Quote:

 

Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: I emailed Kathy Cacicedo

what's funny is supposedly a plane, as she says, is zooming over her head, and she takes a shot of the towers, like she knows that it is headed there.

alexldent <alexldent@...> wrote:
Did she say if she got anyother photos of the plane-- or just the one?

I see she has a perfectly timed photo of the south tower explosion on her webpage, and
some collapse photos:
http://www.kcphotographer.com/pageswhen/pagewhenskyline.html

Hmm, I like how she admits she does photo graphics on her site:
http://www.kcphotographer.com/pagedesignprint.html

I'm sure as a "pro", she had to know that a picture of the plane was worth WAY more than
just another pic of the burning towers....


--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, mirandapreistly wrote:
>
> I agree that it is proved, but I meant if you can tell from looking at film or tape or
whatever. I am not a photo person.
> james_ha175 wrote: good for you benedictrove!
> i too am sick of perps and perp wannabees getting away with it simply
> by calling us "cowardly conspiradroids etc."
> alex (spooked) says that his analyses of her photo reveals it to have
> a conflicting flightpath to flightpaths from other vids/"photos" and
> that is good enough for me - he has proven (IMO) to be one of the
> premiere 9/11 analysts.
>
> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, mirandapreistly
> wrote:
> >
> > kcacicedo@
> >
> > she is a blatant fraud. She wrote back and told me to "get a
> grip" and called me a "coward". She told me she had a "sussesful"
> (her spelling, lol) business and she couldn't help if the film was
> grainy from a leftover art project as the plane ZOOMED over her
> head. LOLOLOL. She told me I was trying to "insight" an argument.
> She is dumb sounding.
> >
> > Here is more:
> > "my photos are 100 % real - I have a set of NEGATIVES to prove
> it - my FILM was hand developed at NJ's largest newspaper photo lab
> with at least 100 witnesses in the room when I got there to deliver
> the FILM - and they developed it.....it was published around the
> world in books and magazines in more than 11 countries and for the
> icing on the cake my FILM was requested by the US government to study
> the path of the smoke to determine the speed of the plane"
> >
> > I said "100? How many of them were FBI?" LOL.
> > I'm sick of not saying anything. There must be some honest
> powerful people left. I can't stand this anymore. I am literally
> going nuts. My congressman is McDermott, but he has tried to fight
> them before and has literally millions of dollars in legal bills to
> show for it. I'm sure he knows, but isn't taken seriously, like
> anyone who wants to really represent the american people isn't.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > alexldent wrote:
> > Cool, good job!
> >
> > I actually did some analysis of her photo with Flight Simulator and
> the approach path
> > seems to conflict with a couple videos as far as I could tell.
> >
> > I am quite convinced that the photos of all the planes are faked.
> >
> > Can you give me her email address?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, mirandapreistly wrote:
> > >
> > > I read Nico's blog about it, and I saw that ridiculous picture
> and on a whim I emailed her
> > and asked her if she actually saw flight 175. She wrote back and
> said of course she did
> > and then called me a conspiracy moron. I wrote her back and told
> her she should be
> > ashamed of herself and that her "work" looked like a bad family
> photo album. What's
> > weird is a long time ago when I still believed in planes (which is
> embarrassing but goes to
> > show how deep the tv brain washing is) I emailed that Body Atomic
> guy and he emailed me
> > back with an almost identical comment except I wasn't questioning
> the plane, I remember
> > being fascinated with smoke and other stuff going on..argh. I
> wonder if they are told what
> > to tell people or if they just stuck planes in hoping to make
> money.
> > > I wonder if people can be sued for what they did? Is it possible
> to "prove" in court that
> > a photo was edited or faked? Are there witnesses that are
> recognized for that kind of
> > thing?
> > > Also, is there a way to prove the televised images were fake?
> (Other than that it's
> > obvious, I mean, a technical way to prove it.)
> > >
source:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/message/17678

Beat

 

Some possibly should have done but the closest to multiple shots is this collection ...

broken sticks

May 28 2009, 09:53 PM

she says she wasn't shooting when it went through the clouds, after that photo of the plane we all know, but still shot loads more. i assume she means the smoke when she says it goes behind the clouds, but when does it do this? maybe when its really close, possibly, but still, does it really? park foreman has a bit of smoke by the building, but its to the south-east, so wouldn't it have always been in front of the smoke from her perspective, not actually in the smoke?

beatprophet

Apr 16 2009, 06:21 PM

Another good point I believe E/Room ..

As far as I know there was nobody to capture more than one photograph of flight 175

Some possibly should have done but the closest to multiple shots is this collection ...