Major Updates To Flight 93 Photo Fraud, flight93photo.blogspot.com

Check it out and let me know what you think. All updates/re-writes are color-coded in purple.

I'm sure their are some typos and my grammar and writing skill ain't the greatest, but focus on the information and let me know if there is anything you don't understand, or recommend things for me to do:


http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/...oking-guns.html


I believe Val's photo is one of our best shots to crack the 9/11 lie dam wide open. Her photo is either of an explosion orginating close to her house, of her photo is fake and the FBI are involved with faking it.





If you haven't voted in the Flight 93 photo poll, please do so after reading my blogpost!

Here are the results so far:

This post has been edited by Killtown on Oct 10 2006, 10:31 PM

Notice the strange NYC high-rise plane crash happens 1 day after I posted my major updates to the Flight 93 photo evidence!!!




Just kiddin!

My calculation of the diameter of a could covering the solid angle shown in the picture would be about half a mile. Anything that produced a cloud of that size in 5 seconds would probably have killed every one within a few miles. I can't say for sure, but that seems like a HUGE cloud. If the picture is fake, that doesn't prove there was no plane crash and/or shoot down. I just removes that piece of evidence.

The shadows in the cloud appear consistent with the sun being high and slightly to the east as it would have been that day. That, however, is a hard thing to analyze. I wonder if there are any other indicators of the time of day, or time of year when the picture was taken. Are there any crops which would have looked differently on 9/11 than they appear in the picture?

I'd like to look at some other examples of pictures taken with similar cameras, but the outline of objects against the sky does seem a bit touched. Perhaps the sky has been pasted in?

Cool, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the cloud is WAY to big! I just think if it was that big, Val was the ONLY person to take a pic of it???


Here's a thread about this in the Flight 93 section...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=8399


go near the end pages. there are photo posted taken from the say camera. You can also buy her camera used for about $40 on ebay.

Point.

Yikes, I better be careful:

Hi KT, I read over the revised page and I swear, it just opens more questions for me.

I'm curious about the information you mention concerning the Todd Beamer Foundation's beginnings. As of today, I get a strange page at www.beamerfoundation.org, as if it is inactive and up for sale.

I know the Beamer Foundation changed to heroicchoices.org around March of 2003, so it isn't surprising that the old domain would be available. But I can't find historical info on when exactly the Beamer Foundation first registered the initial domain. Can you provide the reference for the "5 days after 9-11" information? The link on your page takes me to someone's blog titled "Everday Life."

When I do a whois on the foundation name, I am unable to pull up any info.


[edit: Never mind, I found it. Seems like they registered a number of names... beamerfoundation.org and toddbeamer.org at least, both on 9-20-2001. Interesting that in a moment of deep grief someone would think to set up a business (non profit or not!) around the events.]

This post has been edited by Lee Franklin on Oct 12 2006, 04:03 PM

See, if this photo is fake, I think a lot of truthers would say "so what," but my gut feeling it goes WAY further than just Val and her husband.

This post has been edited by Killtown on Oct 13 2006, 12:49 AM

we need a copy of the BIG pic, post that when you get it.

Largest one I've found so far:



http://www.cnhins.com/homepage/editorspick..._251131209.html

well this is better then the rest of the pics, who knows if it is a scan ?

The right side of the photo in my opinion is real fishy, I have done 100's of chops for various photoshop contest's and the blending on the right side is way to sharp, now this could be due to the image being enhanced/processed also.





The white cloud does not make sense also ? was there a cloud in that spot on the 11th ?

We need to get the original photo, if it looks like this one chances are it's fake.

Any other photoshop guys, this is where to look, on the right hand side,
just look at how sharp the pixelization is when you blow it up to 200% - 500%

This post has been edited by Red7 on Oct 13 2006, 04:34 AM

300% notice the blending and added blue pixels.

now if you could find a PLUME that looks like this one you have them nailed to the wall.

I couldn't find one on the net, that's why I suspect the FBI guys how take her card and hard drive back with them.

also look into what kind of plumes and what made them:

here is a few I found, this is a tiny smoking gun in itself.


Jet Fuel Plume


Oil rig on Fire Plume



USA bomb Plume - from iraq

Thanks KT for posting the bigger picture. I had always wanted to see an enlargement but hadn't run across it before. I'm not a photo expert (I dabble with Photoshop) but that photo looks seriously messed up. The most obvious thing that jumps out at me is how overly sharpened it is. Does anyone know if this is the exact photo she prints out or if someone else might have sharpened it?

Red, I can see what you mean about the blending. The dot is puzzling to me. At first I thought it was the debris she was talking about but when you blow it up it looks bright blue!

Man, that plume is huge!

Almost forgot to add...KT I read your updates and thought you had a lot of good info. Keep up the good work. (Be careful to not get caught in a legal bind like the one you posted!)

This was interesting to me, so I decided to do my own analysis -

- I agree with the conclusion that the smoke plume in the photo seems to have originated along a vector that travels through the small clearing/field next to the pond - an area around .13 miles (680 ft) away from the supposed crash site.

- I agree that, if the smoke plume originated from either the official crash site, or the area near the pond, that it is approximately .46 - .48 miles (2,428 ft - 2,534 ft) in width, and around .54 miles (2,851 ft) tall.

- I agree that the official crash site and the area near the pond is approximately 1.53 miles (8,078 ft) away from the point where the picture was taken. On a 65 F degree day, sound travels around 1,124 ft/s. The "boom" from the crash would have taken 7.2 seconds to reach Val's house. If she took this photo ~5 seconds after she heard the boom (as she claims), this would make the smoke plume around 12.2 seconds old - very young indeed to be so high, and so large. This means the smoke plume would have had to rise at a rate of 233 ft/s.

So, we have a few possible scenarios to consider:

1) The smoke plume in the photo is real, but much older than we are led to believe. I don't have a problem with the size of the smoke plume, as long as it is a minute or so old. This would also account for its position drift 680 ft to the south of the official crash site, considering the speed of the wind.

2) The smoke plume is somehow closer to the camera than we are led to believe, If Val did take the photo 5 seconds after the boom was heard, this places the origin of the sound only a mile away, which along the same vector, puts it right about the middle of a large wooded area. The smoke plume would then be ~10 seconds old and have a width of about .32 miles (1,690 ft) wide and .36 miles (1,942 ft) tall - needing to rise at 194 ft/sec - still too large.

3) The smoke plume is faked (i.e., Photoshopped).

I took a close look at Val's photo, and can see no obvious signs of manipulation, other than the fact that the sharpness control has been turned way up, exaggerating the contrast areas (trees-to-sky for example - notice the harsh white outlines between these areas). Image noise patterns seem fairly evenly dispursed, with no indication of "artificial" noise added. JPEG artifacting is abundant in this copy on the web, though not certain how much is caused by the original camera image processing.

Visual cues in the photos seem to agree with the time of day this event supposedly took place; the sun is still in the east, but fairly high in the sky, putting it mid-morning. Tree leaf color seems right for that time of the year.

Considering all these things, I'd have to say that this picture is legit; but capturing an event much older than what is claimed. The wind that day was blowing east/southeast, so what we are most-likely seeing is a smoke plume at least a minute - to several minutes old, blown towards the camera. In other words, if this smoke plume was viewed from the south, it would probably appear to rise at about a 50-60 degree angle towards Val's house as it rose, and as the wind blew it in a east/ southeasterly direction.

The shape and size of this plume speaks to the nature of the crash and resulting fireball; the available fuel appears to have exploded quickly and consumed itself very rapidly - much like the fireball we saw at WTC2. Quick - large fireball - then black smoke. In all reality, this explosion probably did look like an ordinance blast.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, once the fuel was consumed, and the plane burried itself into the ground, there wasn't much left to burn, except the grass in the field, and some of the trees nearby that caught any fire... This might explain why there is a lack of a more constant "textbook" long smoketrail...
Just my opinion.... I still think it was shot down though...

-Ryan

This post has been edited by ryandinan on Oct 13 2006, 05:28 AM

Red7 -

Unfortunately, you can't really look at a nth-generation jpeg and call added compression artifacts "added blue pixels". By this point, detail has been forever lost, distorted, smeared, etc.

Also, I believe the "white cloud" is part of the smoke plume itself - just a different color of smoke as things burned out, or as different items burned...

If you look at video of the crash site that day, you see white smoke smoldering in places...

-Ryan

Now back to the "blue pixelated dot" this happens when you crop the picture, in this case the plume, it must have been grabbed from a darker blue background and was not smoothed out, this is my best guess as why there is this darker blue pixelated dot.

now we need to see the original pic to confirm this.

I think KT is on to somthing that can be debated.

Red7 -

Unfortunately, you can't really look at a nth-generation jpeg and call added compression artifacts "added blue pixels". By this point, detail has been forever lost, distorted, smeared, etc.

Also, I believe the "white cloud" is part of the smoke plume itself - just a different color of smoke as things burned out, or as different items burned...

If you look at video of the crash site that day, you see white smoke smoldering in places...

-Ryan

now if we see the orginal pic and it looks like this, then it's a FAKE.

Red7 -

You don't consider the possibility that the "blue pixel" is the result from either a stuck pixel on the camera's CCD, or possibly a scaling/compression issue when this image was copied, resized and resaved several times?

Many things can cause a pixel like this to be more pronounced, other than from editing in an entire piece from another source...

-Ryan

AT 12 Seconds you would think the plume would have been much darker ?

We need to see the way jet's crash and the fire plumes in time intervals
to make a comparison, this would back up the photoshop theory.

as far as the camera doing it no, as it is a different pallet color, #2768A0

I could not find a match to #2768A0 html color pallet in the entire photo for the pixelated dot - this is what has me going on this little dot.

the next closest color is #1C6E9E and that is on the tree top's very far left.

I added more sharpness to the photo, notice how the rest
of it looks pretty smooth still but the right side where the dot is.

To order an 8.5 X 11 print of this photo, send a $20.00 check made payable to the Todd Beamer Foundation to the following address:


Val McClatchey

107 Osage Path
Stoystown, PA 15563

Thanks for your analysis Ryan!

A few things to point out if it's legit:

1) the plume has disappated at all which would suggest it's still in it's infancy.

2) the land drops down past the horizon, so would take longer for the plume to even be visible over the horizon

3) at the crater area, none of the grass around the crater is burnt, only that relatively small section of forest which would produce light grey smoke from that being on fire.


After factoring those points in, let me know on your conclusions.

Red7,

Here's the most "original" of her photo:



Analyze the horizon link and the outline of the plume and tell me if you see anything weird. Also notice it shows part of her rain gutter in the upper right corner.

One thing to add is that upper right hand object does not look like a gutter, but the open area of the soffit, this is the part of the roof that overhangs in a dwelling, as I used to be a roofer and insurance inspector. anyway's back to the photo, the same area still looks suspect, this time the dot is a reversed color in that area and also the photo is way over compressed as you can see by her copywrite pixelization that is really distorted.

Back to the "we need her file"

KT, in your re-write,

change "whooping" to "whopping"... at least I think that's what you mean, as in way big, "whopping $20 a pop..."

Make sure you get a FILE COPY and not a print as Printer's have flaws too!