I'm writing a paper for school about Flight 93 bieng shot down. I was going to include this photo of a mushroom cload with it.
Poeple are sying it's one of three things:
1 - The plume if from Flight 93 crashing.
2 - The plume if from an ordanance exploding.
3 - The photo is fake.
I asked over at aonther forum about it after I heard it might be fake, but oddly they had little to say about it. Seems like they were holding something back.
First and formost I want to know if its fake or not because I wont want to use it if its fake. Has it been proven a fake or has the fake claims been debunked? If the claims of fake are bogus, then I wuold want everyonges opinion if the plume if from Flight 93 crashing or some kind of ordanance blast that would include a missile hitting the ground with I persnally think it is.
I asked over at aonther forum about it after I heard it might be fake, but oddly they had little to say about it. Seems like they were holding something back.
That's probably true, but not what you think. More a case of Killclown's media fakery conspiracy hobby not having a lot of traction there.
down4truth wrote:
First and formost I want to know if its fake or not because I wont want to use it if its fake.
Whatever is said to have happened at Shanksville that day might well be falsified, but there's no evidence VM's photo is a fake.
down4truth wrote:
Has it been proven a fake or has the fake claims been debunked? If the claims of fake are bogus, then I wuold want everyonges opinion if the plume if from Flight 93 crashing or some kind of ordanance blast that would include a missile hitting the ground with I persnally think it is.
Despite years of trying, the photo has not been proven fake by Killclown or his socks. The smoke does seem to indicate a short duration explosion similar, but not exclusive to, an ordnance blast.
As an aside, I'd also suggest turning on spellchecker when you're doing your paper. You'll need it. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
On March 27, 2007, Jeffrey Hill (a.k.a. "Shure") from http://www.pumpitout.com in Canada calls Shanksville resident Kelly Leverknight http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Wo... , who was one of the witnesses who reportedly saw Flight 93 in the air before it allegedly crashed, and speaks to a lady claiming to be Kelly's "daughter." Jeff asks her about Val McClatchey's famous "Flight 93 plume" photo.
Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo.
Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud.
Jeff: It what?
Ms. Leverknight: There was no mushroom cloud.
Jeff: So it was a fake photo?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Her photo's faked?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: For what? For money?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Why, do you know that for sure?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah!
Killtown says:
This admission from Ms. Leverknight is pertinent for three reasons:
1. She confirms one of my two theories about Val's photo; that it's fake.
2. Before this admission, I had never speculated that Val took any photos on 9/11. Ms. Leverknight implies that Val did indeed take at least one photo on 9/11, but that this original photo did not have a mushroom cloud in it.
3. I've never had any contact with any of the Leverknight's, ever, so I have no reason to believe that Ms. Leverknight is not being honest and sincere about this admission.
http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/200...
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
Whatever is said to have happened at Shanksville that day might well be falsified, but there's no evidence VM's photo is a fake.
chek, do you think a plane crashed at shanksville?
A fair question.
I believe from the evidence I've seen that part of an airplane crashed at Shanksville.
And now I'll ask you one too.
Can you see on how many different levels your post about Shure's and Killclown's concocted post about the alleged phone call falls down?
There's no witness identity - only a claimed identity, then leading questions solely in the direction of the caller's own theory, then invitation to witness speculation, and no questioning of the means by which the alleged witness could even know certain things, let alone state them as if fact.
It's pretty much a microcosm of why the "researcher's"/movement fraternity were regarded as a joke even at that time, and have steadily gone downhill since. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Of course, this is all conjecture but regarding the debris field;
'Two days after the crash, investigators broadened their search to a community eight miles away, where residents found bits of wreckage. That wreckage probably was spread by the cloud created when the plane crashed and dispersed by a 10 mph southeasterly wind, Crowley said. Some smaller pieces and papers belonging to passengers might have been carried even farther.'
The image in question of the smoke cloud shows what I suggest is a perfectly still and calm day - the plume rising high in the sky, with no signs whatsoever of any inteference by a breeze, certainly not one strong enough to carry debris any distance. The lower stem of the plume would show very obvious indications of the influence of wind/breeze - it doesn't.
Smoke is highly susceptible to air movement, therefore, given what we are told and what we can witness - the two appear initially to be in conflict, so either the image is fake or the transient debris field is. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:39 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Of course, this is all conjuecture but regarding the debris field;
'Two days after the crash, investigators broadened their search to a community eight miles away, where residents found bits of wreckage. That wreckage probably was spread by the cloud created when the plane crashed and dispersed by a 10 mph southeasterly wind, Crowley said. Some smaller pieces and papers belonging to passengers might have been carried even farther.'
The image in question of the smoke cloud shows what I suggest is a perfectly still and calm day - the plume rising high in the sky, with no signs whatsoever of any inteference by a breeze, certainly not one strong enough to carry debris any distance. The lower stem of the plume would show very obvious indications of the influence of wind/breeze - it doesn't.
Smoke is highly susceptible to air movement, therefore, given what we are told and what we can witness - the two appear initially to be in conflict, so either the image is fake or the transient debris field is.
...although another probable cause for the large debris field could be witness reports of a missile shoot down, which Rumsfeld later inadvertantly repeated. A short range heat seeking missile would home in on a heat source such as an engine, one of which was found (from memory) some distance away
There's also an assumption that local windspeed is both constant and affects all areas equally in there somewhere. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:
gruts wrote:
I had to laugh when I saw the OP because somehow I knew that before long it would be followed by....
jfk wrote:
Killtown says:
This admission from Ms. Leverknight is pertinent for three reasons blah blah etc
I've heard it said that killtown is like the emperor with no clothes but it's not true.
He's certainly got a huge supply of socks....
..and shoe-ins!
Kinda interesting trading on a known witness' name ... when it's not. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
On March 27, 2007, Jeffrey Hill (a.k.a. "Shure") from http://www.pumpitout.com in Canada calls Shanksville resident Kelly Leverknight http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Wo... , who was one of the witnesses who reportedly saw Flight 93 in the air before it allegedly crashed, and speaks to a lady claiming to be Kelly's "daughter." Jeff asks her about Val McClatchey's famous "Flight 93 plume" photo.
Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo.
Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud.
Jeff: It what?
Ms. Leverknight: There was no mushroom cloud.
Jeff: So it was a fake photo?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Her photo's faked?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: For what? For money?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.
Jeff: Why, do you know that for sure?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah!
Killtown says:
This admission from Ms. Leverknight is pertinent for three reasons:
1. She confirms one of my two theories about Val's photo; that it's fake.
2. Before this admission, I had never speculated that Val took any photos on 9/11. Ms. Leverknight implies that Val did indeed take at least one photo on 9/11, but that this original photo did not have a mushroom cloud in it.
3. I've never had any contact with any of the Leverknight's, ever, so I have no reason to believe that Ms. Leverknight is not being honest and sincere about this admission.
http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/200...
Thank very much jfk. That phone call was quite intersting. I followed the links to the blog that makes the fake claims and read the allagations. Quite stagering. Her story really reeks. The part about she droped her camera I was shaking my head. I never thought befoe why she only released one photo and now its obvious because it would be harder to fake more than one photo. I see why they say the plume is to big and is in the wrong spot even though it looks like its still raising straight up. Really bizare how the FBI came over and took her camera and computer. I remember from this other aritcle that lady said she saw the small white plane tohers did that I suspect help to shoot Flight 93 down. Maybe she took a photo of that as the blog mentionsed or maybe she took photos of Flight 93 on fire or smoking as it was about to crash. Maybe thats why they put the plume so big on there to cover it up. All I know is I'll be leaving this questionble photo out of my paper for sure.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
