Killtown Looks at Flight 93 Crash Photo
Okay, I don't usually link to the conspirazoid stuff except to point and laugh, but this is actually a pretty interesting post by Killtown on the topic of the photo showing the explosion cloud over Shanksville after the crash of Flight 93. I suspect that the problem is related to pinpointing the exact location where the photo was taken and/or the effect of wind on the explosion cloud. I don't agree with his conclusion, but it certainly appears that he's done hard and honest work on this post; if more "Truthers" were doing that, their movement might actually be deserving of some respect.
posted by Pat @ 11:55 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
You gotta be kidding Pat. Look at his conclusion! He says that the angle is wrong for the dust cloud to be at the site of the crater. Yet the only evidence of an explosion anywhere in the area is at the crater itself. So what exactly is the logical conclusion here? The government went and dug out a giant hole in the ground, scattered pieces of wreckage, and then lit it all on fire. After which they went to a totaly different site, and set off a massive explosion without leaving any telltale signs.
Yeah.
I said I didn't agree with the conclusion. But I like the way he went about analyzing the data.
I agree, in the sense that he may be right about the photo being faked. Very easy to do.
Yeah, I think it's the location. I'm not going to publish her apparent address, as easy as it is to find, but it appears that she in fact lives a little to the north and east, and that what Killtown identifies as the red barn is in fact the white one.
See there are a few very simple things wrong with his analysis.
1) How much time actually ellapsed between the explosion and the picture?
2) What was the windspeed and direction at the time
3) What is the altitude of the smoke cloud
4) How large is the smoke cloud
5) What did the smoke look like after this picture was taken
Without any of these variables factored in, the conclusion is useless.
Like where he says "I included two equally sized explosions (orange) that I generously estimated that would have come from the crash scene area (based mostly on the size of the burnt forest section)
Really now, what method did you use to "generously estimate" the size of the explosion? Did you account for the expansion of the cloud as it rises? How far did it rise when this pic was taken?
He could have easily estimated the explosion smaller, or larger than it actually was. and without taking the expansion in to account (which he doesn't at all) it is a meaningless assumption.
Also, he is assuming the position of the photographer. A few feet in either direction would give a different angle and different results.
Once again, its a bunch of uneducated speculation from a CT, with nothing concrete backing it up.
And then he has the GALL to wonder why Val McClatchey won't talk to conspiracy nuts when they accuse her of fraud and tell her she didn't see what she saw with her own eyes.
Sheesh.
But at least Killtown's analysis is better than anything Spooked911 could come up with.
I don't like the way he went about analyzing data. Like usual, he focuses on evidence which seems to back up his conclusion, while ignoring any evidence which contradicts it. Like, for instance, the lack of a secondary crater much closer to her house.
Ofcourse, if his primary conclusion had been that the photograph was faked, then yes, his research and even conclusion would be logical. However, his primary conclusion seems to be that the photo is legitemate but of a different explosion. That makes all the difference.
I wonder if anybody actually read the whole thing?
Ironically, looks like "duhh" seems like the only one who gets it!
how does this support any CT story?
I seriously think a lot of you OCTs have a reading disorder.
I'm a moron???
Please stop the ad homs, guys.
Appreciate your reasonable consideration of the issues and discussion here, Pat.
Pat,
I wasn't being snarky... when I just commented. I hadn't read any of the ad hom's yet, just your original post.
1. I, personally, do not DEFEND the Official Story. I cannot help it, if the vast majority of solid evidence out there, supports the Official story. Show me evidence that survives scrutiny, for your theories, and I will listen. I will say that I am trying to make sure that the easily influenced parts of society are shown both sides of things, because there is a large group of CTers determined to only tell them of one side.
2. I agree that some of the people who are "not in on the cover-up" would be susceptable to such bribery, but your very own "whistleblowers" are people who come forward to reveal "cover-up", yet I have not heard of any significant whistleblowers coming from the people who worked at the Pentagon Crash Site.
Not once have I seen a piece of evidence where a fireman or rescue person from the Pentagon sight came out and said, "The government story is wrong, there was no airplane, it was a missile." Maybe I need to dig deeper, but I have been digging for a while now.
No incentive to come forward? Well, yeah, other than doing the right thing, there's also the little possibility of making millions selling books and going on talk shows. But yeah, you're right, neither of those is really an incentive. We all know that Da Evil Joooos controlled the whole thing, and they're not interested in doing the right thing because they're evil, plus they already all own banks so they don't need to make millions. Therefore, no incentive. Isn't that right Joan? I just LOVE the way the CT mind works.
Folks who want to protect the official version
When you people get your heads out of your asses you'll understand it isn't protecting the "official version" so much as protecting the truth.
Pat I forgot to ask, what are YOUR conclusions about this?
Other than that a small change in the location of Val or the speed of the wind could change the conclusions, not much. Like I said, you have done interesting analysis on this, and from what I can see, you've done fair (i.e., unbiased) analysis. I'd test to see where Val would have to have been ignoring wind. I'd also check to see how fast the wind was moving (actually I think you had that) and then see if the wind alone could account for it.
Like I said, an interesting and fair post. Maybe it means the photo was faked. How soon after the crash was it published? You know how it is; if it popped up that evening, it would have been very hard to fake; if it popped up weeks later it would not be difficult at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home