Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Killtown · 13th August 2006, 12:57 PM

(I'm sure you will all strictly adhere to the forum rules 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:

(Original photo source. Plume in right photo came from a real plane crash. See analysis of how this was determined here.)

PHOTO REMOVED - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Posted By:JeffWagg

So this means this plume in Val's photo was not from Flight 93 crashing.

(Key factors to note: Val says she snapped her photo about 5 seconds after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion. Wind gusts near the crash spot were only 9 knots blowing SE.)

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!"

kevin · 13th August 2006, 12:59 PM

so smoke from a crash freezes at that size?

Killtown · 13th August 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by kevin

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

Originally Posted by mrfreeze

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?

Yes, "about 5 seconds".

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.

Dazed · 13th August 2006, 01:19 PM

It's smoke, not ejected material.

Killtown · 13th August 2006, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

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

Originally Posted by elgarak

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

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

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

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

Originally Posted by Pyrrho

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

Originally Posted by Dazed

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

Originally Posted by elgarak

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?

She was on her front porch.

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by elgarak

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by DavidJames

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)

3) Well I guess we are now!

Killtown · 13th August 2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

1) 2)

3) Well I guess we are now!

Please answer my question.

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by DavidJames

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by DavidJames

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???

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

2) Why?

Killtown · 13th August 2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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.

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

There ya go.

Killtown · 13th August 2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Yes.	129	90.85%
No.	13	9.15%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

13th August 2006, 12:59 PM	#2
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	so smoke from a crash freezes at that size?
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th August 2006, 01:08 PM	#3
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by kevin so smoke from a crash freezes at that size? I don't understand your question.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:12 PM	#5
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by mrfreeze 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? Yes, "about 5 seconds".
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:19 PM	#8
Dazed Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 586	It's smoke, not ejected material.
Dazed Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 586

13th August 2006, 01:09 PM	#4
mrfreeze Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Outside of Detroit Posts: 425	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?

13th August 2006, 01:16 PM	#6
Crazy Chainsaw Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,126	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.

13th August 2006, 01:17 PM	#7
elgarak Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: No matter where I go, there I am Posts: 1,859	Yeah, well, we all know how exact eyewitnesses remember times.

13th August 2006, 01:21 PM	#9
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:22 PM	#10
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by elgarak Yeah, well, we all know how exact eyewitnesses remember times. Val said she and the FBI timed herself when they came to take her camera's memory card away.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:22 PM	#11
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	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...
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	__________________ The Skeptics Society \| The Skeptics Society Forum \| Skepticality Promoting SCIENCE and CRITICAL THINKING

13th August 2006, 01:27 PM	#12
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Pyrrho 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:29 PM	#13
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by Pyrrho 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)
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th August 2006, 01:31 PM	#15
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	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?
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th August 2006, 01:33 PM	#17
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	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?
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th August 2006, 01:34 PM	#18
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Dazed 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:35 PM	#19
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by elgarak 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? She was on her front porch.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:37 PM	#20
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,073	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
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

13th August 2006, 01:41 PM	#21
elgarak Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: No matter where I go, there I am Posts: 1,859	Originally Posted by Killtown 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.

13th August 2006, 01:44 PM	#22
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by elgarak 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 01:46 PM	#23
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,088	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 )
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand. Last edited by DavidJames; 13th August 2006 at 01:48 PM.

13th August 2006, 01:53 PM	#24
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by Killtown 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?
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th August 2006, 01:57 PM	#25
AK-Dave Muse Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 576	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
	__________________ All those who fight monsters inevitably become one.

13th August 2006, 02:00 PM	#26
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by DavidJames 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) 3) Well I guess we are now!
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 02:06 PM	#27
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by AK-Dave 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 02:08 PM	#28
AK-Dave Muse Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 576	Originally Posted by Killtown I tell you what, don't bother posting to this thread anymore. Couldn't answer the other questions then?
	__________________ All those who fight monsters inevitably become one.

13th August 2006, 02:16 PM	#29
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,088	Originally Posted by Killtown 1) 2) 3) Well I guess we are now! Please answer my question. Quote: 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.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th August 2006, 02:18 PM	#30
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by DavidJames 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?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 02:21 PM	#31
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,088	Originally Posted by Killtown 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.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th August 2006, 02:22 PM	#32
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	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?

13th August 2006, 02:26 PM	#33
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by DavidJames 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??? Americans who don't want their country over-run by tyrants, that's who care. 2) Why?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 02:28 PM	#34
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Ladewig 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 02:29 PM	#35
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by Killtown 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. Originally Posted by Killtown I tell you what, don't bother posting to this thread anymore. There ya go.

13th August 2006, 02:33 PM	#36
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Bob Klase 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

13th August 2006, 02:37 PM	#37
Johnny C. Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by Killtown 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.
Johnny C. Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 79