Friday, July 21, 2006

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.

27 Comments:

At 21 July, 2006 12:37, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2006 12:56, Blogger Pat said...

I said I didn't agree with the conclusion. But I like the way he went about analyzing the data.

 
At 21 July, 2006 13:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I agree, in the sense that he may be right about the photo being faked. Very easy to do.

 
At 21 July, 2006 13:15, Blogger Manny said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2006 13:19, Blogger Jujigatami said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2006 14:41, Blogger Dog Town said...

Just looking at the distance of her shot, to explosion,Screams fake!A. you have a mazing detail.Fake!B.that would make it be about a mile in circumfrence.Ok, just a guess but huge beyond resonable!Nice Try!

 
At 21 July, 2006 15:07, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2006 15:16, Blogger Killtown said...

I wonder if anybody actually read the whole thing?

Ironically, looks like "duhh" seems like the only one who gets it!

 
At 21 July, 2006 15:56, Blogger Dog Town said...

Yeah,I got it.It is bull shit.You are a freaken moron!

 
At 21 July, 2006 16:33, Blogger default.xbe said...

so youve proved that a picture of the plane crash that makes it look like it wasnt a plane crash is faked

how does this support any CT story?

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:30, Blogger Killtown said...

how does this support any CT story?

I seriously think a lot of you OCTs have a reading disorder.

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:30, Blogger Killtown said...

I'm a moron???

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:42, Blogger Pat said...

Please stop the ad homs, guys.

 
At 21 July, 2006 18:55, Blogger BG said...

Appreciate your reasonable consideration of the issues and discussion here, Pat.

 
At 21 July, 2006 18:58, Blogger BG said...

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.

 
At 21 July, 2006 18:59, Blogger apathoid said...

Great, she made a fake photo(I dont believe it, nor do I care either way).
How does this help your case?


Does that lack of a real picture of a smoke plume preclude the existance of a smoke plume from the real UA93?

And I gotta tell ya. If thats a photoshop job, its a good one, because if I pinch the RGB levels together(cranking up the exposure), I detect no edges, no blurring, no airbrushing or smudging. I also detect no color differences. And the plume feathers very nicely maintaing detail without any signs of smooting or blending. The only way this is photoshopped would be if the whole background sky was c/p'ed into the photo...

Killtown, if you can find the actual ordnance blast photo that she pasted (and did a really bang up job photoshopping), that would be something. Did you even look for it yet? No? Chop, chop, get to it..

I do agree on one thing though, the plume almost looks to be too big and too close to the camera with respect to the horizen. Do you have a larger, more original photo of this, KT? I'd like to compare the edges of the objects in the foreground to the plume..

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:59, Blogger default.xbe said...

KT, can i ask if you assertion of where the blast originated from
Here
takes into account the wind direction indicated
Here


because it seems liek the wind could have pushed the smoke plumeover that point

 
At 21 July, 2006 21:25, Blogger apathoid said...

Good point. The wind was blowing out of the northwest that day toward Indian Lake. The wind wouldve pushed the plume south and east, toward the camera and closer to line directly between the 2 barns.
What do you say to that KT? A little Google Earthing and I've found out that the plume needed to move only 1000 ft to the SE to line up perfectly with the photo.
If the wind was 20 mph, then the plume was only moving for 1/100th of an hour, or a whopping 36 seconds...Thoughts?

 
At 22 July, 2006 03:49, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Interesting. Folks who want to protect the official version are always saying that "Someone would come forward" to tell the truth if the government was lying when, in fact, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone in on the plot to come forward. And, in fact, people not in on the original plot will come forward to be complicit in the plot because theres a money-making opportunity. Its a little bit of human nature to do that.

 
At 22 July, 2006 04:13, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2006 04:18, Blogger MarkyX said...

joan, people will come forward if there was a scandel. How come Canada had whistleblowers and insiders, providing EVIDENCE there was a scandel, yet a big thing like 9/11 gets a few "I thinks" instead of providing evidence?

I don't care about your opinion. I care about facts.

 
At 22 July, 2006 07:45, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2006 09:26, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 22 July, 2006 13:08, Blogger default.xbe said...

Interesting. Folks who want to protect the official version are always saying that "Someone would come forward" to tell the truth if the government was lying when, in fact, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone in on the plot to come forward. And, in fact, people not in on the original plot will come forward to be complicit in the plot because theres a money-making opportunity. Its a little bit of human nature to do that.

so does that mean if you, or any other member of the "truth" movement had the opportunity to make money by becoming complicit in the conspiracy youd do it?

 
At 22 July, 2006 15:28, Blogger Murdervillage said...

Killtown, why did you remove my comments my link to an air crash video that looked identical to the flight 93 mushroom cloud?

 
At 23 July, 2006 10:46, Blogger Killtown said...

Pat I forgot to ask, what are YOUR conclusions about this?

 
At 27 July, 2006 14:22, Blogger Pat said...

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

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home