More Evidence -Flight 93 Photo Fraud

Originally posted by sky1
Okay......so this 'fake' photo issue is based on the assumption that the passengers of flight 93 so bravely and gallantly 'took the plane down', correct?

Again...you would be hard pressed to find anyone in this area who believes that load of horses%!$.

A lot of people saw that 'photoshopped'

plume of smoke. I guess they're all in on the conspiracy.

The plane was shot down, that is the smoke from the plane being shot down. It's not hard to understand.

What do you mean the plane was shot down?? But.. but... United 93 was such a heroic movie, why would Hollywood deceive us!? Unless.. "they're all in on the conspiracy" too.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you're going to believe in something that hasn't officially been confirmed from 9/11, then don't go staunchly putting down other theories related to it just because they don't make sense to you. You may have a vivid picture of the finished puzzle in your mind, but you have no idea how the pieces fell into place.

I think there were some interesting points raised with the picture in this thread and in the one Killtown made a while back. Yes there is evidence to believe the photo was tampered with, but if you're looking for an actual motive other then trying to make it look like UA93 crashed, then you might be looking for a long time.

Originally posted by nick7261
To me what's worse than the debunkers' believe-whatever-the-goverment-tells-them attitude is people who *know* the truth and don't do anything about it except argue with the debunkers on internet forums.

Hey, wait a minute here. That would be me. Although I am in the process of doing some rudementary structural calcs.

Originally posted by sky1
Okay......so this 'fake' photo issue is based on the assumption that the passengers of flight 93 so bravely and gallantly 'took the plane down', correct?

No. Not at all.

The 'fake' photo issue is based on the impossibility of a crashed 757 1.6 miles away from the location the photo was taken being able to produce a smoke plume that is 2200 feet wide.

There is zero chance that the smoke plume in the photo came from anything that crashed where the official story claims Flight 93 crashed. It's MUCH too far away. I.e., the smoke plume is much too big!

A lot of people saw that 'photoshopped'

plume of smoke. I guess they're all in on the conspiracy.

Who saw the smoke plume? There is not another photo in existence of any black smoke rising from the crash site. Did you see the photos of the crash sites at WTC1 and WTC2, along with the Pentagon? Massive amounts of smoke poured from those crash sites. And yet the only photos of smoke coming from the crash site at Shanksville are photos of whitish smoldering smoke coming from the woods, and a tiny amount of smoke coming from the crater.

Plus, if the smoke plume were really as large as the plume in the Val McClatchey photo, people as far away as Somerset would have been able to see it.

Don't you find it odd that with a smoke plume that large, only ONE person in the entire area thought to take a photo of it???

The plane was shot down, that is the smoke from the plane being shot down. It's not hard to understand.

No, it's very hard to understand. First, if the plane was shot down there would be a smoke trail in the sky that SOMEBODY would have seen. I think the whole plane-was-shot-down is part of the disinfo campaign.

Second, if the plane were shot down, it still wouldn't leave a smoke plume that large.

The McClatchy photo is golden because it sets in stone what the government claims is legitimate evidence of their official story. If the photo is proven to be fake, then the official story starts to unravel.

The FBI authenitcated the photo. If it is proven that the photo is fake, then it proves th FBI lied about it being real. Who knows where this will lead....

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by nick7261
To me what's worse than the debunkers' believe-whatever-the-goverment-tells-them attitude is people who *know* the truth and don't do anything about it except argue with the debunkers on internet forums.

Hey, wait a minute here. That would be me. Although I am in the process of doing some rudementary structural calcs.

LOL.... that would be ALL of us....

Personally, I've found enough reason to believe that the government is complicit in at least covering up what really happened, and it really angers me to know this.

Either the government is outright lying, or the government is knowingly hiding things. Either way I've done enough "research" to form what I think is an educated opinion that one or the other is true.

I think many of us are in the same boat as far as that's concerned. Now we need to do something about it besides argue with people online about the pros and cons of thermite vs. thermate, etc.

I'm not sure what yet, but I am sure that there is enough evidence to prove at least a cover-up. Our time needs to be directed OUTWARD, away from these online forum towards the general public. I'm not sure how to do it yet, but that's what we should be spending our time discussing at this point.

Just my 2 cents...

Originally posted by BrokenVisage

Originally posted by sky1
Okay......so this 'fake' photo issue is based on the assumption that the passengers of flight 93 so bravely and gallantly 'took the plane down', correct?

Again...you would be hard pressed to find anyone in this area who believes that load of horses%!$.

A lot of people saw that 'photoshopped'

plume of smoke. I guess they're all in on the conspiracy.

The plane was shot down, that is the smoke from the plane being shot down. It's not hard to understand.

What do you mean the plane was shot down?? But.. but... United 93 was such a heroic movie, why would Hollywood deceive us!? Unless.. "they're all in on the conspiracy" too.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you're going to believe in something that hasn't officially been confirmed from 9/11, then don't go staunchly putting down other theories related to it just because they don't make sense to you. You may have a vivid picture of the finished puzzle in your mind, but you have no idea how the pieces fell into place.

I think there were some interesting points raised with the picture in this thread and in the one Killtown made a while back. Yes there is evidence to believe the photo was tampered with, but if you're looking for an actual motive other then trying to make it look like UA93 crashed, then you might be looking for a long time.

Theory?

Do you live in Somerset, Pa? Do you personally know anyone that lives in Somerset, PA? Have you ever spoken with anyone who lives in Somerset, PA?

Theory my arse! You might want to spend some time researching how many people saw another plane....a MILITARY plane....a FIGHTER jet.....then ask those people (if they'd talk to you) what really went on.

Believe what you will....all I am saying is a lot of people saw that plume of smoke, so if it does not appear to you that it is possible for that plume to have come from the crash site......it probably DIDN'T. It more than likely came from the plane being SHOT out of the SKY.

Maybe, just maybe, the photo was doctored to REMOVE evidence of something.

I forgot which thread it was but I believe this was (largely) proven to be a hoax a few months ago. Too many things don't add up, and there's plenty of motive to hoax it ($$$).

I believe it was Killtown's thread. The OP did give Killtown credit. At least in one of the threads about this photo (there are like three now?).

Originally posted by sky1


Do you live in Somerset, Pa? Do you personally know anyone that lives in Somerset, PA? Have you ever spoken with anyone who lives in Somerset, PA?

I live an hour away. I have a relative who lives 15 minutes away. I've spoked to plenty of people from around the area. The "urban legend" is that Flight 93 was shot down. Nobody ever saw it happen, but everybody knows somebody who knows somebody else who did.

Believe what you will....all I am saying is a lot of people saw that plume of smoke,

Not exactly true. Do you know how many people reported seeing ANY smoke plume, let alone a 2200 foot wide smoke plume?

I'll verify the math tomorrow (doesn't hurt to verify info, even if it only verifies it ), but being a semi-pro photographer in my spare time, I know photographs can be, or be made to be, very mis-leading.

It is certainly an excellent point that was raised, and one I think is very credible.

Regarding what happens when aircraft are shot down, there are plenty of mid-air collision videos involving fires and plumes of smoke, as well as both test and actual air-to-air kills involving live weapons, to show that the plume of smoke just looks totally wrong, not forgetting the fact that it is way too large.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'll verify the math tomorrow (doesn't hurt to verify info, even if it only verifies it

), but being a semi-pro photographer in my spare time, I know photographs can be, or be made to be, very mis-leading.

Cool! I was hoping a photographer would show up to comment on this!

I have a question....

Can certain lenses disprortionately magnify objects in the background of a photo? Or in the center of a photo? If so, by how much in percentage terms? 10%?

Regarding what happens when aircraft are shot down, there are plenty of mid-air collision videos involving fires and plumes of smoke, as well as both test and actual air-to-air kills involving live weapons, to show that the plume of smoke just looks totally wrong, not forgetting the fact that it is way too large.

You're right... other than the fact that the plume is WAY to large... there's just something about the photo that doesn't look right. I can't put my finger on it, but something looks unnatural.

OH... I know what I wanted to ask you:

If the photo was taken with a cheap digital camera (2.1 meg pix) how much of a blur could be expected do to movement of the smoke? One of the things that looks "wrong" to me is that the smoke looks like it was captured moving, but there's very little blur.

It also looks like there is an unnatural pixelation around the tree line, and that the pixels in the sky and smoke are much smoother and evenly distributed than the pixels of the tree line. It's almost like the sky and the smoke were taken with a higher resolution camera than the trees and the barns.

Any thoughts on this?

Someone please check my math - I'm a bit rustier than I thought!

hyp = 1.6 x 5280 ft = 8448 ft

ASSUMING the drawing is to scale, and drawn accurately, my best measurement for the angle is 16°. Note that it is an oblique triangle, with two equal sides. By halving the angle, we get a new angle of 8 degrees, thus forming a right-angle and are now calculating half the distance of the opposite side.

tan theta = opp / hyp

tan 8° = ??? / 8448

therefore:

??? = tan 8 x 8448

??? = 0.14054 x 8448

??? = 1187.289 ft

In light of only calculating half the distance, we can safely double this side as it is mirrored on the otherside, thus:

1187.289 ft x 2 = 2374.578 ft

QED.

Regarding magnification of objetcs etc. in the middle of the frame; this is not likely. Only two ways that can occur: a doctored image, or an intentionally distorted lens. With regular lenses that are available in any average camera store, unless the lens of of very poor quality (extremely unlikely) then towards the center, the image is most likely the shrink in size, if it does anything at all, and will appear to be slightly concave. Towards the center of the lens is the area of least distortion usually. With standard short lenses and telephoto lenses, there usually isn't any discernible distortion, but there would be a flattening of perspective with increased focal length. You can tell whether it was a very wide angle at short distance (everything appears to be very far away), or a super-telephoto at long range as everything appears squashed together (in terms of distance from the viewer). The above seems to be somewhere in the middle, towards the long end of a short lens.

For an idea of the types of lenses available, and their focal lengths, visit this site:
www.sigmaphoto.com...

I'd have a wild guess that the focal length of the lens in question was around 100mm.

Do we know which camera was used?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Someone please check my math - I'm a bit rustier than I thought!

In light of only calculating half the distance, we can safely double this side as it is mirrored on the otherside, thus:

1187.289 ft x 2 = 2374.578 ft

Dude if you call this rusty....

In any case, the math verifies the rough estimate. If the photo is real, then that was a huge smoke plume -almost 1/2 mile wide and rising over 2000 feet into the air. That's twice as tall as the WTCs.

Regarding magnification of objetcs etc. in the middle of the frame; this is not likely. Only two ways that can occur: a doctored image, or an intentionally distorted lens. With regular lenses that are available in any average camera store, unless the lens of of very poor quality (extremely unlikely) then towards the center, the image is most likely the shrink in size, if it does anything at all, and will appear to be slightly concave. Towards the center of the lens is the area of least distortion usually. With standard short lenses and telephoto lenses, there usually isn't any discernible distortion, but there would be a flattening of perspective with increased focal length. You can tell whether it was a very wide angle at short distance (everything appears to be very far away), or a super-telephoto at long range as everything appears squashed together (in terms of distance from the viewer). The above seems to be somewhere in the middle, towards the long end of a short lens.

Thanks for the info on the lenses.

Now here's the next question for you....

How much distortion could be caused by a fish-eye effect in terms of causing images on the edge of the shot to appear bent? Do you know if cell phone cameras cause more problems like this than digital cameras? In terms of degrees from a vertical axis, how much can a fish-eye lens distortt an image?

I'd have a wild guess that the focal length of the lens in question was around 100mm.

That brings up another question.... (Aren't you glad you said your were a pro photographer!? )

Most likely the smoke plume would be symmetrical in all directions, i.e., somewhat spherical. That means if it were 2300 feet across, it would also extend towards the camera a significant distance, somewhere on the order of 1000 feet.

Would a digital camera with auto-focus create an image in which the part of the cloud closest to the camera (1000 feet closer) would be more or less focused than the edges of the cloud?

And more importantly, with the barns in the foreground, what would the auto-focus be keying on? I know sometimes when I take pics of my kids the camera will focus on something in the background and un-focus the kids in the foreground.

Do we know which camera was used?

From what I understand, I think it was an HP 315 PhotoPhraud... er I mean PhotoSmart 2.1 meg pix camera.

That brings up another question.... (Aren't you glad you said your were a pro photographer!? )

Most likely the smoke plume would be symmetrical in all directions, i.e., somewhat spherical. That means if it were 2300 feet across, it would also extend towards the camera a significant distance, somewhere on the order of 1000 feet.

Would a digital camera with auto-focus create an image in which the part of the cloud closest to the camera (1000 feet closer) would be more or less focused than the edges of the cloud?

There is a thing called depth of field. Typically, this extends approximately 1/3 of the distance in front of the focal point and 2/3 behind, and everything within this area will be in focus.

A point to remember with this is that the further out you focus (towards infinity) the larger this field becomes. With the camera attempting to focus on something 8,000ft away, it will be very close to infinity, so the depth of field area will be extremely large.

For a better explanation, visit here:
en.wikipedia.org...

It also covers the effects of altering the aperture which can also affect the depth of field.

And more importantly, with the barns in the foreground, what would the auto-focus be keying on?

Assuming the camera is just a compact type and is left at a general focusing setting, it will be trying to focus towards the center of the frame, on the first object that becomes sharp. If the image isn't cropped, clearly it would be trying to focus on the cloud.

How much distortion could be caused by a fish-eye effect in terms of causing images on the edge of the shot to appear bent?

If a fish-eye lens was used, it would be very apparent. The official Pentagon video is a good example of what a fish-eye shot looks like.

Do you know if cell phone cameras cause more problems like this than digital cameras? In terms of degrees from a vertical axis, how much can a fish-eye lens distort an image?

Depends on the phone. They tend to not be very good for anything, and without taking detailed test photos of a grid at different distances, it is very difficult to say how they would look. The fish-eye look would only be apparent very close up I would have thought, as they are generally aimed at taking photos from a distance. Obviously a fish-eye lens would be no good in that situation.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit



A point to remember with this is that the further out you focus (towards infinity) the larger this field becomes. With the camera attempting to focus on something 8,000ft away, it will be very close to infinity, so the depth of field area will be extremely large.

So just to make sure I understand this, if the camera were focusing on the cloud of smoke 8000 feet away, that means that the barns would be in foucs too because of the 1/3 rule and because 8000 feet might as well be infinity?

Yes. You can soon demonstrate this for yourself. Just take a straight forward photo of your street and see what is in focus. Nearly all of it will be.

The 1/3 2/3 rule is a guide. On long shots like that one, it is less of an issue.

EDIT: I say "straight forward" photo because even with my equipment, if an event as big as a plane crash occurred near me, I'd throw my camera into fully auto mode and start taking photos; I wouldn't be too worried about settings - the camera can do that quite nicely for general photography such as that would be. Just getting a picture is far more important.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Yes. You can soon demonstrate this for yourself. Just take a straight forward photo of your street and see what is in focus. Nearly all of it will be.

The 1/3 2/3 rule is a guide. On long shots like that one, it is less of an issue.

EDIT: I say "straight forward" photo because even with my equipment, if an event as big as a plane crash occurred near me, I'd throw my camera into fully auto mode and start taking photos; I wouldn't be too worried about settings - the camera can do that quite nicely for general photography such as that would be. Just getting a picture is far more important.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Thanks!


This is starting to make more sense now....

Here's Val's original photo that she doesn't want anybody to see anymore. All that 's avaiable now is the cropped, rotated version.

Notice in her original photo a few interesting things:

The bushes along her street seem to be out of focus compared to the red barn. The telephone pole on the far lef next to her driveway also seems to be out of focus, AND it's tilted about 12 degrees clockwise.

Also, in the upper upper right corner you can see what looks like the edge of the roof gutter, which appears in focus too.

So if the red barn is in focus, and the bushes in front of the barn are out of focus, and the gutter right in front of the camera is in focus, what does this mean? Also, what's the parameter that determines how wide of a vertical field of view that the lens can capture?

Intuitively, it seems like she would have had to be standing pretty far away from her gutter to get that in the shot. I.e., if she was standing on her porch right beneath the gutter, the lens would need a very large field of view to capture a gutter right above her head.


Original Version



Cropped, Enlarged, and Rotated Version Published in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

There is another important point that I noticed but didn't think much of as it was an edited photo. In the ORIGINAL version, the buildings are standing upright, as they would be. People think that the ground should always be level in photos. It is not. I know the topography of the area we are talking about in general is rolling hills.

The roof line does pose an interesting problem. It is so sharp as to have been focused on, or even edited in afterwards. Just to go back to a point you made earlier (that I didn't address) was that the strange blocks that surround various objects are artifacts due to the compression algorithm used.

Despite this, it is very clear that the roof line is pin-sharp. Too sharp, unless it is one of these fixed-focus cameras that focuses on anything.

External Link

HP PhotoSmart 315 - Specs
# Focus Adjustment: Automatic
# Min Focus Range: 0.3 m
# Focal Length: 5.8 mm
# Digital Zoom: 2.5 x

Nothing short of fixed-focus. Could explain that one. Need to see it though to be 100% sure, but very likely.

Just need a couple of sources stating that the FBI really did say this was authentic, and that is this one well and truely debunked I think! Get it added to the definitive list of officially bad info.

Only problem I've noticed here at ATS is that info is pretty well scrutinized then lost to the forum system. A master list needs pinning on the various aspects of the whole story, saying SOLVED, and why. I'm sure there is lots of info in here, that when pulled together actually demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the official story is wrong. Let's not lose it to the forum! Eventually, this can all be pulled together into a big, coherent report and released.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Just need a couple of sources stating that the FBI really did say this was authentic, and that is this one well and truely debunked I think!

Get it added to the definitive list of officially bad info.

The FBI is quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Special agent Jeff Killeen, of the FBI in Pittsburgh, confirmed that the photo of the barns and the smoke plume was "a very legitimate photograph."

"We consider that a photo that was taken moments after Flight 93 crashed to the ground," Mr. Killeen said. "It's a remarkable shot. It's remarkable that someone had the wherewithal to snap a photo of the crash. This is a one-of-a-kind. We really don't know of anything else."

The photo is even more surprising considering the sparsely populated area around the crash site, Mr. Killeen said. He compared "End of Serenity" to a hypothetical photo of the first bombs hitting Pearl Harbor, or a still image of one of the commercial jetliners in mid-collision with the twin towers.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Mr. Killeen said, "They can debunk all they want." On Sept. 11, he was at the site shortly after the crash, and knows the amount of debris and other evidence that was gathered from the scene but was never made public. Officials did look into the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down, he said, "but there's no evidence to suggest that whatsoever. None."

So the FBI knows that Flight 93 made the hole at Shankstown because of all the debris? Where's the debris? What "other evidence" wasn't made public? And why wasn't it made public?


Did you catch this too? "Officials looked into the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down"????

What is that supposed to mean? What officials? And what does "looked into" mean? Do you get they feeling the guy from the FBI is just parroting what somebody told him to say??

The FBI agent even compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. Wonder if he read the PNAC report??

Only problem I've noticed here at ATS is that info is pretty well scrutinized then lost to the forum system. A master list needs pinning on the various aspects of the whole story, saying SOLVED, and why. I'm sure there is lots of info in here, that when pulled together actually demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the official story is wrong. Let's not lose it to the forum! Eventually, this can all be pulled together into a big, coherent report and released.

And that's a great point you made about organizing the information. Any suggestions on how to best organize everything that would make it most useful?

AS for the McClatchey photo, what would you, as a photographer, like to see done as an experiment with her camera to authenticate or invalidate the legitimacy of her photo? Any ideas?

PS if it was a "fixed focus" camera how could the bushes in the foreground be out of focus compared to the barn?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by nick7261]

So the FBI knows that Flight 93 made the hole at Shankstown because of all the debris? Where's the debris? What "other evidence" wasn't made public? And why wasn't it made public?

Good question! Why is none of the 9/11 evidence available? The biggest crime to hit America and the evidence is disposed of?

Did you catch this too? "Officials looked into the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down"????

What is that supposed to mean? What officials? And what does "looked into" mean? Do you get they feeling the guy from the FBI is just parroting what somebody told him to say??

I certainly did! Good questions!

The FBI agent even compared 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. Wonder if he read the PNAC report??

Sure he didn't help write it? When did he make these statements? Would be interesting if he was towing an official line, even before one started to appear in the mainstream media. Would be good to determine when the "official" story started to be made. It is already known that videos of early broadcasts changed quickly between the first few hours, and the following days. That wants to be in another thread though I think.

Only problem I've noticed here at ATS is that info is pretty well scrutinized then lost to the forum system. A master list needs pinning on the various aspects of the whole story, saying SOLVED, and why. I'm sure there is lots of info in here, that when pulled together actually demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the official story is wrong. Let's not lose it to the forum! Eventually, this can all be pulled together into a big, coherent report and released.

And that's a great point you made about organizing the information. Any suggestions on how to best organize everything that would make it most useful?

As I said, a master topic with links to relevant info only, within the forum.

AS for the McClatchey photo, what would you, as a photographer, like to see done as an experiment with her camera to authenticate or invalidate the legitimacy of her photo? Any ideas?

Go to the location (with permission, of course) and use the same type camera to take the same shot. If that doesn't work, try and re-create the key elements (primarily the roof line and the distance shot to prove whether it is possible or not with the equipment mentioned).

PS if it was a "fixed focus" camera how could the bushes in the foreground be out of focus compared to the barn?

I had another look at that. They're not. It is a side-effect of the low resolution of the camera. It appears out of focus, because actually it appears to be very soft, as it would do if it was out of focus, giving the impression it is out of focus.

The version in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette has been made to look sharper.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

AS for the McClatchey photo, what would you, as a photographer, like to see done as an experiment with her camera to authenticate or invalidate the legitimacy of her photo? Any ideas?

Go to the location (with permission, of course) and use the same type camera to take the same shot. If that doesn't work, try and re-create the key elements (primarily the roof line and the distance shot to prove whether it is possible or not with the equipment mentioned).

Would having one of McClatchey's print outs serve any useful purpose?

Also, I'm checking into when the FBI dude first said the photo was legit. The quote I gave you came from the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette last Aug. 2006.