| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carmen Taylor Answers Questions | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 23 2009, 05:01 AM (14,302 Views) | |
| heidimarie | Aug 5 2009, 02:27 AM Post #436 |
|
Thank you Jeff...no wonder we think so highly of you! You make whatever we need happen. #17 was taken at 3:07:12 and #18 "Moment of Impact" was taken at 3:09:38, so no matter how much time I thought I had to set up the picture, I only had 2 minutes, 26 seconds between shots...(if my math is correct, so somebody check it please) so Spok, if you can make another picture (using the Google that has two ferries in it) (also see SB9's drawing I referred to) and put my ferry at the dock with me on the tip end towards the Towers, and Michael H in the middle behind me---then: 1. Using 175's approach you've shown, where was it at 2:26 minutes before impact? 2. Using 175's approach I explained to SB9, coming from the west (at about his #1 level), where was 175 at 2:26? 3. I don't think 2:26 is actually when I became aware of 175, but it wasn't before then. 4. Maybe 1:30 minutes would be about all the time I had, or was aware of the plane. 5. Where would each approach be at 1:30 before impact? 6. I don't think my set-up and waiting was much longer than 1:30. Could have been, though. Hope this helps. TGC C Edited by heidimarie, Aug 5 2009, 02:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| YougeneDebs | Aug 5 2009, 05:15 AM Post #437 |
|
Hi Carmen~ This is getting very exciting! Please, could you also post the Statue of Liberty pic?; 25 Statue of Liberty. Thanks! |
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 5 2009, 05:40 PM Post #438 |
|
Carmen, I don't know what you want me to do. Something like that...![]() ...is definitely wrong because * the position of the ferry especially a docked ferry would make no sense * Michael behind you would have the very same perspective. Both of you would have shot the very same "gap" between WTC1 and Downtown Athletics Club and the pictures prove without any doubt that he was to your left when looking towards the towers. * if you would stand at the tip of that ferry looking towards the towers then the plane came from behind you. If you saw it first to the left of you then you had 3.5 seconds left to make a photo The position of the plane -90 seconds was above Staten Island and at 10000ft altitude (very small dot - may be visible but hard to believe that it would attract any attention). ![]() Your drawing is maybe misleading. You wrote that the red dash shows the position of the plane. I would interpret your drawing as a translation of imagining yourself on the ferry and the plane came from south. But you can interpret the drawing as trying to give the absolute position at ground level. So your drawing would say that the plane was somewhere north of the towers above the Hudson. It seems that SC9 interpreted it that way and therefore he asked for the angle. There was a small Cessna 172SP coming from the north at that time. The pilot shot these photos: ![]() and here is your ferry! ![]() and the view of the pilot ![]() all of that seems to confirm my previous drawing of the ferry along the docks. So what should I change? ------------------ While trying to understand what you want me to do I found that: ![]() The "photographer" on his web page: "Snapped approximately 30 - 45 seconds before we saw another explosive eruption, this was the very first picture I snapped of the WTC from my roof. I did not notice until much later that there was a plane in the frame. I am not sure if it is actually the second plane that hit the South Tower, as there a number of helicopters and a few small circling planes in the area at that time. I also believe that there may have been other commercial flights in the vicinity, so perhaps this is one of them?" As everyone can see the South Tower is heavy burning. A lot of smoke came from the east side of the south tower. This photo is clearly a fake. And of course the position of the plane would approx. fit for 4-3 seconds prior to the hit. |
![]() |
|
| seatnineb | Aug 6 2009, 01:45 PM Post #439 |
|
Achimspok This picture: ![]() is definetely not fake.At least i am pretty sure it is not. The fotographer is Michael Castellano( a New Yorker who has fotographated NYC since the mid 70's) I emailed him 2 years back and mentioned the already smoking eastern face of WTC2. he then realised that the foto was taken AFTER the 2nd hit. What is interesting is that he says he never saw Flight 175 approach and hit......his explanation being that despite his panoramic view.......he believes that he simply was not looking in the right place......something I find hard to believe...given his viewing angle.....this is what he should have seen if the plane existed: Combining the msnbc video: ![]() ....which was shot from a similar location to where Castellano was.....with Castellano's own foto you get this: ![]() Maybe Castellano had his back turnded in those crucial seconds of that approach....that is the only explanation....or there was no plane. Edited by seatnineb, Aug 6 2009, 01:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 6 2009, 03:23 PM Post #440 |
|
Let's say it is no fake: 1) Castellano is still stating that the picture was taken 30-45 sec prior to an explosive eruption. There was no explosive eruption after the second hit and visible from his position 2) it is a big plane an it's low. Castellano is about 2.5km closer than msnbc and about 500 meters west of Foreman. I would say somewhere near Tompkins Pl. So maybe his plane is above Jersey City and took off from Newark after the 2nd hit. NYC full of people starring at the sky afraid of another plane... but nobody noticed that one??? 3) From his perspective the mystery WTC "withe plane" passed the towers about at the same time when WTC2 was hit - so this one is not the known mystery plane 4) curiously enough the Castellano plane doing the very same banking maneuver like UA175 1.5 seconds prior to the hit and according to the angle the Castellano plane is going down (so it doesn't took off from Newark and it's going to nowhere because La Guardia and JFK airport are still on the Brooklyn side of Manhattan) ... sorry ... but ... I would say it's about as probable as Atta's bag And there are two more points to make: 5) If he is a photographer since the 70th then he should have a little visual experience in watching his own photos. I bet he saw the burning South Tower long before you called him. He should have the full resolution version and I am sure he looked at it as close as he could. 6) Nevertheless the contrast of the distant buildings e.g. the towers show the haze in the air. To be "possible at all" the plane must be about twice as distant as the towers but it is pitch black without any haze. "...his panoramic view.......he believes that he simply was not looking in the right place..." I believe he was on the roof to watch the burning North Tower. I believe the second hit happened while he was still on the way up and may be he missed it. It's hard to take for a NYC photographer for 30 years to miss the moment of changing history. It would be hard for a NYC photographer to be on the roof with a camera watching the burning North Tower (I guess) without taking a shot. (Did you see any other 9/11 shot of him? ...may be taking earlier that day?) So he's looking around in his panoramic view and missed the plane again without taking a photo of the fireball that burned for at least 9 seconds. Some minutes later he accidentally captured the banking twin plane without realizing the plane. But 30-45 seconds later he watched some kind of explosive eruption no one else witnessed and for the 3rd time that day he took no photograph while holding the camera in his hands. No way. I don't believe it. Edited by achimspok, Aug 6 2009, 04:14 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| seatnineb | Aug 6 2009, 03:51 PM Post #441 |
|
Here is Castellano's profile:
http://www1.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=25093 Fotos of NYC spanning 3 decades: http://www1.photosig.com/go/users/viewportfolio;jsessionid=aeTtqKxpcCu9keXDXl?id=28549 BUt he does dabble in fotoshop: http://www1.photosig.com/go/users/viewportfolio?id=28020 |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Aug 6 2009, 04:33 PM Post #442 |
|
Funnily enough, here's a photo where he definitely did add a plane: http://www1.photosig.com/go/photos/view;jsessionid=aBCAE-W0zYE9mfZNXl?id=1553456&forward=viewportfolio |
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 6 2009, 04:41 PM Post #443 |
|
I still miss any other 9/11 photo he took. When I watch his series of NY photos then he is very organized. It looks like he is running around for days to plan the right perspective, time, lens... for one shot. Sure, he knows every single pixel of his photos but the strange plane isn't his "language" at all. His photos are well composed but always "heavy" in the center like a hybrid of golden cut arrangement and a Renaissance central perspective plateau with "Maria and the Baby in the center. The plane photo is the contrary. The composition without the plane makes no sense but with the plane it is a composition. You can feel it also if you know nothing about it. Your eyes need less than a second to find the plane. Once you found it you instinctively look again and again at the lower left corner and do the circle of the golden cut: plane - tower - smoke - plane - tower - smoke ... Without the plane the photo is just an amateur shot. The plane is well composed into it. I still don't believe it. I start to believe his daughter took the shot without the plane in it. Edited by achimspok, Aug 6 2009, 04:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| shure | Aug 6 2009, 05:35 PM Post #444 |
|
Administrator
|
Is this what you mean? ![]() |
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 6 2009, 07:46 PM Post #445 |
|
Imo there is something wrong in the description. The angle Carmen-Michael-ferry-towers is definitely like I drew it before "tip pointed end of the ferry + feet on rail + slightly turned right toward Towers" would turn the ferry with the tip pointing at the castle. The turned Ellis Island ferry seems to be plausible but both have to be on the upper deck. Up there is no possibility to sitting at the tip feet on rail. So may be Carmen sat on the upper level in the first or second row feet on the bank in front of her - right the towers, left the approach. Michael didn't stand behind Carmen but maybe next to the captains house infront (and west) of Carmen. ![]() The turned Ellis Island Ferry looks pretty much like the blurred ferry in the shot of the pilot.
|
![]() |
|
| RasgaSaias | Aug 6 2009, 10:02 PM Post #446 |
|
![]() It could never be a plane about to hit the WTC because the south tower was already on fire. It is too dark for being something in the background. It is too small for being a plane in the foreground. It could be a faked image with an additional flying object resembling a plane. But there's still another possibility. It could simply be a bird. ![]() Although I guess we can't make much from this resolution anyway. |
![]() |
|
| YougeneDebs | Aug 7 2009, 02:02 AM Post #447 |
|
![]() Achimspok~ I see why you would think Tompkins Pl; however, The big brick building partially blocking the Towers is at (approx.) 345 10th St. in Park Slope. Michael Castellano’s shot looks like it’s from (approx.) 362 13th Street, between 6th and 7th Ave, Park Slope, Brooklyn. Distance from camera to WTC is about 3.5 miles. The ‘plane’, if on a take off from Newark, would be 11 miles away. Just trying to help, Debs |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Aug 7 2009, 02:22 AM Post #448 |
|
Jeff...You are right, but just turn the ferry the other direction!!! Spok...Am not sure the name of the ferry I was on...and are they all the same? Miss Liberty's front doesn't look right, although you are right in generally positioning Michael and me. I don't know if we were loaded on the same ferry that we would have been put on if 9/11 had not happened. I'm going to e-mail Jeff a sketch of how I was sitting. If there was a deck above me, it was far enough in back of me that I had the "feel" of being on the top deck. Michael said he was on the upper deck, so I'm assuming we were on the same level... Everybody, thanks for going to so much work to help get this put together. TGC C |
![]() |
|
| YougeneDebs | Aug 7 2009, 05:07 AM Post #449 |
|
Hi Carmen, I noticed a few of your pictures haven’t been posted. Could we see them please? I’m very interested in #25 Statue of Liberty and #28 3:23:02. Thanks! Debs |
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 7 2009, 05:17 AM Post #450 |
|
Carmen, yes it is your and Michael's generally position that cannot be changed. See what happens.![]() That's why the remaining options can be described this way: ![]() May be there is another ferry that goes to Ellis Island but the upper deck of the Ellis Island ferry could explain why you felt like sitting on the tip while Michael indeed was 20-30ft "west" of you. He had the same elevation like you. He was to close to be on another ferry. He was to elevated to be on the dock or in the water. So there is nothing left then to find the right ferry and turn the ferry beneath your and Michael's feet. Anything else is definitely wrong. --- @Deps you are right. the reddish building in the foreground seems to be between 4th Av - 5th Av - 9th St - 10th St but it doesn't change the authenticity. And I wouldn't say it's a bird. It look pretty much like the same maneuver in the wrong place. ![]() and if you use your magic wand to select and delete the color of the sky then you need two clicks for something like this. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic » |























7:27 PM Jul 10