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

Val is suing the AP for $150,000:

Lawsuit over 9/11 photo heads to trial

April 12, 2007
BY SANDRA K. REABUCK
The Tribune-Democrat

SHANKSVILLE — A Somerset County woman’s lawsuit is headed for trial on whether The Associated Press infringed on the copyright of the famous photo she took seconds after the crash of United Flight 93.
~
U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry of Pittsburgh refused to throw out the lawsuit Valencia McClatchey filed in 2005 against The AP.
~
She is seeking at least $150,000 in damages, plus any profits AP realized.

So if she is not keeping a penny from selling copies of her photo and all her money is going to charity, why in the world is she suing the AP for $150,000? Is she going to give all that money away if she wins?

Val still has never explained how she is keeping profits from her photo to help fight her lawsuit.

I thought all the money went to charity?

To back up what you wrote here, I did a quick bit of trig when nick7261 was looking into this. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Someone please check my math - I'm a bit rustier than I thought!

hyp = 1.6 x 5280 ft = 8448 ft

ASSUMING the drawing is to scale, and drawn accurately, my best measurement for the angle is 16°. Note that it is an oblique triangle, with two equal sides. By halving the angle, we get a new angle of 8 degrees, thus forming a right-angle and are now calculating half the distance of the opposite side.

tan theta = opp / hyp

tan 8° = ??? / 8448

therefore:

??? = tan 8 x 8448

??? = 0.14054 x 8448

??? = 1187.289 ft

In light of only calculating half the distance, we can safely double this side as it is mirrored on the otherside, thus:

1187.289 ft x 2 = 2374.578 ft

QED.

I calculate that the plume of smoke is 2374.578 ft wide. Not bad for a crater just 150 ft wide, and 1.6 miles away.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

A resident of Shanksville says this famous photo showing a mushroom cloud allegedly from Flight 93 crashing is fake.



Snip of conversation:

Caller: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo.

Shanksville local: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud.

Caller: It what?

Local: There was no mushroom cloud.

Caller: So it was a fake photo?

Local: Yeah.

Caller: Her photo's faked?

Local: Yeah.

Caller: For what? For money?

Local: Yeah.

Caller: Why, do you know that for sure?

Local: Yeah!

Find full conversation here.

No skeptic whether it be a skeptic of the entire 9/11 inside job theory or a Skeptic of Killtown has EVER debunked his claim. I mean truly debunked, not just attacking him or asking him for his identity. This is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the movement. Someone debunk this, or lets get AP the info to counter sue Val haha.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by SparkOfLife]

Originally posted by SparkOfLife
No skeptic whether it be a skeptic of the entire 9/11 inside job theory or a Skeptic of Killtown has EVER debunked his claim. I mean truly debunked, not just attacking him or asking him for his identity. This is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the movement. Someone debunk this, or lets get AP the info to counter sue Val haha.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by SparkOfLife]

The the plume is fake, the crash site is faked, the evidence was planted and faked. No one has been able to prove a plane crashed in Shanskvile/somerset on 911 and because of this fact the shootdown disinforamtion campaign promoting the shootdown thoery will make its rounds hoping to obsefucate the truth that Flight 93 DID NOTcrashed in Shanksville.

When they planned 911 they also planned the disinformation and they were betting on conspiracy nuts to eat up all their contradicting, conflicting reports, stirring up the hive as the perps laugh in saftey while eveyone argues, thermite, no thermate, no missile pods, laser beams, holograms.

Originally posted by SparkOfLife
No skeptic whether it be a skeptic of the entire 9/11 inside job theory or a Skeptic of Killtown has EVER debunked his claim. I mean truly debunked.......

Please read these threads. Very informative regarding his accusations about a fake photo.

forums.randi.org...

forums.randi.org...


in part:

For a sense of scale:
Working at the longitude of the crater, KT's "plume" vectors add ~171 meters of width over my estimate. (my estimate at that longitude is ~584 meters)
To look at it another way, his plume width at that longitude is ~783 meters; that's 134% larger.

That's about 10 meters of difference on the white barn, and about 5.5 meters of difference on the red barn.

The diameter to the outer ring of his "Realistic Explosion Size" is ~263 meters, and to the inner ring is ~150 meters. Consider the widest part of the debris field is ~130 meters and the widest part of the burn area is ~81 meters.

He also has the crater ~55 meters NE of actual (center to center of craters).

Since he has it marked, mid crater (mine) to closest point on the pond (where the engine was found) is 265 meters. To the center of pond, 311 meters, and to the furthest edge 381 meters. NOTE: The pond is in the middle of my estimated plume stem size. If the engine ended up there, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that other burning debris was strewn between the point of impact and there as well.

Taking his "Realistic Explosion Size" max, we have to move his "Possible Burn Mark" ~285 meters west to fit into my plume width.

After Killtown was shown diagrams that show his errors, he stated this:

If anybody still wants to debate Val's Flight 93 plume photo, come on over to LC ...

s15.invisionfree.com...


I'm done with this forum with useless moderators.

- Killtown

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Please read these threads. Very informative regarding his accusations about a fake photo.

forums.randi.org...

forums.randi.org...

Read this, blah, Randi debunker forums, blah, blah, "KT's "plume" vectors add ~171 meters of width over my estimate", blah, blah, blah...

Just listen to what the woman's daughter says:





[edit on 25-7-2008 by GoldenFleece]

Is there any evidence to prove that call is genuine?

(I may back the possibility of no Flight 93, but I still demand evidence either way. ).

I don't understand what longitude has to do with the smoke plume - see my calcs for how it's really done. No trickery, no blinding with science - just mathematics.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Is there any evidence to prove that call is genuine?

What makes you think it's not?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Please read these threads. Very informative regarding his accusations about a fake photo.

forums.randi.org...

forums.randi.org...

You mean: "[A lot of ad-hom attacks] regarding his accusations about a fake photo"

After Killtown was shown diagrams that show his errors

What were the errors? That snippet didn't make sense to me.

After Killtown was shown diagrams that show his errors he stated this:

If anybody still wants to debate Val's Flight 93 plume photo, come on over to LC ...

s15.invisionfree.com...

I'm done with this forum with useless moderators.

- Killtown

forums.randi.org...

You mean: "After Killtown [was insulted over and over and called "KKKilltown" over and over again] he stated this"