Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Questioning the 9/11 attacks...
9/11 Truth
- Killtown
- Investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001. In memory of all the victims of 9/11.
My 9/11 Conspiracy Pages
Contact me
killtown {at} yahoo {dot} com
Latest Radio Appearance
Blog Subjects
What happened to the old 911movement Forum?
Gangstalkers Col. Jenny Sparks and Genghis6199, with the help of Shure, blackmailed the Forum's owner Slick to shut down the forum "or else."
Articles
Killtown Interviews
Popular Posts
-
(Updated: 09/23/08) For those who ask: "Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fa...
-
Barbara Olson was supposedly a passenger on Flight 77 and of course died when it supposedly crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. She was...
-
(Update: 12/06/07) When I first saw the version of the Zapruder film that actually showed the driver , Secret Service Agent William Gre...
-
In an exclusive Killtown interview, Ground Zero EMT Patricia Ondrovic talks about her harrowing day at the WTC on 9/11. Within minutes after...
-
After reviewing the evidence, there can only be one logical reason as to why a group (perhaps multiple groups) of young Israeli men , in wh...
-
I've got a great idea there for your new Conspiracy show .
-
Been down since last night. I'm trying to contact the other Admins to see what the problem is. http://911movement.org UPDATE: A f...
-
(Updated 01/17/08. Case reopened .) If you are suspicious about 9/11, then you should know about this suspicious murder of a coll...
-
Simon just started a new forum -- with a witty name -- in light of 911movement.org being down right now.
-
(Update: See who was the censoring culprit below.) I Well it only took a matter of hours for me to get banned at PrisonPlanet's "a...
Blogroll
- 9/11 Controlled Demolition
- 9/11 Pentagon Hit
- 9/11 Stealth
- 9/11 Was a Hoax
- Canada Wants the Truth 9/11
- Flight 93 Hoax
- Humint Events Online
- Liberal Blogging
- Mack White
- More Blogs...
- Ningen's Blog
- No Planes 9/11
- Postman Patel
- Shoestring911
- StillDiggin
- TV News Lies
- Woody Box
- WTC Demolition
- Xymphora
- Zakheim Mastermind 9/11
Labels
- 2nd_plane (1)
- 7/7 (1)
- Austin_plane_crash (1)
- blackmail (1)
- Bush (10)
- Censorship (23)
- CIA (2)
- Cory_Lidle_crash (1)
- crater (2)
- cyberstalkers (1)
- death_threats (2)
- debris (4)
- disinformation (4)
- drills (1)
- Drug_War (1)
- engines (1)
- False_Flags (1)
- Fetzer (1)
- Flight93crash.com (2)
- forest (2)
- forum (1)
- Gary_Welz (1)
- Haters (7)
- Hezarkhani (1)
- Homeland inSecurity (1)
- Interviews (2)
- Israelis (2)
- Jennifer_Spell (1)
- JFK (3)
- Joseph_Andrew_Stack (1)
- Kevin_Barrett (1)
- Lone_Gunmen (1)
- Matt_Taibbi (1)
- Memorial Day (1)
- Mossad (1)
- music (1)
- MySpace (4)
- No-Planes (16)
- NRO (1)
- Numerology (2)
- Operation_Northwoods (2)
- Pat_Curley_is_a_moron (1)
- Patricia_Ondrovic (1)
- Pentagon (15)
- planehuggers (8)
- PNAC (2)
- Radio (23)
- Scott_Forbes (1)
- Shanksville (57)
- Skeptics (8)
- smoke (2)
- South_Park (1)
- stand_down (2)
- Suzanne_Jovin (5)
- TV-Fakery (51)
- Val_McClatchey (9)
- War (1)
- WTC (12)
- WTC6 (1)
- WTC7 (9)
- YouTube (5)
60 comments:
Great logic. As a genuine photo it proved the conspiracy. As a fake photo it proves the conspiracy. If there were no photos it would have proved the conspiracy. If someone just happened to be in the right place to photograph the crash in perfect detail, that would have proved the conspiracy. Genius!
great job, kill!!!
I have a feeling you'll be hearing from Ms McClatchey-- unless the photo is indeed fake.
Possibilities:
1) it is a real photo, but of something else, such as perhaps a missile that took out one engine of the plane (or more of the plane that we've never seen)
2) it is a photoshop job meant to inspire conspiracy theories
3) it is a photoshop job done to profit off the tragedy
4) it is a photoshop job meant to reflect what Val McClatchey saw but missed originally with her camera
#1 and #3 are obviously the most benign, from the POV of Val McClatchey-- but these also point to a deep problem with the official flight 93 story.
wanna come on my show friday night and talk about this killtown?
great job.
But don't forget that the wind is blowing from N-W to S-E ! It could be possible that the smoke cloud simply moved.
But even if the wind bring the smoke cloud there, it still prove the conspiracy, here is why:
The smoke is perfectly straight up in the air, this mean(if there is wind) that the entire smoke colum was created at the same time (so from a bomb) or else the top part of the smoke would have started to move to the left a bit before the bottom of the
colum if the fire was really created by a jet fuel (the fuel burn longer and thust create smoke for a longer time). We can really see the different angle os the smoke colum in this photo you provided : plume-comparison3.0.jpg
I think you should add this in your investigation (and write it in a clearer way then me ;, what do you think?
Nicolas
nice job.
please check out also for discrepancies at
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2656
"F93"- Shanksville 'script': Photo in wrong place?
We linked to your updated and apparently improved expertise
Like, hey man, I mean, is it a fakke or is it a real fake, I mean how can you tell?
Like hey that's a great idea to ignore them when you violate a copyright, I mean I wish we had done that when those French guys said that their footage was stolen, and maybe that was fake, 'cause a guy says it's fake, I mean, like just ignore 'em.
Avery Dylan said...that's a great idea to ignore them when you violate a copyright
Yes, never mind that this photo either proves govt complicity in the Shanks crash or that it's a fake, we should only be concerned about not violating Val's copyright.
What a dumb ass.
Dylan, is that you?
She looks like a Khazar.
Interesting.
Yet there MUST HAVE BEEN an explosion at the alledged crash site...THERE ARE BURNT TREES!
One the whole I think it is senseless to try to prove the 911 hoax. It would be better to concentrate on getting a honest democratic government in the USA and thereby change the culture-of-elite-lies in the western world into a culture-of-the-milk-of-human-kindness.
Read http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/ for non-fiction.
The conspiracy-stories (and research) are interesting reading though... For me they are a sort of FICTION-LITERATURE, based on "some truth that nobody can really nail" .. much like the Da Vinci Code. Jesus (anarchist=freeedom) survived, and he had to go underground.
A whole (hierarchical=enslaved) religion was founded on the FALSE MYTH of "the guy they couldn't hang". Elites find this funny, sadly.
But please continue with your research.
And NICO please come up with a HQ video-animation, damnit!
Interesting analysis. The only thing I see that doesn't appear to be taken into account is the wind. I don't know what kind of conditions there were there, but it looks to me like the cloud is blowing straight at the camera. It might be throwing off your measurements some.
From everything I'm seeing it looks more likely that the photo was delayed a few minutes from the crash and the wind is bringing the rising cloud closer to the camera. I think you've debunked the photographer's story fairly well.
Spectacular work though.
Good work Killtown and Rumple4skin!
great investigative followup.
that smoke plume in her photo is definitely not 1.5 miles away.
Great logic. As a genuine photo it proved the conspiracy. As a fake photo it proves the conspiracy. If there were no photos it would have proved the conspiracy. If someone just happened to be in the right place to photograph the crash in perfect detail, that would have proved the conspiracy. Genius!
hahahahah this guy has the right idea.
I think the plume is almost certainly photoshopped on, as it shows no signs of being blown by the wind.-- and there was at least some weak wind that morning.
Yes, I think it's photoshopped too. Just look at the detail of the plume compared to the detail of the horizon. The plume looks like it's taken closer than the horizon in front of it.
IMO, the FBI doctored the photo, and Val is an accessory before the fact.
Well more statements without evidence. Do any of you understand what skepticism is?
It doesn't make sense to have this photo. They have people seeing the plane, they have a crater, debris, remains.
Oh wait, I forgot the law of conspiracy theories: they must be needlessly complex.
Rumpl4skn said...IMO, the FBI doctored the photo, and Val is an accessory before the fact.
I was thinking of the possibility that the FBI along with Val could have been in on it the last couple of days. I will update this scenario on my post.
So, like hey man, its a REAL fake, or a fake - fake.
Man, I gotta ask my man Jason about this. . .
When my boss showed me this picture and asked my opinion i told him not to bother unless he/she was extremely cheap.
I'd wrongly assumed that the image was the offering of someone he was considering hiring to assist me in making the forged images his clients pay him to get me or one of my co-workers to produce.
It was at the moment that he told me tgat this collage was the only publicly available image of the smoke from flight 93s destruction on 11/9/1 (911 in the US).
The bushes right in front of the photographer look like they belong at legoland. cameras a piece of shit, i'm not surprised the FBI or whoever couldn't match it for lack of quality from what they had available to them. Would love to have an original of this image. I might already have
lol this is great...i think i saw an episode about this guy on x files once...people with wayyyyyy too much time on there hands
This is harrassment and an invasion of privacy, you leftwing KOOK.
I guess we in the conservative blogosphere will have to sleuth out your personal name and address and post it with maps to your house on the net.
Remove this personal info immediately or face the consequences, you Marxist Moron.
How ironic that Stogie bitches about my analysis that the ordnance plume on Val's photo may have been photoshopped on there by her, or someone else when I went to check out his blog and the first two posts were:
Two More Staged Photos
Photoshopping With Al-Reuters
LoL!
And by the way Stogie, I'm a registered Libertarian. So much for your tired immature right-wing "Marxist" name calling.
Why don't you stop being a coward and post your name and address like you've posted the name and address of this woman?
You mean the name and address of the women where I got her name and address from multiple news articles, her own work website, and from various posts found on the internet?
google maps! Internet Picutes!
The tools of the experts!
Someday you'll be ashamed of your harassment of this woman. Just try to enjoy it all now, please.
Buckwheat Jones said...Have you reviewed a copy of the hi res file or a print produced from it? Or have you only been working off this 56k file off the web?
Only the file off the web. I'm confident it is enough to have proven the smoke plume is too big to have come from the crash site.
I'm not claiming it is fake from the web photo, I'm just saying IMO it looks like it could be fake.
"I'm just saying IMO it looks like it could be fake"
is backtracking from
"smoking gun"
but is more accurate, yes?
No, you didn't read the article carefully. The "smoking gun" is if her photo IS authentic since that proves the plume came from an ordnance blast closer to her house.
Of course if it's proven that the photo was doctored and the FBI was involved, that would be a "smoking gun" too!
Why don't you just give me your name and I'll take it from there. That way, when I release your home address and your phone number, I can claim that anyone else could have found that info too.
What's the matter, you don't want people messing with your personal life like you're advocating others do to this woman?
Also, concerning your theory that the explosion was closer to her house, what are the chances someone would set off an explosion on a line that runs directly between the crash site, and the house of a woman who happens to be the only one using a camera at the time? I'd say the chances of that happening border on the impossible.
And if the explosion was actually closer to her house than the crash site, why would witnesses who saw the explosion from other angles think it came from where they saw the plane go down? Why don't you factor their locations and testimony into your diagram?
Buckwheat, relax man. You are spending too much time writing about something that has a 50/50 chance of being.
I've mentioned there are only 2 logical scenarios:
1) It's a ordnance plume closer to Val's house, or
2) the photo was faked.
I am hoping the photo is REAL! I'm just pointing out it may be fake.
It wouldn't do me much good to buy an original print. I'm not a expert at determining if a photo has been photoshopped, but if you are then by all means purchase one of those photos and let me know the results.
snagswolf said...Why don't you factor their locations and testimony into your diagram?
Because if the photo is fake, none of that would really matter now, wouldn't it?
Buckwheat Jones said...Killtown, you're not just pointing out that the photo Could be a fake, you're building your entire argument around the likelihood that it Is a fake.
I'm pointing out TWO things:
1) The photo is real and proves an ordnance blast originating much closer to her house, or
2) The plume is photoshopped on there.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? Is because the title of the news article was slightly misleading?
The funny thing is that skeptics seem to want the photo to be authentic, but THAT would prove a conspiracy of some sort. So I too hope the photo is real.
dumbest thing ive ever read. we are all now dumber for having read this.
I still don't quite understand the proof. If you look at the smoke plume, it has a lobe on the left; this means the wind is blowing slowly from right to left--ie, roughly north->south. This picture looks like it was taken after it had been smoking a couple minutes, and now the smoke has almost stopped. The right-left/north-south slight wind has blown the smoke cloud a few feet south of where it originated. Weak winds of a couple miles an hour are generally not isolated gusts, but a general flow of air like a moving river, which first generates the lobe, and then moves the smoke cloud as a whole southward, like any other cloud. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Adding to my previous post...if you're interested in whether the photo has been photoshopped, the technique developed by Science magazine to test for scientific fraud is to take the photo into a photo editor (even something as simple as iPhoto will do) and boost the "sharpen" and decrease the "exposure" levels. Most things cut-and-pasted (even with careful blending) will show a border of pixilation after you do this. Doing this on the picture in question shows that the cloud does not appear to be photoshopped into the sky. There is some pixilation where all the trees meet the sky, but I think that's just the normal artifact you get when two colors meet along an irregular boundary, caused by the jpeg compression.
I don't know about you but that McClatchey could sure use some photoshopping.
"This picture looks like it was taken after it had been smoking a couple minutes"
Val said she took it "seconds" after she heard the blast and ran out the door to quickly take one, and ONLY one shot.
The plume is consistent with being less than 30 seconds old.
If you turn the 14th image of the bush 3 degrees torwards the sun the shawdow reflects cause an abnormal strain on the central rods of the eyes which COULDN"T of come from a balcony made out of normal beech or what ever they use in pittsburg. Add to the proof of google maps and you know that our government is majorly corrupt and that this photo screams FAKE! Together we can expose the truth.
I don't know why I've returned to this, but...
Regardless of whether it was 30 seconds or 120 seconds, smoke doesn't move sideways except in a wind. The lobe on the left means that the earliest smoke generated by the fire has been blown southward during whatever time period it took for her to get her camera ready. That means that there was enough wind to blow the entire cloud southward as the smoking slowed to a stop.
Your point is moot even if true, because the plume in Val's shot DID NOT come anywhere near the crash site, but very close to her house. The plume could not of traveled that fast with that little wind in less than 30 seconds.
Great work Killtown.
Has anyone looked at the shadows on this picture? It should be possible to precisely determine the sun angle at the time the picture was purportedly shot. Then you could establish the time at which it was taken.
George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so that Ann Coulter could oppress minorities.
Im telling you, I just watched the whole video and studied these images. You are absolutely right 100%. This kind of sciense is never wrong. She's just a faker. G.W Bush must pay for hurting America and Americans this badly.
A 1000m cloud that develops in 5 seconds? What did they have on board Flight 93's crago hold, a Daisy Cutter?
Killtown,
You are an idoit.
Nuff said.
"if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere"
Sounds exactly like what this guy is trying with the debate...
First off-- great job on the most recent update, kill! Amazing info here.
Second, the fact is-- even if the cloud is big enough to be possible, it is in the wrong place.
Third, the detail in the cloud indeed makes it seem closer than it should have been.
Fourth, her overall story of the photo IS suspicious on a number of fronts.
Also, there is no sign from the stem of the smoke plume that the smoke was blown in the wind. Even if the top of the cloud is blown somewhat, the STEM should originate from the burning object, and therefore it is absolutely clear that the stem is in the wrong place.
A masterful job of research. Thank you. At a certain point, which I've already reached, the details are overkill, since it is simply obvious Flight 93 didn't crash, and did land in Cleveland. The question is what happened to the passengers? Have they been disappeared? Did they ever exist?
I've got to agree with broodlinger. The foreground -- the trees, buildings, grass -- come from an original that was at a lower resolution than the background containing the smoke.
It's really easy to see if you zoom in to about 700% or higher. The blending of the colors in the plume is much smoother than the blending of the colors in the trees. The foreground is heavily pixelated with sharp color contrast between side by side pixels -- take a look at the black next to white next to green in the trees for example. The pixels in the smoke do not have this characteristic at all - the color shifts are much more homogenous. When this composite was JPG'd, there was more color information available during the compression process in the background than in the foreground, thus the distinct quality difference between the two image parts.
My take is it is a clear fake.
It's good to see so many pimply 16 year old kids are experts on the spectral signature of ordinance blasts and ignited avtur.
Sad.
JPEG metadata can be altered even with shareware programs:
http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/snapscleaner.htm
So if it's a good fake we may not learn much by obtaining the original file.
AVTUR = Aviation Turbine Fuel
Anonymous = someone trying to impress us "pimply 16-year old kids" with professionals' jargon (which anyone can google for)
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AVTUR
Speaking of definitions:
or·di·nance (ôr'dn-əns) n.
An authoritative command or order.
A custom or practice established by long usage.
A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.
ord·nance (ôrd'nəns) n.
Military materiel, such as weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and equipment.
The branch of an armed force that procures, maintains, and issues weapons, ammunition, and combat vehicles.
Cannon; artillery.
Get your stuff straight before posting, Anonymous. :-D
i enhanced both images
(the large, and the uncut : eos-ppg andend-of-serenity)
there are some obvious differences between them.
possible, its that they just wanted to "smooth out" the smoke, for a nicer photo ?
but that blue background also seems to be a bit altered.
anyway,
the part about her not being able to use her cell phone,
well, that speaks for itself.
very glad that was pointed out.
I added here...
september 11 cell phone calls
Brad
911review.org
I use three different digital cameras, and have found that I can store my photoshop photomanipulations back on any of my different memory cards, so I could lie and say thats how the camera captured them too *but I don't* apparently, thats what she's done. I'd love to see the EXIF data, I bet the picture wasn't even from the same damn day....
Post a Comment