Plume in Flight 93 photo is different - Page 5

MortFurd · 14th August 2006, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by CurtC

Got it.

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

c0rbin · 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):

(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

Originally Posted by gumboot

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

Originally Posted by gtc

1) No, do you?

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

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

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

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

(I don't either!)

2) Sorry, not following you. Explain.

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

Killtown · 14th August 2006, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Beleth

If that is your final response to those key questions, then I am forced to conclude that your analysis and conclusion are fatally flawed. Therefore "my pick," based on the evidence you have provided, is that the plume is indeed from Flight 93.

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

Killtown · 14th August 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Dragon

Here's a still from another well known aircraft crash - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...corde8x256.gif
- which is from The Guardian's website..

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

Killtown · 14th August 2006, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

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

Originally Posted by Alphaba

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

Originally Posted by gumboot

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

Yes.

Killtown · 14th August 2006, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by c0rbin

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

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

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

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

CurtC · 14th August 2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by c0rbin

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

Originally Posted by Beleth

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

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Varify?

You're going to change his findings for him?

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

Killtown · 14th August 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Beleth

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

Originally Posted by CurtC

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

Originally Posted by CurtC

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

Originally Posted by Hishighness

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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

Originally Posted by Hishighness

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

Quote:

..."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 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.

Stellafane · 14th August 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Hishighness

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

Originally Posted by Killtown

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:

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

Originally Posted by Hishighness

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

Coming straight off the source links:

Killtown · 14th August 2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

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.

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

14th August 2006, 08:43 AM	#162
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Does our evil government hold this photograph up as official evidence of anything?
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

14th August 2006, 09:04 AM	#163
Alphaba Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 254	Well, I've precised the route of the truck (in red) during which the video of Concorde crash was shot (total distance from beginning to end of video is ~ 530-540 m): (note: the orientation of the map is slightly different from the precedent. The distance to crash site remains unchanged)
Alphaba Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 254

14th August 2006, 09:19 AM	#164
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by gumboot 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:25 AM	#165
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by gtc 1) No, do you? 2) Besides, why they took the card is not the same as asking why they did not go on to use the photos?matter? 3) Its possible, but are you arguing that the photo is not accurate or that the photo is accurate but does not show an explosion? 1) Yes, they took it because she said they claimed to have seen debris flying out from the plume. Do you see debris flying out from the plume? (Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm) (I don't either!) 2) Sorry, not following you. Explain. 3) For this specific analysis, we are assuming it's real.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 08:37 AM	#161
MortFurd Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: An American in Germany Posts: 1,975	Originally Posted by CurtC Got it. You got it. Now go to Killtown's site and look at what he calls "smoking guns." They consist mainly of numerous quotes with bolding that emphasizes his point of view, but if you read the full quote, you almost always get a different picture.

14th August 2006, 09:26 AM	#166
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Beleth If that is your final response to those key questions, then I am forced to conclude that your analysis and conclusion are fatally flawed. Therefore "my pick," based on the evidence you have provided, is that the plume is indeed from Flight 93. So you are saying it must be from 93 because I don't know what really caused it?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:29 AM	#167
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by AK-Dave 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:29 AM	#168
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,480	Originally Posted by Killtown 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 ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th August 2006, 09:31 AM	#169
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,480	Originally Posted by Killtown 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.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

14th August 2006, 09:31 AM	#170
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Dragon Here's a still from another well known aircraft crash - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...corde8x256.gif - which is from The Guardian's website.. Yes, look how thick the plume's column is compared to Val's plume.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:33 AM	#171
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by CFLarsen 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:52 AM	#172
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Alphaba 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:54 AM	#173
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by gumboot 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?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 09:54 AM	#174
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,113	Originally Posted by Killtown what are the coordinates to varify your findings? Varify? You're going to change his findings for him?
	Last edited by Matthew Best; 14th August 2006 at 09:58 AM. Reason: to add quote

14th August 2006, 09:57 AM	#175
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Belz... You are aware that smoke disperses with wind, aren't you ? Yes.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:00 AM	#176
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by c0rbin 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:00 AM	#177
Beleth FAQ Creator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,134	Originally Posted by Killtown So you are saying it must be from 93 because I don't know what really caused it? I am saying that you have not provided any other explanation for it, and because you have not done so, there is no other conclusion to come to. Flight 93 crashed near where that picture was taken. The crash would have caused a plume. There's a plume in the picture. If all three of those statements are true, and if that plume is not from Flight 93, what is it from, and where is Flight 93's plume?
	__________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 .

14th August 2006, 10:11 AM	#178
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Killtown 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.

14th August 2006, 10:13 AM	#179
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by Killtown 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
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

14th August 2006, 10:14 AM	#180
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,068	Originally Posted by c0rbin 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.
	__________________ "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)

14th August 2006, 10:18 AM	#181
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Beleth 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.

14th August 2006, 10:27 AM	#182
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Matthew Best Varify? You're going to change his findings for him? Should I just blindly take his word that he's correct?
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:31 AM	#183
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Beleth 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:32 AM	#184
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by CurtC 1) Did the FBI confirm that her recalled timing was accurate? She said they timed her.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:34 AM	#185
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86	Has anyone checked both these pix for signs of digital manipulation?
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86

14th August 2006, 10:35 AM	#186
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by CurtC 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 Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:36 AM	#187
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by Hishighness 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.
Killtown Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,393

14th August 2006, 10:44 AM	#188
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86	Do you have a copy of each one, like not animated giffed? If so post them.
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86

14th August 2006, 10:45 AM	#189
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	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?
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

14th August 2006, 10:50 AM	#190
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86	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.
Hishighness Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 86

14th August 2006, 11:00 AM	#191
Beleth FAQ Creator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,134	Originally Posted by Killtown 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?
	__________________ Administrator and Head Moderator, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forum Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne I will come back only after the words "Hi, Nyarl!" are returned to the post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...5&postcount=14 . Last edited by Beleth; 14th August 2006 at 11:04 AM.

14th August 2006, 11:09 AM	#192
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Killtown 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?

14th August 2006, 11:12 AM	#193
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Hishighness 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.

14th August 2006, 11:20 AM	#194
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,272	Quote: ..."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.