July 18, 2006

Val McClatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud?

This blogpost has been moved to:



Anonymous said...

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!

spooked said...

great job, kill!!!

I have a feeling you'll be hearing from Ms McClatchey-- unless the photo is indeed fake.

spooked said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
spooked said...

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.

Anonymous said...

wanna come on my show friday night and talk about this killtown?

Anonymous said...

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?


Anonymous said...

nice job.
please check out also for discrepancies at
"F93"- Shanksville 'script': Photo in wrong place?

We linked to your updated and apparently improved expertise

Avery Dylan said...

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.

Killtown said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Google: Stoelting Ultrascribe polygraph

Avery Dylan said...

Dylan, is that you?

Anonymous said...

She looks like a Khazar.

u2r2h said...


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!

High Desert Wanderer said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Good work Killtown and Rumple4skin!
great investigative followup.
that smoke plume in her photo is definitely not 1.5 miles away.

shawn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shawn said...

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.

spooked said...

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.

Killtown said...

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.

Rumpl4skn said...

It's certainly more likely that it's photoshopped into the shot than a blast that's off the mark.

In large ops, you remove variables, and I doubt they would have counted on an average citizen having a good look and then taking a critical photograph.

IMO, the FBI doctored the photo, and Val is an accessory before the fact.

shawn said...

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.

Killtown said...

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.

Avery Dylan said...

So, like hey man, its a REAL fake, or a fake - fake.

Man, I gotta ask my man Jason about this. . .

Anonymous said...

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

NeonKnite said...

Get back on your meds buddy. Everything is a conspiracy to you.... Reagan, Kennedy, 9/11, Osama wearing a watch...

"Nothing is as it seems..."


Anonymous said...

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

Stogie said...

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.

Killtown said...

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


And by the way Stogie, I'm a registered Libertarian. So much for your tired immature right-wing "Marxist" name calling.

Anonymous said...

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?

Killtown said...

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?

Buckwheat Jones said...

Couple of questions for you...

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?

If you haven't reviewed the hi res, you can't base your findings on trajectories, etc. alone. Only reviewing the hi res, or at least something better than what I could find on the web, is going to give you the information you have to have to determine if this image is a fake.

Also, by the way, pasting a nebulous shape like a mushroom cloud into a clear blue sky is harder, not easier, than if you had to drop it into a background with clouds.

Anonymous said...

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.

Killtown said...

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.

Anonymous said...

"I'm just saying IMO it looks like it could be fake"

is backtracking from

"smoking gun"

but is more accurate, yes?

Killtown said...

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!

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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 Jones said...

Killtown: "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."

Sure. it looks like it could be a fake. Or it looks like it could be real, too. An explosion is a variable thing. How much fuel was on board when the plane augered in? Did she take the photo after the intial fireball had cooked off the avgas leaving a 'dry' cloud? Etc. Etc.

Maybe your study of the trajectories, et. al., have merit and maybe they don't. But what I can tell you is this...Trying to determine if a 56k file like this has been crunched in Photoshop is like trying to tell which way the brushstrokes go on the Mona Lisa from across the room.

Without examining a better quality image than what you've studied, you don't have a complete picture. You have half of a picture. If that's enough to make you happy, then that's just where your standards are at. But pasting in a cloud like this is hard, almost impossible, to accomplish seamlessly. And only examination of a quality image and knowing what to look for will tell you whether or not this is a fake.

With as much time as you've evidently spent on this, I can't believe you never spent 20 bucks to get an 8x10 that you could study up close.

You've made a couple of assertions that you couldn't possibly know from looking at this weak stuff on the web, like the detail in the cloud being greater than the detail in the horizon. I've seen the same web stuff you've been looking at and there certainly isn't enough information in those files to make that determination. Even if you could, a cloud is not going to be ripe with sharp points of detail. It's going to be a collection of nebulous information morphing into other patches of nebulous information. So you can't determine if this cloud is sharper than the horizon with these files because they don't carry enough information.

Also, it wouldn't be hard to settle this question in 5 minutes if you could study the line of demarcation between the cloud and the sky. The fact that there is a bald sky makes it next to impossible to seamlessly fake this in. The original file is what you really need, but the owner is not going to hand that out. But if you requested an oversize print like a 16x20, all those questions might be cleared up.

If you're going to spend this much time on outing a doctored photo, get the doctored photo. Then get yourself somebody who knows something about Photoshop to study it. Without studying a higher quality image, your bid to expose this as a Photoshop fraud is really weak unless you look for clues of Photoshop work.

Buckwheat Jones said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Killtown said...

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.

Killtown said...

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?

Miss Green said...

It's amazing to me that so many people still believe the worthless story that we were force fed about how 9/11 went down. Those of you who are so ready to deny the possibility of a doctored photo have absolutely nothing to offer that proves ANY OTHER EXPLANATION.

Rumpl4skn said...

The possible fakedness of the photo would be determined with a higher resolution photo. But the authenticity of the smoke cloud in the photo is a side-issue.

The location and size of the smoke cloud is the issue, and it's been definitively proven to NOT have come from where the govt's HOLE is. In fact, the plume is proof of govt' deception ONLY if the smoke cloud is REAL in that photo. If the photo is faked, then the issue is not the govt fudging the story about the hole, it's about Val's connection to the fakery.

Now... if we want to get a hi-res copy and look for possible Photoshopping, that's another deal. But if the photo is real - then it's very possible that Val is guilty of nothing - she took a picture of a smoke plume that is nowhere near the hole the govt says a plane crashed into. She simply proved that the govt is lying about the hole - IT is the fake, not the photo.

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.You have all of these Google Earth maps with arrows and everything, but you haven't bothered to be thorough enough in your research to study the central piece of the puzzle. I don't need to buy the photo and check it out myself. I'm not the guy who is trying to support an argument that the photo is a fake, and therefore part of a conspiracy.

What bothers me about this is that a bunch of novices on here who have never even opened up the application (Photoshop), just think you can push a button and "photoshop" anything. Study of the image, a quality image, will simply settle the issue right away. If you put a fraction of the time into that area of study as you have with all of your other research, you'd have a fair assessment. As it is, you don't.

As for your "only two logical conclusions," those are just a couple of possible outcomes that are logical to you. The range of empirical possibilities also includes that the picture could be real showing the plume after the fuel burned off (which you might find out after paying a visit to your local firehouse) and talking to people who deal with fire every week.

As it is, your study here doesn't deal with the central piece of the puzzle. And if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself and anybody taking the time to read your ideas, you should.

Buckwheat Jones said...

As far as what rumpleskin said, maybe the cloud is out of position relative to the hole, maybe it drifted with the wind. Don't know. But certainly part of an accurate study is to determine whether or not the photo is faked. If it is, you are forced to draw one set of conclusions. If it is not, you draw others. But if you are going to do a serious study, as you seem to be attempting to do, get the photo and take it to a prepress house or an ad agency (any place that employs Photoshop operators) where you live and pay them a couple of bucks to look it over. If it's a fake, it won't be hard to tell.

Killtown said...

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.

Anonymous said...

dumbest thing ive ever read. we are all now dumber for having read this.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about you but that McClatchey could sure use some photoshopping.

Killtown said...

"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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Killtown said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Great work Killtown.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

George W. Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so that Ann Coulter could oppress minorities.

Anonymous said...

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.

Buckwheat Jones said...

You folks on here might want to consider this information when Killtown says things like: "I've proven that the cloud is too big!"

I've been waiting a couple of days to hear back from a nuclear engineer to whom I posed the question, "Could an airliner containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel create a cloud 500-600 meters across?" I was unable to learn how much fuel was on board Flight 93 at the time of the crash so I arrived at the estimation based on the overall capacity capacity of the Boeing 757, which is 11,500 gallons. Accounting for the fact that this was a cross country flight and the airliner had been in the air for some time, I use 10,000 gallons as a reasonable number.

Looking at your map, and using the scale at the bottom of it, and your pair of vectors out to the crash site I determined that accounting for wind drift, fireball interia, etc., I put the the cloud slightly southeast of the hole and measured it. At least 500 meters across, but closer to 600 meters.

So let me just say that the little cloud you cooked up is pitifully small. In fact, the size of the cloud as is on Val's image is certainly possible.

Here's what my nuclear engineer wrote. Now I don't expect anyone to digest this all, but the figures are there and they can certainly have them checked out by one of the many nuclear engineers I am sure Killtown took the time to consult:

"Hey Buck, yes it's possible, but its not a simple calculation, but I have used a simple approach and it's gets in the ball park.

10,000 gals = 37.85 m3, the volume of a sphere of ~9 m radius.

Now the density of aviation jet fuel is about 750 kg/m3, and the vapor density is about 4.5 times that of air (1.22 kg/m3) or about 5.5 kg/m3.

Taking the ratio of 750/5.5, one sees that the vapor occupies 136 times the volume of liquid, so 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel would yield 1.36 million gallons of vapor.

Now if the molecules of vapor are converted to molecules of CO2 and H2O, say 10 CO2 + 10 H2O, one could increase the volume of vapor by a factor of 20 roughly, so 1.36 million gallons of vapor would become 27.2 million gallons.

Now lets say that the gases are heated by combustion from 300 K to 1200 K, so assuming an ideal gas, the volume would increase proportional to the ratio of hot/cold temperature, or 1200/300 = 4.

So 27.2 million gallons of cold gas ~ 108 millions gallons of hot gas, at the same pressure.

108 million gallons = 408825 m3 or a sphere of 46 m radius (92 m diameter).

Now that still needs to be multiplied by 6-7 to get to 5-600 meters across, but if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere, then yes, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel could give rise to a plume of about 500-600m."

He also added this...

"...so 10,000 gal of dispersed jet fuel is going to create a good sized plume - 1000 m is not unrealistic. A fireball would produce an updraft, pulling freshair into it and burning up the fuel vapor."

So there we are, Killtown. A One Thousand Meter Cloud is not even unrealistic, and I'm only putting this at about half of that. This information that I've introduced may not be conclusive, but it makes my point rather beautifully. And that point is that YOUR point (I've proven the cloud is too big) is nonsense because I've just handed you a calculation that raises the distinct possibility that the size of the cloud on the photo is easily possible.

Killtown got tagged and bagged over at RightNation.US and he was similarly manhandled at a thread he started at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61633.

Just a lot of critical thinkers asking commonsensical questions, but it was enough to demonstrate that killtown's not asking enough questions or the right questions to arrive at the conclusions he's getting.

That's just lazy and wreckless.

Anonymous said...

A 1000m cloud that develops in 5 seconds? What did they have on board Flight 93's crago hold, a Daisy Cutter?

Buckwheat Jones said...

I think McClatchey's wrong about the 5 seconds. Adrenaline, confusion, recalling the time compression incorrectly. I don't know how long it would take for a 600 meter cloud to develop, but I might be able to find out.

But imagine yourself sitting on the couch, hearing BOOM!, and getting off your ass, collecting your thoughts, collecting your camera, booting it up, and getting a shot off in the time it takes you to go "One Missisisippi...Two Missisisippi" etc.

Doesn't seem likely. I believe the photo could be correct, and I believe the photographer could be wrong about how long it took her to get the photo off.

It's a mistake to be married to this 5 Second time frame like it was gold. It's not. The only gold standard would be the metadata in the original file that would pinpoint the precise time it was shot. Tie that to the time of the crash, and you have your time lag.

Unfortunately, because mister killtown has done Ms. McClatchey no favors, he'll probably never get her to show him that original file or the metadata within.

Anonymous said...


You are an idoit.

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

"if one adds debris and heating of the atmosphere"

Sounds exactly like what this guy is trying with the debate...

spooked said...

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.

spooked said...

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.

broodlinger said...

I've always assumed that the explosion was just over the ridge behind the white barn. Killtown saying that the explosion is on their property is exactly what the photo has always shown. What IS new is the fact that the real crash site is several miles away!

Now, if they needed money it's possible they set off their own explosion and photographed it. But photoshop is even easier. Check out the gap of blue sky between the smoke column and the pine trees. That looks like an amateur job where they were afraid of messing up the trees, so they stopped the smoke a few pixels short.

IN FACT, I can tell how it was done. The smoke column was NOT photoshopped in. The FOREGROUND (trees, barn, land) were photoshopped into a photo of the sky! That's because the pine trees (dark green against a blue sky) would be easier to select with the magic wand tool than to try and magic wand the blurry smoke, line up the sky gradients, etc. This also explains why there is a gap between the trees and the smoke.

Zoom in a lot, and stare at the jpeg artifacts along the treeline. At first you'll say, that's normal. Eventually you'll realize you're looking at two composited images.

CW FISHER said...

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?

Ennealogic said...

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.

Anonymous said...

It's good to see so many pimply 16 year old kids are experts on the spectral signature of ordinance blasts and ignited avtur.


Anonymous said...

JPEG metadata can be altered even with shareware programs:


So if it's a good fake we may not learn much by obtaining the original file.

Anonymous said...

AVTUR = Aviation Turbine Fuel

Anonymous = someone trying to impress us "pimply 16-year old kids" with professionals' jargon (which anyone can google for)


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

Rumpl4skn said...

Special props to Buckwheat Jones, for the exhaustive research proving that a jet crash can produce a 500-700' diameter smoke cloud.

Which seals the deal, since Val's cloud - if 1.58 miles away - would be 2200' across.

I believe we've referenced that detail 3 or 4 times here. What's the magic number before you manage to actually read it, Buck?

batcave911 said...

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.

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


Anonymous said...

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....