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

Banned
K
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
1,393
(I'm sure you will all strictly adhere to the forum rules if choosing to respond to this thread. Anyone who doesn't will not get a response back.)


The smoke plume in Val McClatchey's infamous photo originated at a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed:

93-plume-comparison.jpg


(Original photo source. Plume in right photo came from a real plane crash. See analysis of how this was determined here.)

PHOTO REMOVED - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: JeffWagg




So this means this plume in Val's photo was not from Flight 93 crashing.


(Key factors to note: Val says she snapped her photo about 5 seconds after almost being knocked off her couch from the explosion. Wind gusts near the crash spot were only 9 knots blowing SE.)


If you think you can debunk this claim, please use similar types of photo and graphic analysis to do so. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't do.


PS - For this particular thread, we are assuming Val's photo IS authentic.

"Let's roll!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe he is saying that the photo could be from a while after the plane crashed, when the plume would be larger, but if I am remembering correctly, the claim is that she heard the crash then ran outside and took the picture, and then dropped the camera? So the picture is supposed to be from very shortly after the crash?
 
mrfreeze said:
I believe he is saying that the photo could be from a while after the plane crashed, when the plume would be larger, but if I am remembering correctly, the claim is that she heard the crash then ran outside and took the picture, and then dropped the camera? So the picture is supposed to be from very shortly after the crash?
Click to expand...
Yes, "about 5 seconds".
 
Why would the plume be smaller when the plane first crashes? A plane going that fast, crashing into the ground would not just burn, it would eject a lot of material into the sky and as it formed the crater.
You have to know how much ejected material was formed before you can say how big the plume would be.
 
Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
 
Pyrrho said:
Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
Click to expand...
All we know is it was a "new digital camera." I'd guess it was more of a basic one than an expensive one since she probably bought it for her real-estate work (taking pictures of houses, etc.) and that right before 9/11 she was about to go bankrupt, so doubtful she'd spend a ton of money on an advanced camera. We can only speculate though.
 
Pyrrho said:
Anybody know the lens size, focal length, and aperture when the photo was taken? You need that info for accurate rangefinding if you're retro-rangefinding from a photograph. Otherwise...
Click to expand...

Additionally, the B-52 movie the second plume was take from was zooming in and out. How was this rectified when calculating the adjustments needed to overlay the two images? Where are these calculations at? (I scrolled through the link marked analysis but no calcs jump out at me)
 
I notice in the original photo that the smoke underneath the plume has dissipated. Why not let the B-52 film run until that occurs on that plume and compare sizes?
 
The point chosen for Val's position when taking the photo is inside her house, behind the front door, not on the front porch where she claims she took the photo (see the Google Earth closeup, just above the photo of her front porch).

How sure are the analysts of her position?
 
I notice a B-52 is capable of carrying roughly 4 times the fuel as a 757-222. What were the amounts of fuels in each crash as this would affect the amount of material available to generate smoke?
 
elgarak said:
The point chosen for Val's position when taking the photo is inside her house, behind the front door, not on the front porch where she claims she took the photo (see the Google Earth closeup, just above the photo of her front porch).

How sure are the analysts of her position?
Click to expand...

She was on her front porch.
 
Rule 1 of Conspiracy Theory: Resorting to alleged photograph inconsistencies is a sure-fire way to know that CTs are bunk. See JFK, Moon-landing Hoaxers
 
Killtown said:
Val said she and the FBI timed herself when they came to take her camera's memory card away.
Click to expand...

Even professional actors struggle to repeat their actions exactly the same for different takes, especially if the takes are done on different days.

Val's actions during the 'FBI timing' are very probable different from her actions on 9/11.
 
elgarak said:
Even professional actors struggle to repeat their actions exactly the same for different takes, especially if the takes are done on different days.

Val's actions during the 'FBI timing' are very probable different from her actions on 9/11.
Click to expand...
Well all you have to do is look at the plume and tell it's still in it's infancy stage, so I'd say under 10 sec is a consistent claim.
 
Welcome Killtown. I guess since most of the skeptics have been banned at Loose Change, it gets kind of boring being able to converse with only believers. You should encounter no such paranoia here.

Regarding the picture, what's your point? No one to my knowledge is using this photo in any official capacity in any part of the 9/11 crash investigation. You can correct me if I'm wrong. But if you do, please do so with supporting evidence from reputable sources.

Edit to change phone to picture (huh :))
 
Last edited:
Killtown said:
Well all you have to do is look at the plume and tell it's still in it's infancy stage, so I'd say under 10 sec is a consistent claim.
Click to expand...

can you provide evidence for this claim? say produce other plumes at 10 seconds that show a similar dissipation of the smoke between the plume and the alleged source?
 
Not going to read any conspiricy sites right now, as I am sufficiently angry for the day, but does it take into account the speed and angle of the impacts? What was the weather like at both sites (temp, barometric pressure, humidity) and how does your "analysis" control for those factors? Are both aircraft using the same fuel type? Have the people who "analysed" the pictures ever investigated large aircraft crashes or are they your typical armchair experts who have no real knowledge or experience and are in need of serious self-fornication? If the government was able to pull off the alledged 9/11 hoax so well, why were they so incompetent as to have their fake smoke plume be in the wrong spot? Why are the people exposing this "conspiricy" still alive? Any competent government conspiricy able to pull off something on that scale would be able to silence critics before the criticisims became so widespread. Or do you believe the conspiritors don't know how to use Google?

It would violate forum rules for me to say what I think about this particular "theory" and what the people promoting it are putting this lady through...

-David
 
DavidJames said:
1) Welcome Killtown. I guess since most of the skeptics have been banned at Loose Change, it gets kind of boring being able to converse with only believers. You should encounter no such paranoia here.

2)Regarding the picture, what's your point?

3) No one to my knowledge is using this photo in any official capacity in any part of the 9/11 crash investigation. (huh :))
Click to expand...
1) Yeah, it's too bad most skeptics don't know how to behave themselves during a debate.

2) :boggled:

3) Well I guess we are now!
 
AK-Dave said:
It would violate forum rules for me to say what I think about this particular "theory" and what the people promoting it are putting this lady through...

-David
Click to expand...
I tell you what, don't bother posting to this thread anymore.
 
Killtown said:
Wasn't my point perfectly clear in my opening thread? Something I mentioned about this plume originating from a different location, or something like that?
Click to expand...
But who cares?

I would understand if the offical report used that photo as part of their evidence, but they didn't. So if you are attempting to use that photo to refute the official report, you are wasting your time.
 
Why does your poll have only two options. As for me, I am unsure enough that I would have voted for "Don't know/can't tell" if it had been an option.

Are you trying to use this photo as evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the ground on that day?
 
DavidJames said:
1) But who cares?

2) So if you are attempting to use that photo to refute the official report, you are wasting your time.
Click to expand...
1) Who cares??? :boggled:

Americans who don't want their country over-run by tyrants, that's who care.

2) Why?
 
Ladewig said:
1) Why does your poll have only two options. As for me, I am unsure enough that I would have voted for "Don't know/can't tell" if it had been an option.

2) Are you trying to use this photo as evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the ground on that day?
Click to expand...
1) Not for sinister reasons, I can assure you.

2) No, I'm simply implying that this plume was not from that alleged crash. Two different incidences as far as I'm concerned.
 
Killtown said:
I'm only going to answer to people who are at least .0000001% openminded.
Click to expand...

Isnt it close minded to assume someone isnt open minded just because they dont believe you?

Ive given you the time of day to see your argument, and Im not convinced. You need to do better. We're not the problem. Your bad argument is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom