Plume in Flight 93 photo is different [Archive]

Killtown

13th August 2006, 12:57 PM

kevin

13th August 2006, 12:59 PM

so smoke from a crash freezes at that size?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:08 PM

so smoke from a crash freezes at that size?
I don't understand your question.

mrfreeze

13th August 2006, 01:09 PM

I believe he is saying that the photo could be from a while after the plane crashed, when the plume would be larger, but if I am remembering correctly, the claim is that she heard the crash then ran outside and took the picture, and then dropped the camera? So the picture is supposed to be from very shortly after the crash?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:12 PM

Crazy Chainsaw

13th August 2006, 01:16 PM

Why would the plume be smaller when the plane first crashes? A plane going that fast, crashing into the ground would not just burn, it would eject a lot of material into the sky and as it formed the crater.
You have to know how much ejected material was formed before you can say how big the plume would be.

elgarak

13th August 2006, 01:17 PM

Yeah, well, we all know how exact eyewitnesses remember times. :rolleyes:

Dazed

13th August 2006, 01:19 PM

It's smoke, not ejected material.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:21 PM

it would eject a lot of material into the sky and as it formed the crater.

I thought the plane burrowed itself all the way underground???

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:22 PM

Yeah, well, we all know how exact eyewitnesses remember times. :rolleyes:
Val said she and the FBI timed herself when they came to take her camera's memory card away.

Pyrrho

13th August 2006, 01:22 PM

Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:27 PM

Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
All we know is it was a "new digital camera." I'd guess it was more of a basic one than an expensive one since she probably bought it for her real-estate work (taking pictures of houses, etc.) and that right before 9/11 she was about to go bankrupt, so doubtful she'd spend a ton of money on an advanced camera. We can only speculate though.

kevin

13th August 2006, 01:29 PM

Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...

Additionally, the B-52 movie the second plume was take from was zooming in and out. How was this rectified when calculating the adjustments needed to overlay the two images? Where are these calculations at? (I scrolled through the link marked analysis but no calcs jump out at me)

Dazed

13th August 2006, 01:29 PM

The FBI confiscated her memory card?

kevin

13th August 2006, 01:31 PM

I notice in the original photo that the smoke underneath the plume has dissipated. Why not let the B-52 film run until that occurs on that plume and compare sizes?

elgarak

13th August 2006, 01:31 PM

The point chosen for Val's position when taking the photo is inside her house, behind the front door, not on the front porch where she claims she took the photo (see the Google Earth closeup, just above the photo of her front porch).

How sure are the analysts of her position?

kevin

13th August 2006, 01:33 PM

I notice a B-52 is capable of carrying roughly 4 times the fuel as a 757-222. What were the amounts of fuels in each crash as this would affect the amount of material available to generate smoke?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:34 PM

The FBI confiscated her memory card?
Yep! They claimed they saw "debris flying out of the plume" when viewing her pic on the computer. Funny, I didn't see any debris flying from out of the plume!

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:35 PM

pgwenthold

13th August 2006, 01:37 PM

Rule 1 of Conspiracy Theory: Resorting to alleged photograph inconsistencies is a sure-fire way to know that CTs are bunk. See JFK, Moon-landing Hoaxers

elgarak

13th August 2006, 01:41 PM

Val said she and the FBI timed herself when they came to take her camera's memory card away.

Even professional actors struggle to repeat their actions exactly the same for different takes, especially if the takes are done on different days.

Val's actions during the 'FBI timing' are very probable different from her actions on 9/11.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 01:44 PM

Even professional actors struggle to repeat their actions exactly the same for different takes, especially if the takes are done on different days.

Val's actions during the 'FBI timing' are very probable different from her actions on 9/11.
Well all you have to do is look at the plume and tell it's still in it's infancy stage, so I'd say under 10 sec is a consistent claim.

DavidJames

13th August 2006, 01:46 PM

Welcome Killtown. I guess since most of the skeptics have been banned at Loose Change, it gets kind of boring being able to converse with only believers. You should encounter no such paranoia here.

Regarding the picture, what's your point? No one to my knowledge is using this photo in any official capacity in any part of the 9/11 crash investigation. You can correct me if I'm wrong. But if you do, please do so with supporting evidence from reputable sources.

Edit to change phone to picture (huh :))

kevin

13th August 2006, 01:53 PM

Well all you have to do is look at the plume and tell it's still in it's infancy stage, so I'd say under 10 sec is a consistent claim.

can you provide evidence for this claim? say produce other plumes at 10 seconds that show a similar dissipation of the smoke between the plume and the alleged source?

AK-Dave

13th August 2006, 01:57 PM

Not going to read any conspiricy sites right now, as I am sufficiently angry for the day, but does it take into account the speed and angle of the impacts? What was the weather like at both sites (temp, barometric pressure, humidity) and how does your "analysis" control for those factors? Are both aircraft using the same fuel type? Have the people who "analysed" the pictures ever investigated large aircraft crashes or are they your typical armchair experts who have no real knowledge or experience and are in need of serious self-fornication? If the government was able to pull off the alledged 9/11 hoax so well, why were they so incompetent as to have their fake smoke plume be in the wrong spot? Why are the people exposing this "conspiricy" still alive? Any competent government conspiricy able to pull off something on that scale would be able to silence critics before the criticisims became so widespread. Or do you believe the conspiritors don't know how to use Google?

It would violate forum rules for me to say what I think about this particular "theory" and what the people promoting it are putting this lady through...

-David

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:00 PM

1) Welcome Killtown. I guess since most of the skeptics have been banned at Loose Change, it gets kind of boring being able to converse with only believers. You should encounter no such paranoia here.

2)Regarding the picture, what's your point?

3) No one to my knowledge is using this photo in any official capacity in any part of the 9/11 crash investigation. (huh :))
1) Yeah, it's too bad most skeptics don't know how to behave themselves during a debate.

2) :boggled:

3) Well I guess we are now!

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:06 PM

It would violate forum rules for me to say what I think about this particular "theory" and what the people promoting it are putting this lady through...

-David
I tell you what, don't bother posting to this thread anymore.

AK-Dave

13th August 2006, 02:08 PM

I tell you what, don't bother posting to this thread anymore.
Couldn't answer the other questions then?

DavidJames

13th August 2006, 02:16 PM

1) 2) :boggled:

3) Well I guess we are now!

Please answer my question. Regarding the picture, what's your point? No one to my knowledge is using this photo in any official capacity in any part of the 9/11 crash investigation. You can correct me if I'm wrong. But if you do, please do so with supporting evidence from reputable sources.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:18 PM

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

DavidJames

13th August 2006, 02:21 PM

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

I would understand if the offical report used that photo as part of their evidence, but they didn't. So if you are attempting to use that photo to refute the official report, you are wasting your time.

Ladewig

13th August 2006, 02:22 PM

Why does your poll have only two options. As for me, I am unsure enough that I would have voted for "Don't know/can't tell" if it had been an option.

Are you trying to use this photo as evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the ground on that day?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:26 PM

1) But who cares?

2) So if you are attempting to use that photo to refute the official report, you are wasting your time.
1) Who cares??? :boggled:

Americans who don't want their country over-run by tyrants, that's who care.

2) Why?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:28 PM

1) Why does your poll have only two options. As for me, I am unsure enough that I would have voted for "Don't know/can't tell" if it had been an option.

2) Are you trying to use this photo as evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the ground on that day?
1) Not for sinister reasons, I can assure you.

2) No, I'm simply implying that this plume was not from that alleged crash. Two different incidences as far as I'm concerned.

Bob Klase

13th August 2006, 02:29 PM

1) Yeah, it's too bad most skeptics don't know how to behave themselves during a debate.

Why don't you show everyone how to properly answer questions during a debate.

I tell you what, don't bother posting to this thread anymore.

There ya go.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:33 PM

Why don't you show everyone how to properly answer questions during a debate.

I'm only going to answer to people who are at least .0000001% openminded.

Johnny C.

13th August 2006, 02:37 PM

I'm only going to answer to people who are at least .0000001% openminded.

Isnt it close minded to assume someone isnt open minded just because they dont believe you?

Ive given you the time of day to see your argument, and Im not convinced. You need to do better. We're not the problem. Your bad argument is.

CFLarsen

13th August 2006, 02:38 PM

I'm only going to answer to people who are at least .0000001% openminded.

I am as open-minded as you can possibly get.

What, exactly, are you saying?

gmanontario

13th August 2006, 02:38 PM

I'm only going to answer to people who are at least .0000001% openminded.

Like sBrown/Jenabell?

It appears that if you decide who is open minded, then you'll not have to answer many questions.:(

Dave1001

13th August 2006, 02:44 PM

I'm only going to answer to people who are at least .0000001% openminded.

You're going to exclude me? I am within one order of magnitude of making the cut:(

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:44 PM

1) Isnt it close minded to assume someone isnt open minded just because they dont believe you?

2) Ive given you the time of day to see your argument, and Im not convinced. You need to do better. We're not the problem. Your bad argument is.
1) Calling theories names is a sign of closemindedness...ness.

2) Bad argument? Well, I guess some people can't read diagrams very well.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:45 PM

What, exactly, are you saying?
About???

Johnny C.

13th August 2006, 02:47 PM

1) Calling theories names is a sign of closemindedness...ness.

2) Bad argument? Well, I guess some people can't read diagrams very well.

The diagram is arbitrary in every context. You say, essentially, "this is what smoke looked like from one crash, so if i put the smoke from that arbitary crash and make it an arbitrary size so it looks like its an arbitray distance away, you can see the two look nothing alike, hence, the picture is fake"

Thats not evidence, its pseudoscience

Killtown

13th August 2006, 02:53 PM

The diagram is arbitrary in every context. You say, essentially, "this is what smoke looked like from one crash, so if i put the smoke from that arbitary crash and make it an arbitrary size so it looks like its an arbitray distance away, you can see the two look nothing alike, hence, the picture is fake"

No, I'm assuming the photo is real.

Sword_Of_Truth

13th August 2006, 03:01 PM

No, I'm assuming the photo is real.

Why the debate then?

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th August 2006, 03:10 PM

(I'm sure you will all strictly adhere to the forum rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744) if choosing to respond to this thread. Anyone who doesn't will not get a response back.)

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

<snip photo for space>
(Original photo source (http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html). Plume in right photo came from a real plane crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c). See analysis of how this was determined here (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html).)

<snip photo for space>

So this means this plume in Val's photo was not (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-plume-comparison.html[) from Flight 93 crashing.

(Key factors to note: Val says she snapped her photo about 5 seconds (http://www.windsorparkstories.com/shank1.html) after almost being knocked off her couch (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html) from the explosion. Wind gusts near the crash spot were only 9 knots (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp) blowing SE (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y).)

If you think you can debunk this claim, please use similar types of photo and graphic analysis to do so. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't do.

PS - For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic.

"Let's roll!"

Some questions that I believe need to be answered to add value to your analysis:
1) What was the estimated amount of fuel on flight 93 at the time of the crash?
2) What was the estimated amount of fuel on the B-52 at the time of the crash?
3) What were the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash of flight 93?
4) What were the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash of the B-52?
5) What were the speed, angle of attack, etc of flight 93 at the time of impact?
6) What were the speed, angle of attack, etc of the B-52 at the time of impact?
7) We know what the field was in Shanksville, what ground material did the B-52 crash in to? (dirt, runway, etc)
8) Why was the specific frame of the B-52 chosen for the comparison?
9) How did you scale the B-52 plume to the picture? How did you handle the different zoom, range, etc between the two cameras?
10) Why do you feel that the plume you chose from the B-52 crash is a 1-to-1 comaprison with that in Ms. McClatchey's photo?

AK-Dave

13th August 2006, 03:11 PM

Perhaps I came across as a little too hostile in my posts to this thread. The reason for this can be summed up in a quote from a blog entry I read the other day:
Proclaiming her photograph to be a fraud on a variety of pseudo-scientific grounds is not enough for conspiracy-minded bloggers, who have publicly maligned her character and have even called her at home to harass her. A kook calling himself Killtown (http://www.geocities.com/killtown/) has posted her home address, phone number, and personal email address online.From here (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/08/911_conspiracy.html).

This puts me in the same state of mind as the story about Bart Sibrel stalking Buzz Aldrin and trying to get him to swear on a bible that he landed on the moon. That is where my earlier statement about violating forum rules comes from. Attacking evidence is one thing, attacking people is another.

Gravy

13th August 2006, 03:26 PM

Glad you're here, Killtown.

In other forums where you post, I've posted as "Murdervillage" and repeatedly asked you questions that you simply ignored. You also deleted my posts on your blog, which presented evidence that contradicted your claims. Are these the ways of a truthseeker?

Here's an example of a post that you did not respond to:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=135&st=0#entry2399

Please now answer these questions:

1) You claim to be investigating the events of 9/11. You have a great deal of information on your websites, and claim to have over 200 "smoking guns" that show that the attacks were not carried out according to the official version. You claim that flights 93 and 77 did not crash where the OV says they did. Who, among the thousands of first responders and investigators at those scenes, have you spoken to, and what did they say?
I've asked you this at least a dozen times. Please respond now.

2) You have repeatedly stated that the red bandanna found at the flight 93 scene could not have survived the crash. The post above shows many other items that survived, and the Moussaoui trial exhibits show more. What is your reaction to this evidence, and will you change the way you present this claim?

3) Why do you think that a 757's tail section would remain intact after a nearly 600 mph head-on collision with the ground?

4) Likewise, why do you think the "nose cone" of the plane that hit the Pentagon remained intact and caused the exit hole damage in C ring?

I look forward, finally, to your replies.

LashL

13th August 2006, 04:10 PM

Nice photoshopping you did on the photo to the right, but what makes you think that every plume of smoke at every plane crash should look exactly like the one you photoshopped into that picture?

Sword_Of_Truth

13th August 2006, 04:23 PM

Perhaps I came across as a little too hostile in my posts to this thread. The reason for this can be summed up in a quote from a blog entry I read the other day:
From here (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/08/911_conspiracy.html).

Proclaiming her photograph to be a fraud on a variety of pseudo-scientific grounds is not enough for conspiracy-minded bloggers, who have publicly maligned her character and have even called her at home to harass her. A kook calling himself Killtown has posted her home address, phone number, and personal email address online.

This puts me in the same state of mind as the story about Bart Sibrel stalking Buzz Aldrin and trying to get him to swear on a bible that he landed on the moon. That is where my earlier statement about violating forum rules comes from. Attacking evidence is one thing, attacking people is another.

What's also interesting is KKKilltown is now claiming he has her permission to use the photo on his weblog.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-plume-comparison.html

Can we please have documentation that Ms. McClatchey has accepted your apology for exposing her to harrasment and potential physical assault and granted permission for you to use the photo, Kill?

Let's please refrain from using personal insults.

blutoski

13th August 2006, 04:23 PM

If you think you can debunk this claim, please use similar types of photo and graphic analysis to do so. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't do.

I think we can dismiss it with basic logic alone. What were the lens magnifications for both crash photos? F-stops?

Hutch

13th August 2006, 04:33 PM

Killtown, first of all let me welcome you here. You have jumped into the Lion's den and I'll give you full credit for doing something that Mr. Avery and crew, Merc, and others forbear or run from, as DJLegacy most infamously did.

That noted, your comparison is not that strong, IMHO. The B-52 crash happened at a much lower altitude, at much slower speed, and more importantly was more of a lateral crash (I am not using the proper terms, I know, I'm not an expert), i.e., the wingtip impacted first and was followed by the rest of the plane and the opposite wing. Since the aircraft still had forward motion, the initial explosion and fire were more lateral at first, so the smoke was slower to rise (IMHO, expert commentary would be welcome) that with a plane diving from several thousand feet at over 500 MPH.

In addition, the comparative sizes of the clouds are dependent upon the distance and zoom aspects of the respective cameras, as Pyhrro noted and blutoski seconded. I am not yet ready to accept that A = B at this point.

Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

twinstead

13th August 2006, 04:38 PM

Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

I wish to second that

TheChadd

13th August 2006, 04:39 PM

This is really just... bizarre evidence.

Anyway, since you asked for similar photo and graphic analysis, I have done so. It's pretty rough at the moment, but hopefully you can get the idea and give me your thoughts. Here it is:

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3353/ufotn1.gif

Just some lighthearted fun :)

Seriously tho, I don't see what it means if this photo is a complete fake, photoshopped and all by rightwing neo-nazi's.

Gravy

13th August 2006, 04:47 PM

Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.

I wish to second that
I'll be glad to "third" it when Killtown addresses the issues I've raised, which he has refused to do again and again and again.

twinstead

13th August 2006, 04:54 PM

I'll be glad to "third" it when Killtown addresses the issues I've raised, which he has refused to do again and again and again.

Yea, but on this site, that kind of stuff is noted. Since obfuscation is a serious prerequisite on the LC forum, If killtown wants to play the same games here any rational person who either contributes or lurks on this forum will see it for what it is.

Basically, here he will debunk himself in the absence of real evidence.

Earl The Tall

13th August 2006, 04:55 PM

There are way too many variables that are left missing for just a simple yes or no answer. We are going to need more info on the B-52 crash to justife a lot. In the mean time I pulled up some spechs of the two planes for comparison.

B-52:
Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)
Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)
Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)
Empty weight: 185,000 lb (83,250 kg)
Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 488,000 lb (220,000 kg)
Fuel capacity: 47,975 US gal (181,725 L)

Source: wikipedia

757-200:
Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Empty weight: 128,730 lb (58,390 kg) 141,330 lb (64,110 kg )
Max. takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)
Fuel capacity 11,489 US gal (43,490 l)

Source: wikipedia

The only big difference is that the B-52 has a much larger wingspan and holds up to 24% more fuel than a 757-200.

Crazy Chainsaw

13th August 2006, 05:08 PM

I thought the plane burrowed itself all the way underground???
As did the lockheed Electra in tell city, but it still sent up a plume and scattered debris for miles, nothing was found as far as I remember larger than a table spoon except the wings which had broken off, and cause the plane to drop from the sky like a rock.

http://www.perrycountyindiana.org/attractions/aircrash.cfm

Beleth

13th August 2006, 05:20 PM

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

PS - For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic.

If that plume originated at a different location, where is that location?

What is at that location?
What was at that location on September 10, 2001?
What was at that location on September 12, 2001?
What caused the plume?

If the answer to those last two questions are not "Flight 93", where is Flight 93?
If you are not disputing the fact that Flight 93 crashed there, where is its plume?

Alphaba

13th August 2006, 05:21 PM

Preliminary comment and disclaimer:
A converging body of evidence allowed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Flight 93 did crash in Shanksville after having been hijacked. This converging body of evidence is itself part and parcel of a larger body of converging evidence that allowed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 19 al-Qaeda operatives and militants did conduct a large suicide terrorist operation against the USA on 9/11/2001, killing thousands of American citizens. Discussing the photograph put in the OP doesn't in any manner imply discussing the validity of these conclusions.

Now, about Val McClatchey's photograph:
Besides questioning the size and location of the thermal (a term used in the NIST report), Killtown also casted doubts on its color. A photograph taken by Sara Schwittek 25 s after the crash of Flight 175 into WTC2 (http://www.foureyes.com/towers/pop.cfm?img=003_lg.jpg) shows a thermal which color is more similar to the one seen in Val McClatchey's phototograph than to the black thing in its photoshopped version.

Another moot point in Killtown's claims is timing. He apparently assumes that Val McClatchey reacted in about 5 s and took her photo some 10 s ("under 10 s") after the explosion, whatever its origin. It is extremely unlikely if it is a picture of the thermal generated by the crash. Demonstration:

Thanks to the Google Map put on Killtown's blog, it is possible to evaluate the distance between Val McClatchey's house and the crash site with a simple ruler: It's about 3000 m. The speed of sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound) in air, at a temperature between 15 and 20 °C, is 340-343 m/s. So 8.7-8.8 s elapsed before Val McClatchey could hear the sound of the explosion. Even if she reacted in 5 s, she could not have taken her picture "under 10 s": 14 s are the strict minimum, and 20 s sounds more realistic. And at 20 s, the shape and color of the thermal generated by the crash of an airliner starts to look furiously as the one seen on her photograph.

NobbyNobbs

13th August 2006, 05:26 PM

The only thing I found questionable about this photo was that, after hearing a "boom" and being knocked off her couch, the woman's first reaction was to grab her camera. I also found it surprising that she was able to get off the floor, get the camera, and get to the porch to take the picture within 5 seconds.

ETA: Posted before the above post was read. Sorry. Still surprised that she grabbed a camear though, but that's only because it wouldn't be my first reaction.

AK-Dave

13th August 2006, 05:36 PM

Additional details about the B-52 crash from here (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm):On the 24th of June 1994, Czar 52, a B-52H assigned to the 325th Bomb Squadron, 92d Bomb Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, WA, launched at approximate 1358 hours Pacific Daylight Time (PDT), to practice maneuvers for an upcoming airshow. The aircrew had the planned and briefed a profile, through the Wing Commander level, that grossly exceeded aircraft and regulatory limitations. Upon preparing to land at the end of the practice airshow profile, the crew was required to execute a "go-around" or missed approach because of another aircraft on the runway. At mid-field, Czar 52 began a tight 360 degree left turn around the control tower at only 250 feet altitude above ground level (AGL). Approximately three quarters of the way through the turn, the aircraft banked past 90 degrees, stalled, clipped a power line with the left wing and crashed. Impact occurred at approximately 1416 hours PDT. There were no survivors out of a crew of four field grade officers.
It was going slow in preparation for landing and basically fell out of the sky on it's side in the middle of a steep banking turn due to pilot asshattery. A little different than plowing in upside down at over 500 mph.

Gravy

13th August 2006, 05:38 PM

Killtown

13th August 2006, 06:39 PM

Why the debate then?
Hey Sort of Truth, I noticed you didn't refer to me as you usually do. Why is that? Know that you'll get banned?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 06:47 PM

Some questions that I believe need to be answered to add value to your analysis:
1) What was the estimated amount of fuel on flight 93 at the time of the crash?
2) What was the estimated amount of fuel on the B-52 at the time of the crash?
3) What were the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash of flight 93?
4) What were the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash of the B-52?
5) What were the speed, angle of attack, etc of flight 93 at the time of impact?
6) What were the speed, angle of attack, etc of the B-52 at the time of impact?
7) We know what the field was in Shanksville, what ground material did the B-52 crash in to? (dirt, runway, etc)
8) Why was the specific frame of the B-52 chosen for the comparison?
9) How did you scale the B-52 plume to the picture? How did you handle the different zoom, range, etc between the two cameras?
10) Why do you feel that the plume you chose from the B-52 crash is a 1-to-1 comaprison with that in Ms. McClatchey's photo?
1) I don't know. What did the NTSB report say?
2) Why is that important?
3) Wind 9 knots SE.
4) relevance?
5 & 6) The B-52 came in at less steep angle to produce a BIGGER fireball and plume.
7) relevance?
8) :rolleyes:
9) Using occam's razor.
10) Who said it was a 1-to-1 comparison?
11) Val had two cups of coffee before taking the shot. (Oops! that question wasn't asked!)

Killtown

13th August 2006, 06:51 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th August 2006, 06:54 PM

1) I don't know. What did the NTSB report say?
2) Why is that important?
3) Wind 9 knots SE.
4) relevance?
5 & 6) The B-52 came in at less steep angle to produce a BIGGER fireball and plume.
7) relevance?
8) :rolleyes:
9) Using occam's razor.
10) Who said it was a 1-to-1 comparison?
11) Val had two cups of coffee before taking the shot. (Oops! that question wasn't asked!)

RE 1) You are making the claim, please provide your own supporting evidence.
RE 2) To establish value in comparing the two crashes.
RE 3) Air temp? Humidity? Barometric pressure? etc
RE 4) see #2
RE 5) The fireball of flight 93 was never witnessed, how can you claim that the B-52's is larger? Concerning plume, see my comments below.
RE 7) see #2
RE 8) Why was the specific frame from the B-52 film chosen?
RE 9) Occam's Razor states The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

Or, as Einstein put it "As simple as possible, but no simpler" source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor How does this assist you with adjusting for the elements in question when comparing the two pictures?
RE 10) If you are not claiming a 1-to-1 comparison how can you make claims about the Shanksville crash using the B-52 crash as a reference?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 06:58 PM

1) Killtown, first of all let me welcome you here. You have jumped into the Lion's den and I'll give you full credit
2)as DJLegacy
3)That noted, your comparison is not that strong, IMHO.
4) In addition, the comparative sizes of the clouds are dependent upon the distance and zoom aspects of the respective cameras, as Pyhrro noted and blutoski seconded. I am not yet ready to accept that A = B at this point.
5)Again, I welcome your courage in confronting us on our ground, if disagreeing vehemently with your conclusions.
1) Cheers!
2) Please don't lump me in with total embarrasments to my movement such as him.
3) Sorry, I didn't find your reason holding a lot of merit. Sorry.
4) "
5) " (to #1)

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:02 PM

The only big difference is that the B-52 has a much larger wingspan and holds up to 24% more fuel than a 757-200.
You guys are making this waaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (remember Occam's Razor?)

It's actually really simple. Plane with jet fuel crashes. Catches fire. Thick dark smoke forms briefly in a mushroom cloud. Plume rises.

It's not rocket science.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:06 PM

1) If that plume originated at a different location, where is that location?
2) What is at that location?
3) What was at that location on September 10, 2001?
4) What was at that location on September 12, 2001?
5) What caused the plume?
6) If the answer to those last two questions are not "Flight 93", where is Flight 93?
7) If you are not disputing the fact that Flight 93 crashed there, where is its plume?
1) It doesn't matter.
2) "
3) "
4) "
5) "
6) "
7) "

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:10 PM

And at 20 s, the shape and color of the thermal generated by the crash of an airliner starts to look furiously as the one seen on her photograph.
None of that matters because whether her plume was from 93 crashing or an ordnance, it still didn't come from the alleged crash scene. It's waaaaaaay to big.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:11 PM

Taarkin

13th August 2006, 07:23 PM

You guys are making this waaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (remember Occam's Razor?)

According to Occam's Razor, all aircraft are exactly the same. You learn something new every day.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:24 PM

RE 1) You are making the claim, please provide your own supporting evidence.
RE 2) To establish value in comparing the two crashes.
RE 3) Air temp? Humidity? Barometric pressure? etc
RE 4) see #2
RE 5) The fireball of flight 93 was never witnessed, how can you claim that the B-52's is larger? Concerning plume, see my comments below.
RE 7) see #2
RE 8) Why was the specific frame from the B-52 film chosen?
RE 9) Occam's Razor states source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor How does this assist you with adjusting for the elements in question when comparing the two pictures?
RE 10) If you are not claiming a 1-to-1 comparison how can you make claims about the Shanksville crash using the B-52 crash as a reference?
1) No, he asked how much fuel was in 93 when it crashed. I said "I don't know." Then I asked what did the NTSB report say about how much fuel it had at the time of crash.
2) The color of the plumes is really irrelevant. the positioning of the plumes is what's at hand.
3) Relevance?
4) See #2.
5) It was never witnessed? That would explain things! But to your question, 93 was said to nosedive at "nearly 90 deg" the shape of the crater is consistent with that. B-52 hit less angle then that and skidded to create bigger fireball.
7) See #2.
8) See #2 (2nd part)
9) Cause you guys are making things needlessly complex. "Keep it simple, stup.." (It's just a quote.)
10) See #2

Stellafane

13th August 2006, 07:36 PM

...A kook calling himself Killtown has posted her home address, phone number, and personal email address online.

Hi Killtown. Did you really do this? And if so, why?

thaiboxerken

13th August 2006, 07:38 PM

Smoke never dissipates, the photo must be a fake.

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th August 2006, 07:42 PM

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:49 PM

Hi Killtown. Did you really do this? And if so, why?
Cause it was posted on her sites that advertised her photo. And it wasn't her home # I posted, it was only her wk #. Although her home # is posted numerous times on the net.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 07:51 PM

RE Killtown. These questions are relevent because, if you comparitive analysis of the plume is wrong then any conclusions you base upon it are also wrong. Each level of evidence must stand up to scrutiny.
The only relevant point is the plume positioning. The color is not a factor for this experiment.

Mercutio

13th August 2006, 07:57 PM

Thanks to the Google Map put on Killtown's blog, it is possible to evaluate the distance between Val McClatchey's house and the crash site with a simple ruler: It's about 3000 m. The speed of sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound) in air, at a temperature between 15 and 20 °C, is 340-343 m/s. So 8.7-8.8 s elapsed before Val McClatchey could hear the sound of the explosion. Even if she reacted in 5 s, she could not have taken her picture "under 10 s": 14 s are the strict minimum, and 20 s sounds more realistic. And at 20 s, the shape and color of the thermal generated by the crash of an airliner starts to look furiously as the one seen on her photograph.
Speed of sound in air is not the only measure of interest. The shockwave through ground travels much faster than through air; her comment that she was "knocked off her couch" (while quite probably hyperbole) supports a groundwave rather than sound propogated through air.

Rather than 340 m/s, the speed of sound through earth is (depending on material) somewhere between 5 and 13 km/s (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/PamelaSpiegel.shtml). So we may be looking at, for 3 km, well under a second.

The other thing...not an argument, but an observation. When my kids got their new digital cameras (some time ago), for a few weeks they were never more than a few feet away. Something neat? Take a picture! It is entirely plausible that someone with a new digital point-and-shoot would be fairly quick on the draw.

Checkmite

13th August 2006, 07:57 PM

2) No, I'm simply implying that this plume was not from that alleged crash. Two different incidences as far as I'm concerned.

It is more likely that the viewer is lying about what the photograph depicts than that she simply misjudged the time it took her to get to wherever she got to in order to take that photo? As far as I know, digital cameras take something like 5 seconds to boot up when they're first turned on - and in any case, depending on the distance from her house to the crash site, the moment she heard the "boom" was any number of seconds after the actual crash took place. It's entirely possible that cloud of smoke could already be seen just sprouting over the treeline a split second before she would've been able to hear the explosion. Think lightning vs. thunder. Or a July 4th fireworks show.

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th August 2006, 07:57 PM

The only relevant point is the plume positioning. The color is not a factor for this experiment.

None of my queries are limited to the color of the plume in scope. All of them are relevent to (1) how the plume will form and (2) how the plume will behave after it has finished its initial formation.

Stellafane

13th August 2006, 08:00 PM

Cause it was posted on her sites that advertised her photo. And it wasn't her home # I posted, it was only her wk #. Although her home # is posted numerous times on the net.

That explains where you got the information. Why did you do it?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:02 PM

The other thing...not an argument, but an observation. When my kids got their new digital cameras (some time ago), for a few weeks they were never more than a few feet away. Something neat? Take a picture! It is entirely plausible that someone with a new digital point-and-shoot would be fairly quick on the draw.
Did you read how she was able to grab her camera so fast and why it was "ready" by her front door?

Blue Mountain

13th August 2006, 08:04 PM

Hi Killtown,

How many years of experience have you had doing analysis of photographs, especially with regard to the fact a photograph captures a three dimensional space on a two dimensional plane?

Gravy

13th August 2006, 08:04 PM

I'm only going to respond to relevant questions concerning the subject of this thread. Feel free to start another thread for any other questions.
The issues of flight 93 debris and the "missing tail section" is directly relevant to your claims that flight 93 did not crash in that field just before the photo in question was taken. Please respond to them.

As for my other questions, do you agree to address them if I start another thread on this forum?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:05 PM

1) As far as I know, digital cameras take something like 5 seconds to boot up when they're first turned on

2) It's entirely possible that cloud of smoke could already be seen just sprouting over the treeline a split second before she would've been able to hear the explosion.
1) she had her camera already ready by her front door anticipating a flyover by a helicopter (no, I'm not joking).

2) The plume could not of traveled that far, that fast, in so little time.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:06 PM

None of my queries are limited to the color of the plume in scope. All of them are relevent to (1) how the plume will form and (2) how the plume will behave after it has finished its initial formation.
You think it could have traveled this far so fast?...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:09 PM

That explains where you got the information. Why did you do it?
Why not do it?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:12 PM

The issues of flight 93 debris and the "missing tail section" is directly relevant to your claims that flight 93 did not crash in that field just before the photo in question was taken. Please respond to them.

As for my other questions, do you agree to address them if I start another thread on this forum?
all this belongs on a different thread. And yes.

TheChadd

13th August 2006, 08:13 PM

Why not do it?
Because it takes time.

What was your motive?

Earl The Tall

13th August 2006, 08:14 PM

You guys are making this waaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be (remember Occam's Razor?)

It's actually really simple. Plane with jet fuel crashes. Catches fire. Thick dark smoke forms briefly in a mushroom cloud. Plume rises.

It's not rocket science.

One needs to consider these things to try and find a conclusion. And putting it to such simple terms like that is just as bad as making it too complicated.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:16 PM

Because it takes time.

What was your motive?
I have plenty of time. Motive? Facts.

Mercutio

13th August 2006, 08:17 PM

Did you read how she was able to grab her camera so fast and why it was "ready" by her front door?
I am trying to see how it is relevant. It seems to me that anything that makes her story faster (the shockwave, having the camera ready) simply increases the interval that could contain the actual time. It could be fairly quick, or (as Joshua says), it could have been significantly longer and simply recalled incorrectly. Memory research certainly shows that stressful situations make our memories less accurate, not more.

So...the time frame is flexible enough for the photo to be real. What about everything else? All the things you say are not relevant...would certainly influence the formation of the cloud. Why do you say they are not relevant?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:18 PM

One needs to consider these things to try and find a conclusion. And putting it to such simple terms like that is just as bad as making it too complicated.
The only things I see really relevant is wind speed and direction and estimated how big a plume would be from a large plane with lots of fuel on board.

TheChadd

13th August 2006, 08:18 PM

remember Occam's Razor

Well unfortunately if what you're implying is that it didn't crash where it did, that flies in the face of alot of other information we have with reguard to the crash and makes it much more complicated. Essentially, attacking this particular claim in a complicated manner is necessary because it doesn't fit in with the simple, reasonable explanation we've come up with based on other evidence.

Occam's razor in action. If we accept your claim then we're down a much more complicated path.

I have plenty of time. Motive? Facts.

Your personal life is made up of facts also, why don't you publish them but instead decided to publish hers?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:20 PM

I am trying to see how it is relevant. It seems to me that anything that makes her story faster (the shockwave, having the camera ready) simply increases the interval that could contain the actual time. It could be fairly quick, or (as Joshua says), it could have been significantly longer and simply recalled incorrectly. Memory research certainly shows that stressful situations make our memories less accurate, not more.

So...the time frame is flexible enough for the photo to be real. What about everything else? All the things you say are not relevant...would certainly influence the formation of the cloud. Why do you say they are not relevant?
well unless someone can tell me how any of that other than wind speed/direction and amount of fuel could substantially effect the size and movement of a plume that's only seconds old, I'll factor it in.

Gravy

13th August 2006, 08:22 PM

all this belongs on a different thread. And yes.
New thread here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1842112#post1842)

Killtown

13th August 2006, 08:28 PM

1) Well unfortunately if what you're implying is that it didn't crash where it did,

2) Your personal life is made up of facts also, why don't you publish them but instead decided to publish hers?
1) No, I'm implying this was another plume.

2) cause my info is not relevant.

Gravy

13th August 2006, 08:28 PM

well unless someone can tell me how any of that other than wind speed/direction and amount of fuel could substantially effect the size and movement of a plume that's only seconds old, I'll factor it in.
Where was the wind speed measured? Do we know that the wind at that location wasn't gusting to, say, 17 knots? Do we know that, even though the impact itself was fairly vertical, the plane's wake didn't have some effect on the cloud? As mentioned above, there are many possible variables that your analysis doesn't consider.

kevin

13th August 2006, 08:29 PM

The only things I see really relevant is wind speed and direction and estimated how big a plume would be from a large plane with lots of fuel on board.

so what are these numbers, both from the supposed united 93 crash and the b-52 crash?

The actual time from crash to picture taking is not significant?

Also, do you know if she took multiple pictures? If so, which in the series is this photo and what is the time between photos her camera is capable of?

How much time would have to pass before the smoke from the source begins to dissipate as it is in this photo? How would this differ from say a similar example with 4x the fuel available to burn?

kevin

13th August 2006, 08:31 PM

well unless someone can tell me how any of that other than wind speed/direction and amount of fuel could substantially effect the size and movement of a plume that's only seconds old, I'll factor it in.

I'm sorry, I'm just asking questions, I thought you were doing research. How do you justify making claims without basic knowledge of the events surrounding your claims?

If you claim the photographer is lying about taking the picture at all, why do you believe her "a few seconds" (which to you is apparently 5-10 seconds, despite the sound taking 8-9 seconds to reach her).

Mercutio

13th August 2006, 08:33 PM

well unless someone can tell me how any of that other than wind speed/direction and amount of fuel could substantially effect the size and movement of a plume that's only seconds old, I'll factor it in.

You've never noticed the difference in smoke plumes in dry vs humid air? Hot vs. cold? Never seen the haze a temperature inversion can throw over a town? And while you say "amount of fuel" here, in posts 65 and 74 you dismiss questions directly about the amount of fuel. Do you know what % the cloud changes with changes in amount of fuel? How do you know that the planes are close enough to reasonably compare?

I am not an expert in this at all, but your question tells me that you are not either (or you'd have told me why you choose to ignore those variables). Unless you have good reason to ignore them, they remain simply sources of error, and they detract from your claims.

TheChadd

13th August 2006, 08:34 PM

1) No, I'm implying this was another plume.

Ok, whatever. What's the relevance of this then? Do you think this flies in the face of the official story (in which case you need to apply occam's razor yourself) or do you just have some personal grudge against this womans claim about the photograph for no particular reason? If it's the latter, then ok fine, let's just imagine that she did get it wrong about what time she took the picture, what angle she took it from etc, why do we now care?

Mercutio

13th August 2006, 08:34 PM

1) No, I'm implying this was another plume.

2) cause my info is not relevant.

How is her info relevant? Does it add to, or detract from, your claim about her picture?

Stellafane

13th August 2006, 08:52 PM

Why not do it?

That's not an answer and you know it. So once more, why did you do it?

Beleth

13th August 2006, 08:55 PM

1) It doesn't matter.
2) "
3) "
4) "
5) "
6) "
7) "

Of course they all matter. Each one you are unable to answer casts doubt on your interpretation of the picture. If the plume isn't Flight 93, then since we are assuming the picture's authenticity, it must be something. What is it?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:13 PM

1) so what are these numbers, both from the supposed united 93 crash and the b-52 crash?
2) The actual time from crash to picture taking is not significant?
3) Also, do you know if she took multiple pictures? If so, which in the series is this photo and what is the time between photos her camera is capable of?
4) How much time would have to pass before the smoke from the source begins to dissipate as it is in this photo? How would this differ from say a similar example with 4x the fuel available to burn?
1) Flight 93 "still mostly laden with fuel". B-52 created "big" plume. That's really all we need to know.
2) "about 5 seconds". Factor in a couple more seconds in for the shock wave to hit and presto.
3) Only one shot. Weird, huh?
4) relevance?

gumboot

13th August 2006, 09:18 PM

For the record,

I have also analysed this photograph, using the same process Killtown used. However, I believe my interpretation may be a little more accurate, giving my experience with this sort of process, while studying cinematography (doing an exercise almost exactly like this was a common part of the course, though with a far more difficult orginal image).

Killtown appears to have made some errors.

According to my calculations, the mushroom cloud is approximately 600m across at widest point, with a central piller about 60m across, centred approximately 200m downwind of the impact point.

This is approximately the distance the smoke would travel in 40 seconds given the local wind speed of approximately 10 MPH.

A number of things to point out:

1) The vertical column connecting the "head" of the cloud to the ground is dissapating, indicating some time has passed since impact, and the jet fuel has all burned off.

2) This is collaborated by the lighter tone of the cloud (indicating dissapation) and the "fraying" that is occuring at the edges.

3) At the distance Val was from the impact site (2.3 km), she would not have heard the explosion until almost 7 seconds after it hit. Val has repeatedly testified that she heard the explosion before reacting AT ALL.

In final, I believe Killtown's primary mistake was in not identifying the exact position of the photograph's origin. He himself claimed to be accurate within 5 or 6 feet, IIRC, however an incorrect origin point can have substantially different results at distances over 2 km.

I began my process by calculating the origin position of the photograph - a difficult task given the lack of foreground detail.

The calculations were produced using satellite images from Google Earth collaborated with the original photograph, a second photograph from the same approximate position (for reference only), and extropolated vector lines applied in a vector graphic programme.

-Andrew

ETA: by my calculations the lens angle is about 40 - 45 degrees, or transferred to full-frame 35mm, that would be between a 50mm and 35mm lens (about what I'd expect for a consumer digital camera(and yes, it was taken with a digital camera)). A 50mm lens is "normal" - it depicts what the human eye sees. 35mm is considered the beginning of "wide angle" lenses, although fish-eye distortion at 35mm is very minor.

Although such lens sizes aren't used, I'd put the focal length (full-frame 35mm relative) at about 55mm - 60mm.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:21 PM

If you claim the photographer is lying about taking the picture at all, why do you believe her "a few seconds" (which to you is apparently 5-10 seconds, despite the sound taking 8-9 seconds to reach her).
Oh, so you agree she is lying too? Sweet!

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:23 PM

Ok, whatever. What's the relevance of this then?
Hmmm. A different explosion coming near the alleged crash scene. Hmmm. What could the relevance be?

Gravy

13th August 2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Me:
The issues of flight 93 debris and the "missing tail section" is directly relevant to your claims that flight 93 did not crash in that field just before the photo in question was taken. Please respond to them.

As for my other questions, do you agree to address them if I start another thread on this forum?
Originally Posted by Killtown
all this belongs on a different thread. And yes.

New thread here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1842112#post1842)
I encourage you all to see Killtown's responses on the new thread.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:40 PM

I encourage you all to see Killtown's responses on the new thread.
Yes, me too!

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:46 PM

How is her info relevant? Does it add to, or detract from, your claim about her picture?
Well, had to show her home address to show the starting point of where she took the photo for my diagrams.

the rest is in case anybody wanted to contact her. (like the reporter from the Post-Gazette.)

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:47 PM

If the plume isn't Flight 93, then since we are assuming the picture's authenticity, it must be something. What is it?
take your pick, it doesn't matter.

kevin

13th August 2006, 09:56 PM

Oh, so you agree she is lying too? Sweet!

No, I don't believe either of you. So far you've provided no answers to questions I've had so I see no reason to eliminate her photo as a picture of a smoke plume from an airplane crash.

I've seen no evidence from her proving this is a photo of a picture of a smoke plume from United 93, but I've not asked her any questions about it either.

At this point in time this photo is proof of nothing -- neither a crash of United 93, nor a cover up.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 09:59 PM

a) This is approximately the distance the smoke would travel in 40 seconds given the local wind speed of approximately 10 MPH.
A number of things to point out:
1) The vertical column connecting the "head" of the cloud to the ground is dissapating, indicating some time has passed since impact, and the jet fuel has all burned off.

2) This is collaborated by the lighter tone of the cloud (indicating dissapation) and the "fraying" that is occuring at the edges.

3) At the distance Val was from the impact site (2.3 km), she would not have heard the explosion until almost 7 seconds after it hit. Val has repeatedly testified that she heard the explosion before reacting AT ALL.

b ) In final, I believe Killtown's primary mistake was in not identifying the exact position of the photograph's origin. He himself claimed to be accurate within 5 or 6 feet, IIRC, however an incorrect origin point can have substantially different results at distances over 2 km.

I began my process by calculating the origin position of the photograph - a difficult task given the lack of foreground detail.

The calculations were produced using satellite images from Google Earth collaborated with the original photograph, a second photograph from the same approximate position (for reference only), and extropolated vector lines applied in a vector graphic programme.

-Andrew

ETA: by my calculations the lens angle is about 40 - 45 degrees, or transferred to full-frame 35mm, that would be between a 50mm and 35mm lens (about what I'd expect for a consumer digital camera(and yes, it was taken with a digital camera)). A 50mm lens is "normal" - it depicts what the human eye sees. 35mm is considered the beginning of "wide angle" lenses, although fish-eye distortion at 35mm is very minor.

Although such lens sizes aren't used, I'd put the focal length (full-frame 35mm relative) at about 55mm - 60mm.
a) So that would reach were my other "explosion" icon is?
1) wouldn't that be more consistent with a short pulse explosion like an ordnance?
2) See #1
3) Did you factor in if the blast originated from my spot?
b ) She was on her porch closer to her front door (hence the corner of her rain gutter seen top right on her photo)

I'd love to see your drawn out diagram compared to mine.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 10:00 PM

No, I don't believe either of you. So far you've provided no answers to questions I've had so I see no reason to eliminate her photo as a picture of a smoke plume from an airplane crash.

I've seen no evidence from her proving this is a photo of a picture of a smoke plume from United 93, but I've not asked her any questions about it either.

At this point in time this photo is proof of nothing -- neither a crash of United 93, nor a cover up.
Spoken like a true "skeptic"!

Gravy

13th August 2006, 10:05 PM

Well, had to show her home address to show the starting point of where she took the photo for my diagrams.

the rest is in case anybody wanted to contact her. (like the reporter from the Post-Gazette.)
She sure appreciates it.

But Mrs. McClatchey's fame has recently taken a sour turn. The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," who are seeking to prove that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, pierced the Pentagon and crashed United Airlines Flight 93. "The End of Serenity" has turned out to be their smoking gun.

The smoke plume doesn't line up right, they say. It is too large in the frame. The smoke is characteristic of an ordnance blast, not a jet fuel fire, further evidence that the government shot down Flight 93. They analyze wind direction, debris patterns and camera trajectories, all in the service of the theory that the crash was faked.

They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage."

On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud."

"Val McClatchey has made it unmistakably clear to us that she intends to milk her 9-11 claim to fame for all it's worth, truth be damned," writes Lisa Guliani, of WingTV (World Independent News Group), who traveled to Stoystown to interview Mrs. McClatchey.

"If the smoke plume was photo-shopped on there, then that could mean either that the photo was simply a fraud by Val, or it was a fraud by her and the FBI and/or other government agents since she did mention that the FBI did inspect the memory card from her camera," writes a blogger identified as Killtown.

Mrs. McClatchey was taken aback by the personal criticism by those who, she said, "hide behind their aliases."

"This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

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

kevin

13th August 2006, 10:13 PM

Spoken like a true "skeptic"!

I hope so, although I do notice you've still not answered any of the questions that would help prove your side of the issue.

Since this photo was never part of the body of evidence I considered when evaluating the truth of a United 93 my opinion on that hasn't changed.

Since this photo appears in none of the "official" explanations of United 93 what does proving it a fake accomplish? Do you simply wish to put someone supposedly profiting from a fake image out of business or do you hope proving a fake photo will prove the event it faked never occured? I notice a faked photo of Israeli bombings in Lebanon was recently uncovered. Does this mean Israel is not bombing Lebanon?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 10:14 PM

You've never noticed the difference in smoke plumes in dry vs humid air? Hot vs. cold? Never seen the haze a temperature inversion can throw over a town? And while you say "amount of fuel" here, in posts 65 and 74 you dismiss questions directly about the amount of fuel. Do you know what % the cloud changes with changes in amount of fuel? How do you know that the planes are close enough to reasonably compare?

I am not an expert in this at all, but your question tells me that you are not either (or you'd have told me why you choose to ignore those variables). Unless you have good reason to ignore them, they remain simply sources of error, and they detract from your claims.
none of that would make and infancy plume travel to the spot I suggested it started at.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 10:16 PM

I notice a faked photo of Israeli bombings in Lebanon was recently uncovered. Does this mean Israel is not bombing Lebanon?
Raise the level of intellect, will you?

gtc

13th August 2006, 10:22 PM

Well what is the point of this thread?

We have a photo that is purportedly of the aftermath of the crash of Flight 93.

Either the lady took the photo in good faith or not.

Likewise, the photo is either of the crash of Flight 93 or something else (e.g. an explosion as part of some cover-up).

It doesn't seem to be part of any official story. so proving that the lady did not take the photo in good faith would appear to achieve nothing.

However, proving that the lady took the photo in good faith, but it is not from Flight 93 might discredit the offical story (I say might).

Gravy

13th August 2006, 10:31 PM

That was fast. After saying he would answer my questions if I started a new thread, Killtown has refused to do so. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1842356&postcount=12)

Would someone who has never insulted Killtown care to ask him the same questions?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 10:31 PM

1) It doesn't seem to be part of any official story. so proving that the lady did not take the photo in good faith would appear to achieve nothing.

2) However, proving that the lady took the photo in good faith, but it is not from Flight 93 might discredit the offical story (I say might).
1) except the FBI will have to explain why they didn't catch the fraud when they took her memory card with them. Would you believe them if the pleaded ignorant?

2) Might??? :eek:

gumboot

13th August 2006, 10:38 PM

a) So that would reach were my other "explosion" icon is?

Your *other* icon? You'll have to be more specific than that...

1) wouldn't that be more consistent with a short pulse explosion like an ordnance?

No.

2) See #1
3) Did you factor in if the blast originated from my spot?

There is no point in doing this. Your "alternative" spot is a random guess based on whatever size you *think* a mushroom cloud should be.

-Andrew

gtc

13th August 2006, 10:54 PM

1) except the FBI will have to explain why they didn't catch the fraud when they took her memory card with them. Would you believe them if the pleaded ignorant?

That really depends.

We don't know what the FBI concluded about the usefulness or accuracy of the photos, all we know is that they don't seem to have been used elsewhere.

The FBI might have concluded that the photos were not useful and so did not bother to examine how accurate the lady's timings were. Afterall, a photo of a plume of smoke from a crashed airplane doesn't seem to offer much that adds to the official story, does it?

The FBI might have decided that the lady's memory of the timing was not accurate and so discarded the photos.

I also believe that there is a big difference between not rembering timings accurately and fraud. Do you see the difference?

2) Might??? :eek:

Yes, might. Was she looking in the right direction? Did the plane set fire to something else? etc, etc.

Killtown

13th August 2006, 10:54 PM

1) Your *other* icon? You'll have to be more specific than that...

2) No.

3) There is no point in doing this. Your "alternative" spot is a random guess based on whatever size you *think* a mushroom cloud should be.

1) the orange "explosion" icon to the right...

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume/shanks-plume-1000ft.gif

2) I disagree. Val's plume looks consistent with an ordnance, but regardless, it couldn't have grown that big or traveled that far so quick.

3) I made the explosion larger than I thought was realistic btw.

gumboot

13th August 2006, 11:00 PM

1) the orange "explosion" icon to the right...

And by which scientific method did you calculate this position?

2) I disagree. Val's plume looks consistent with an ordnance, but regardless, it couldn't have grown that big or traveled that far so quick.

1) It is consistant with a fuel explosion. The only ordnance it could accurately depict would be a fuel-air bomb or the fireball from a fuel-heavy target (such as a fuel dump). A high-explosive ordnance itself would not produce a dark carbon-heavy mushroom cloud.

2) I have calculated the size and distance, and consider it to be perfectly in keeping with the duration after impact that the image and Val's story reflects.

3) I made the explosion larger than I thought was realistic btw.

And what is your experience with determining how big a "realistic" explosion is?

For the record, Jet fuel does not explode. It fireballs. The fireball will be as large as the area covered by the fuel in correct ratio mixture with air.

-Andrew

Killtown

13th August 2006, 11:02 PM

1) We don't know what the FBI concluded about the usefulness or accuracy of the photos, all we know is that they don't seem to have been used elsewhere.

2) Yes, might. Was she looking in the right direction? Did the plane set fire to something else? etc, etc.
1) do you know for what specific reason the FBI took her card?

2) I think if it's prove to be a separate explosion, it's fair to say that there was something going on that the gov't is not telling us. agreed?

Killtown

13th August 2006, 11:09 PM

a) And by which scientific method did you calculate this position?

1) It is consistant with a fuel explosion. The only ordnance it could accurately depict would be a fuel-air bomb or the fireball from a fuel-heavy target (such as a fuel dump). A high-explosive ordnance itself would not produce a dark carbon-heavy mushroom cloud.

2) I have calculated the size and distance, and consider it to be perfectly in keeping with the duration after impact that the image and Val's story reflects.

a) comparing with other large plane crash explosions and making the diameter wider as all the trees in the burnt forest section. And considering that the tall grass all the way around the crater wasn't even burnt, that would IMO suggest a very very small explosion, so I think my very large explosion was being very generous.

1) can you show me a jet fuel explosion that produces a grey color like Val's plume?

2) Can you draw a diagram up with your calculations? I'd love to compare.

gumboot

13th August 2006, 11:16 PM

a) comparing with other large plane crash explosions and making the diameter wider as all the trees in the burnt forest section. And considering that the tall grass all the way around the crater wasn't even burnt, that would IMO suggest a very very small explosion, so I think my very large explosion was being very generous.

So basically, by guess work.

Excellent.

And are you aware of how little relationship there is between the size of an "explosion" (or fuel burn, as would be the case in an air crash) and the resulting smoke cloud? Just to let you in on a secret, there is no direct relationship.

1) can you show me a jet fuel explosion that produces a grey color like Val's plume?

The smoke cloud is black. It looks grey because A) it has dissapated and B) it was taken with a digital camera on a bright sunny day.

2) Can you draw a diagram up with your calculations? I'd love to compare.

I don't see how it would make any difference. The disagreement is not over what IS seen - it is over what SHOULD be seen.

I assert that her photo is in keeping with an aircrash at the location specific, 30 - 40 seconds after impact.

You assert the photo is not in keeping with an aircrash.

-Andrew

Gravy

13th August 2006, 11:31 PM

Some effects of Killtown's "Very very small explosion."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee5fd5ffdd.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee5fd97a51.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044cee64ce6629.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e01767ee589.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e01768321a1.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e017ed5f838.jpg

gtc

13th August 2006, 11:43 PM

1) do you know for what specific reason the FBI took her card? No, do you? Besides, why they took the card is not the same as asking why they did not go on to use the photos?matter?

2) I think if it's prove to be a separate explosion, it's fair to say that there was something going on that the gov't is not telling us. agreed? Its possible, but are you arguing that the photo is not accurate or that the photo is accurate but does not show an explosion?

Gravy

13th August 2006, 11:49 PM

1) do you know for what specific reason the FBI took her card?
I know it's an unpleasant chore, but you should read the articles that mention you (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm) more carefully.

Special agent Jeff Killeen, of the FBI in Pittsburgh, confirmed that the photo of the barns and the smoke plume was "a very legitimate photograph."

"We consider that a photo that was taken moments after Flight 93 crashed to the ground," Mr. Killeen said. "It's a remarkable shot. It's remarkable that someone had the wherewithal to snap a photo of the crash. This is a one-of-a-kind. We really don't know of anything else.

gtc

13th August 2006, 11:55 PM

Gravy,

If the photo is of the aftermath of Flight 93, then what does it add to our understanding?

Beleth

14th August 2006, 12:00 AM

take your pick, it doesn't matter.
If that is your final response to those key questions, then I am forced to conclude that your analysis and conclusion are fatally flawed. Therefore "my pick," based on the evidence you have provided, is that the plume is indeed from Flight 93.

Gravy

14th August 2006, 12:07 AM

Gravy,

If the photo is of the aftermath of Flight 93, then what does it add to our understanding?
I'm not sure why you asked, but as far as I'm concerned, It shows me what the mushroom cloud from flight 93 looked like, and gives me some idea of the countryside. That's all. An expert might be able to glean more from it.

AK-Dave

14th August 2006, 12:11 AM

2) I disagree. Val's plume looks consistent with an ordnance, but regardless, it couldn't have grown that big or traveled that far so quick.
I set off my share of high explosives in the military, mostly C-4, TNT and det cord. I'm curious what ordinance you think they used to get a cloud that big without shattering all the windows in the area. Granted, my experience is over 10 years old, so maybe we should get the opinion of someone with more recent experience. Where is Pirate_Lad? He was/is EOD in the Marines, if I remember correctly. I'm sure he has seen many smoke clouds from various sized explosions and can evaluate the smoke cloud in that picture. One thing I can tell you is all the big explosions I have ever seen involving high explosives on clear days (few clouds) with little wind resulted in tall, thin mushroom clouds.

gtc

14th August 2006, 12:18 AM

I'm not sure why you asked, but as far as I'm concerned, It shows me what the mushroom cloud from flight 93 looked like, and gives me some idea of the countryside. That's all. An expert might be able to glean more from it.

Thanks. That is pretty much what I thought, I was wondering if I missed anything.

So it seems to only be important if it is NOT the sort of thing that we would expect to see after flight 93 crashed.

As I see it, the credibility of the photographer is only an issue if it is first shown that the photo is not of flight 93's crash.

It seems that the subject has not been discredited, in which case it is not useful to attempt to discredit the photographer. Likewise, I can not see the logic in attempting to discredit both the subject and the photographer at the same time.

Am I missing something?

Gravy

14th August 2006, 12:25 AM

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

Dragon

14th August 2006, 01:00 AM

CFLarsen

14th August 2006, 01:07 AM

About???

With this thread! What is your point?

Sword_Of_Truth

14th August 2006, 01:10 AM

Here's a still from another well known aircraft crash - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2000/07/27/concorde8x256.gif
- which is from The Guardian's website. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/galleryguide/0,,347655,00.html).

The video can be seen here (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6792008580615381670&q=concorde)
Now the camera person zooms in at the end of the clip but it still shows how the mushroom cloud expanded in just a few seconds.

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

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

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

What are we doing to ourselves?

Dragon

14th August 2006, 01:32 AM

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

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

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

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

gumboot

14th August 2006, 01:32 AM

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

Another example is Air France Flight 296 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296).

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

It can be viewed here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5NXpar4Ouw)

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

-Andrew

gumboot

14th August 2006, 01:36 AM

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

What are we doing to ourselves?

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

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

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

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

-Andrew

gtc

14th August 2006, 01:42 AM

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

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

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

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

-Andrew

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

gumboot

14th August 2006, 02:06 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Andrew

TheChadd

14th August 2006, 03:10 AM

With this thread! What is your point?

Seconded.

Ok, whatever. What's the relevance of this then? Do you think this flies in the face of the official story (in which case you need to apply occam's razor yourself) or do you just have some personal grudge against this womans claim about the photograph for no particular reason? If it's the latter, then ok fine, let's just imagine that she did get it wrong about what time she took the picture, what angle she took it from etc, why do we now care?

MortFurd

14th August 2006, 03:37 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MortFurd

14th August 2006, 04:00 AM

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

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

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

Is that proof of a conspiracy? Not at all.

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

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

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

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

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

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 04:06 AM

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

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/482944e04e3a59ea7.jpg

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

So let's see them again:

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity-9-11-01.jpg
Flight 93 crash, ~ 2700-3000 m

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2000/07/27/concorde8x256.gif
Concorde crash, ~ 2800 m

Louder than words, heh?

gumboot

14th August 2006, 04:07 AM

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

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

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

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

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

-Andrew

Belz...

14th August 2006, 07:10 AM

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

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

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th August 2006, 07:24 AM

Beleth

14th August 2006, 07:42 AM

Killtown,

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

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

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

Marquis de Carabas

14th August 2006, 07:57 AM

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

CurtC

14th August 2006, 08:22 AM

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

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

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

Got it.

Marquis de Carabas

14th August 2006, 08:36 AM

I'm trying to piece together the picture that Killtown seems to believe. The government, in order to fake the smoke cloud, explodes some kind of ordnance, but not at the alleged crash site. The ordnance is exploded around a mile to the East.
...adding another person to our conspiracy. Here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.049464,-78.884336&spn=0.003055,0.004989&t=h&om=1) is a closeup of the place marked as the possible blast site. I wonder how much the people in the house were paid not to talk about the enormous explosion in their backyard.

MortFurd

14th August 2006, 08:37 AM

Got it.

You got it. Now go to Killtown's site (http://killtown.911review.org/) and look at what he calls "smoking guns." They consist mainly of numerous quotes with bolding that emphasizes his point of view, but if you read the full quote, you almost always get a different picture.

c0rbin

14th August 2006, 08:43 AM

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

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 09:04 AM

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_482944e09ca4be126.jpg ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=967')
(note: the orientation of the map is slightly different from the precedent. The distance to crash site remains unchanged)

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:19 AM

1) So basically, by guess work. Excellent.
2) And are you aware of how little relationship there is between the size of an "explosion" (or fuel burn, as would be the case in an air crash) and the resulting smoke cloud? Just to let you in on a secret, there is no direct relationship.
3) The smoke cloud is black. It looks grey because A) it has dissapated and B) it was taken with a digital camera on a bright sunny day.
4) I don't see how it would make any difference. The disagreement is not over what IS seen - it is over what SHOULD be seen.

1) So educated guesses have no place in debate?

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

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

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

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:25 AM

1) No, do you?

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

3) Its possible, but are you arguing that the photo is not accurate or that the photo is accurate but does not show an explosion?
1) Yes, they took it because she said they claimed to have seen debris flying out from the plume. Do you see debris flying out from the plume?

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg
(Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm)

(I don't either!)

2) Sorry, not following you. Explain.

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

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:26 AM

If that is your final response to those key questions, then I am forced to conclude that your analysis and conclusion are fatally flawed. Therefore "my pick," based on the evidence you have provided, is that the plume is indeed from Flight 93.
So you are saying it must be from 93 because I don't know what really caused it? :confused:

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:29 AM

I'm curious what ordinance you think they used to get a cloud that big without shattering all the windows in the area.
Yes, funny Val says she almost was knocked off her couch from the explosion, but never reported windows/glassware breaking or pictures falling off her walls. Weird.

Belz...

14th August 2006, 09:29 AM

Raise the level of intellect, will you?

Killtown,

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

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

Belz...

14th August 2006, 09:31 AM

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

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

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:31 AM

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:33 AM

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

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:52 AM

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

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

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

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:54 AM

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

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

Matthew Best

14th August 2006, 09:54 AM

what are the coordinates to varify your findings?

Varify?

You're going to change his findings for him?

Killtown

14th August 2006, 09:57 AM

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

Killtown

14th August 2006, 10:00 AM

Does our evil government hold this photograph up as official evidence of anything?
Yes, the FBI said it's a legit photo of the crash aftermath of UA 93.

Beleth

14th August 2006, 10:00 AM

So you are saying it must be from 93 because I don't know what really caused it? :confused:
I am saying that you have not provided any other explanation for it, and because you have not done so, there is no other conclusion to come to.

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

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

CurtC

14th August 2006, 10:11 AM

So basically you're saying not only Val was wrong, but the FBI was wrong too?
It's pretty easy to believe that her recollection of the exact timing can be off. Did the FBI confirm that her recalled timing was accurate? I must have missed that.

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

Darth Rotor

14th August 2006, 10:13 AM

Yes, funny Val says she almost was knocked off her couch from the explosion, but never reported windows/glassware breaking or pictures falling off her walls. Weird.
The morning of the day my son was born, I was awakened by a 5+ Richter tremor that shook the house, but broke nothing. That was a wake up call. (Thankfully, all of the kitchen cabinet doors were shut, or a few glasses/cups might have broken.)

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

DR

pgwenthold

14th August 2006, 10:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

CurtC

14th August 2006, 10:18 AM

I am saying that you have not provided any other explanation for it
He says that the plume is from an ordnance blast a mile or so East of flight 93's crater.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 10:27 AM

Varify?

You're going to change his findings for him?
:confused:

Should I just blindly take his word that he's correct?

Killtown

14th August 2006, 10:31 AM

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

1) "near" doesn't mean exact.
2) A different kind of plume.
3) So that bigfoot is real? Saw him in that picture.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 10:32 AM

1) Did the FBI confirm that her recalled timing was accurate?

She said they timed her.

Hishighness

14th August 2006, 10:34 AM

Has anyone checked both these pix for signs of digital manipulation?

Killtown

14th August 2006, 10:35 AM

He says that the plume is from an ordnance blast a mile or so East of flight 93's crater.
For this particular analysis, I'm saying it's from an explosion originating from a different point. It really doesn't matter if the plume is from an ordnance, plane crash, or anything else.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 10:36 AM

Has anyone checked both these pix for signs of digital manipulation?
I've looked at the original photo, but I'm not an expert at any field to be able to determine if it's been doctored.

Hishighness

14th August 2006, 10:44 AM

Do you have a copy of each one, like not animated giffed? If so post them.

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th August 2006, 10:45 AM

Let me see I understand your contentions correctly. I'll try to bullet-point them, please let me know if there are errors:
(in no particular order)
* The incendiary source of the plume is irrelevant
* The plume is inconsistent with that of a crashed aircraft
* The only relevant atmostpheric condition to consider is the windspeed (9 knots)
* The windspeed is insufficient to account for the shift and/or dispersion of the plume for the timelapse in question

Are these a correct representation of your stance?

Hishighness

14th August 2006, 10:50 AM

Well, I'm no fan of KT, but I would look at it objectivly and say that the entire plume shifting and keeping it's consistent shape isn't really plausible. I can see it shifting, but to my mind it would break up nd stop resembling a mushroom cloud in the distance shown.

But I'm no expert, and I'm not arguing either way that's just my monday morning quarterback analysis.

Beleth

14th August 2006, 11:00 AM

1) "near" doesn't mean exact.
2) A different kind of plume.
3) So that bigfoot is real? Saw him in that picture.
1) No, of course the picture wasn't taken exactly where Flight 93 crashed; it was taken from Val's house. But no matter. We both agree that Flight 93 crashed near where that picture was taken.
2) But a plume nonetheless. So we both agree that the crash would have caused a plume.
3) As you said in your first post here, "For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic." So we both agree that there's a plume in that picture.

Since we both agree that those three statements are true, if that plume is not from Flight 93, what is it from, and where is Flight 93's plume?

CurtC

14th August 2006, 11:09 AM

She said they timed her.
But that's not the same, is it?

Did the FBI ever say that they believed her account of the timing to be accurate?

CurtC

14th August 2006, 11:12 AM

Well, I'm no fan of KT, but I would look at it objectivly and say that the entire plume shifting and keeping it's consistent shape isn't really plausible.
If the wind is fairly steady, it's just an air mass that's moving over the land. Once the plume is in that moving air, it then has no idea that the air is moving. To the plume, it would look like still air, but the ground would be moving underneath it. A breeze wouldn't cause the plume to be broken up faster than still air.

It would cause the central column to be angled, but since in this photo the angle would be mostly towards the camera, it would be hard to distinguish.

Stellafane

14th August 2006, 11:20 AM

..."This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."

Killtown, how do you feel about the fact that you may have helped destroy this woman's life, to the point where she now fears for her own personal safety, all because you don't like the fact that she snapped a picture that contradicts your view of 9/11 -- while hiding behind your own veil of anonymity so thick that you won't even talk to a reporter on the phone? Doesn't this strike you as hypocritical?

And do you ever reflect that you are hurting real people out there, Ms. McClatchey and thousands of others, victims, their friends and families, survivors, countless people you accuse of murder with no proof or justification, all to indulge your psychotic little fantasy? How can you possibly be so mean spirited and still live with yourself? This isn't a rhetorical question; I really do want to know.

Hishighness

14th August 2006, 11:26 AM

Stellafane

14th August 2006, 11:30 AM

Stellafane you are equating our good friend Killtown here with attributes he doesn't possess such as "common sense" and "compassion" I understand for human beings such as us it's hard to imagine what it must be like in his world, it's hard to make seemingly contradictory information make sense in your head but he's wired differently than us. So don't hate, Killtown needs help, so we should all try to convince him to get it. There are many mental health programs available in the U.S.

Yes, you're probably completely correct in your assessment. I guess I'm not really expecting Killtown to provide a meaningful answer (why should he start now, just for me?). But in the off chance there are any fence sitters out there -- or people attracted to the CT movement who may not have completely thought through the consequences -- it might be instructive to see just what kind of a person (and what kind of thinking) they may be aligning themselves with.

Hishighness

14th August 2006, 11:47 AM

Ya, that's my personal view. You're not going to convince the ones already in the "Truth" movement, their minds are already gone. Only thing you can do is try to hit the new ones with facts and keep them from being fooled.

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 11:50 AM

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

2nd, what are the coordinates to varify your findings?
Hey, thanks to incite me to discover and use the tools in Google Earth, to which I am totally new.

So this time I have used the ruler of Google Earth instead of mine:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/482944e0c05f5f542.jpg

The distance given is 2700 m, give or take 5 m to stay prudent.

Coordinates for Concorde crash site:
Latitude: 48°59'08.60" N
Longitude: 2°28'19.46" E

Coordinates for the site where the truck stopped and the thermal was filmed:
Latitude: 48°59'16.78" N
Longitude: 2°30'31.84" E

Killtown

14th August 2006, 11:58 AM

Do you have a copy of each one, like not animated giffed? If so post them.

Coming straight off the source links:

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity-9-11-01.jpg

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

http://www.fema.gov/graphics/remember911/07.jpg

Killtown

14th August 2006, 12:00 PM

Let me see I understand your contentions correctly. I'll try to bullet-point them, please let me know if there are errors:
(in no particular order)
1) The incendiary source of the plume is irrelevant
2) The plume is inconsistent with that of a crashed aircraft
3) The only relevant atmostpheric condition to consider is the windspeed (9 knots)
4) The windspeed is insufficient to account for the shift and/or dispersion of the plume for the timelapse in question

Are these a correct representation of your stance?
1) Correct.
2) Doesn't matter for this particular analysis.
3) essentially.
4) Yes.

Belz...

14th August 2006, 12:06 PM

For this particular analysis, I'm saying it's from an explosion originating from a different point. It really doesn't matter if the plume is from an ordnance, plane crash, or anything else.

How, exactly, did you reach the conclusion that it comes from a different point, considering you, by your own admission, know about the existence of wind and its effects on smoke ?

CFLarsen

14th August 2006, 12:08 PM

Hey, thanks to incite me to discover and use the tools in Google Earth, to which I am totally new.

Google Earth is insane. Simply insane.

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th August 2006, 12:11 PM

Can someone double-check me, I am pretty sure the 2nd pic (post-gazette.com one) is zoomed, cropped, and rotated some from the original.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 12:15 PM

1) Well, I'm no fan of KT,

2) but I would look at it objectivly and say that the entire plume shifting and keeping it's consistent shape isn't really plausible. I can see it shifting, but to my mind it would break up nd stop resembling a mushroom cloud in the distance shown.

But I'm no expert, and I'm not arguing either way that's just my monday morning quarterback analysis.
1) What!!! :jaw-dropp :D

2) I concur, the shape of Val's plume is more consistent with and "infancy" plume, then one that has shifted quite a distant and quite an elasped time.

Thanks for being objective!

Killtown

14th August 2006, 12:17 PM

1) We both agree that Flight 93 crashed near where that picture was taken.
2) But a plume nonetheless. So we both agree that the crash would have caused a plume.
3) As you said in your first post here, "For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic." So we both agree that there's a plume in that picture.

Since we both agree that those three statements are true, if that plume is not from Flight 93, what is it from, and where is Flight 93's plume?
1) allegedly crash
2) yes
3) of course, it is just irrelevent what caused that plume for this thread.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 12:19 PM

But that's not the same, is it?

Did the FBI ever say that they believed her account of the timing to be accurate?
You'll have to ask the FBI guys (Special agents David J Hacker, Todd J. Brown, and Phil Lewzander), or Val that (stooge@shol.com).

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 12:21 PM

Killtown, why wouldn't flight 93 have crashed? They crashed all three other planes right? So why not this one?

Why go through all this trouble?

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 12:30 PM

Google Earth is insane. Simply insane.
Insane? Like anyone can see and measure the barbecue you built in your backyard?

Killtown

14th August 2006, 12:32 PM

1) Coordinates for Concorde crash site:
Latitude: 48°59'08.60" N
Longitude: 2°28'19.46" E

2) Coordinates for the site where the truck stopped and the thermal was filmed:
Latitude: 48°59'16.78" N
Longitude: 2°30'31.84" E

1) the plane crashed on a building (http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&tab=wl&q=+48%B0%2059'%208.60%22,%20+2%B0%2028'%2019.46%22 )?

2) I concur this looks like the spot the video was taken. What's the source for the coordinates of where the plane crashed?

Killtown

14th August 2006, 12:33 PM

Killtown, why wouldn't flight 93 have crashed? They crashed all three other planes right? So why not this one?

Why go through all this trouble?
This is not relevant to this thread.

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 12:34 PM

This is not relevant to this thread.

Are you saying flight 93 didn't crash or did it?

CFLarsen

14th August 2006, 12:46 PM

Insane? Like anyone can see and measure the barbecue you built in your backyard?

No, I'm worried about the bodies buried in my backyard....

But don't tell anyone!

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 12:49 PM

1) the plane crashed on a building (http://www.google.com/maphp?hl=en&tab=wl&q=+48%B0%2059'%208.60%22,%20+2%B0%2028'%2019.46%22 )?

Yes, on the hotel "Le Relais bleu [The Blue Post House]".

From the official preliminary report (in French) (http://museedelta.free.fr/concorde/rapport.htm): "L’avion s’écrase sur un hôtel au lieu-dit La Patte d’Oie de Gonesse [The plane crashes on a hotel at the place named The Goose Foot of Gonesse]."

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 12:53 PM

Killtown, I'm responding to this post

1) allegedly crash

Why alledgedly?

Hellbound

14th August 2006, 01:00 PM

I concur, the shape of Val's plume is more consistent with and "infancy" plume, then one that has shifted quite a distant and quite an elasped time.

Actually, this depends on a lot of factors. How quickly a plume (or column, or cloud, or any other gaseous structure) spreads and how well it keeps its shape depend on a number of factors, notably:

1) Temperature of the cloud and the surrounding air.
2) Particulate size of the cloud components and their state (particulates, liquids, gasses), and the various molecular weights and other factors.
3) Wind speed and direction.
4) Variability of winds/presence of "gusting" or different-direction of ground-level winds vs. higher wind
5) Initial density of the cloud
6) Humidity (as others have mentioned).

Those are the major ones. Changes in these can affect how the cloud reacts and how long it maintains shape.

Also, having seen ordinance blasts numerous times from distances of 1/2 mile to 10 miles for >2000 lb. shots, this doesn't really resemble an ordinance plume. It was most likely caused by some type of hydrocarbon/incendiary. Blast plumes from ordinance are formed from the debris the ordinance produces, with a little bit of smoke. They'll take the color of the ground/material in/on which they are detonated.

Not to mention that, at the distance of this shot (about 2 miles), that would've been a significant amount or ordinance. Windows would have been shattered.

It's fairly conclusive that this isn't an ordinance plume, but was caused by an incendiary. From the mushroom shape, you can go on to deduce that it was a rapidly-burning incendiary spread across an area, as one would expect from the high-speed impact of fuel tanks (as an airline crash) or an FAE (as others have mentioned). Napalm could also do similar, or simply spreading a large amount of fuel and igniting with a LOT of multiple heat sources simultaneously.

And again, based on my experience in actual demolitions and blasts, on days with still air the clouds could keep the mushroom shape for upwards of a minute, and drift a fair amount in that time.

Sword_Of_Truth

14th August 2006, 01:02 PM

Google Earth is insane. Simply insane.

Google Earth has my house under permanent winter, but my sisters apartment building is in forever summer.

I saw it on the internet so it must be true.

Hellbound

14th August 2006, 01:06 PM

I have another question, Killtown.

Considering the scales of the map you use to determine where her camera was pointed, how did you determine her house location?

Not to mention, that your determination of the size of the plume is off.

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th August 2006, 01:08 PM

Killtown

14th August 2006, 01:11 PM

How, exactly, did you reach the conclusion that it comes from a different point, considering you, by your own admission, know about the existence of wind and its effects on smoke ?
You don't read my posts very well.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 01:12 PM

Are you saying flight 93 didn't crash or did it?
It's not relevant for this thread.

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 01:12 PM

No, I'm worried about the bodies buried in my backyard....
Oh, that explains the rectangular spots in your backyard where grass is of a different hue of green...

But don't tell anyone!
I can keep your secret... well... say, against a modest amount of Danish beer.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 01:15 PM

Considering the scales of the map you use to determine where her camera was pointed, how did you determine her house location?

Not to mention, that your determination of the size of the plume is off.
All that can be answer here...

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

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 01:16 PM

It's not relevant for this thread.

It is relevant as to your confirmation bias.

If you acknowlegded that flight 93 could have crashed there, then you could easily assume that this plume is from that very same crash, since no other plane crash happened that day, and at this location.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 01:17 PM

In five seconds the cloud would travel ~23.175 meters. Most of this movement is going to be east (towards Val) and south. Is this sufficient to explain the photo?
Which spot would you estimate the plume would be at according to your calculations?

Hellbound

14th August 2006, 01:22 PM

All that can be answer here...

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

Um, no, it isn't. You have a line drown from what you claim is her house, my question is how did you determine that was her house?

Ah, I see it in the close ups. Missed that before. You should reall yget a professional to help you set up your webpage.

However, your sight line doesn't match, either. Your line (from her location to the cloud) goes through her driveway. From the photo, it should run north of the driveway. Rather than assume her photo location, it would be better to determine the sight line from multiple reference points in the photo itself.

I'll do my own analysis later, and post results.

MortFurd

14th August 2006, 01:29 PM

Some semi-random info to add:
knots to meters/second convertion is: knots * 0.515 = meters/second source: http://www.todayspilot.co.uk/conversions/convertfact.html

Given the windspeed that day is 9 knots (as stated in this thread, not worrying about localized wind gusts etc for the moment) then this would convert into 4.635 meters/second.

Flight 93 crash site is here http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=40.052,+-78.8963&ie=UTF8&ll=40.052059,-78.896255&spn=0.093951,0.190544&t=h&om=1

In five seconds the cloud would travel ~23.175 meters. Most of this movement is going to be east (towards Val) and south. Is this sufficient to explain the photo?
It agrees quite well with the estimates that I made for position error at the house end. If you assume that the position from which Mrs. McClatchey took the picture is accurately known and that the (apparent) displacement that Mr Killtown is so concerned about is due entirely to the smoke drifting, then it works out fairly well.

If the smoke is drifting SE at 9 Knots, then it would appear to move due South approximately 900 feet while moving that same amount East. The combined effect would be to move it South to about where the photo shows it, as well as moving it closer to the camera so that it appears bigger.

Working my estimates backwards results in the smoke column moving 750 feet South. Given rough methods and unknown accuracies in time and location, that sounds like a pretty good match to me.

Beleth

14th August 2006, 01:33 PM

3) of course, it is just irrelevent what caused that plume for this thread.
No it isn't. Your entire point rests on it.

If that plume is not from Flight 93, what is it from, and where is Flight 93's plume?

GregC

14th August 2006, 01:54 PM

I usually don't get involved with these type of discussions becaus the OP usually has so many conditions attached, assuming this, assuming that, that it's a game I choose not to play. When you tell me I must assume something to start you are already trying to cloud my thinking and get me to think only in the way you want me to. But to play it your way...

Assuming Val's photo is authentic, I say the first thing to do is fill us in with all the facts regarding the photo and the events that are dipicted in the photo that are missing.

1. What time did the crash occur?
2. What time was the photo taken?
3. What is the time difference between the crash and and the photo?
4. What are the atmospheric conditions at the time of the crash and the time of the photo at the crash site and the photo site?
5. What is the distance from the photo site to the crash site.
6. Do we have access to the original, undoctored photo?
7. Do you have an aerial ortho corrected photo of the crash site including the site where the photo was taken.
8. Where exactly was the photo taken?

I can go on and on with questions. The photo by itself really means nothing. In order to analize it and come up with a real opinion of the photo we would need volumes of information you have not provided.

I would also question Val's 5 second claim. I really find it hard to believe the photo was taken 5 seconds "after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion." It is hard to believe someones reaction to almost being blown off their couch is to reach for a camera.

I would like to think I'm open minded. I neither belive the photo is real or faked. I would like to see supporting evidence of it's authenticity.

CurtC

14th August 2006, 03:04 PM

Here's my take on the photo analysis:

Based on how the buildings are aligned in the photo (the right edge of the distant white building aligning with the left edge of the smaller red barn), I put the camera location at approx:

N 40 03 00.29, W 78 52 28.16

You can paste these coordinates straight from here, into Google Earth to see what I'm saying.

Since the plume is slightly left of center of the distant white house, this puts the base of the plume around this point:

N 40 02 55.43, W 78 54 17.11

Now if you measure from this point to the crater location, I think it's about 750 feet. With a 9 mph wind, that's approximately one minute worth of travel. The plume itself looks like it's dissipating to me, and the one minute old figure seems realistic. So what doesn't match is Val's recollection that she took the picture five seconds after hearing the blast.

The FBI does not say it was five seconds, it's just Val saying that. So what it boils down to is one of these two explanations:

A) The government exploded an ordnance a mile East of the crater site, to give Val (and only Val) a shot of a smoke plume that she could photograph with the new camera that the government knew she had close by and ready, for the purpose of demonstrating the crash, but without ever actually using said photo for any evidentiary or propaganda purposes. Also, they had to somehow keep anyone else in the area from seeing this giant smoke plume a mile East of where it ought to be. Also, the people whose back yard the ordnance was detonated in, had to be silenced.

-- or --

B) Val's recollection of how long it took her to snap this photo is off.

Those two seem to be our choices.

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th August 2006, 03:09 PM

Going off of my previous calcs:
750 ft = 228.6 meters at 4.635 meters/second => 49.32 seconds

eta: Making her possible error only 44.32 seconds.

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 03:10 PM

I would also question Val's 5 second claim. I really find it hard to believe the photo was taken 5 seconds "after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion." It is hard to believe someones reaction to almost being blown off their couch is to reach for a camera.

Nice observation.

Does anyone have a link to the photographer's exact testimony? 5 seconds seems rather quick, unless the person had the camera in his hands as the event happened. If not, it must have taken him more than 5 seconds to go pick up his camera, thus the plume could have taken this shape.

Darth Rotor

14th August 2006, 03:14 PM

Nice observation.

Does anyone have a link to the photographer's exact testimony? 5 seconds seems rather quick, unless the person had the camera in his hands as the event happened. If not, it must have taken him more than 5 seconds to go pick up his camera, thus the plume could have taken this shape.
I think the photographer, Val, in this case is a "her." :D

DR

Arkan_Wolfshade

14th August 2006, 03:17 PM

Going off of my previous calcs:
750 ft = 228.6 meters at 4.635 meters/second => 49.32 seconds

eta: Making her possible error only 44.32 seconds.

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.

This means that the earliest the photo could have been snapped was ~12.5 seconds after the crash; only ~36.82 seconds off from CurtC's calcs.

TheChadd

14th August 2006, 03:26 PM

This is not relevant to this thread.

But it is... to understand what exactly you feel happened in the photo, why you think it's important.

defaultdotxbe

14th August 2006, 03:32 PM

I would also question Val's 5 second claim. I really find it hard to believe the photo was taken 5 seconds "after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion." It is hard to believe someones reaction to almost being blown off their couch is to reach for a camera.

i could have sworn killtown was claiming 10 seconds when he posted this on the SLC forum.... lemme see if i can find it

here we go:

That wouldn't move the plume much in 10 seconds from the time Val supposeldy jumped out of her couch and ran outside to quickly take this pic.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=100&view=findpost&p=1946

TheChadd

14th August 2006, 03:37 PM

12.5 seconds after the crash

She'd still have to grab her camera, turn it on, etc.... If both of your numbers are right then I say it's quite likely she did get up straight away after hearing the boom, grab her camera etc then run out and take the photo. To her it felt like she'd done it all instantly, but it was probably more like 45 seconds - a minute.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 04:11 PM

1) If the smoke is drifting SE at 9 Knots, then it would appear to move due South approximately 900 feet while moving that same amount East. The combined effect would be to move it South to about where the photo shows it, as well as moving it closer to the camera so that it appears bigger.

2) Working my estimates backwards results in the smoke column moving 750 feet South. Given rough methods and unknown accuracies in time and location, that sounds like a pretty good match to me.
1) And where would that put it?

2) So why doesn't the bottom of the thin column smoke (more consistent with ordnance blast) bend toward the right if it's moving left so much?

Darth Rotor

14th August 2006, 04:16 PM

1) And where would that put it?

2) So why doesn't the bottom of the thin column smoke (more consistent with ordnance blast) bend toward the right if it's moving left so much?
That doesn't matter.

Gee, this is fun. :D

DR

defaultdotxbe

14th August 2006, 04:16 PM

2) So why doesn't the bottom of the thin column smoke (more consistent with ordnance blast) bend toward the right if it's moving left so much?
if the wind was blowing evenly it wouldnt appear "bent" because the collumn woudl also be moving SE at the same rate

Gravy

14th August 2006, 04:17 PM

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

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg
(Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm)

Funny, yesterday you claimed not to know why the FBI examined the memory card. Where does she give this reason?

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 04:19 PM

Killtown, where can I see Val's testimony? Did she say 5 or 10 seconds?

Mercutio

14th August 2006, 05:12 PM

regarding memory for time...In my psych classes, I have tried a replication of Asch's line-judgment experiment, but with an auditory target. In a class of 60-70 people, I ask them to guess (without watches, without counting to themselves, etc.) the length of a timed interval. Between "begin" and "end", I time 32 seconds with a stopwatch. I then ask them to estimate the amount of time that has elapsed. I have seen estimates as low as 12 seconds, as high as 2 minutes.

Yes, this is nothing like the circumstances in the present case. There is nowhere near the level of stress, excitement, or fear. If we look at the experimental findings on eyewitness testimony, we can expect Val's testimony to be shakier than this.

It is entirely possible that the picture was taken within the 10-12 seconds some are estimating. It is equally possible that the picture was taken close to a minute after the explosion.

I suggest not relying on one particular time for any arguments; unless the camera's memory chip recorded time to the second, we will never know when the picture was taken.

Killtown

14th August 2006, 05:12 PM

Killtown, where can I see Val's testimony? Did she say 5 or 10 seconds?
"about 5 seconds"

Killtown

14th August 2006, 05:16 PM

if the wind was blowing evenly it wouldnt appear "bent" because the collumn woudl also be moving SE at the same rate
And all the continuing smoke from the remaining burning fuel would just lie low to the ground that we can see?

Here is what a REAL jet fire looks like (left pic Val's, middle orndnance form Beiruit, right pic jet crash from Nam):

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

Alphaba

14th August 2006, 05:44 PM

Killtown

14th August 2006, 06:07 PM

http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity-9-11-01.jpg

Thermal generated by the fireball of Flight 93 REAL crash. Distance from crash: ~ 2560 m.

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

Thermal generated by the fireball of Concorde REAL crash. Distance from crash: ~ 2700 m.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?

Beleth

14th August 2006, 06:23 PM

Hmm, never mind.

Earl The Tall

14th August 2006, 06:25 PM

The extra smoke from the cash could be the result of the fire that was already on the Concorde at time it took off. We do know that flight 93 was not on fire at the time it crash. Which could be the reason.

Secondly we are comapring two different planes and the concord had a lot more fuel in it when it crash as well.

gumboot

14th August 2006, 06:30 PM

1) So educated guesses have no place in debate?

You guess doesn't appear to be educated.

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

No, they're not even remotely the same.

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

Eh gads, can I show you one that isn't! That concord one for example, is lighter. Look at ANY air crash photo taken a decent time after impact. Must I do all your work for you? Presumably you HAVE researched this right?

b ) And?

Well, this is the final straw for me. You are attempting to interpret a digital photograph, yet you know nothing about the properties and limitations of digital cameras.

Great. So in other words, you have no idea what you are doing. Thus further discussion with you is pointless.

For the record, consumer digital cameras do not have UV filters, which means photos of objects/landscapes a significant distance away are given "haze". This can be seen in Val's photo by the blue tint to the mushroom cloud - this is the blue sky hazing across the black smoke.

Further more, digital cameras have poor contrast ratios due to a very narrow exposure curve. On a bright sunny day there is high contrast, resulting in a "crushing" of the darkest and lightest elements in the picture. In Val's picture this is further exaggerated because she has caught the edge of her drain in the photo. This serves as the black end of the contrast ratio, thus everything else is shunted up to the bright end.

End result of no UV filter and digital camera? A dark mushroom cloud rising in the sky 2.3 km away appears significantly lighter coloured in the photo than it did in real life.

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

Afraid? I'm not afraid. I just don't see the point. As far as I can tell my graphic would be very much the same as yours (except I calculated the pillar location as well as the maximum width of the cloud).

The only difference is you then invented a "reasonable size explosion" (for some unknown reason) and then moved it a significant distance closer to Val's house (also for unknown reasons).

-Andrew

Pardalis

14th August 2006, 06:32 PM

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?

Kill town, could you apply the same scrutiny to your own plane crash comparison?

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

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/93-plume-comparison.jpg

(Original photo source (http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html). Plume in right photo came from a real plane crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB92iQ6yf6c). See analysis of how this was determined here (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html).)

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

So this means this plume in Val's photo was not (http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/08/flight-93-photo-plume-comparison.html[) from Flight 93 crashing.