Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Is the plume in this photo from Flight 93 crashing?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 129 90.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 13 9.2%
  • Total voters
    142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Killtown said:
It's not relevant for this thread.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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?
Click to expand...
Which spot would you estimate the plume would be at according to your calculations?
 
Killtown said:
All that can be answer here...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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=...059,-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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Killtown said:
3) of course, it is just irrelevent what caused that plume for this thread.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
GregC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pardalis said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the photographer, Val, in this case is a "her." :D

DR
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GregC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:

killtown @ SLC forums said:
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.
Click to expand...
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=100&view=findpost&p=1946
 
Last edited:
12.5 seconds after the crash
Click to expand...

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.
 
MortFurd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Killtown said:
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?
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter.

Gee, this is fun. :D

DR
 
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?
Click to expand...
if the wind was blowing evenly it wouldnt appear "bent" because the collumn woudl also be moving SE at the same rate
 
Killtown said:
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?

[qimg]http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg[/qimg]
(Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm)
Click to expand...
Funny, yesterday you claimed not to know why the FBI examined the memory card. Where does she give this reason?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom