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.
rwguinn said:
oh, lookee!
Baby is taking his ball and going home...
Click to expand...

You know, I think we've all been duped. At first we made a blanket assumption that we're dealing with a grown-up. But after reading the "buh-bye!" thing, it's evident we've got a 6th grade girl on the line.
 
Killtown, please answer my question:

Do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?
 
Val's House where picture was taken: VH - 40 03 00.29 N, 78 52 28.16 W
Red Barn in picture (south tip of roof): RB - 40 3 0.44 N, 78 52 34.39 W
White Barn in picture (north tip of roof): WB - 40 2 58.22 N, 78 52 42 W
Crash site: CS - 40 3 3 N, 78 54 13 W

Distance from VH to RB: 148 meters V1
Distance from VH to WB: 334 meters V2
Distance from VH to CS: 2421 meters V3
Distance from RB to CS: 2335 meters V4
Distance from WB to CS: 2158 meters V5
Distance from RB to WB: 193 meters V6

Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, just need some more math savvy people's input to get there.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?
 
Killtown, do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?
 
Killtown said:
Arkan_Wolfshade, I afraid I can't help you with your above question, but I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?
Click to expand...

I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.
 
Killtown said:
Apologize for calling my thoughts on the matter "rubbish," and I'll answer your questions.
Click to expand...


They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.


I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Please answer the questions...
 
Killtown said:
Which plume does NOT look like it's affected by wind:

-snip-
Click to expand...

Which way is the wind blowing in each of the photos?

Do you deny the possibility that in picture 1 the wind may be blowing towards you? Or away from you? And you would not see the plume bending to one side?

Please, please answer as I am genuinely trying to understand how you can fail to grasp this point. Please say if this is wilful obtuseness and we can move on...
 
mortimer said:
Now which plumes are being affected by wind?
Click to expand...

Those pics are enlightening. In comparison to the overlaid pic (2nd one) we can see that Val's pic is showing a plume that is asymmetric. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the plume formed in a symmetric manner initially and is being deformed by wind we would see the plume stretching in a SE direction from the crash. This is consistent with what we see in the pic given that the direction of the picture is WNW.
 
mortimer said:
Now which plumes are being affected by wind?
Click to expand...
Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...

(scroll to bottom)
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/ordnance-blasts.html


Not to get back on topic, I posted that clip to compare the Val plume with the known jet crash plume that IS being affected by wind. But I guess we'd have to start debating what caused the plumes in the first place to debate this clip, so I guess my clip is invalid for this thread.
 
Dr Richard said:
They were shown to be false. You have not denied this.

A false argument is a rubbish one. The arguments have been rubbished.


I apologise if you find having your arguments countered upsetting. But I cannot apologise for calling a rubbish argument a rubbish argument.

Please answer the questions...
Click to expand...
Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I am unable to give you an answer at this time, as I am still researching methods for estimating sizes of objects, given known refences points, in a photograph. My above query is related to this, in part.
Click to expand...
Let's just hypothesize that UA 93's exlosion/smoke plume was the diameter I've chosen on my diagram at the time of Val's pic. Is my diagram accurate?
 
Killtown said:
I just wanted to know if you think my diagram is accurate if we hypothesize that my explosion sizes are accurate?
Click to expand...

How can we hypothesize that your measurements are accurate when your haven't shown your "science" to have any credibility?
 
Killtown said:
Funny, I take "rubbish" to mean something else. What is the standard definition of "rubbish" if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...
Let me suggest, to aid in your understanding of a colloquialism, that the message being sent is this:

the assessment of your approach to analysis and argument in this case is being compared to garbage, which is an apt comparison in that if your analysis were thrown into a trash heap, said disposition would not result in any loss of understanding, or enlightenment, regarding the various questions surrounding the 9-11 event being discussed. The gentleman is finding your argument of low to no value, due to the weaknesses in structure and lack of rigor, not you personally, as I read his comments.

DR
 
Let me make sure that I understand the point of this thread. You're attempting to determine whether or not a woman is selling a faked picture showing a smoke plume from flight 93? Who cares?

As to the claim that this was a smoke plume from ordnance, where are the witnesses in the area that heard this additional mystery exposion? Certainly someone would have heard it, seen an additional smoke plume, found it, etc...
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Can someone who remembers their trig tell me the height of the triangle VH-RB-WB so we can confirm the Google Earth value of 32 meters?
Also, please confirm height from WB-RB-CS is 74 meters.
Click to expand...
This better be worth it. Doing it numerically by hand, I get 32.7 meters and 74.6 meters respectively for your triangle heights.
 
Killtown said:
Hey, thanks for that photoshop pic! Now I'm MORE convinced than ever Val's plume is an ordnance plume! I even put it on my blog...
Click to expand...

Tell me, are we supposed to believe that this "ordnance plume" shifted 90 degrees?

Shouldn't an ordnance plume be a different color?

Oh, and do you acknowledge that you don't have the necessary credentials and expertise to call Ms Val McClatchey's picture "a fraud"?
 
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