It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Evidence -Flight 93 Photo Fraud

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
its been stated taht hte plume went up an estimated 2000 feet.


By whom?

Do you have a reference for this? The only quotes I've read mentioned 200 feet, not 2000 feet. That's off by a factor of 10.




wouldnt that be a bit low if it was from the plane being shot down? why would the plane be under 5k ft? or even under 20k ft?

just wondering...


If the plane was shot down, there would be two different trails of smoke. The first trail would be from the plane being hit and going down. The second would be be from the explosion on the ground.

The Val McClatchey photo is supposed to have captured the smoke from the explosion when the plane hit the ground. I've added some more pics to give you and idea of the size of the smoke plume in McClatchey's photo:


This is a photo of the smoke pouring out of the fire at the Pentagon after the crash of Flight 77. The Pentagon is 77 feet high.




This photo shows how high the smoke at the Pentagon rose in relation to the height of the Pentagon. I cut and pasted the wall of the Pentagon on the right side of the photo, one on top of another, to show how many Pentagon's high the smoke plume was there. It's about 700 feet, give or take.




This is a composite photo that places the Pentagon smoke plume in the shot with the McClatchey smoke plume. This shows the enourmous size that the smoke plume would be in the McClatchey photo as compared to the Pentagon smoke. Roughly 3 times as high, and three times as wide -ALL WITHOUT DISPERSING!




The Val McClatchey photo is a fake, unless something else blew up closer to her house.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Which way was the wind? Was it a North-Westerly?


Interesting question. I think the wind was said to be blowing at 9 mph se. However, the wind direction may have been "retrofitted" to match the reports of debris landing in Indian Lake and New Baltimore.




It is why I keep thinking that the overhead sat-photo style photo of the crash site looks computer generated; the photo fails item 4 in the list above. My gut tells me it is wrong, and it is usually right.


I'm pretty sure the overhead shots of the gouge in the ground are screen captures of videos taken from helicopters.



Where on Google maps can I find the crash site?


I'm not sure the exact coordinates. I just go to Shanksville or Indian Lake as a reference. Look due west from Indian Lake. You can turn on the street names and see Buckstown Rd., Osage Path, and Dakota Ln. That's where McClatchey lives.



A crater that big would be visible from the air for years afterwards. You only have to look at old airfields that were dug up and the land reclaimed; from the air they are still visible (outlines of runways etc).


I'm pretty sure that there are no signs of the "crater" left at all. It wasn't that big to begin with according to the eye-witnesses who were on the scene right away.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Hi,

External Source
This is link to a photograph of the crash site taken by the USGS. Was this taken afterwards?

Below is the same location. I'm trying to find out when it was taken.



[edit on 26-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

This is link to a photograph of the crash site taken by the USGS. Was this taken afterwards?


No, this was taken way before the crash.




After Crash




Also, after photoshopping the image of the Pentagon smoke cloud into the McClatchey pic, I'm now 99.9% convinved her pic is a fake. What do you think?




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Yes, I am, too, not least because compared to explosions of similar nature (and three of those examples occurred on the same day, and one aircraft was of the same type), the cloud is disproportionately large. Also, when you look at its form, it is wrong in that regard, too. The WTC become long thin plumes, whereas that is one big ball. It doesn't appear to have the density that the others do, either.

* WTC1 Collapse Explained
* WTC2 Collapse Explained
* Pentagon Damage Explained
* Flight 93 Crash Explained
* Flight 11 History
* Flight 77 History
* Flight 175 History
* Flight 93 History
* Flight 1989 History
* Flight 93 Photo 1 - DEBUNKED

* WTC7 Collapse - DEBUNKED

* WTC7 Cover-Up - IN PROGRESS

* Media Involvement
* Political Aspects

Getting there I think!

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 27-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

There aren't any witnesses that I've read about that said they saw a smoke plume, except for those right near the crash site. And even then, their descriptions don't match up with Val's photo at all. The most common account I've read is that the smoke cloud went up about 200 feet. If Val's photo is accurate, it went up more like 2000 feet!



i had misreada what you had typed. my bad.

but yeah, there should be a smoke trail coming down from the sky in addition to the big puff of smoke, and there doesnt appear to be one.

so, yeah, my GUESS is that this is a bogus pic published by someone trying to make a buck off a tragedy.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Yes, I am, too, not least because compared to explosions of similar nature (and three of those examples occurred on the same day, and one aircraft was of the same type), the cloud is disproportionately large. Also, when you look at its form, it is wrong in that regard, too. The WTC become long thin plumes, whereas that is one big ball. It doesn't appear to have the density that the others do, either.


Good points!

Plus, there is one other thing missing...

There is no smoke rising from the supposedly ensuing fires. If you look closely at the tree line, you can even see blue between the smoke and the trees.

When you look at the other crashes, the smoke from the fires starts almost simultaneous with the smoke "mushroom cloud" from the crash, and continues billowing.

I think this is why McClatchey got stuck telling the "I took the photo 5 seconds after the crash" story. It's the only window where it would even be *possible* to get a picture of the mushroom cloud from the initial impact, and NOT get any smoke billowing from the crash scene.




* WTC1 Collapse Explained
* WTC2 Collapse Explained
* Pentagon Damage Explained
* Flight 93 Crash Explained
* Flight 11 History
* Flight 77 History
* Flight 175 History
* Flight 93 History
* Flight 1989 History
* Flight 93 Photo 1 - DEBUNKED

* WTC7 Collapse - DEBUNKED

* WTC7 Cover-Up - IN PROGRESS

* Media Involvement
* Political Aspects

Getting there I think!


What do you mean by explained and history?

This is a good start to getting organized!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles


but yeah, there should be a smoke trail coming down from the sky in addition to the big puff of smoke, and there doesnt appear to be one.

so, yeah, my GUESS is that this is a bogus pic published by someone trying to make a buck off a tragedy.


That's my guess too.

The next question would be why the FBI went to such great lengths to support McClatchey's photo as being legitimate.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
because it was easier than putting in the time to explain it as a fraud?

sometimes even pros will take the path of least resistance when they dont think its an important issue. right or wrong...they may have just gotten lazy about it.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
because it was easier than putting in the time to explain it as a fraud?

sometimes even pros will take the path of least resistance when they dont think its an important issue. right or wrong...they may have just gotten lazy about it.


I think you're probably right about this too!

If the photo fraud story ever becomes a big news story, I'm guessing somebody at the FBI is going to be backtracking pretty quickly.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Great post OP'er!

Mathematics never lies. The smoke plume is either closer than we think, or the photo is fake.

Mite i suggest this;

The 2nd WTC impact had the use of an added explosive, in the form of napalm, to give a better visual fireball for all the cameras. Maybe this plane was carrying a napalm bomb aswell, and hence why the smoke plume is so huge/black.

Maybe it was shot out of the air closer to where the photo was taken? We know the debry field was 8 miles wide, so this fits (it being shot down).

im still undecided as to the purpose of the shanksville plane. whether it was destined for WTC7, or always was going to be shot down to allow the "heros, lets roll" story to come into play/emotional blackmail factor.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Great post OP'er!


Thanks!



Mathematics never lies. The smoke plume is either closer than we think, or the photo is fake.


Exactly.





The 2nd WTC impact had the use of an added explosive, in the form of napalm, to give a better visual fireball for all the cameras. Maybe this plane was carrying a napalm bomb aswell, and hence why the smoke plume is so huge/black.


I think this is unlikely because of the total lack of witnesses (except Val McClatchey) who reported a giant 2000 foot smoke cloud. Plus, if the smoke cloud was this big, SOMEBODY else would have a photo, right?



Maybe it was shot out of the air closer to where the photo was taken? We know the debry field was 8 miles wide, so this fits (it being shot down).


No... it would have been pretty obvious is there was something smoking between the official crash site and McClatchey's house. There were news helicopters all over the area, plus hundreds, if not thousands of people. Somebody else would have noticed a second crash site between the McClatchey house and the official crash site.



im still undecided as to the purpose of the shanksville plane. whether it was destined for WTC7, or always was going to be shot down to allow the "heros, lets roll" story to come into play/emotional blackmail factor.



Flight 93 is one of the bigger mysteries of 9/11, imo. I think you're right about the "hero factor." The government latched onto the hero theory before the day was over. That alone is suspicious to me.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by shrunkensimon
 



Has anyone debunked the claims against this photo yet?

D.Duck




[edit on 24-2-2009 by D.Duck]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I would suggest the OP do some research on the photos taken of the plane that squashed that house last week (or any number of other plane crashes). Let him burst his own bubble so to speak



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Has anyone debunked the 700 yards wide plume that doesn't line over the crater.

Jeff Hill called Kelly Leverknight and she said the photo is a fake.

www.livevideo.com...

D.Duck



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The only thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread which imo may be the most interesting, is regarding the question about the CRATER/SCAR allegedly having been there prior to 9/11 from pre-911 GOOGLE EARTH.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
"For Val McClatchey it was a moment of vindication. It gave lie to the conspiracy theorists. For those of us in the room, it was a chilling moment of discovery and verification of what Val’s picture had recorded for millions of people around the world. We were watching moving images of The End of Serenity. We were experiencing an historically significant event."

flight93photo.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ommadawn
 


Was the video that allegedly vindicating her ever released?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Here's what the WTCs would look like if they were under the plume in the McCLatchey photo, drawn to scale:



Here's what the McClatchey plume would look like if it were over NYC. Notice how small the explosion in WTC2 is compared to the size of the smoke plume from the McClatchey photo.

Q: How could the crash of Flight 93 have created a smoke plume so large???
A: It couldn't!



Q: How could Flight 93 have created this big of a smoke plume from the crash, and yet fail to burn the grass next to the crater it supposedly left??
A: It couldn't!!

Skeptics, care to comment?

.
edit on 11-2-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I can imagine few things more futile than comparing smoke from different plane crashes at different distances, in different locations and in different environments in order to try and prove a photo is a fake. Especially when there is no obvious motive for faking a picture of a cloud of smoke in the first place.

There was a cloud of smoke. If you listen to this Air Traffic Control tape, at 3.40 or so, you will hear it reported by another aircraft. Dark cloud at 2 o'clock.

www.youtube.com...

So why couldn't the woman have taken a picture of it ? She lives nearby.Why would anyone want to co-opt her into a murderous conspiracy ?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join