Carmen Taylor's Photograph of the Second Hit

[spooked911]

second page here:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/news/pdf/unitedwestand.pdf
(can't copy the image because it is from a PDF)
This is a version of the photo from another source:



"Carmen Taylor, an amateur photographer from Fort Smith, Ark., captured this scene on her son’s digital camera. It shows United Airlines
Flight 175 an instant before 9:03 a.m., when the hijacked plane struck the south tower of the World Trade Center. Taylor’s photograph was
picked up by The Associated Press from her hometown television stations KHBS/KHOG. She was in Manhattan on vacation."


Now look here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews_sep2001.html


"Amateur Photographer Captures Attacks

By CAROLINE BYRNE, Associated Press Writer

Amateur photographer captures NYC attack. (AP Photo/Robert Bukaty) NEW YORK (AP) - Carmen Taylor had boarded the ferry to Ellis Island and was snapping photos of the Manhattan skyline Tuesday when the sky exploded.

"We thought it was fireworks," said Taylor, who had borrowed a Sony digital camera from her son for her five-day visit to New York from Ft. Smith, Ark.

Taylor, who works as an auditor in a nursing home, captured United Airlines Flight 175 as it shattered the south tower of the World Trade Center complex, just 18 minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 smashed into the north tower.

"I looked up again and this plane went by so I just put my camera back up. That's when the second explosion took place," she said.

"We were terrified. We were wondering if the Statue of Liberty was the next target and that's when people started streaming out of their buildings," Taylor said.

Taylor got off the ferry and showed her digital photos to the swarms of dazed office tower workers. One man suggested Taylor use his office nearby to e-mail her pictures to her local television station KHBS.

Two of her photos, one showing the scene just before the plane hit and the other immediately after, were distributed worldwide by The Associated Press."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone really think that Carmen Taylor really took this shot of flight 175?

I don't. Look at the photo in the view finder of her camera. Is she even at the right angle? And does anyone really think she could get that CLEAR of a close-up of the south tower on a ferry from the distance shown in the viewfinder?? It is not just that she would have had to zoom in quite a bit but also her timing would have to be amazing.

She was LUCKY. And it wasn't even HER camera! So she would be even less familiar with using it.

What is more suspicious is the photo looks remarkably like the same angle as this video:
http://www.hybrideb.com/content/evidence/strike-two-cnn.avi
which was taken by "an amateur CNN cameraman" in lower Manhattan.

So, did Carmen Taylor take this photo? If not, why would they lie about it?

[greyl]

1. All of the evidence is fake. /sarc

"Does anyone really think that Carmen Taylor really took this shot of flight 175?"

Yes. I'd guess that at least 1.5 billion people believe the photo is authentic.

"Is she even at the right angle?"

Yes.

"does anyone really think she could get that CLEAR of a close-up of the south tower on a ferry from the distance shown in the viewfinder?"

Yes.

"What is more suspicious is the photo looks remarkably like the same angle as this video:..."

The angles are distinctly different.

Have you ever used a digital camera?

[spooked911]

5. Angles

"The angles are distinctly different." They are very slightly different angles but the Carmen Taylor shot and the CNN video shot are from a virtually identical perspective.

Yes, I use a digital camera all the time. What's your point?

How do you KNOW she was at the right angle?

[JackRiddler]

2. Are you actually interested in ending the 9/11 cover-up?

I won't say you're not, and I won't say this "damages" the case of real research into 9/11.

It's just an awesome piece of self-diddling irrelevancy. It will make no difference whatsoever in convincing anyone who doesn't already think 9/11 is fishy. It will not further the case for probable cause and indictments. It makes you look silly and encourages idiots to characterize 9/11 research as a bunch of hooey. And it would definitely piss off Carmen Taylor, if she ever reads it.

It's not just that her story is believable. (And the angle? That isn't the actual photo, she can move you know.) But also that the nature of your speculations is as good as designed to be unprovable, while simultaneously on the likelihood level of lightning striking you, right now.

[spooked911]

6. I would love to end the cover-up but I also reserve the right to ask

questions I feel are interesting and important. I think the photo is fishy.

Of course she can move and I didn't say that was the actual photo.

But she said she took it on the ferry and she shows another shot presumably shot while also on the ferry. And that shot is not EVEN CLOSE to being at the right angle or perspective.

Then there is the issue of how hard it would have been to get such a clear close-up and also the issue of how the angle and perspective is VERY similar to the CNN video.

I say the whole thing stinks.

Sorry, but that is my opinion.

[JackRiddler]

10. Good for you.

You have the right all right. And I have the right to call self-diddling irrelevancy (as well as on prima facie wrong).

[greyl]

16. good, substantive post

and excellent use of rhetorically disguised condenscension to give the proper amount of emotional urgency, I must say. ;)

[spooked911]

20. Don't think I don't know exactly what you are trying to do here.

[HamdenRice]

3. I'm not going to pile on, but ..,.

The ferries to Staten Island, Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty were actually very close to the WTC. As the boat pulled away from lower Manhattan, to the south across the harbor, you would have pretty much this view and very close up.

[spooked911]

7. Ellis Island is southwest of Manhattan

this shot was taken from the southeast.

and it comes from a land angle, not a harbor angle.

[dailykoff]

4. Yes it all sounds perfectly reasonable

at first blush, just like the rest of the story. It's only when you stop and think about any of it that it starts to fall apart:

1) If she's standing on a moving ferry, holding a camera without a tripod, and the plane is moving at 500 mph, why would the plane AND the stationary building both be in focus? For that matter, why would either be in focus?

2) etc. etc.

[spooked911]

9. Yes.

[spooked911]

8. FWIW, here's what I think happened. Warning! Crazy conspiracy talk!

So here's what I think happened:

Mrs. Taylor took real photos of the WTC and may even have shot a picture with a plane in it. But I think the picture they have attributed to her is fake.

I think the someone at the AP used digital manipulation to put in a plane into a shot of the WTC that existed from another shoot (from the same person who did the CNN video).

Possibly the AP told Ms Taylor they extracted the image from her digital photo by enlargment. Then they paid her nicely for the photo and told her to stick to the official story. Probably she signed a deal giving up the photo to the AP. Since she was paid handsomely for the photo, she had no reason to question it.

This shot worked perfectly for the perpetrators, as they could pass it off as a bona fide shot of the killer plane from an innocent tourist.

I bet she doesn't even have the original anymore.

Another possibility is that the guy who emailed her photo had the shot pre-made and actually loaded it onto her camera when they were purporting to e-mail it to the local TV station.

[spooked911]

11. Something is REALLY ROTTEN with her photo

NO WAY did she get both THIS PHOTO:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/photoessay/pages/attack_2.html

and this PHOTO:

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/towers/timeline9.htm

[mirandapriestly]

12. Doesn't seem likely , does it?nt

[RedSock]

13. no way

i lived in nyc from 1987-2005 and worked in wtc1 for about 2 years) and there is no way those photos were taken by that woman.

the first one has the brooklyn and manhattan bridges in it and was probably taken from land in brooklyn. that is in the opposite direction (more or less) from ellis island. there is no way the boat going to ellis island would swing around the tip of manhattan and head up the east river for the second shot.

[mirandapriestly]

15. She would have had to really been moving

to get from the ferry to the site. I'm not sure how much time passed between those two scenarios, but I suppose it could be proved to be impossible if you figured out how long it takes to get from the ferry to the wtc site and compare that to the time lapsed between the photos scenes.

It seems weird to me that someone would see something like that and move TOWARDs it, especially a tourist from Arkansas. Wouldn't your instinct be to get the fvck out of there? Wasn't the word on the street "we're under attack", etc?

[greyl]

14. The globandmail site makes a photo credit error.

They credit Carmen's photo to a Robert Clark.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/photoessay/pages/attack_1.html

[greyl]

17. I emailed theglobeandmail about the error.

I'll post if I get a reply.

Here's my email:

Mr. Loucas,

To my knowledge, the famous AP distributed photo at this link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/photoessay/pages/attack_1.html

was taken by Carmen Taylor, not Robert Clark as credited.

In addition, the photo at this link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/photoessay/pages/attack_2.html

is credited to Carmen Taylor, but I don't think she took that picture. Maybe that's a Robert Clark piece? :)

Thanks and keep up the good work,
("my official name")

[spooked911]

18. yes, it's possible the credits were mixed up

[spooked911]

19. Another photo supposedly from Carmen Taylor

Interestingly, these two scenes are about two seconds apart, yet her perspective has changed considerably.

Most importantly, these photos seem very unlikely to come from the water. They look like they were taken from a building in lower manhattan.


This looks more like what a view from the water, with a southwesterly view of the towers, would be:


Note, that if she was in the water and too close to land, there are many large buildings that would completely block her view of the towers from the west and south.

[RedSock]

22. perspective

***
Interestingly, these two scenes are about two seconds apart, yet her perspective has changed considerably.
***

No it hasn't. The angle is exactly the same.

You could say the top picture is zoomed in more -- without the actual originals we have zero idea and are just making wild guesses -- but considering the drama of the explosion, it was probably enlarged/cropped for web publication -- or publication on any website in the last 4+ years.

Which she would have had nothing to do with.

[mirandapriestly]

30. all I know is...

that thing under the plane sure does look funny, yes indeed.
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

[spooked911]

43. Indeed. That is no normal plane underbelly.

[spooked911]

21. clarification/correction

After consulting with maps for about two hours and finding a version of her plane picture with more foreground in it which helped me identify that front building*, I have concluded the angle for the photos was consistent with being in the water (on a ferry) about one mile away from the WTC, just south-southeast.

Of course I still have questions:
1) wouldn't other tourists on her boat have cameras, didn't they get pictures of the plane?
2) it is a damn good shot for an amateur with a borrowed digital camera on a moving boat
3) the explosion picture in particular looks amazingly professional
4) did she really just get lucky to get this shot?
5) did she have that plane in her original photo or could it have been added in later?

*here:



One interesting thing is this video:
http://www.hybrideb.com/content/evidence/strike-two-cnn.avi

must have been taken from the same boat, because it has the EXACT angle and the before impact shot is virtually identical.

The fireball picture is different though...

[Kevin Fenton]

23. It's a standard touristy shot

I once made nearly the same trip south by ferry to/from the southern tip of Manhattan and you can bet I had my camera and was taking loads of pictures of all the skyscrapers. She was a tourist there on holiday, it's what tourists do. Are you telling us you haven't done it too?

[spooked911]

24. see my questions in the post you responded to

I'm sure she was on a ferry taking pictures. That is not the issue.

I was more wondering about the quality-- she was about a mile away, and if other people got took photos as well-- cause that's what tourists do, right?

The CNN video I linked may have been taken from the same boat. The plane shot angle exactly the same. The photo could well be a still from the video, they are so similar.

Basically, I am trying to track down how legitimate pictures and videos of the second plane are, because I think some (if not many) of the second hit videos are faked.

[seatnineb]

25. Here is a photo looking south from the north..........

You can see what appears to be 2 boats together on the Hudson......



Not sure........maybe one of those 2 boats might be responsible for this image:

[nonny]

32. 1st photo

Hi seatnineb,

Very interesting photo you have here.
You can see the roof top...... so this photo was taken from a position higher than the towers.
Would that be from a helicopter?

Do you have other photos taken from above?

[spooked911]

42. great catch-- I think you're right

[Kevin Fenton]

28. It's pointless

"1) wouldn't other tourists on her boat have cameras, didn't they get pictures of the plane?"
How the hell would anybody on this forum know that?

"2) it is a damn good shot for an amateur with a borrowed digital camera on a moving boat"
It looks like a damn good camera.

"3) the explosion picture in particular looks amazingly professional"
"4) did she really just get lucky to get this shot?"
There were lots of people taking photos of the burning tower(s). By the law of averages, some of them had to get lucky.

"5) did she have that plane in her original photo or could it have been added in later?"
Both.

[sgsmith]

26. Interesting point from that video

I know that some people hear have made statements to the effect of "where is the glass that should have been ejected from a crash". Looks to me that the is a fair amount of ejecta on the impact side of WTC 2, along with the visible right hand side of the tower.

[Make7]

27. Differences

spooked911 wrote:

One interesting thing is this video:
http://www.hybrideb.com/content/evidence/strike-two-cnn.avi

must have been taken from the same boat, because it has the EXACT angle and the before impact shot is virtually identical.

The fireball picture is different though...

First, the video looks like it may have been taken from Battery Park. Note the trees when they appear in the video. (A similar view from the park, although taken from a point slightly to the West, can be seen in this ?pic">picture - click on link to view.)

What I am curious about though is how exactly you believe Carmen Taylor's AP fireball picture differs from the video. So, to compare - the first picture below is a copy of the fireball picture credited to Carmen Taylor, followed by frame 294 of the video from the link that you posted:





What difference are you seeing between those two pictures?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

31. What's weird is that these pictures are identical

so Carmen's lucky shot is actually a video frame.

Now that's lucky!

[Make7]

33. They are not identical. Here are two more:

See if you can spot the difference - first is Carmen Taylor's before impact picture, followed by frame 139 of the CNN footage:





- Make7

Edit: grammar in subject line.

[dailykoff]

34. These two are different. The first two are identical.

They're cropped differently, but look at the debris.

[Make7]

35. The first two are different as well.

Carmen Taylor's fireball picture has more information above and below what is shown in the video frame. If her "lucky shot is actually a video frame", the video frame would need to have at least the same amount of information as shown in her picture.

Are these from the same angle? Or different angles?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

36. The cropping is different, but the information is the same.

It's hard to miss if you examine the positions of those four flying columns in the right of each shot:


Carmen's shot


CNN video frame frame294

In all honesty Make7 that was a very good find.

[Make7]

37. Two issues.

How do you crop this (i.e. reduce the picture area)...



... to get this...



... which clearly has more information at the top, bottom, and left hand side?

You said the 'plane' picture and video frame are different, yet you believe the 'fireball' picture and frame are identical - even though the source of both of the pictures is Carmen Taylor and the source of the video frames is the CNN video. If you actually watch the video (http://www.hybrideb.com/content/evidence/strike-two-cnn.avi), you can see that it is shot from a slightly different angle than the pictures taken by Carmen Taylor. So, how then are the 'fireball' pictures somehow identical, yet the 'plane impacts' different?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

38. 1. They're both cropped

from a larger field, and the still looks like it's been enhanced.

2. Who knows where the other photos came from? That's a different issue.

[Make7]

39. Did you watch the video?

It does not appear to be cropped in any way. The reason that the fireball and debris field look the same in the picture and the video frame is because they are capturing the same moment in time from camera angles that are only slightly different. Watch the video - it will demonstrate that the location where it was taken from differs slightly from the camera angle shown by both of Carmen Taylor's pictures.

What other photos? We are only discussing two photos and two frames of video. These photos were taken by Carmen Taylor:



And these video frames were taken from this video.





The location where both of Carmen Taylor's pictures were taken from appears to be almost, if not precisely the same. The location where the video was shot is consistent throughout the video, and it is clearly different than the location where Carmen Taylor's pictures were taken.

Yet you seem to be saying that although the 'plane' picture and 'plane' video frame were taken from noticeably different angles, the 'fireball' picture and 'fireball' video frame were from identical angles. Is that what you believe?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

40. We're talking about two identical shots, not four.

Now why are you so interested in confusing the issue? I'd think you'd want to take credit for noticing it. :)

[Make7]

41. We are not talking about any identical shots.

We are talking about your misinterpretation of two clearly different shots as being identical. You seem to either be confused, or are simply not being serious.

You are the one who is claiming that the 'fireball' picture and 'fireball' video frame are identical. Why would I take credit for your obviously false belief? The credit for your mistakes clearly belongs to you.

- Make7

[savemefromdumbya]

29. how come we see the same old photos/vids?

must have been loads of tourists in NY that day with cameras

[mirandapriestly]

44. interesting, huh?

all those people saw it, but only a few pix, hm...

[Debo]

45. huh?

I don't see anything strange about the pictures. The one displayed on her camera is quite a distance from the towers. I don't see why the camera would not be able to take that picture. Pretty much all cameras today have a point and shoot setting that makes taking a picture incredibly simple. You just point and shoot. The closeup picture is not a real closeup picture. It looks like it is a cropped and zoomed in portion of a picture taken from a distance which is why it is grainy and blurry.