August 10, 2006

Flight 93 photo mystery deepens

This blogpost has been moved to:

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com


9 comments:

CARLY said...

WOW

Lauren said...

Interesting. I'm not sure what to say. Interesting. It'll be interesteing to see what happens with this story.

Wendell said...

Excellent work!
We are directing our readers to your site!

Wendell
9-11 Controlled Demolition

Killtown said...

Cheers Wendell!

blak7 said...

In the video interview she's talking about what happened (the crash), how she ran to the saw mill almost immediately after taking the picture, where she found out it was a commercial airline that went down. That's not something happening everyday in a small town. So wouldn't you check your camera to see if you'd captured it, since your first instinct was to snap a picture..?

BTW, what camera did she use. Is it a cheap one you would drop on the ground without hesitation..? Or a expensive one from her boyfriend owning a chopper..? If it's the latter, I can't imagine someone taking only one picture before dropping the camera on the ground, breaking it.

But how about this..?
The big smoke cloud is where the plane got shot down (and exploded) by the one she heard flying over her head. And the little tail right under the cloud is the way the debris went down, right into the crashzone. That could explain why the feds were so eager to drop by and see what was on the picture(s?) (debris coming out of the big smoke cloud, as Val mentions, could be explaned by the explosion of a plane). Since there is no real evidence on thís picture, they released it.

Anonymous said...

Hi Killtown,

good work!
Just one comment:
Val heard the plane overhead (so the wrong direction). This always brings me back to the central mystery of UA 93: Two planes from two different directions heading for the crash site at the very same moment and also being considered by two different groups of witnesses as the plane that crashed (so a different topic as the white plane).
All people at the Marina: Feegle, Brant , Spinelli and Delasko heard a plane flying overhead (coming in from the east) ran outside the Marina and saw the plume of the crash.
West of the crash site there are numerous witnesses who saw a plane disappearing behind the treeline and a second later the crash.
Nobody saw the crash. Not even Lee Purbaugh if you read his first accounts and not what later became the Jere Lonman story.
So, what's going on here:
Two plane, from two different direction at the very same time, both taken for UA 93 ....
Well, if this doesn't sound preplanned then I don't know...

John Doe II

Spooked said...

Again, excellent analysis, Kill. I can't find anything wrong with your logic.

And overall, it can't be stressed enough, that the flight 93 crash crater was also very suspicious -- it had no sign of large plane parts anywhere, very little human remains, and the crater was much too small to have been made by a 757 that completely disintegrated.

On top of that, there is the shoot-down controversy that was promoted by the govt early on as an alternative of what happened to the plane.

Postman said...

Have a look at my blog
www.postmanpatel.blogspot.com

I haven't (being a goddam limey) followed the 9/11 story as closely as many but was taken this week by the crash at Donetsk in Ukraine of a Tu 154 which ias virtually the saemm size / weight as a 575-200.

I saw the pic in the NYT and compared it with the ones on the killtown site.

Since then more pics have come available, including one on a mobile telephone which shows shots not very dissimiliar to Val's shot.

I have posted several stories since Tuesday am so you have to look around amonmgst recent postings.

I did write a piece in March 2006 if the pentagon plane did not hit the Pentagon where did the passengers die ?

I ask the same question , Flight 93 , if it crashed di not crash in Shanksville.

The whole thing is a set up.

I ask the same question - if the passengers on Flt 93 didn't die in Shanksville - where did they die ?

Anonymous said...

I strongly disagree that this photo looks like it was made with a tripod mounted camera. While the alignment/composition is certainly acceptable, the image doesn't look particularly sharp. It looks handheld. Keep in mind that it's a bright day; the shutter wouldn't have been open very long and no tripod would have been required.