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.
Gravy said:
Killtown, can you name some unknown variables in this problem that, if known, would disprove your claim?
Click to expand...
A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated.
 
Killtown said:
A nuclear blast to create a huge plume, or hurricane winds to shift my small plume to where I think it originated.
Click to expand...
So you feel that the other analyses here are consistent with describing nuclear blasts or hurricane winds? Because you have not otherwise shown them to be wrong.
 
Gravy said:
So you feel that the other analyses here are consistent with describing nuclear blasts or hurricane winds? Because you have not otherwise shown them to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Well it seems to boil down to our differences in estimated plume sizes, but you say "no".
 
Killtown said:
Man, I think some of you just like to make things complicate just to be skeptical!

The image just shows how big your guys plume would essentially be. No reason to get all complicated about it.

If you feel this is and incorrect rendision, please draw up your own so everybody can get a sense of what the size of your estimated plume would look like from an aerial photo.
Click to expand...

Your link doesn't work.

If it is of a satellite picture with a scale, then I'll concede that it is possible to put an object in the picture that is more or less properly scaled.

If you slapped another plume into Ms. McClatchey'photo, then there's not really any way for you to get the scaling right. There's not enough information available in the photo for it to be done with anything even approaching the precision of a rough estimate.
 
Killtown, can I ask you a question. As an impartial (at the outset) observer of this thread since its beginning, it seems to me that every single argument you've made has been entirely demolished. But perhaps I'm missing something. If there is one thing in your whole "case" (whatever that case is, whether it is that the photograph is fake OR that it shows something other than the plume from a plane crash) that you think is A) unrefuted and B) clear proof that this could not be an undoctored photo of the aftereffects of the crash of Flight 93 could you please tell us what that is? Please pick just one thing (I know you might think you have dozens, but for the sake of clarity of focus I'd like you to pick just the one which you think is the most telling).

ETA: and please, for the love of whatever you love, don't just say "look at my blog."
 
Killtown said:
How about you guys come up with a Minumum and Maximum width of the plume at the time Val took her pick, then we'll proceed.
Click to expand...
No.

How about YOU come up with a reason why we should accept your calculations of the plume size and we'll proceed from there.
 
Killtown said:
Well it seems to boil down to our differences in estimated plume sizes, but you say "no".
Click to expand...
It comes down to "Why would anyone do something as bizarre as what you are espousing?"

Every argument you've made about size and color of the plume has been shot down. You've gotten into your head that since the plume doesn't look the way your rectal extraction says it should, then there must be something wrong.

What logical or illogical reason could the conspirators have for detonating an explosive device at any site except for the crash site?

So far, the only thing I can figure is that you believe that Moe, Larry, and Curly set up the faked crash site and set off the explosion - with Curly accidentally dropping the bomb while carrying it to the the crash site. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to figure out how "THEY" could expect to fool emergency response people into believing their hastily created fake crash site was a real airplane crash.

Brilliant. Of course then as others here have mentioned they screwed it up by detonating the cover blast a mile away, but perhaps they figured that if a bunch of professional response folks could be fooled by their fake crash site, and the FBI could be fooled by a fake digital picture, they wouldn't notice that little discrepancy.
 
twinstead said:
I'm still trying to figure out how "THEY" could expect to fool emergency response people into believing their hastily created fake crash site was a real airplane crash.

Brilliant. Of course then as others here have mentioned they screwed it up by detonating the cover blast a mile away, but perhaps they figured that if a bunch of professional response folks could be fooled by their fake crash site, and the FBI could be fooled by a fake digital picture, they wouldn't notice that little discrepancy.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to figure out how Moe and Larry managed to get together enough body parts on short notice. (Curly obviously couldn't help. He was arranging for a non-radioactive nuclear bomb and a hurricane.)
 
defaultdotxbe said:
actually they made nuclear weapons with yields as low as .01kt (although why they had to detonate a NUCLEAR weapon and pretend it was a plane crash raises a whole other issue for ockhams razor to slice through)
Click to expand...
Yeah, except the mushroom cloud wouldn't be very impressive. 'Less you were on 'shrooms.
 
twinstead said:
Dude. Don't EVEN get these guys started on that. Next thing we'll be hearing about the "radiationless micronukes" used to bring down the WTC....
Click to expand...

Radiationless micro-husha-nukes if you please. The CTers have yet to explain why there is no sound of the demolition charges on any of the recordings of the WTC building collapses.
 
MortFurd said:
Radiationless micro-husha-nukes if you please. The CTers have yet to explain why there is no sound of the demolition charges on any of the recordings of the WTC building collapses.
Click to expand...

Yup. The helicopter shot video of the actual skyscraper demolition in Ft Worth on another thread is a good example. The initial blasts, long before the building started collapsing, were loud and abrupt enough to make the cameraman jerk the camera.
 
Killtown, perhaps you missed my question, so I'll give it another go: if there was ONE element of your argument that you thought was clearly unassailable, and also clearly showed that this photo could not be an undoctored photo of the aftermath of the crash of Flight 93, what would that be? The apparent size of the cloud? The angles of the lines you've drawn on the map? The "five second" time delay? The color of the smoke? If you had to pick just ONE element about which you think "nothing they've said throws any doubt on THIS!" what would it be?
 
Yoink said:
Killtown, can I ask you a question. As an impartial (at the outset) observer of this thread since its beginning, it seems to me that every single argument you've made has been entirely demolished. But perhaps I'm missing something. If there is one thing in your whole "case" (whatever that case is, whether it is that the photograph is fake OR that it shows something other than the plume from a plane crash) that you think is A) unrefuted and B) clear proof that this could not be an undoctored photo of the aftereffects of the crash of Flight 93 could you please tell us what that is? Please pick just one thing (I know you might think you have dozens, but for the sake of clarity of focus I'd like you to pick just the one which you think is the most telling).

ETA: and please, for the love of whatever you love, don't just say "look at my blog."
Click to expand...
It would be helpful to you to read the beginning of this thread.
 
Killtown said:
It would be helpful to you to read the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...

Get real. Even those of us who have read every word of every post feel the same way. You have misrepresented conjecture as evidence. That's just not right
 
Would like to know you guy's min & max plume size width and min & max amount of fuel at time of impact.
 
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