Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo [may be] fake

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Is there any information on the camera model used by the photographer?

I'd be curious as to the type of lens that was being used.

She is supposedly clutching it here...


Btw, look how contrasting the colors are compared to her photo:


flight93photo.blogspot.com...









[edit on 17-9-2006 by Killtown]

Great stuff. I will suggest two considerations. If the camera (I don't recognize the model) has a telephoto lens, the plume would appear larger in the miage. The other possiblility is that the plume was wind-borne from the site toward the photographer when the shot was taken.

What doesn't make any sense is the shape. A jet fuel fire would not burn out completely like an explosive charge -- which would produce the 'cherry' shape shown. A jet fuel fire plue would be broccoli-shaped, for lack of a better term.

Great work, killtown. Gave you a Way Above partly for this and partly for your 'coincidences' site on 9/11 facts. Please keep up the good work!

Originally posted by Mr_Peel
1) If the camera (I don't recognize the model) has a telephoto lens, the plume would appear larger in the miage.

2) The other possiblility is that the plume was wind-borne from the site toward the photographer when the shot was taken.

3) What doesn't make any sense is the shape. A jet fuel fire would not burn out completely like an explosive charge -- which would produce the 'cherry' shape shown. A jet fuel fire plue would be broccoli-shaped, for lack of a better term.

4) Great work, killtown. Gave you a Way Above partly for this and partly for your 'coincidences' site on 9/11 facts. Please keep up the good work!

1) Yes, but it wouldn't change it's line-up over the barns. The plume maps out to be about 7 football field wide which is absurd for a 757 w/ 5,500 gal of fuel on board that supposedly burrowed into the ground!

2) It would have to take about 50 sec to move in the camera line. But the plume hasn't disapated, so that is out of the question.

3) agreed!

4) Thanks!

Hey killtown, thanks for that info on the camera.

It looks like a Kodak easyshare series..I'll see if I can dig up which model!

nope is an HP.
Photosmart HP315....pretty sure about that..
was it made in 2001?





ok, answering my own question here, yes it was made in 2001..
at least I have found some old articles, and reviews on this camera model, written
back as early as March 2001..

Thats good so far.



[edit on 18-9-2006 by spacedoubt]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
nope is an HP.
Photosmart HP315....pretty sure about that..
was it made in 2001?

Awesome! Thanks you!

Btw, her HP camera came with editing software:

HP Photosmart 315 and 315xi Digital Cameras - Product Features and Specifications

Ease-of-use

* Easy sharing, downloading, saving, or printing pictures with HP Photo Imaging software.

Product features

* 2.1 MP resolution for quality results in all popular photo sizes
* Custom frames pictures with variable 2.5x digital zoom

Software

HP Photo Imaging software (PC only)
Arcsoft PhotoImpression 2000
Arcsoft PhotoMontage 2000 (315 and 315xi only)
Adobe® PhotoDeluxe Business Edition 1.1 (PC 315xi version only)
Adobe PhotoDeluxe 2.0 (Mac 315xi version only)

Official story:

Mrs. McClatchey acknowledged that a lot of people are alleging she fabricated the photo, but she stands by its authenticity. Days after Sept. 11, neighbors saw the image, still in her camera. The camera and computer were new, and she didn't have access to Photoshop or any other photo-altering software.

I'd like to note that Adobe PhotoDeluxe is really only good and getting rid of "red eye", cropping, and minor editing tasks....however, as they stated she had "no" editing software, which is an obvious lie. Unless only the full version of Photoshop is considered "editing software"( not to mention the free software known as "GIMP").

So how exactly was the cameras exact origin determined anyway?

spacedoubt first spotted it. I concur it is the same or very simular HP model.

We shouldn't say Val lied about not having editing software. She may not have been savy enough to know if that bundled software was able to edit a plume on there. We should just mention that her camera DID come with editing software.

Although I personally have never seen an aircraft crash, nor do I possess experience in any type of pyrotechnics, the color and shape of that smoke cloud leads me to believe that this picture is completely fake. Below, I have included several links of plane crashes, either occurring on screen or soon thereafter, and in none of these videos are the smoke clouds white. They are all black, and the only white smoke I do have experience with is brush and grass fires. However, small grassland fires do not leave clouds of smoke as shown in the picture in question, but rather, white smoke plumes drifting from the source itself.

Furthermore, it seems to me that IF this was Flight 93- in regards to being shot down- one might possibly see burning debris falling to the ground, if the event was witnessed immediately, and if not, would see the projectile-motion contrails of black smoke left by the falling debris, if viewed within five seconds as the witness claims. And so, I feel this is not the case.

Additionally, IF 93 vertically augered into the ground at 500+ mph as the official story dictates, I still see no reason why there should not be a jet fuel fire at the crash site. It is not like the aircraft went into the ground fully intact. It seems reasonable still that fuel would spray out of the wings and fuselage due to the immense, deforming pressure exerted by the ground upon the aircraft. The lack of burning fuel at the supposed crash site is puzzling to say the least.

The image in question, by the structure and color of the smoke cloud, also seems to indicate an explosion, as opposed to a continued burning. It appears as though whatever caused that plume, assuming the picture is even real, exploded very quickly and then blew itself out due to a lack of fuel (i.e. oxygen). Analogously, I see it much like the use of explosives to put out oil-rig fires. I have seen firsthand controlled-demolitions using TNT, and from what I remember, the resultant plume was very similar.


www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

This video is good because it show how fast the plume dissapates in the wind...

www.youtube.com...

now we don't know how fast the winds were, but you get the point. Val's huge plume would have had to travel 2 1/2 football fields long in 50 sec to line up with her shot and stay so "well intact" of a cloud of smoke! Impossible. Fake or not fake, her photo is a smoking gun.

K, finally got her camera up...


Val McClatchey's camera identified, contained editing software

flight93photo.blogspot.com...


I linked it back to your post spacedoubt to give you credit for the find!

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Killtown]

My McClatchey blogpost was hacked today:

killtown.blogspot.com...

Killtown,
keep up the good work.
Can I ask you about your opinions on the following:
If it is proven that Flight 93 did not in fact crash there, what do you think was its most likely final destination?
Or in other words, what became of this plane and its passengers and crew?

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Killtown,
keep up the good work.
Can I ask you about your opinions on the following:
If it is proven that Flight 93 did not in fact crash there, what do you think was its most likely final destination?
Or in other words, what became of this plane and its passengers and crew?

Cleaveland for all I care. That NASA center seems like an ideal plane to rondevou. But I'm really not interested in what happened to them as what didn't happened to them.

Plane crash smoke plume after only 30 sec:


www.youtube.com...



Val's after 50 sec and 250yd:




flight93photo.blogspot.com...

McClatchey's Windsor Park Stories interview up on youtube:

www.youtube.com...
(9:49 min long)

Read along here:

flight93photo.blogspot.com... l


Highlights of video:

And it wasn’t long after the Pentagon had gotten hit that I had heard a very loud surge of an engine. I just turned out to look out my front window and I just caught it, just a glimpse of just a flash and then the explosion had hit. It was forceful enough that it about knocked me off my sofa.

I’d had my digital camera -- was right by the door -- and I ran out and took a photo.

I ran and grabbed my cellphone and got in my truck and tried to call 9/11 -- couldn’t get through. The cell -- we don’t have cell service very well at Indian Lake.

Well the photo, as I said, it was -- that was just an accidental, it was nothing intended.

It sat in my camera for a few days. You know, to me it was just a photograph of something. The state police and the FBI were asking for any photos related to Flight 93.

I downloaded, made a copy of the photo, took it to the state police and within an hour, three FBI agents were in my house.

(These are the signatures of the 3 FBI agents who went to Val's house and took her memory card. Their names are Special Agents David J Hacker, Todd J. Brown, and Phil Lewzander.)

It turns out to be the very first photo taken related. It’s -- timed it out -- it was approximately 5 seconds after impact that I snapped the photo. It was the very first one related. In some of it, I -- apparently the FBI thought it was worthwhile; they took the original memory card.

(This part in the video is confusing. Val said the FBI agents took her camera's memory card, but this clip shows as if the FBI took her computer's hard drive too.)

Narrator: Val as I understand it, your photograph has brought agony and ecstasy. Tell us about the initial reaction of the FBI when they discovered that you had this incredible photograph.

Val: Well the FBI, when they came in, they looked at it on my computer which is a lot clearer. They could actually see, you know, what they appear to be debris flying out from that cloud of smoke which I’m sure with modern technology they could do a little more scientific evidence I believe.

(Here is what Val basically gives you for $20, an 8 1/2 x 11 color computer paper printout.)

Val: Well our life has definitely changed. Right before 9/11, we suffered some severe business loss to the point we were forced to file Chapter 11 with our business. We were in the process of reorganizing and right afterwards the insurance company decided they no longer want to deal with high-risk businesses. I feel that the insurance companies took advantage of the 9/11 situation in general. When we tried to get insurance, we could no longer afford it. The rates have doubled, tripled, quadrupled to the point we couldn’t recoup, so as of Dec. 31st, we ended up losing our business, putting 40 some other people out of work, which is not a great way to start the New Year.

I’d had some health problems. Gall bladder surgery and during the testing for all the gall bladder problems, they found a tumor on my kidney and lesions on my liver, so day after Christmas, I had my gall bladder out. Right after there I went right into taking real estate classes to start a new career to help support my family.

Val: Lot to look forward to, a wedding to plan. I’ve got a great husband that -- he’s been through a lot and he has supported me. We’ve done a complete role-reversal. He’s at home, doing some work at home and I’m the one going out with the briefcase in the morning

We may have lost our company. We may lose my house, but who knows? We might find a nicer house,

Val: I have a young, well my son and his young wife. They just bought a house, looking forward to starting their family. A daughter, who is getting married in May, just found out she has cancer

flight93photo.blogspot.com...

If someone was involved in a scam, wouldn't you think it would be helpful to have some experience in knowing how money works, like working for a bank:

John C McClatchey

Director at
Commercial National Financial Corporation
Latrobe, Pennsylvania
FINANCIAL / REGIONAL - MIDWEST BANKS
Director since 1990

66 years old

Retired, Former Chief Executive Officer, JCM Industries, Inc. Manufacturer of hardwood lumber and pallets

- Forbes

source (pdf)

Officials say Val's photo taken "within seconds" after impact:

flight93photo.blogspot.com...


Watch video clip:

www.youtube.com...

Based on knowing the camera make (and HP PhotoSmart 315), I was able to track down the focal length of the lens. Lucky us, it uses a fixed-focal length lens equivalent to 38mm on a 35mm camera. This makes the next part much easier. Using the dimensional field of view calculator here: www.tawbaware.com... I was able to determine that at 8150 feet (the distance from the house to the crash site), that camera would have a horizontal field of view of 7721 feet. Since the plume is about one third of the frame width, we can say the plume is about 2573 feet across. Pretty big.

Shanksville resident says Val McClatchey's photo is fake!

flight93photo.blogspot.com...