Flight 93 Smoke Plume Pic was a HOAX! For sure!

Nice thread OP, S&F from me.

I always thought something was iffy with this grey plume of smoke. I mean, how many times has a plane crashed on a run way only to be met with thick black smoke surrounded by bright orange flames. I know it's probably too high up to see the orange flames but that smoke should be black as night.

It's probably because that plane buried itself into the ground as some people have been saying..... Can I do sarcasm??

I'll just post this link as it does a pretty good refutation of this "hoax" garbage.

www.911myths.com...

It also has a great picture and anothr crash incident with a very similar smoke plume. The similarity should put this nonsense to rest once and for all.

reply to post by GenRadek

The only thing that is nonsense is that debunk attempt because it's not even debunking the point of this thread! The point of this thread is that the plume photo is fake, so it really doesn't matter what shape the plume necessarily is. Though one thing I noticed, that other plume looked a LOT smaller than the lady's plume. The plume in the lady's photo would be MONSTROUS if it was real and the odds that no one else miles away didn't photograph it is also monstrous.

How does anybody know if she really gave all the profits she claimed to the charity? Just take her word for it?


[edit on 29-7-2009 by ATH911]

Skeptics, did the plume in that photo line up over the crater, or closer to the pond?

reply to post by ATH911


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1afa39f92d45.jpg[/atsimg]

It doesn't line up.

The wind conveniently shifted it over nice and perfectly see?

I have not followed this thread, but I started reading the last comments on the last page and wanted to make an observation:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7286a2ef2868.jpg[/atsimg]


I notice that the two plane crashes have dark black smoke from the burning fuel and that the Shanksville and ordinance smoke plumes have a lighter colored smoke.

My point is that if it were a real jet plane crash, we should expect to see dark black smoke from the burning fuel as indicated in the two images in the collage above and the dark black smoke that was coming out of the WTC. The dark black smoke is indicative of fuel burning and the Shanksville photo just doesn't look right for some reason.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

The shape and color of the plumes doesn't really matter. It's the location and size of the plume that do. Then after that the shape matters because the plume would had to travel quite a length to get where it lines up in the photo and if it did that, it would not of retained that shape.

The one thing that is demonstrably clear, is that plume was NOT from that crater location.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


HOwever you forget that the Shanksville cloud is illuminated by the sun.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

HOwever you forget that the Shanksville cloud is illuminated by the sun.

Huh? Sun? And what do you call the bottom left image- was this taken in a hurricane? NO, it was sunny as can be, and that cloud is black- VERY black.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Look at the detail of Val's plume. It looks like it was at the same SHORTER distance from the camera as the others look. No look at the detail of the horizon of Val's pic. It looks further than the detail of the plume in her photo which further proves that plume has been photoshopped.

Where's here $$$ paper trail skeptics? Aren't you guys against people participating in frauds?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Ah yes a picture from Vietnam times of military jet fuel burning (NOT made by a fireball crash and mushroom cloud,with different cameras and time, ad exposure etc etc etc), automatically debunks the Shanksville cloud?

What about the crash and cloud from the C-130?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
Ohhh interesting find, 20 plus minutes with no debunking but when it does come my money is on character defamation, and a known flaw with the camera she used painting a completely different picture to what was taken

.

OR, it may simply be the case we're ignoring it becuase we find it silly that the gov't would go out and make a fake crash site in order to trick us, and then put out disinformation to hide all the work they put into making the fake crash site meant to trick us. On the other hand, we see the FAA rarely released any detailed photos of any other crash site, NOT becuase of any supposed conspiracy, but becuase they usually likewise contain photos of human beings turned into bloody blobs of goo, so it should be obvious why they wouldn't release photos of this crash site either.

There, a debunking without character defamation. You owe us money, now.

Hahahahaha yet another debunker actually causing me to fall out of my chair laughing.

we see the FAA rarely released any detailed photos of any other crash site, NOT becuase of any supposed conspiracy, but becuase they usually likewise contain photos of human beings turned into bloody blobs of goo,

In yet another ironic moment, this crash site revealed no planes or bodies. HAHAHA.

If that lady's photo is real, that plume is so HUGE that is would have been seen from MILES away. The odds that no one else took a photo/video of it is astronomical.

The story she just "happened" to drop her camera after taken one photo makes sense that it's fake because not only is it hard to believe she actually dropped her camera after shooting a photo (I've taken THOUSANDS of photos and NEVER dropped my camera once after snapping a shot), the more fake photos you make, the more risk you take, so it would be less risky to just produce one fake photo.

I've noticed the skeptics are really silent about this thread.