It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo [may be] fake

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
My recent analysis of Val McClatchey's infamous Flight 93 photo made the mainstream media:

(Note that I edited the title in the subject line to accurately reflect my beliefs. The original title written by the reporter was misleading of course!)



Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo is fake

Sunday, August 06, 2006

By Caitlin Cleary, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette





But Mrs. McClatchey's fame has recently taken a sour turn. The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," who are seeking to prove that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, pierced the Pentagon and crashed United Airlines Flight 93. "The End of Serenity" has turned out to be their smoking gun.

The smoke plume doesn't line up right, they say. It is too large in the frame. The smoke is characteristic of an ordnance blast, not a jet fuel fire, further evidence that the government shot down Flight 93. They analyze wind direction, debris patterns and camera trajectories, all in the service of the theory that the crash was faked.

~

"If the smoke plume was photo-shopped on there, then that could mean either that the photo was simply a fraud by Val, or it was a fraud by her and the FBI and/or other government agents since she did mention that the FBI did inspect the memory card from her camera," writes a blogger identified as Killtown.

~

About Mrs. McClatchey's "End of Serenity," Killtown concludes that either the smoke plume in the photo came from a bomb blast closer to her house, or that the picture was faked by Mrs. McClatchey or the FBI. Killtown writes: "If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case, then Val, you got some splainin' to do!"

~

Mrs. McClatchey still occasionally gets requests for copies of "End of Serenity." She prints them out on her personal printer, and says she has no idea how many hundreds or thousands of dollars the photo has raised for the Heroic Choices charity. She operates on the honor system, she says, and simply forwards the checks to them. Representatives from the charity did not return calls requesting comment.

Mrs. McClatchey has begun accepting some money, on account of her copyright action against The Associated Press, which, she says, distributed her photo without her permission.

"So here I am, in the middle of this nasty lawsuit," she said. "I have kept some of the money, because now I have some legal fees. It's very unfortunate, because I was trying to do the right thing."

www.post-gazette.com...



I wrote a resonse to this article you can read here.

You can find my initial blogpost analysis of her photo and latest new blogpost with recent evidence uncovered about Mrs. McClatchey through that same link.


I basical have come to two conclusions about her photo:


1) It is genuine and is a photo of an ordnance blast from a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed.

2) The smoke plume was photoshopped on there and Val and the FBI were in on it.



So in other words, whether her photo is real or fake, it still proves some sort of conspiracy.

I'd like to know if anyone feels that I'm wrong about any of my two conclusions.



Here is the final analysis image I made that shows that the plume in Val's photo was way too big to have come from the crash area:



The grey lines on the satellite photo indicate the width of the plume seen in Val's photo (black lines). The orange "explosions" are what I think would be more of the size of a realistic explosion from a loaded 757. Notice that her camera direction (yellow arrow), which is lined up with the middle of the plumes narrow column, doesn't even line up with the crash site!

Important factors to note, wind was at 9 knots SE at the crash area and Val claims she took the photo "about 5 seconds" after she "almost got knocked off the couch" inside her house from the explosion. By looking at the plume in her photo, the plume still looks like it's in its infancy stage and looks unaffected by any wind, consistent with Val saying she took the photo about 5 seconds after the explosion.

All quotes can be found at the above link.





[edit on 11-8-2006 by Killtown]

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Killtown]




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well done!


You put quite a bit of effort into the analysis, which is a good thing. You have made yor case pretty good.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Oh and in case you were wondering, she does have a motive to be in on it!

Watch here video interview (kinda long, 30 min):

www.windsorparkstories.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well done Killtown, I've come across a few of your reports on the www. many times.
But could you tell me how you came upon the size of the plum, not that I saying it's wrong I would just like to know about it.

You have voted Killtown for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.




edit to add
I think the plane was shot down. What do you think happened to it then if it was not?

Some interesting comment on your Blog


[edit on 11/8/2006 by Sauron]

[edit on 11/8/2006 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Well done Killtown, I've come across a few of your reports on the www. many times.
But could you tell me how you came upon the size of the plum, not that I saying it's wrong I would just like to know about it.

I think the plane was shot down. What do you think happened to it then if it was not?

Thanks!

Plume size was based on large plane crashes I've seen on video such as the B-52 crash:

www.youtube.com...

(Here's what an ordnance blast looks like btw: www.youtube.com... )


And then I increased it to cover the entire forest section that got burnt. So really, I think this explosion size it still bigger than the size of plume would have been created in the few seconds from when the crash happened and when Val said she snapped the pic "5 seconds" later, even allowing for a couple extra seconds for the blast wave to hit her house (if that really happened).


About where UA 93 went, I think the Cleveland Airport theory is strong, especially since you had the NASA base next door.

If any plane was shot down near the area, I don't believe it as shot down at the Shanksville scene (that was all staged). Possibly something was shot down over New Baltimore, but I still have my doubts about that. You'd think somebody would have seen a large smoke trail from a downed airliner somewhere.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Here is my latest showing Val McClatchey's Flight 93 plume photo compared to what a real plane crash plume would have looked like if it came from the alleged crash spot:





posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Impressive work, but this leaves a lingering question; what blew up? I don't have the expertise in the flight 93 area I'd like to, but... let's assume the plane landed in Ohio and that if anything was shot down, it was shot down over New Baltimore. Next question, what was shot down? I'd like to assume that given I agree with you on the Shanksville site being a total fake, perhaps they were preparing another "crater" near that area in case it better suited their purposes. You've got my WATS vote this month

-Evil



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
New animated gif uploaded at my blog...




(animated gif by Rumpl4skn)



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by evilengineer
Impressive work, but this leaves a lingering question; what blew up? I don't have the expertise in the flight 93 area I'd like to, but... let's assume the plane landed in Ohio and that if anything was shot down, it was shot down over New Baltimore. Next question, what was shot down? I'd like to assume that given I agree with you on the Shanksville site being a total fake, perhaps they were preparing another "crater" near that area in case it better suited their purposes. You've got my WATS vote this month

-Evil


Thanks man!

Since we've proven the plume in Val's pic DID NOT come from the crash spot, it's not up to us to guess what did what. It's on the govt's hands to tell us.

Remember though, this photo may be a fake, but if that's the case, the FBI's hands are all over that too because they took her camera's memory card for more "analysis" days after she took the photo! My guess is they'll just pin it on Val if that happens.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Great, don't you just love the number of filthy paradoxes the powers that be have thrown in our faces to attempt to force the official story down our throats? If the photo was real, it's such a big explosion, only they can tell us what it is- and they wont since they hold the cards. If the photo is faked, they can say "See Val faked it- very elaborately - before we took her memory card, those 9/11 truthers are insane." In an attempt to get my mind out of this horrible loop, I ask one more question. Why would the FBI even bother faking a photograph that doesn't conform to their story? Okay, so it's probably a psy-op of some form, but that just leads me back to the whole loop. My head hurts.

-evil



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

You have voted Killtown for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


This is a banner day for ATS in my mind, so many quality posts coming out on many many topics. Most months I don't even remember I have WATS votes to give, but this month I spent all three in 24 hours.

Thank you, killtown, for the time and effort you put on this, and for then sharing it with us. I look forward to following this thread and see what comes of all this.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
just out of curiosity... did she only take ONE picture? surely if something crashed or blew up down the road from you, you would be snapping away taking as many pictures as possible, and especially so if you already were aware of the previous events that had occured that day.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
just out of curiosity... did she only take ONE picture? surely if something crashed or blew up down the road from you, you would be snapping away taking as many pictures as possible, and especially so if you already were aware of the previous events that had occured that day.


She claims she dropped her camera afterward and the battery came loose.


Val McClatchey snapped the single picture with her new digital camera. The wife and mother had been sitting on the edge of her sofa, clutching her second cup of coffee and watching the smoking towers of the World Trade Center on TV, when she heard the sudden surge of a plane engine, followed by a violent, house-shaking boom. Mrs. McClatchey grabbed the camera and ran onto the front porch of her house along Indian Lake.

"I didn't even aim. I was just like, 'Oh, my God,' " she said. She dropped the camera, jolting the battery loose, then tried in vain to call her husband, son and daughter. She had no idea what she'd captured until the state police put a call out to people in the area, asking for photos, debris and other evidence. She took a printout of her photo to the police, she said, and, within an hour, FBI agents were at her house.

www.post-gazette.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
screwloosechange.xbehome.com...

There's a map 2/3's down on the second page showing the direction of the wind, which would be able to push the plume to it's position in the photo in under a minute.



consistent with Val saying she took the photo about 5 seconds after the explosion.





The wife and mother had been sitting on the edge of her sofa, clutching her second cup of coffee and watching the smoking towers of the World Trade Center on TV, when she heard the sudden surge of a plane engine, followed by a violent, house-shaking boom. Mrs. McClatchey grabbed the camera and ran onto the front porch of her house along Indian Lake.


Given the plume could have reached it's location in the photo in under a minute, then I can only conclude you know your lieing, but your trying to get away with it. You were shown this at the screw loose change forum, but would never admit you could be wrong and tried the same crap over here.




1) It is genuine and is a photo of an ordnance blast from a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed.


How do you know a plane couldn't have made this type of plume?

[edit on 13-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
haha, the chaos theory destroys your case and the plume is due ot massive amounts of dust being trown into the air (the plane crazed on an old strip mine field)



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
1) There's a map 2/3's down on the second page showing the direction of the wind, which would be able to push the plume to it's position in the photo in under a minute.

2) How do you know a plane couldn't have made this type of plume?

1) Yes, but not where I claim it had to originate from, the orange explosion icon to the right in my diagram.

2) Have you ever seen a large plane still mostly laden with fuel cause that color of plume?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   


1) It is genuine and is a photo of an ordnance blast from a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed.


Show your evidence for this, and explain why noone else reported this plume.



2) The smoke plume was photoshopped on there and Val and the FBI were in on it.


Even if it was photoshopped, that doesn't prove the Val or the FBI were in on it. She could have done it on her own.

You have provided no evidence it was photoshopped or that the plume was 'too big'.

Someone accually consult an expert about this, he concluded that the plume size was
'not unrealistic'.

forums.randi.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I found these photos that may help you more technically inclined persons to figure out the legitimacy of the plume. They are rather interesting (especially the lower ones that sow it from a long time ago)

Pics

And can ne1 explaine to me WHY the FBI is so involved!? I mean, it seems a liitle over the top for what happened (what where they trying to get that a 5 man field team couldnt!?!?!?!?)

And i think this is rather intersting too

Huh!?

IMHO, if there is a 9/11 conspiracy then it is here, Flight 93. It all works out very well:

-Hijacked plane (legit lets say)
-US Jets shoot it down
-People reprt seeing a white jet in the sky (probably silver but light reflection)
-Gov denies jet there b/c they dont want to have to tell US citizens that they killed Americans
-to expalin why it crashed, they make this story of heroism up
-FBI does large investigation to make sure there is no trace other than eyewitnesses who can easily be excused

IDK, just speculation (i dont mean to offend anyone related to a 9/11 victim and im soory if this has already been posted)

Another thing about the heroism story (i believe that those people tried to do something) is that wouldnt the auto pilot most likely be on until they were within range of their target. So, for the plane to spiral as it did it wouldve either have made a nose-up ascent and stalled or it would have to have been shot at.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]

[edit on 16-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I don't see how those show anything about the plume, but here's a picture from a concord crash:
image.guardian.co.uk...

Looks a lot like the flight 93 plume.

I have to say the conspiracy you thought up makes much more sense that most of what I've seen on this forum and others. From what I've read the other plane was one that was already in flight and was asked to check out flight 93. I don't want to derail this thread, and I don't have the sources right now, so I'm not going to debate it here.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy


1) It is genuine and is a photo of an ordnance blast from a different location than where we were told Flight 93 crashed.

Show your evidence for this, and explain why noone else reported this plume.


2) The smoke plume was photoshopped on there and Val and the FBI were in on it.

Even if it was photoshopped, that doesn't prove the Val or the FBI were in on it. She could have done it on her own.

1) Evidence here. Well yes that's a good question, WHY didn't anybody esle report the plume that Val supposedly took a picture of?!

2) So it doesn't prove Val did it, but she could have done it on her own?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join