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

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

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

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

"So what's that relevant to."

Do you support fakers?

"But the FBI said the photo was authentic."

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

I don't understand.

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

That's madness.

"I will no longer debate with you."
 
Matthew Best said:
Why?

How much closer to the blast were they?

What did they say about the blast?
Click to expand...
They were the first ones at the scene, along with some coal truck drivers. Get it? Scrap metal workers and coal trucks? Coal dust explosion and planted airplane scraps. Use your head, man. :D
 
So now you are saying that the workers actually felt the blast.

Why is that inconsistent with her report?
 
Killtown said:
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?
Click to expand...

concorde8x256.gif


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

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

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

3) It increased the size of the vertical column of smoke coming from the ground, but thats not what you wanted to hear...
 
Killtown said:
1) So those 3 FBI guys were too stupid to figure out she couldn't have done it in 5 seconds?
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: by the way, look at the colour of the smoke in this explosion http://webpages.acs.ttu.edu/wfryer/911/MVC-009S.JPG
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
1) So those 3 FBI guys were too stupid to figure out she couldn't have done it in 5 seconds?
Click to expand...
You keep coming back to this, but I don't see the relevance. The FBI did not themselves say that they thought it was five seconds. They had her show her actions, they may have timed them. If they were smart, they would have done what we have right here - the other details seem to point to a time closer to a minute, so they would figure that this witness, like other witnesses to other events, can't accurately recall how long something took.

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

Seems you're finding little details that were not reported with great care, then over-interpreting them to support the case that you want to support.
 
These are not ideal examples, but they demonstrate what I'm trying to get at:

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

here

here

and

here

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

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

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

-Andrew
 
Killtown, you missed my point.

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

If not, isn't logical to assume that this plume of smoke is from the crash of flight 93?
 
Pardalis said:
Killtown, you missed my point.

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

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

Oh, of course not! It is more logical to assume that the "alleged" crash of 93 never occurred! This was the only explosion, in somebody's (who did not notice it) back yard, a mile or so from the place where people were busy planting evidence.
 
Is Killtown ever coming back to this thread?
He was funny.
I particularly liked the way he used his "search for truth" as an excuse to remain willfully ignorant.
Champagne Comedy!:D
 
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