Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

Mercutio said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yah. Why'nahell would you set off an explosion in one spot then plant evidence of a crash somewhere else. Question for Mr. Killtown?

MortFurd said:

Yah. Why'nahell would you set off an explosion in one spot then plant evidence of a crash somewhere else. Question for Mr. Killtown?

Click to expand...

Because if you set off the explosion at the correct site the mushroom cloud in Val's photo would be the right size, and then no one would ever find out about the clever ruse...

Duh.

-Andrew

gumboot said:

Because if you set off the explosion at the correct site the mushroom cloud in Val's photo would be the right size, and then no one would ever find out about the clever ruse...

Duh.

-Andrew

Click to expand...

Ah. Silly me. Why can't I see these obvious things?

Since Killtown wont explain himself here, allow me. I've been through this whole charade with him at ScrewLooseChange. In short, he believes that:

- Vals photo has been photoshopped to include the plume. The CIA might've assisted in the operation, or it couldve been Val acting on her own. I've asked him if he's found the original plume(that Val used) out there in cyberspace, and he's said he looked, but cannot find it.
Which of course means that she was provided with a unique picture to photoshop her "end of serenity" photo with....so perhaps she wasn't acting alone.

--or--

- The photo is authentic and the plume is from something other than UA 93 because of the reasons cited above....proving the gumberments story a lie.

Ironically, Killtown is reasoning that if the photo is a fake, the gubmints story is still somewhat intact. However, if it isnt a fake, then the gummints story is a farce for all the reasons cited above(plume too big, wrong color, wrong spot, still in its infancy, etc..)

Thats the gist of it.

EDT: typo

Anyone else find it intersting that the more pages that are added to this thread. The more people seem to be voting 'yes' in Killtown's poll.

Yes, but five people have voted "No". That's Killtown plus four others presumably.

Who are they?

apathoid said:

Since Killtown wont explain himself here, allow me. I've been through whole charade with him at ScrewLooseChange. In short, he believes that:

- Vals photo has been photoshopped to include the plume. The CIA might've assisted in the operation, or it couldve been Val acting on her own. I've asked him if he's found the original plume(that Val used) out there in cyberspace, and he's said he looked, but cannot find it.
Which of course means that she was provided with a unique picture to photoshop her "end of serenity" photo with....so perhaps she wasn''t acting alone.

--or--

- The photo is authentic and the plume is from something other than UA 93 because of the reasons cited above....proving the gumberments story a lie.

Ironically, Killtown is reasoning that if the photo is a fake, the gubmints story is still somewhat intact. However, if it isnt a fake, then the gummints story is a farce for all the reasons cited above(plume too big, wrong color, wrong spor, still in its infancy, etc..)

Thats the gist of it.

Click to expand...

I've been around these boards long enough to develop a taste for conspiracy theories. They are like wine, in a sense. You can tell the care and quality that goes into one when you experience it.

Some are well thought out, with almost-plausible villains, motives, and opportunities. They are like good wine, able to be enjoyed in moderation but never actually to be lived on, of course.

Then some, like this one, have started the process, but have not nearly reached its culmination. I can't speak to the "Photoshop" conclusion above, since that is beyond the scope of this thread, but the facts so far presented certainly do not warrant the "not Flight 93" conclusion. It's like grape juice about to be poured into a barrel, and therefore pretty unenjoyable.

Killtown obviously doesn't have an evidence-backed explanation for where the plume came from, or where Flight 93's plume went. And without that, his theory will remain grape juice.

Beleth said:

I've been around these boards long enough to develop a taste for conspiracy theories. They are like wine, in a sense. You can tell the care and quality that goes into one when you experience it.

Some are well thought out, with almost-plausible villains, motives, and opportunities. They are like good wine, able to be enjoyed in moderation but never actually to be lived on, of course.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to claim I can't live off wine?

Then some, like this one, have started the process, but have not nearly reached its culmination. I can't speak to the "Photoshop" conclusion above, since that is beyond the scope of this thread, but the facts so far presented certainly do not warrant the "not Flight 93" conclusion. It's like grape juice about to be poured into a barrel, and therefore pretty unenjoyable.

Killtown obviously doesn't have an evidence-backed explanation for where the plume came from, or where Flight 93's plume went. And without that, his theory will remain grape juice.

Click to expand...

I think Killtown's problem is that he doesn't have an explanation at all, let alone one based on evidence.

Apathoid:
I've been following this whole thread, so I've got a fair idea of what Killtown has said about what the picture may or may not show. Also note, that Killtown has been arguing through out this thread as though the picture was real. He's used that phrase a couple of times in reference to the photo.

What he has not said is just what is to be gained by having explosion take place in the wrong location. The Loose Change site shows a lot of photos of the flight 93 crash site and seems to be trying to imply that no airplane crashed there. Killtown has also posted a a diagram that shows the explosion happening at a different spot. It looks like he's trying to tell us that the goverment setup a fake crash site and then set off an explosion somewhere else to provide the smoke column.

I'm really curious as to why it would be necessary to fake things in this way. It's much too complicated. Setup the fake site, set of an explosion on the site, and be happy. I don't understand the need for the second site.

MortFurd said:

Apathoid:
I've been following this whole thread, so I've got a fair idea of what Killtown has said about what the picture may or may not show. Also note, that Killtown has been arguing through out this thread as though the picture was real. He's used that phrase a couple of times in reference to the photo.

What he has not said is just what is to be gained by having explosion take place in the wrong location. The Loose Change site shows a lot of photos of the flight 93 crash site and seems to be trying to imply that no airplane crashed there. Killtown has also posted a a diagram that shows the explosion happening at a different spot. It looks like he's trying to tell us that the goverment setup a fake crash site and then set off an explosion somewhere else to provide the smoke column.

I'm really curious as to why it would be necessary to fake things in this way. It's much too complicated. Setup the fake site, set of an explosion on the site, and be happy. I don't understand the need for the second site.

Click to expand...

Yeah, its hard to understand what Killtown is trying to imply when he posts. He may have come off the fake photo thing, but that was indeed his original point in all of this.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/killtown-looks-at-flight-93-crash.html

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=100

How to Calculate an Explosion

For you guys on here who have been questioning mister killtown, I'd like to introduce another piece of information that ought to be considered. I've had some discussion with him on his own site and and on RightNation.US and when he says he has "proof" that the cloud is too big, it simply means that the cloud is "too big" in his own mind.

Any serious, or even remotely serious, attempt at determining whether or not that cloud is too big would begin with the consultation of a physicist or some other authority in the field of explosion dynamics.

As it is, he has not done so, but has based his findings on seemingly arbitrary cornerstones like "I drew a diagram of an explosion on my map, and made the size of the blast what I deemed reasonable."

What sort of foundation does that provide? One that is about as solid as sinking pylons in Jell-O, and good for just as much.

So. I took the liberty of consulting a nuclear engineer from a physics question and answer forum. The math follows, and while one can say that I just found some "web guy" with an opinion, the numbers are all there and can be checked.

The end result is that the size of the cloud could indeed be the same size as that in Val's photo, and quite possibly much larger. Killtown doesn't have any "proof." Not when there is reasonable doubt generated by mathmatical calculations such as this:

Post from RightNation.US Aug. 13 to Killtown. No response so far as of today...

I did. I've been waiting a couple of days to hear back from a nuclear engineer to whom I posed the question, "Could an airliner containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create a cloud 500-600 meters across?" I was unable to learn how much fuel was on board Flight 93 at the time of the crash so I arrived at the estimation based on the overall capacity capacity of the Boeing 757, which is 11,500 gallons. Accounting for the fact that this was a cross country flight and the airliner had been in the air for some time, I use 10,000 gallons as a reasonable number.

Looking at your map, and using the scale at the bottom of it, and your pair of vectors out to the crash site I determined that accounting for wind drift, fireball interia, etc., I put the the cloud slightly southeast of the hole and measured it. At least 500 meters across, but closer to 600 meters.

So let me just say that the little cloud you cooked up is pitifully small. In fact, the size of the cloud as is on Val's image is certainly possible.

Here's what my nuclear engineer wrote. Now I don't expect you to digest this all, but the figures are there and you can certainly have them checked out by one of the many nuclear engineers I am sure you took the time to consult:
"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m."

He also added this...

"...so 10,000 gal of dispersed jet fuel is going to create a good sized plume - 1000 m is not unrealistic. A fireball would produce an updraft, pulling freshair into it and burning up the fuel vapor."
So there we are, Killtown. A One Thousand Meter Cloud is not even unrealistic, and I'm only putting this at about half of that. This information that I've introduced may not be conclusive, but it makes my point rather beautifully. And that point is that YOUR point about the size of the cloud being too big PROVES that this photo points to conspiracy.

You haven't proven anything, boy. Except that you're too lazy to go and do your own legwork.

Next....we try to determine if the cloud could have ONLY been made by a stack or ordnance and not jet fuel. When my answers to that come in, I'll be sure to let you know.

Have a nice day.

Welcome to the forum Buckwheatjones. Thanks for an excellent first post. I'm looking forward to your further contributions. Be sure to check out some of the other subforums; there's lots of interesting things to discuss around here.

I'll second that. Nice derivation. I too would expect the size and shape of the cloud to vary substantially as a function of the initial fuel distribution, which is going to be complicated, depending on the aircraft's trajectory, terrain, distribution within the plane, etc.

Maybe four other people voted against the poll because (like me) they've never even heard of this photo before, and don't want to take KillTown's word regarding its provenance. I'd like to learn more about where it came from, and Val's actual statement, if it's available.

How to Calculate an Explosion

For you guys on here who have been questioning mister killtown, I'd like to introduce another piece of information that ought to be considered. I've had some discussion with him on his own site and and on RightNation.US and when he says he has "proof" that the cloud is too big, it simply means that the cloud is "too big" in his own mind.

Any serious, or even remotely serious, attempt at determining whether or not that cloud is too big would begin with the consultation of a physicist or some other authority in the field of explosion dynamics.

As it is, he has not done so, but has based his findings on seemingly arbitrary cornerstones like "I drew a diagram of an explosion on my map, and made the size of the blast what I deemed reasonable."

What sort of foundation does that provide? One that is about as solid as sinking pylons in Jell-O, and good for just as much.

So. I took the liberty of consulting a nuclear engineer from a physics question and answer forum. The math follows, and while one can say that I just found some "web guy" with an opinion, the numbers are all there and can be checked.

The end result is that the size of the cloud could indeed be the same size as that in Val's photo, and quite possibly much larger. Killtown doesn't have any "proof." Not when there is reasonable doubt generated by mathmatical calculations such as this:

Post from RightNation.US Aug. 13 to Killtown. No response so far as of today...

I did. I've been waiting a couple of days to hear back from a nuclear engineer to whom I posed the question, "Could an airliner containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create a cloud 500-600 meters across?" I was unable to learn how much fuel was on board Flight 93 at the time of the crash so I arrived at the estimation based on the overall capacity capacity of the Boeing 757, which is 11,500 gallons. Accounting for the fact that this was a cross country flight and the airliner had been in the air for some time, I use 10,000 gallons as a reasonable number.

Looking at your map, and using the scale at the bottom of it, and your pair of vectors out to the crash site I determined that accounting for wind drift, fireball interia, etc., I put the the cloud slightly southeast of the hole and measured it. At least 500 meters across, but closer to 600 meters.

So let me just say that the little cloud you cooked up is pitifully small. In fact, the size of the cloud as is on Val's image is certainly possible.

Here's what my nuclear engineer wrote. Now I don't expect you to digest this all, but the figures are there and you can certainly have them checked out by one of the many nuclear engineers I am sure you took the time to consult:
"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m."

He also added this...

"...so 10,000 gal of dispersed jet fuel is going to create a good sized plume - 1000 m is not unrealistic. A fireball would produce an updraft, pulling freshair into it and burning up the fuel vapor."
So there we are, Killtown. A One Thousand Meter Cloud is not even unrealistic, and I'm only putting this at about half of that. This information that I've introduced may not be conclusive, but it makes my point rather beautifully. And that point is that YOUR point about the size of the cloud being too big PROVES that this photo points to conspiracy.

You haven't proven anything, boy. Except that you're too lazy to go and do your own legwork.

Next....we try to determine if the cloud could have ONLY been made by a stack or ordnance and not jet fuel. When my answers to that come in, I'll be sure to let you know.

Have a nice day.

Honestly, I would like to know if Val's testimony is available.

I can't open all of KillTown's links from the OP -- I get some ominous ActiveX activity on the "WindsorStories" link -- but the Pittsburgh Live link suggests something totally different than the "five seconds" that was claimed:

Pittsburgh Live said:

Val McClatchey heard the 757 roar over Indian Lake, three miles east of where it would crash. She had been watching the "Today" show, with footage from New York, and now the Pentagon.

She looked out the window, above the red barns. She caught a glimpse of it, like light off a watch face. Then nothing, and then a boom that nearly knocked her off the couch.

The lights went out. The phones, too.

She grabbed her camera. She stepped onto the front porch and shot one frame of the smoke cloud, a charcoal puff in a pure blue sky.

[...]

"I thought it was an accident," McClatchey says, a Time and a Newsweek and a Reader's Digest in the binder on the coffee table, the pages with her photo marked with Post-Its. "I thought it was a small plane. I figured they were just trying to get out of the air."

Click to expand...

Since it mentions that "the phones went out," this suggests Val's first thought was to call emergency services -- admirable presence of mind if this is so -- and only then go for her camera. Impossible in five seconds.

This also changes the interpretation of her being "knocked off her couch," if her initial impression was that of a small plane crash. She was behind a window, so clearly not a shockwave. It must simply have been startling. I can easily imagine that!

Bottom line, we need more evidence before we can treat the photograph with such precision. At this time, the smoke cloud appears to be entirely within expected bounds.

KillTown, the evidence that you have presented appears to conflict with your interpretation of events. Do you have access to anything more concrete?

ETA: Clarified my interpretation of the seeming inconsistency regarding being "knocked off the couch."

Image likely not Photoshopped.

I think the image must be treated as real. I had begun my discussions with KT by asking if he had reviewed anything bigger than the thumbnail size image available on the web, and he responded that he had not. He has not made an effort to inspect any image larger than the 256k slop being passed around the internet.

He had also initially posted on his own site that having a clear blue sky as a background would make it easier to paste in a cloud. As a professional 40 hour a week Photoshop operator since 1995, and having worked in Photoshops 2.0 to 9.0 (CS2), I can handily tell you all this is not the case in any way shape or form. It is very nearly impossible to seamlessly paste in a cloud on a clean slate. So, as I told him, if you are not going to do the homework and get a better look at the image in question, then you much give it the benefit of the doubt and presume it is real.

Another point which needs to be brought up, and to which I have seen him produce no answer for, is the following question I asked him last week:

"...Finally, since you ask a lot of suppositional questions on your site,
let me ask one of you here: If this is image points to a conspiracy,
and 93 really didn't go down at the crash site as you've marked it,
then that implies that somebody (the government) went to the trouble to dig a hole and fill it with evidence that would suggest a crash. If this occurred, why march a full mile east of the "scene" and set off a bunch of "ordnance" there? Would it not be common sensical to dump a lot of jet fuel into the hole you just dug and set it off at the scene of the accident? Also, by doing so along an east/west axis, don't you increase your indemnity against the possibility of someone snapping a photo, or taking a video either due north or south of the crash scene, thereby clearly placing the cloud well away from the hole? Is the government really so foolish as to coordinate four separate incidents of complicity, and then be so wreckless here?"

Buckwheatjones said:

"...Finally, since you ask a lot of suppositional questions on your site,
let me ask one of you here: If this is image points to a conspiracy,
and 93 really didn't go down at the crash site as you've marked it,
then that implies that somebody (the government) went to the trouble to dig a hole and fill it with evidence that would suggest a crash. If this occurred, why march a full mile east of the "scene" and set off a bunch of "ordnance" there? Would it not be common sensical to dump a lot of jet fuel into the hole you just dug and set it off at the scene of the accident? Also, by doing so along an east/west axis, don't you increase your indemnity against the possibility of someone snapping a photo, or taking a video either due north or south of the crash scene, thereby clearly placing the cloud well away from the hole? Is the government really so foolish as to coordinate four separate incidents of complicity, and then be so wreckless here?"

Click to expand...

This is part of the "they were smart enough to pull off the most complex and massive conspiracy of all time (even hiding the plane and its passengers and planting their DNA) but were too stupid to know to put the explosion cloud at the crash site" approach that CTers tend to have.

buckwheatjones, welcome. Although as a skeptic I would note that your mentioning your source is a nuclear engineer is a blatant Appeal to Authority...

Albeit that said authority can do the math, something that is often lacking in most CT'ers...

I would also note that as an owner of a digital camera, unless she had it turned on, she would have had to wait several seconds (if the camera is anything like mine) for the lens guard to clear and the camera come to life.

If I had to make up a timeline (and this is speculation only, mind you, nothing provable here), it would look something like this.

0-1 seconds---Flight 93 crashes. Ground wave transmitted, fireball begins.

1-3 seconds--combination ground wave/shock of seeing crash "almost knocks her off the couch"

3-8 seconds--sees smoke cloud rising, hears 'boom' of crash, momentarity stunned (I mean, how many of us would react immediately in those conditions?)

8-12 seconds--picks up phone to call 911, finds phone dead.

12-15 seconds--grabs camera that is close at hand, turns on as runs for door.

15-19 seconds--exits door, takes position, brings camera up to focus on growing cloud.

20 seconds---takes picture.

Now this is done not knowing the layout of the house or how close things were to her at the time. This may cause the time to vary--my scenario allows, IMHO, that things were very close at hand.

And as Mercutio said earlier, without timepieces we can be lousy judges of how much time has elapsed. I referee soccer, and when I check my stopwatch for elapsed time, I am almost always off by several minutes in how much time has passed--and I have been refereeing a long time...

Again, just a mental exercise, but for your consideration...

Edited to add: and lets give Killtown some time; after all, he is trying to defend this argument of his on multiple boards, given the evidence here, and he can't spend ALL his time with us..

Well, this is so you can enjoy the luxury of getting both ways when it suits your argument. KT also implies that Val is a liar because she said her power went off, but then she used her printer to print the image a short time later. However, if she is a liar, then how can her "I took the photo 5 seconds after the crash" timeframe be believed? It can't, but killerboy is intent on sticking with it because it fits into his argument that the cloud could not have grown so large in 5 seconds.

She's a liar and she's not a liar. Killerboy gets to pick and choose as it suits him.

Cuddles said:

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?

Click to expand...

She said they timed her at "about 5 seconds".