Carmen Taylor's story doesn't add up

Carmen Taylor officially took one of the most famous pictures of UA175, right before it hit the tower.

Carmen's words from here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1546649/32/



Simply put, this makes no sense-- it doesn't fit with the official plane path, and begs the question of why she was expecting the plane to hit the tower and setting up the shot.

If she was facing the tower from the south, which she was according to her photos, the plane DID come from behind her and over her according to the official videos. There's no way she could have tracked the plane in her peripheral vision.

Her whole story is nonsensical and bizarre. I wrote more on Taylor here--
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/who-really-took-famous-carmen-taylor.html

It's funny -- she could have simply said she got incredibly lucky with her shot. But instead, she comes up with this cockamamie story about tracking the plane and expecting it. It's over the top and too obviously bogus.

Yet more reason to doubt the official UA175 story.

Treatment: six days in the warm sunshine with someone you love, far away from any Internet connection

Repeat as needed.

Are you referring to your own incredulity in believing her story previously?

Or what?

You're edging into Killtown territory, spooked. The slander of people who happened to be able to take pictures of this event is pretty scummy, and it's beneath you. You haven't done it quite yet, but you're implying that Taylor's lying at the very least.

Slander is spoken, libel is in print. Also there has to be false information stated as a fact which brings harm to an individual or an entity, such as a business, group or government. It might be considered scummy for someone to accuse someone falsely of slander to further ones own agenda.

It's funny to me how the greater sin for you is me mixing the two terms up rather than the actual lies being told about Val McClaskey and the possible factual inaccuracies being implied about Carmen Taylor.

It's a funny set of priorities you have, but hey! To each his own.

So what you were saying is he spoke lies, which you had no way of knowing. So I think you were making unsupported claims.

Treatment: A reaccessment of priorities and a large chill pill.

Repeat as necessary.

PS: And do you really think spooked limits himself to calling Carmen Taylor a liar in print only?

The game Lord of the Rings Online has the hobbit Bolo Boffin as a hunter trainer in Michel Delving. He doesn't really look like that video of you that was on CNN ask Larry King a question though.

On edit: I took a screen shot if you are interested.

I've never asked Larry King a question on CNN.

I do know that the name is used in LOTRO. I didn't take the name from the game, however. Long, boring story.

It was for the Larry King show where you could ask the guest questions. It has been a long while, but I was looking at questions for one guest and your question for a guest the previous week got mixed in. The previous guest was something to do with 9/11. I wouldn't know how to search for it now if it still existed.

so what if I say she is lying, anyway? Her story stinks, as do the images of the 2nd plane.

So please try to get over your mental block on these issues.

Thanks.

Period.

I venture that you are not thinking critically about this at all.

What is that object South and to the right of number 401? Nose out or could it be the mysterious extra grey (missile) thing on the belly of UA175?

Probably just loose steel from impact...

but probably a bit of aluminum cladding knocked loose and hanging off the side from the blast

since she would have seen a large airplane coming in insanely low and tracked it

not from her left

Taylor's story sounds confused, and she says she's even confused by it. There's really nothing unusual about that, since she's trying to reconstruct those few seconds years later, and anyway it's possible you're assuming too much about what she was trying to say in that description. If she was looking at the tower in the camera's LCD screen, then to her, using the term "peripheral vision" might include watching the plane flying overhead.

But the real problem with YOUR story is that if she were making up her story, then it would probably be a simple, unconfused one -- like the "just got lucky" one you proposed. So the confusion in her story seems to me to indicate that's she's simply trying to reconstruct the event from confused memories, not lying. The funny thing is, this is similar to the way "no-planers" look at imaging artifacts and resolution limitations in the videos and are apparently so ignorant of such things that they claim them to be proof of fakery, when in fact the absence of such things would indicate fakery.

Anyway, there's absolutely nothing suspicious about Taylor's photos, since the Hezarkhani video proves that Taylor's photos are real. I would think that you and Fred the Fraud have gotten beaten up over that enough by now. I see from that thread you linked to that it's generally accepted that Hezarkhani was also on the ferry, to Taylor's left, just as I said three years ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2216107
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=180637&mesg_id=180637

(I do believe that the diagram in the thread you linked to has the ferry at the wrong dock, however. The line of sight indicates that Taylor and Hezarkhani were on the ferry just south of Fort Clinton.)

the plane would have come in from behind her, and it would have been impossible to track the plane with peripheral vision. Then there's the odd fact that she seemed to expect the plane to hit the tower.

that is not reasonable
'facing the towers' says nothing about her location, only where she was looking
for example, if she were facing the towers from manhattan she could see the plane
there are many locations whence she could have seen the plane, including her actual location
it is obvious in her picture that the towers and plane are left of her

which is on a ferry boat, on the southern tip of Manhattan, and the WTC was north of her. There's no doubt that according to other videos, the plane would have come in high over her left shoulder, from behind. It's really hard to see how she could see this or track it peripherally as she says.

except other shots were made from a very similar location.

we know because we can see her right hand side of the tower
the plane is where the tower is, to her left
we know this independent of the tower because we can see all of the bottom of the fuselage,
which is tilted to carmen's right, and none of the top, which is tilted to carmen's left
videos show the plane hang a shallow louie before turning sharply left into the building
that puts it on carmen's left, even if you use math
her story nowhere disagrees with her picture
the gubmint's story alone is not relevant to anyone's credibility

I'm not a conspiricy guy or a 9/11 "truther", but I have a couple of questions:

1- WHY would the US government have to fly planes into the towers in addition to detonating the bombs?
2- If they needed an excuse to go to war, wouldnt ANY attack have been sufficient? Therefore, just detonating bombs would have done it… Why the planes? Or you could have had just the planes and no bombs… It would have been reason enough.
3- Why was it necessary to flatten the buildings? WHY? Did they need the real estate?

1) they wanted a good cover story for the subsequent destruction of the towers
2) they needed sufficient casualties and shock which the crashes alone wouldn't have done-- they needed to show serious devasation
3) the WTC towers were old and outdated; Silverstein got quite bit of insurance money; again they wanted devastation-- shock and awe

#1 --

The WTC was in trouble -- asbestos among other problems.

It was going to have to be brought down in a very expensive fashion --

DEMOLITION was not to be permitted. It was going to have to be brought down as it was put up.

Scaffolding built and taken down piece by piece.


Also, if there had been no "planes," then the detonation/explosives/bombs would have been

completely obvious. How would the 9/11 terrorists have been able to wire both WTC towers with

explosives?

#2 --

An aluminum plane could not have brought down the WTC towers.

Aluminum attacks steel and goes thru like butter?

#3 --

Had they not used CONTROLLED demolition and brought the towers down in their own footprint --

many other buildings could have been harmed -- too expensive.


EDITED: To add that I didn't read "Spooked" response to you before I wrote this -
and he includes the, of course, very essential details of VICTIMS being required to enrage
the public.

#1 The asbestos was not an issue, since it had only been used on the lower floors of one of the towers. And in any case, the PANYNJ had estimated the cleanup costs to be around $200 million (http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna39.htm)

#2 Kinetic energy. Learn it, love it.

#3 Erh, you might have missed the bit where every building surrounding the twin towers were badly damaged (WTC7, Fiterman Hall, Deutsche Bank building etc).

I love you man, but you are trying to reason with someone who is impervious to reason and Logic. Among other things, she's writing that two 110 story buildings were going to have to have "scaffolding built around them so they could be 'dismantled' ".

Please remember one important lesson. You can't fix crazy.

But sadly my OCD doesn't allow me to just chuckle and walk away, I HAVE to try and correct the stupid that is posted :(

seems improbable that a boat filled tourists produced so little footage of the burning towers and plane crash. add to the amazement that the still from the video released on that same boat of the plane about to hit look nearly identical.

there must a been tons of people on that boat. where IS their footage? very suspicious.

with only these two people allowed in. no i don't really believe that, but that's no more bizarre than the flipside of there being tons of tourists in the park and the boats and only these two folks capturing the event.

I'm probably wrong . . .

but I seem to remember her saying that she didn't know she had a picture of the "plane"

until she was showing the shots to other people on the boat with her!