An Italian 9/11 debunking blog undicisettembre (English version) tries to debunk the notion that the plume on Val McClatchey’s “End of Serenity” photo can only come from a bomb blast. They say that conspiracists, such as I, claim “plane crashes don't make plumes like that, bombs do” and that we also say the plume in Val’s photo "proves conclusively" that Flight 93 did not crash there. They even specifically quote me:
"It proves that this blast is more likely an ordnance plume"
- Killtown, in his/her site.
- Killtown, in his/her site.
(It’s “his” btw ;-)
They then go on to show an interesting photo of a L-100-30 Hercules plane crash in Italy* that crashed after making a long high speed decent and makes a very similar looking plume as the one in Val’s photo (although it is not known at this time how much fuel was aboard this L-100-30 when it crashed):
(L-100-30 Hercules crash left. Val’s photo right.)
They conclude by saying:
“anyone who claims that a cloud with that shape can only come from an ordnance blast is making a false claim and any theories based on such a premise are flawed.”
Well after seeing that photo, I would have to agree with their conclusion, however there is one slight problem with this Italian blogger’s debunk attempt, they are debunking the wrong claims of mine!
First, I’ve never claimed and I’m not claiming that plane crashes never make plumes like the one seen in Val’s photo (I would argue it's still rare though!). Second, about them saying that I claim that Val’s photo proves Flight 93 didn’t crash there, this was something I used to think before Rumple4skn and I found out the new evidence about Val’s plume photo that shows her plume couldn’t have originated where Flight 93 allegedly crashed, so believing her photo proves the plane didn't crash there is now a moot point. They obviously didn’t read my current claims very well on my blogpost that they linked too!
So why I said Val's plume “more likely” (apparently they missed this part in the sentence of mine they quoted) came from and ordnance blast is because:
(1) Val’s plume doesn’t line up with her camera direction and would have looked more dissipated than it does from having to been blown the approx. 250yds in approx. 50 sec needed to have lined up in her camera direction.
(2) Her plume would have been approx. 7 football fields (or 3 Heinz football stadiums!) wide if it had originated from the crash spot which would have been impossible for a plane with only 5,500 gals of fuel on board to have made since we are told it burrowed underground and crash scene photos show none of the grass around the crater was scorched by fire.
So why didn’t they try to debunk these current claims of mine about Val’s photo (aside from her photo might being a fake)? My guess is they couldn’t, so they tried to confuse this issue at hand (or maybe they just can’t read English that well!).
One thing I will change concerning Val’s plume that I’m sure this Italian blog will be happy to hear is that I’ll try not to suggest her plume more likely came from an ordnance blast than from a plane crash as much, but not because they showed a plane crash plume that looks like an ordnance plume, but because since Rumple4skn and I conclude that Val’s plume could not have originated anywhere near the crash site, it really doesn’t matter at all what created the plume in her photo since it didn't come from Flight 93 crashing at the alleged site! I’ll simply refer to her plume as coming from an explosion originating from a different location.
Btw, the crash this Italian blogger brought up is interesting in another aspect. It was also a high speed descent crash like Flight 93 allegedly was, however this one didn't bury at all and left very noticeable debris behind:
Grazie Italian debunking blog, grazie!
(*Correction: plane crash in