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:
Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg

and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?


Crashes are rises straight up:

^
^
^
^
crash


Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:


<<<<<<plume


Do I have this essentially correct?
Click to expand...

The crashsite is WNW of her house. The wind was blowing SE at the time of the crash. The smoke would not have been moving on a 90 degree angle to her. To be blown at a 90 degree angle relative to her position the wind would have to be coming from the NEN and blowing SWS.

ETA: Wait, 90 deg shift from what?
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
No. No one here is saying that the plume travelled towards Val any significant amount. It travelled South, about 750 feet by my estimate, and maybe that much East, but you can't really get any East-West info from that photo.

We're not saying it necessarily travelled towards Val, but did travel some amount laterally.
Click to expand...
Regardless of which direction it shifted, are you saying the plume rose STRAIGHT UP in the air like the photo indicates:

20060806wap_Flight93_450.jpg



Then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction?
 
As I said, well there you go. And 2001 digital cams had this auto-turn off functions I'm assuming.
Click to expand...
your contradicting your own point here

Killtown said:
2) She had her camera "ready" by the door awaiting a helicopter flybye. It's not a stretch to assume for already had her camera on.

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

it is a stretch to assume she already had the camera on, because it would have long since turned itself off
 
c0rbin said:
I find this whole argument to be pointless.

The OC Theorists do not hold this photo up as evidence of anything. Why debate it at all?
Click to expand...


Because if it is authentic, and IF Killtown's claims are correct, then it shows the OC to be incorrect. Moreover, failure to consider the evidence in the photo would be evidence of a coverup. See my previous post on this.

Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.
 
Killtown said:
Since most people think Val's plume is from UA 93 crashing at the "hole," let me see if I have your thoughts on this matter straight:

UA 93 crashed and formed this grey plume that rose literally straight up into the air to the size seen in Val's pic:



and then all of a sudden did a 90 deg shift and was blown in the direction of Val's camera line as my simply diagram suggests below?


Crashes are rises straight up:

^
^
^
^
crash


Then the wind blows the entire plume 90 degs over to Val's camera line:


<<<<<<plume


Do I have this essentially correct?
Click to expand...

No. It didn't blow towards the photographer's house. The plane crashed, the smoke went up. The plume was as big as the photo shows. Do the math. The calculations are a few posts back.
 
After reading this debate I must give Killtown credit for successfully casting doubt upon Ms. McClatchey's five seconds (and all that telling error implies). Bravo. :rolleyes:

Beyond that, his argument was less than persuasive.
 
pgwenthold said:
Unfortunately for Killtown, nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconsistent with the official story, so it is all moot.
Click to expand...


I think this is where I am with this. This is moot. There is no new info here and the old info is shown to be bunk or questionable.
 
"Nothing in the picture has been shown to be inconstent with the official story"

Killtown said:
Really? Where has someone proven this?
Click to expand...

Well, the fact that nothing you have provided is sufficiently precise to be considered inequivocally inconsistent with the official story pretty much says it all.
 
Killtown said:
Buckwheatjones said:
Did I have your guy's story about how the Plume got to the point where Val took a picture of it; it rose STRAIGHT UP, then shifted 90 degs in which ever direction it did?
Click to expand...

No. You have my guy's story (mathematical calculations) about how 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could easily create a cloud 600-1000 meters across. This, as opposed to your contention that the cloud was way too big (and therefore must have been the result of another explosion set off closer to the photographer) because....well....it just looked to big.
Click to expand...
 
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