm giving you an in field promotion. And...And Johnson?"

Johnson: "Yes Chief?"

Agent In Charge: "I'm sorry."

Johnson: "It's ok, Chief."

[Gravy]

Wow, Gravy is getting REALLY desperate in trying to character assassinate me!
Please show evidence that you are a person of good character.

[Buckwheatjones]

Wow, Gravy is getting REALLY desperate in trying to character assassinate me!

It's not hard. You invite abuse. It would be rude not to accept.

[Pardalis]

I'd like to stick to only relevant questions for this thread please.

OK

Where is it stated that the FBI timed Val's reaction time at 5 seconds?

PLEASE PROVIDE ORIGINAL SOURCE LINK, NOT YOUR CRAPPY BLOG, please.

[Pardalis]

Gravy, are you sure that this is bull *****?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644e2984805310.jpg

It looks to me it more likely came from a larger animal, and the color indicates it has an Elephantidae origin.

Please get your facts straight. ;)

[Killtown]

Please don't post that "crap" on this thread. Go start an "I hate killtown" thread if you want.

Back to topic.

[Pardalis]

Back to topic.

Can you answer my question?

[Killtown]

Can you answer my question?
Check my "crappy" blog.

[Pardalis]

Give me the original source.

[Class]

Wow, Gravy is getting REALLY desperate in trying to character assassinate me!

Your character was assassinated when you first spoke.

[CurtC]

Sorry to keep repeating myself and if this has been clearly answered before, but regardless of which direction Val's plume shifted, are you guys saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

then shifted 90 degs and traveled in which ever direction for whatever amount of time until this photo was taken?
Yet again, no!

It didn't rise straight up, then go sideways. It travelled up and sideways at the same time, at the wind speed.

[Pardalis]

Killtown, the time it took for Val to take this picture seems to be of importance in your claim.

We can't base our judgment on her "5 seconds" testimony, because it wasn't a scientific mesurement. She guessed it, and at the time it occured, she was in no way in a condition to evaluate time with precision (she was stressed and shocked by the events unfolding in front of her).

So. Can you provide any other source for this "5 seconds" time delay? You have claimed that the FBI timed her. Can you show me this evidence without referring to your blog?

[Gravy]

Please don't post that "crap" on this thread. Go start an "I hate killtown" thread if you want.

Back to topic.
Killtown, that "crap" on the graves of murder victims was originally posted on a thread you started about the crater made by flight 93. You even chose to repost it on your thread, and you said it was funny.

Why was it appropriate and funny then and not now, Killtown?

Please explain.

[gumboot]

25 knots => 12.9 meters/second * 5 seconds => 64.5 meters of drift

Except we know for a fact Val didn't taker her photo until AFTER she heard the explosion, which means a minimum of 12 seconds (Val's "5 seconds" (154.8m) and more realistically 20+ seconds (258m+))

-Andrew

[Killtown]

Except we know for a fact Val didn't taker her photo until AFTER she heard the explosion,

felt the explosion

[Killtown]

Can you show me this evidence without referring to your blog?
Check my "crappy" blog.

[Pardalis]

felt the explosion

Even better...:rolleyes:

[gumboot]

Minor nitpick -- if this was a deliberate CFIT event, I'd expect the engines to be at full throttle (N1 rotor speed = 100%). Seems more consistent with partial control of the aircraft, i.e. agrees perfectly with the official story of a battle in or near the cockpit.

Absolutely. Sorry by "controlled flight" I mean not crashing per se. The FDR indicates a lot of erratic movement prior to crash - I think it exceeded 3 Gs at one point - suggesting the hijackers threw the plane around to disrupt the passengers. My guess is during this the not-so-experienced hijacker pilots lost control at low altitude (perhaps the wing-down angle indicates a turning stall?)


But yeah, definitely not shot down, especially if the vibration sensor can be counted as accurate. Surprise surprise.

Not to mention a pet CT theory was a heat-seeking missile took out one engine, causing the plane to crash (and explaining the single engine found so far from the crash site)

This was in fact the gist behind the thread in which I found this info - a CTer was wanting to know how fast a plane would crash with one engine gone.

Of course the experts on the board explained airliners are designed to be able to maintain flight on one engine - the loss of an engine is a drill poilots simulate frequently.

Further more turns out the "engine" found so far from the sit was actually just a chunk of the turbine fan found 300m down range from impact (incidently, in the same general direction that the smoke cloud drifted).

The last nail in this particular CT coffin (if it needs one) is the FDR indicates both engines running normally (and attached to the plane!) at impact.

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

I looked at the video "Windsor Park Story", she does say that the FBI timed the photo at 5 seconds after the crash, but there is no way we can tell if that's the official claim of the FBI, or just what they told her, or what she remembers of what they told her.

[Killtown]

I looked at the video "Windsor Park Story", she does say that the FBI timed the photo at 5 seconds after the crash, but there is no way we can tell if that's the official claim of the FBI, or just what they told her, or what she remembers of what they told her.
Didn't she say "we timed it"?

[Pardalis]

Killtown, do you have any geomatics engineering expertise?

Did you yourself go over at Shanksville and conducted a topographical survey of the plane crash and Ms McClatchey's house in order to have an exact analysis of the picture?

[Pardalis]

Did she say "we timed it"?

I believe she said "they timed it".

But from this single statement from her, how are we supposed to know that it is the official FBI timing? How how we supposed to know they made this timing scientifically, or did they just estimated it at 5 seconds, without doing further analysis? Did she just mean "timed it" as a manner of speach, not litterally?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

felt the explosion

Without somebody going to Shanksville and doing sonic tests we do not know if the explosion she "felt" was transmitted via the Earth's crust, or as a shockwave through the atmosphere. Therefore, we are still at the range I calculated before of 5.3-12.5 seconds after impact for the time of the picture. With the revised windspeed information posted from the blackbox this means that the wind drift would account for ~68.37-161.25 meters of movement.

Using our coordinates for the flight 93 crash site: 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_93_National_Memorial)
and our coordinates for the house at which the picture was taken: N 40 03 00.29, W 78 52 28.16
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1844222#post1844222

The range, per Google Earth, is 2421.47 meters. Now, if you are following along in Google Earth; add the latitude/longitude lines to your map.

A line 68.42 meters long, that is southeast of the crash site, is at ~N 40 03'16.33" and ~W 78 54'05.86"

A line 161.35 meters long, that is southeast of the crash site, is at ~N 40 03'14.44" and ~W 78 54'02.82"

Taking those points, I have run lines to the house. Here are the results.

First, KT's analysis pic:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/rumpl4skn-analysis2.gif

Now, mine (NOTE: left most line is further south (I rotated to keep it in perspective with KT's) and represents the 12.5 seconds of drift)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/flight_93_plume.jpg

As you can see, even the 5.3 seconds of drift is more than sufficient to account for the shift in the plume as observed in the picture. Granted, this is just ballpark work since the exact wind direction is not known, etc. But, I think this shows that the picture is not anomalous enough to warrant further inquiry as it stands.

[Dr Richard]

Sorry to keep repeating myself and if this has been clearly answered before, but regardless of which direction Val's plume shifted, are you guys saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:




then shifted 90 degs and traveled in which ever direction for whatever amount of time until this photo was taken?


Hi Killtown

You seem to have missed the point of earlier posts that explain what may be going on here.

Try this simple experiment at home:

Hold a finger in front of your face. Now, move it to the right by a few inches. It appears shifted to the right, yes? If you moved it parallel to your face, it appears to have shifted by 90deg.

Now, put the finger back to its original position.

Move it directly towards you. Stop before you poke your eye out. The finger looks slightly bigger, but is NOT shifted 90deg.

Similarly, the plume would not look bent, or shifted.

In this case, it all depends on your point of view.

You have not proved your case, even after 450+ posts. Could you provide a new argument or can we now please move on to another topic?

[gumboot]

Without somebody going to Shanksville and doing sonic tests we do not know if the explosion she "felt" was transmitted via the Earth's crust, or as a shockwave through the atmosphere.

Just my personal opinion, but she does specifically mention a sound in her accounts of what happened. If it were the transmission for the earth that set her off:
A) Why didn't she make mention of the thunderous boom she would have heard AFTER reacting
B) Why would she talk about initially reacting to a sound AND a feeling?

To me, it seems more likely she felt the impact as a slight shaking, then heard the explosion, then reacted.

Now all of this is still assuming her 5 minute response time...

And here's where I'd like to throw another speculative spanner in the works.

She says she was watching the WTC and Pentagon attacks on TV at the time. UA93 crashed 1003. At 0959 The South Tower collapsed. At the time that UA93 crashed, we can imagine Val was engrossed in the horror of the WTC having actually totally collapsed right before her eyes. To the best of her knowledge thousands upon thousands of lives had just been snuffed out like candles in the wind.

And yet, when a plane flew over, she just instantly lost interest in the television, rushed outside, and snapped a photo?

She didn't linger for a few moments? Her actions weren't delayed just a little?

Basically, we have found the following evidence:

Following the instant 5s response hypothesis, we find there is still ample in the equation to allow a 600m mushroom cloud to form as, and where Val snapped it. Indeed, we have evidence to suggest the cloud could comfortably be much larger.

In ADDITION to this, there are a number of LIKELY factors that could have contributed, in varying degrees, to the photo having been taken much later, and the mushroom cloud having drifted closer to Val (thus allowing for a much smaller cloud).

These two considerations, combined, indicate there is absolutely no plausible grounds for considering Val's photo is anything other than what it appears to be - the only existing documentation of the immediate aftermath of the destruction of UA93 and all aboard.

May they rest in peace.

-Andrew

[MortFurd]

Please don't post that "crap" on this thread. Go start an "I hate killtown" thread if you want.

Back to topic.
Yes, please. Back to topic.

The one question you have yet to answer:
Why would the conspirators make a fake crash site in one place and then set off an explosion on a different site?

[MortFurd]

May they rest in peace.
-Andrew
.
.

[Belz...]

You know my point, and if you dont', then I can't help you.

"I have a secret, and I won't tell."

Regardless of which direction it shifted, are you saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg


Then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction?

Nope.

And how the hell can you tell that from a STILL ?

Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.
Really? Where has someone proven this?

Er... you CAN read, right ? No one has proven it inconsistent, and now you asked where this was proven ?

[Belz...]

So it didn't shift? It stayed going essentially straight up over the crash hole? (I would actually agree with this based on her photo.)

That's amazing! So, according to you, either it SHIFTED or rose straight UP. Isn't there a possibility you might have missed ? Like the plume travelling in the direction of the wind from the moment of the explosion ?

[Hutch]

Killtown, you have demonstrated one of the fundamental weaknesses of the various Conspiracy Hypothesis. Gumboot, Arkan and Buckwheatjones have all used math and science to a degree (other posters also, but those three in particular) to demonstrate that the size of the cloud is viable and that the location and postion is consistent with the cloud orginating with the crash of Flight 93.

And you have no answer for that, because you do not--and many of your fellows join you in this--have the capability to refute the math or physics. None.

Until you do develop said skills or find somebody credible to provide them, you are in the position of saying "it looks like.." Sorry, I'll stick with the math and science folks; I'm kinda funny that way..

Press on.

[c0rbin]

Killtown wants there to be a conspiracy. He wants it so bad he is willing to put his fingers in his ears and "la la la" his way from reason. He wants there to be a conspiracy as badly as some people want to see Jesus in the tortilla.

No amount of reason will sway him from his belief. After 10 pages, this is the only conclusion I can come to.

[c0rbin]

I think that, before any of you waste any more of your time with this guy, you ask him to read up on the subject of Vectors.

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/vectors/vectors.html

Then, after he can demonstrate a working knowledge, start with baby steps.

These CT love to swim and get lost in the details. We as a group need to focus on one question at a time. Maybe a consensus on a list of questions that lead socratically to the conclusion that the photo proves A, B and C through X, Y, and Z.

[Dr Richard]

Killtown-

As I understand from your arguments here and on your blog, your other criticism of this photo is that the cloud "looks like" a cloud from a ordanace blast rather than an airplane crash.

This is, apparently, because airplance crash plumes are dark.

Sorry I can't post full links yet, but a quick google image search of "airplane crash picture" brings up

wxx.nasa.gov/externalflash/NASA45/40/40image.jpg - smoke plume looks lighter to me

wxx.cbsnews.com/images/2006/07/09/image8701d35a-cc2e-4da3-a1a2-1012673ae86b.jpg - white smok

wxx.airport.ca/images/airfrance_crash_3.jpg

etc.

So where does your assertion that an airplane crash must have dark smoke come from?

[Belz...]

Sorry to keep repeating myself and if this has been clearly answered before, but regardless of which direction Val's plume shifted, are you guys saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg


then shifted 90 degs and traveled in which ever direction for whatever amount of time until this photo was taken?

You ARE, of course, aware that the photo doesn't actually indicate anything about the direction the plume is travelling in ? You DO know, of course, that the column would follow the mushroom head WITH the wind ? And, if you do, why do you keep asking this question ?

[Belz...]

Wow, Gravy is getting REALLY desperate in trying to character assassinate me!

You have no character, Killtown. None displayed here, anyway.

Check my "crappy" blog.

We'll take that as a "no".

[kookbreaker]

So, we've just watched 10 pages go by because a completely unqualified nutbar of CTer thought that a smoke cloud didn't look right in his own opinion?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, we've just watched 10 pages go by because a completely unqualified nutbar of CTer thought that a smoke cloud didn't look right in his own opinion?


It hasn't been a waste. I've learned a lot more about the flight 93 crash site in researching and have used Google Earth more in the last three days than the entire time since I installed it. *shrug*

[Cuddles]

So, we've just watched 10 pages go by because a completely unqualified nutbar of CTer thought that a smoke cloud didn't look right in his own opinion?

I think the main reason most of us are here is so that those watching from the sidelines can see the truth (:p). Killtown is clearly past help, but hopefully we can stop anyone believing what he says by showing exactly how wrong he is.

[juryjone]

Killtown wants there to be a conspiracy. He wants it so bad he is willing to put his fingers in his ears and "la la la" his way from reason.

Except it's not quite "la la la".

AmyWilson: "It's true!"
Christophera: "3" rebar on 4' centers"
Killtown: "The plume shifted 90 degrees":rolleyes:

All three statements perform the same function as "la la la". They attempt to shut off any further communication by showing the speaker has no clue about the issues being discussed. It's terribly reminiscent of Nigel Tufnel in This Is Spinal Tap saying “This one goes to 11”.

“La la la” is usually followed by “I can’t hear you”, meaning that there is a conscious decision to not hear arguments. It seems that Killtown, like Christophera, is incapable of understanding the arguments presented by other posters. It all sounds to them like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon – “Mwa mwa mwa”. Their only response is just to repeat a mantra. “90 degrees”

(Killtown: 90 degrees RELATIVE TO WHAT? STOP SAYING 90 DEGREES!!!)

[Buckwheatjones]

RE: the color of the smoke, I post over at RightNation.US a lot and the place is full of military and formerly military. When Killtown started his thread over there, before bailing out and coming here, (pretty much with same end result, I might add) two different guys with service in the airforce had witnessed wrecks and said the plume in this photo was consistent with plumes they had seen after the fireball had burned off.

killer didn't bother to respond to either witness, nor to myself, nor to any other poster who asked him to comment on that.

"La La La -- read my blog --- La La La --- follow my link --- La La La --- be nice to me or I shan't respond to your posts --- La La and more La"

If you want to level accusations of the type he is leveling, you have to understand that it is a hot button topic. Develop a thick skin, put on some pants, and show up with something that can be supported by facts, science or math.

I, like one of the others on here, know that killtown isn't able to answer my questions, so I post to bring up questions and provide information for the benefit of other people who might read the contents of this thread. The hope is that they'll notice the pattern of his deflective style, his failure to answer queries directly, and observe the way his minimal answers provoke more questions than they satisfy. In this way, he attempts to keep the conversation rolling along to nowhere, and gives him the impression of running the show.

I think killtown's pretty much been tagged and bagged on here, but he just doesn't realize it. And the discussion on here has ground down to trying to get him to realize it rather than talking about the topic of the thread.

[Killtown]

Buckwheatjones, what was that word you referred me as over at Rightwingnutnation? Started with a "b"and ended with a "y" or something like that?

[Bandersnatch]

Beany?

[pgwenthold]

felt the explosion

OK, so others have indicated that the shockwave from the explosion would have been felt within a second of the crash. You say she reacted to the shockwave, if she took the picture within 5 seconds of feeling the explosion, so that means within 6 seconds of the crash. Is that an accurate assessment of your claim?

Interestingly, it has also been noted that it would take 7 - 8 seconds for the SOUND of the explosion to reach her. That means that if you are correct, she actually took the picture BEFORE the sound of the crash reached her. Now, is that true? Can you tell from her comments whether she took the picture before or after she heard the crash?

If someone were SERIOUSLY interested in analyzing this photograph accurately, they would have actually investigated this issue to try to verify the timeline. Of course, you decided to waste your time alienating the people involved instead of doing anything seriously. Had you approached from an investigative standpoint, instead of a witchhunt, I would think you could have gained a lot of extra information. But that is your loss.

To get back to the point: according to Killtown, this picture was actually taken BEFORE McClatchey heard the explosion. Anyone buy that?

It makes me think of that line in My Cousin Vinny: "Are you sure about that 5 seconds?"

[Dr Richard]

Buckwheatjones, what was that word you referred me as over at Rightwingnutnation? Started with a "b"and ended with a "y" or something like that?


Killtown, could you please answer the points put to you on this page rather than recyle historical insults?

Please note that I have abided by the stipulations in your OP. It would be rude to use cheap diversionary tactics at this stage.

Cheers

Richard

[Belz...]

(Killtown: 90 degrees RELATIVE TO WHAT? STOP SAYING 90 DEGREES!!!)

It's a PICTURE, Jury. Obviously, there is only ONE PLANE, so 90 degrees from upwards!!

DUH!

Gosh, I hate thinking like that...

[c0rbin]

Of course I don't wish to stifle discussion...especially not on this board, but I must ask who benefits from this discussion?

1 ) Certainly not Killtown. He is not willing/capable of learning.

2 ) Maybe this is an excersize for our own debating skills, though after ten pages, we have exhausted the original contention and surpassed the topic (lead by Killtowns goalposting and back-pedling)

3 ) Lurkers. If Lurkers are to benefit, perhaps we can summerize the contentions and responses here on this thread with a sign post reading "Nothing beyond this point is relavant save the joy of flaming a total nutball."

[Killtown]

I think we all have strayed off the main subject of this thread, so here it is again:

The smoke plume in Val McClatchey's infamous photo originated at a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed:

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4601/plumecomparisonns0.gif

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1841211&postcount=1

My calculations conclude that the plume in Val's photo originated closer to the orange "explosion" icon to the right on this diagram:

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2352/plumeanalysis1000ftsmdj4.gif


The main reasons that brought me to this conclusion are:

1) the plume in her photo still looks in its "infancy" stage (ie looks less than 45 seconds old)

2) this seems to be verified with Val's story of immediately running outside to take it's picture as soon as she got jolted on her couch from the blast

3) the size of Val's plume in the photo is way too big IMO to have originated from the crash spot

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

5) drawing a "realistic size" explosion/plume diameter puts it much closer to her house as a show in my diagram


Hopefully this clarifies things.


Note that some of you say that the plume could have shifted into Val's camera line (yellow arrow) in about 50 seconds since the wind was blowing that direction at 9 knots. I agree with this, but that would still make the plume way too big to have originated at the crash spot. I believe my generously sized plumes of approx 600' across would be more accurate for UA 93 to have made than the estimated 2,200' across it would have had to be if coming near the crash spot.

Discuss.

[Beleth]

Of course I don't wish to stifle discussion...especially not on this board, but I must ask who benefits from this discussion?

1 ) Certainly not Killtown. He is not willing/capable of learning.

2 ) Maybe this is an excersize for our own debating skills, though after ten pages, we have exhausted the original contention and surpassed the topic (lead by Killtowns goalposting and back-pedling)

3 ) Lurkers. If Lurkers are to benefit, perhaps we can summerize the contentions and responses here on this thread with a sign post reading "Nothing beyond this point is relavant save the joy of flaming a total nutball."
It's almost always #3. The people on the fence who might be reading this thread.

It's like who benefits from maps. Not the locals, who know everything by sight. Not the blind, who can't see the map anyway. Maps are for the people who are coming into an area for the first time.

And while a summary would be nice, I wouldn't expect a critical thinker to rely on it exclusively. Sometimes you have to walk the road to know you've gotten to the right destination.

[Pardalis]

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2352/plumeanalysis1000ftsmdj4.gif


How did you come up with such a graphic? Do you have geomatics engeneering expertise?

Did you do a topographical survey of the region? Have you gone there to look for yourself?

What is your field of expertise?

[Shrinker]

I think we all have strayed off the main subject of this thread, so here it is again:

..snipped...

Discuss.

Thank you Killtown. Does this mean you have dropped your issue with the colour of the smoke?

[Buckwheatjones]

Buckwheatjones, what was that word you referred me as over at Rightwingnutnation? Started with a "b"and ended with a "y" or something like that?

Well, killtown, since you know the first letter and the last letter and there are only five vowels from which to select the middle letter, I find it hard to believe that someone with your level of accumen -- who can string together all sorts of convolutions from unrelated bits of minutia -- is unable to piece this one together, but I'll help you out and remind you for the benefit of all the fine folks over here.

I called you Boy. As in "Is McClatchey a liar or not? Pick one or the other, boy."

So. Now that we've dispensed with that and your tender feelings, can we realign ourselves to the topic? I mean, if you can grow past your sense of alienation, disenfranchisement, and those deep emotions of personal "woundedness," can you speak to the math that shows the viability of a mushroom cloud 600 meters wide?

Can you tell me why any conspirator would set off an explosion a mile away from the hole that it was supposed to replicate?

I have a list of other questions, but let's see if you can answer either of these two without resorting to "read my blog" or "follow my link."

[Dr Richard]

I think we all have strayed off the main subject of this thread, so here it is again:




Note that some of you say that the plume could have shifted into Val's camera line (yellow arrow) in about 50 seconds since the wind was blowing that direction at 9 knots. I agree with this, but that would still make the plume way too big to have originated at the crash spot. I believe my generously sized plumes of approx 600' across would be more accurate for UA 93 to have made than the estimated 2,200' across it would have had to be if coming near the crash spot.



Glad to see you have dropped the smoke colour rubbish from your argument.

Glad to see you have dropped the 90degree bending plume rubbish from your argument.

Please give us the calculations you have used to state that the plume would be 2200ft across if it originated from the crash spot.

Also, what is wrong with Arkan's earlier google map?

[Killtown]

Thank you Killtown. Does this mean you have dropped your issue with the colour of the smoke?
1) Yes, as I said, WE all strayed off course, including me. It doesn't matter what caused this plume, it only matters were it originated from, agreed?

2) What would your thoughts be if it was PROVEN that it originated from a different spot? (hypothetically of course.)

[Killtown]

I called you Boy. As in "Is McClatchey a liar or not? Pick one or the other, boy."
Good, so apologize for calling me a "boy" and I'll respond to your questions.

[Pardalis]

1) the plume in her photo still looks in its "infancy" stage (ie looks less than 45 seconds old)

How are you able to determine that? What is your expertise in this field?

2) this seems to be verified with Val's story of immediately running outside to take it's picture as soon as she got jolted on her couch from the blast

The exact time it took her is inconclusive, it has been shown to you. There is no exact timing of her reaction.

3) the size of Val's plume in the photo is way too big IMO to have originated from the crash spot

Again, what is your expertise? Don't plumes of smoke expand? Isn't it logical to assume that after the explosion, it exanded as it got carried away by the momentum of the crash and the wind?

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

Was there a hurricane that day? Of course plumes of smoke go up, I've never seen one go down.

5) drawing a "realistic size" explosion/plume diameter puts it much closer to her house as a show in my diagram


Again, expertise? How did you come up with this alternative explosion? Where is your work?

[Killtown]

the smoke colour rubbish

the 90degree bending plume rubbish

Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.

[CurtC]

Of course I don't wish to stifle discussion...especially not on this board, but I must ask who benefits from this discussion?
Well, most of us here enjoy this kind of thing, so we benefit.

Other than that, I think it would be satisfying if we manage to take the air out of his argument, so that even he realizes that he gains nothing by trying to make it. I was able to accomplish that to some degree with Sun Zoo over at LC, and his argument that photos of flight 175 proved that the plane could not have been a 767-200, therefore must have been a different flight/plane. I think he still argues that it was different, but I haven't seen him say that the photo proves it anymore.

Of course, Killtown's web page has 200 crappy arguments, so even if we make him abandon this one, we still have 199 more of these to look forward to.

[Killtown]

Pardalis, I doubt I have the "expertise" to satisfy you, so you probably shouldn't participate in this discussion anymore.

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, I doubt I have the "expertise" to satisfy you, so you probably shouldn't participate in this discussion anymore.

Then why should anyone bother with your claim?

[Killtown]

Then why should anyone bother with your claim?
They don't. I haven't forced anybody to participate on this thread.

So ba-bye!

:D

[Pardalis]

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your "findings" with the proper authorities in the field?

[Killtown]

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your "findings" with the proper authorities in the field?
I'm not "qualified" enough for you, so ba-bye, thanks for playing!

[Pardalis]

You didn't answer my question.

If you are after the truth, wouldn't you want to ask the proper experts' opinion?

[Buckwheatjones]

Good, so apologize for calling me a "boy" and I'll respond to your questions.

No. Quit whining and grow a thick skin. You want to delve in hot button topics, learn to deal with the heat.

You estimate the size of the cloud at the hole, as shown in the photograph to be 2200 feet across. That's 600 meters. I posted a mathematical equation showing that 600 meters is possible, 1000 meters is even reasonable.

Do you have anything besides your own opinion that the cloud is just too big to be believable, or is that the best you have?

Answer it, don't answer it. Doesn't matter much to me. If you do then we all get to finally see your hand. If you don't, someone else on here will press you and you'll have to come up with something. Hurry up, boy! Start a-cipherin'!

[mortimer]

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind

How the heck can you determine which way the plume is travelling by a still photo?

[CurtC]

4) the plume looks like it's traveling straight up, thereby NOT affected by much wind
The other points have been pretty well addressed already, so I'll take this one. How can you tell it's travelling straight up? A plume drifting in the wind would, at any snapshot in time, look like that, but over time it would simply appear farther and farther downwind. That seems to be what we're seeing in this photo.

[Killtown]

No.
Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!

[Killtown]

How the heck can you determine which way the plume is travelling by a still photo?
Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-comparison3.1.jpg

[rwguinn]

Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!
oh, lookee!
Baby is taking his ball and going home...

[Pardalis]

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your findings with the proper authorities in the fields of physics, geomatics, meteorology, and the like?

Are you really interested in finding out what that plume of smoke is?

Are you willing to have your theory be falsified scientifically, as any theory should be?

Or do you want to hold on to your unprofessional layman analysis as the Gospel?

[twinstead]

I wonder how long it would have taken one of us, with the exact same posting style, no answers or brief, snippy answers to questions that just beg for more questions instead of proper debating, and attitude as killtown, to be banned at LC.

Kind of telling, don't you think?

[kookbreaker]

Ok, ba-bye, thanks for playing!

Man alive, you are childish.

[twinstead]

Killtown, wouldn't you want to corroborate your findings with the proper authorities in the fields of physics, geomatics, meteorology, and the like?

Are you really interested in finding out what that plume of smoke is?

Are you willing to have your theory be falsified scientifically, as any theory should be?


If he was really after the truth he sure would.

[mortimer]

Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/plume-comparison3.1.jpg

Better question: In which photo can you not see the source of the plume?

[Pardalis]

I'm not "qualified" enough for you, so ba-bye, thanks for playing!

Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?

[CurtC]

Man alive, you are childish.
Be easy on him, he's just a boy.