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.

 

Val McClatchey and Flight 93 Photo

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Val McClatchey is the woman who claims to have taken the famous photo of the black smoke plume rising above the red barn in Shanksville, PA the morning of 9/11. This is the only photographic evidence that any sort of crash took place.

Here is a YouTube video of an interview of McClatchey talking about her famous photo:



What's interesting about her interview is that she makes odd claims re the crash of Flight 93. Listen to the interview. She claims that the crash of Flight 93 almost knocked her from her sofa, that she saw a flash, and that in the 5 seconds from the time she saw the flash, she was able to grab her digital camera, and take the famous photo of the smoke rising above the barn.

She also makes claims about the FBI taking her original photo, not being able to upload it to her computer because her dog chewed the cable, and making sure that proceeds from selling the photo went to the victims' families.


She was asked how taken the photo has affected her life, and she goes into a sob story about how awful her life has been because of taken the photo, including stories about medical problems, and about how she had to close down her business because of the insurance industry taking advantage of 9/11.

This is where it gets interesting. A photo of her business is shown, and it's named JCM Industries. A Google search of JCM Industries turns up an SEC filing for Commercial National Financial Corp.

Here's a link to the filing:

sec.edgar-online.com...

In this filing, a John McClatchey is listed as a director of Commercial National Financial Group since 1990. This SEC filing also states that JCM Industries filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 20, 2001, just 9 days after 9/11. Within 6 months, the chapter 11 filing was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation, and National Financial Group was listed as a creditor.

The real kicker is that National Finanical Group stock was at its all-time low of about $14 a share just before 9/11/01. And then the stock doubled in price within a year after 9/11.

Here's a link to the stock at yahoo finance:

finance.yahoo.com...

So to summarize:

Val McClatchey sees a flash, is nearly knocked onto her sofa, and has the presence of mind to take a photo of the smoke from Flight 93 within 5 seconds of the crash. She is unable to show anybody the photo for several days because her dog chewed her computer cable. The FBI takes the original memory card with the photo.

Ms. McClatchey claims that 9/11 caused her business to go bankrupt because of insurance rates going up, and yet we discover that her flooring business, JCM Enterprises, filed bankruptcy just 9 days after 9/11. The debts of JCM Enterprises were discharged in bankruptcy, and JCM Enterprises was completely liquidated, causing 40 some people to lose their jobs.

A John McClatchey, an owner of JCM Enterprises, sits on the board of publicly traded Commercial National Financial Group, a bank holding company whose stock is at an all-time low prior to 9/11, and then doubles within a year after 9/11.

Val McClatchey's entire story seems to be problematic:

* How could the crash on the opposite side of a hill knock her off of her sofa?

* How could she then get her digital camera, turn it one, go back outside, focus the camera, and take a photo in 5 seconds?

* Why didn't she take more than one photo?

* Why didn't she make the photo public right away?

* Why did she claim that 9/11 caused her business to go bankrupt, when in fact the bankruptcy case was filed 9 days after 9/11? It takes more than 9 days to prepare a bankruptcy filing for a small business.

* Why was the stock price of Commerical National Financial Corp at an all-time low prior to 9/11? What fundamental ecominic change caused this company to double in value in the year after 9/11




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   
No comments yet? Thanks Nick for this piece. You're showing some real research skills. caveats: knocked off the sofa and the 5 second thing could be just figures of speech. I've looked at the Pentagon cloud five seconds after the crash and it wasn't up in the sky like that. This looks like at least 10-20 seconds after, maybe even a minute or two.

Otherwise very interesting... I liked her part about "there was nothing intended" in taking the photo. Who said there was? All the business connection stuff is odd - the John McClatchey is her husband, right? I'll have to look at it more another day. So I guess the question is what could happened in nine days of this photo's being taken to make them decide that was finally the time to file? That is certainly coincidental timing.

This is an odd case, unfortunatelt dovetailing with the arguments of Killtown, which I'm sure you've seen flight93photo.blogspot.com..., essentially that the photo was clearly staged but poorly enough that he could prove it with trigonometry and color anlysis. Oops again for the planners of the retard version of the inside job.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Here's some more info on Commercial National Financial Corp., (CNAF) the company of which Val McClatchey's husband, John, was a director since 1990.

CNAF only has 25 employees total, yet is worth $60 million. The company is located in Latrobe, PA, which is about 30 minutes from Shanksville, and also 30 minutes from Greensburg, PA.

I mention this because Latrobe/Greensburg is the home of another prominent, and shadowy political figure, Richard Mellon Scaife.

Scaife owns the Tribune-Review newspaper, and is famous for pursuing/instigating the rumors that Vince Foster was murdered. Scaife is also a former Heritage Foundation director, and is a billionaire.

I'm not saying at this point there's a connection between Scaife and the McClatcheys, or even Scaife and CNAF. However, Latrobe is a small town.

I think tone of the most questionable parts of Val McClatchey's story is her portrayal of being broke, and being forced to go out and carry her briefcase everyday while her husband stays home. She is stating that she is now supporting the family.

How could John McClatchey go from being one of the founding directors of a multi-million dollar bank and owner of a successful lumber mill to being forced to rely on his wife, Val, to support the family as a real estate agent? Something just isn't making sense about this whole story...

(not to mention the fact that the photo was probably faked)



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I see whatcher sayin... op sec can often circumscribe the valuable imagination circuit (which does have to be kept in chaeck but anyway).
One photo. One magic photo. A Gouge in the lawn. Plane parts shown later, but still startingly little evidence of a plane crash, at least all in one spot. Reports of debris for miles, as if they had shot it down - which I find a better than 50/50 likelihood. There could be a cover-up since as people point out, it would have a cloud in the sky too trailing down. And guess whose magic photo show's that there was no such cloud?

still in check but I'll allow myself at least that speculation.

Hmmm... No wonder people are all over this. I sense possible smoking gun, possible honeytrap, but I'm intrigued.

So yeah, sorry KT - this does at least make some sense and I'm keeping an open mind. I'd still wonder tho why they didn't fake it right



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Plane parts shown later, but still startingly little evidence of a plane crash, at least all in one spot. Reports of debris for miles, as if they had shot it down - which I find a better than 50/50 likelihood. There could be a cover-up since as people point out, it would have a cloud in the sky too trailing down. And guess whose magic photo show's that there was no such cloud?


I was reading the 9/11 Commission Report again about Steve O'Brien, the pilot of the C-130H that "magically" saw both the Pentagon crash and the Flight 93 crash site.

Then I decided to re-read the entire Northwoods document.

Northwoods talked about faking commercial airline crashes, including having a submarine rise up from the ocean and spread debris on the surface.

Considering nothing else makes much sense, how far-fetched is it that the C-130H could have been the source of the debris at either the Pentagon or the Flight 93 site?

This would explain why there was no eye-witnesses to a smoke trail from Flight 93 being shot down, and why debris drifted a couple miles away to Indian Lake. A C-130H is certainly large enough to hold the debris. This would also explain why the FAA was so anxious to evacuate the control towers that could have spotted the C-130 on radar.


Hmmm... No wonder people are all over this. I sense possible smoking gun, possible honeytrap, but I'm intrigued.



After visiting the site, there's no way McClatchey's photo can be legit, in my humble opinion. You can't appreciate the scale of size involved just from the photos or from the google earth maps. Just over the hill from the second barn in the photo, there is a huge expanse of land that reaches to the next tree line. The McClatchey photo makes it look like the crash was right over the hillside. No chance.

Now this isn't to say that this proves a conspiracy. It might only prove that McClathey is a fraud and opportunist, and that the FBI didn't bother debunking her story publicly because of the can of worms it would open.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I never thought of it in that aspect. How come there arent any photos of flight 93? Why isn't there any photos of wreckage? Intersting how they will show a guarded pentagon blown up, but a crash in a field. All too fishy....



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261This is where it gets interesting. A photo of her business is shown, and it's named JCM Industries. A Google search of JCM Industries turns up an SEC filing for Commercial National Financial Corp.

Here's a link to the filing:

sec.edgar-online.com...

In this filing, a John McClatchey is listed as a director of Commercial National Financial Group since 1990. This SEC filing also states that JCM Industries filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 20, 2001, just 9 days after 9/11. Within 6 months, the chapter 11 filing was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation, and National Financial Group was listed as a creditor.

The real kicker is that National Finanical Group stock was at its all-time low of about $14 a share just before 9/11/01. And then the stock doubled in price within a year after 9/11.

Here's a link to the stock at yahoo finance:

finance.yahoo.com...

1st, thanks for taking interest in this issue!

2nd, nice find! I'll be adding this to my Flight 93 Photo Fraud blog.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261Val McClatchey's entire story seems to be problematic:

1) How could the crash on the opposite side of a hill knock her off of her sofa?

2) How could she then get her digital camera, turn it one, go back outside, focus the camera, and take a photo in 5 seconds?

3) Why didn't she take more than one photo?

4) Why didn't she make the photo public right away?

5) Why did she claim that 9/11 caused her business to go bankrupt, when in fact the bankruptcy case was filed 9 days after 9/11? It takes more than 9 days to prepare a bankruptcy filing for a small business.

6) Why was the stock price of Commerical National Financial Corp at an all-time low prior to 9/11? What fundamental ecominic change caused this company to double in value in the year after 9/11

Well I'll give you the official story:

1) Technically she said "almost" knocked her off. She also said her house is on a giant rock slab along with the "crash" site which she said that they feel all the tremors from all the past mine explosions.

2) She claims to have had it "ready by the door" awaiting a helicopter flyover from a friend the same morning (cause you know, helicopter flyovers happen all the time!).

3) Cause she "dropped" her camera and the battery door got ajar and she couldn't close it back up.

4) It sat in her camera for a few days, because according to her, it was "just a photograph of something".

5) They filed bankruptcy on 9/20, but blames the insurance yikes after 9/11 for their final demise.

6) Good question!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
What doesn't make sense to me from this photo is that it is supposed to be of an airliner that has just crashed in the woods, yet all it shows is one mushroom cloud that ends just above the treeline. Now I'm no expert but but if a 50-60 tonne aircraft full of kerosine and combustible material(seats,luggage etc.), crashed to the ground shouldn't the photo show a continual column of smoke and flame not just one puff of smoke? This photo seems to give weight to the theory mentioned in 'Loose change' about someone just detonating a pile of plane wreckage with explosives.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
You're 100% correct. Go to about 1:45 in this video and you'll see what it looked like at the Pentagon re smoke on 9/11.





posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
From information uncovered in another thread, I'm convinced the photo shows evidence of a bomb blast, not a plane crash.

Personally, I think it was a bomb from an unmarked A-10 from the 104th Fighter Squadron, part of the 175th Wing of the Maryland Air National Guard stationed at Martin State Airport in northeast Baltimore that made that crater.

175th Wing

Heck, maybe the C-130H came from there, too.




From the 9/11 Commission Report

9:34 an Air National Guard C130H takes off in the Washington DC area (from what specific location is unknown). This ANG plane is allowed to take-off 8 minutes after the FAA ground stop was called. And, yes, I understand that we are talking about FAA and military differences - I'm sure there's some extremely critical reason a cargo plane needed to take off allegedly to do nothing more than fly to Minnesota - in the middle of all hell breaking loose.
_____________________________________________________________

From Susan Mcelwain, eyewitness

"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.

"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."

link
thread link


I'm telling you, Sue saw the A-10 that dropped the bomb that caused the crater that Dick claimed the plane made.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
She heard and explosion and then ran outside. Could the explosion she heard be the engine hit by the cannon fire of the F-16's that shot down 93?
This is a very interesting piece that you have posted.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Well, well, well. What a surprise to see you cap my post on the A-10 here in this thread, esdad71. The last we hear of it in your thread is this:


o.p. by JMC5499
I'm not ignoring you Icarus. I'm trying to find your damned plane. It sounds familiar to me.


I'm convinced Flt. 93 did not crash in that field. Where did it end up? Now that is a good question.

The more I think about it, the more I think it was blown out of the sky, causing the debris field, and the rest is for government propaganda purposes only.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]


kix

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I have crazy glued my digital camera to my right hand, so in the event of a airplane crash I WILL snap it..LOL

The incredible thing about 9.11 are the little tidbits of information that do not add up, so inch by inch the real history is being put together, in 2001 any kind of intel like this would be blasted by non patriot, traitor shouts..now even the staunchiest of debunkers, read this samll peieces of info and go...Ummmm...

great find!



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
A John McClatchey, an owner of JCM Enterprises, sits on the board of publicly traded Commercial National Financial Group, a bank holding company whose stock is at an all-time low prior to 9/11, and then doubles within a year after 9/11.

So, he did 911? John McClatchey?

How many other stocks are doing better now than in early 2001?


How could the crash on the opposite side of a hill knock her off of her sofa?

It couldn't, she clearly exxagerated.


How could she then get her digital camera, turn it one, go back outside, focus the camera, and take a photo in 5 seconds?

Why does it have to be 5 seconds?
This is on 911, after two planes have hit NYC and a third hits DC.


Why didn't she take more than one photo?

Maybe she was horrified at what had happened and didn't want to contiue snappning photos like a voyeur?


* Why didn't she make the photo public right away?

Why shoudl she?


* Why did she claim that 9/11 caused her business to go bankrupt, when in fact the bankruptcy case was filed 9 days after 9/11?

Maybe she's a liar, maybe she blames lots of things on 911 that it had nothing to do with.


What fundamental ecominic change caused this company to double in value in the year after 9/11

I guess you'd have to ask the people buying the stock, no?


I mention this because Latrobe/Greensburg is the home of another prominent, and shadowy political figure, Richard Mellon Scaife.

Its also the home of Rolling Rock Beer. Clearly there is a conspiracy, because that beer is popular, but its piss.


Considering nothing else makes much sense, how far-fetched is it that the C-130H could have been the source of the debris at either the Pentagon or the Flight 93 site?

Since people saw the plane crash into the pentagon, it'd be pretty far fetched indeed. And why would the c130 go to the pentagon, then go to shanksville to dump debris?
Why wouldn't the government just have Flight 93 crash there????

, and why debris drifted a couple miles away to Indian Lake

The only debris I have heard about that did that was paper, is there some other debris?

This would also explain why the FAA was so anxious to evacuate the control towers that could have spotted the C-130 on radar.

What prupose woudl that serve? They've admited tha tthe C130 was there. Where is Flight 93 if not in shanksville? Why would there be debris spread 'indicating it was shot down', if they planted a mock-up with the c130?

The McClatchey photo makes it look like the crash was right over the hillside. No chance.

What does that matter? Its an issue of persepctive. This is the photo:

It only looks like its 'just over the hill' because there's so much smoke and because it is behind the hill. There's nothing intentional about that, it certainly doesn't show that its faked.
How could the photo be faked anyway? If the government planted debris and smoke there, then the photo would be a real and accurate photo, but of a decptive event, and have nothing to do with McClatchey.



AlphaAnuOmega
I never thought of it in that aspect. How come there arent any photos of flight 93? Why isn't there any photos of wreckage?

There are photos of Flight 93 and the wreckage.


DrunkenPikey
crashed to the ground shouldn't the photo show a continual column of smoke and flame not just one puff of smoke?

Thats a still photo, thats why you don't see a continuously rising column of smoke. The mushroom shape doesn't have to wait until all the smoke has risen to form.


esdad71
Could the explosion she heard be the engine hit by the cannon fire of the F-16's that shot down 93?

Doesnt' the one explosion make more sense as the sound of a crashing plane, rather than an exploding bomb hitting the plane, and then a silent plane crash?


icarus rising
Where did it end up? Now that is a good question.

Can someone just explain to me why the government, if it did all this, and hijacked or remote controlled flight 93, didn't just crash it?

Also, so many peopel think that the various radar and control stations around the US should've been able to pinpoint, at anymoment, the hijacked planes. SO why don't any of them show flight 93 after it, in this theory, didn't crash????

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Bow down, bow down, to the master debunker, or be destroyed, destroyed by his superior intellect and caustic wit.

Who says Flt. 93 stayed in flight? If it was blown out of the sky and the government wanted to cover up the fact that they had just destroyed a domestic civilian aircraft with innocent US citizens aboard, couldn't they cook up a scenario that had it crashing due to patriotic passengers sacrificing their own lives to protect others? They could and they would. Maybe they even did.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Ok, again,

if the government was controlling FLight 93, why did they shoot it down, or hide it and plant debris, when they could've just crashed it?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
A jetliner loaded with fuel is struck by missiles or cannon fire and explodes in mid-air (maybe the source of the booms described by witnesses). How much is going to be left to fall to the ground? We are talking a massive fireball from the jet fuel exploding.

But the government would be understandably reluctant to admit what they had done. So they have the A-10 drop a bomb in the field (three minutes later) to make it look like the plane was taken over by the passengers (very noble and patriotic) but crashed by the hijackers (those dirty, rotten terrorists).

I know, this scenario is as full of holes as the official version, but I am not having a good day, and it is difficult for me to communicate with my usual clarity.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

if the government was controlling FLight 93, why did they shoot it down, or hide it and plant debris, when they could've just crashed it?


It's not always useful to think of the government as one entity in which every single employee has the same goals at any given moment.

Three planes had already made their targets (or so let's assume), and now a 4th obvious hijacking is taking place a ridiculously long time after the 1st, in terms of historical intercepts. I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone from our air force shot it down with completely honest intentions, disobeying any stand-down orders or etc.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
A jetliner loaded with fuel is struck by missiles or cannon fire and explodes in mid-air (maybe the source of the booms described by witnesses). How much is going to be left to fall to the ground? We are talking a massive fireball from the jet fuel exploding.

But the government would be understandably reluctant to admit what they had done. So they have the A-10 drop a bomb in the field (three minutes later) to make it look like the plane was taken over by the passengers (very noble and patriotic) but crashed by the hijackers (those dirty, rotten terrorists).

So in this formulation, terrorists did do 911, and did hijack Flight 93. Why would they happen to have a jet ready to drop a bomb, and fake flight 93 plane wreckage, on hand?
And what happens to the plane once its shot down? Its not going to vapourize.


I know, this scenario is as full of holes as the official version

I think that the official version has many less holes, to tell the truth.

And I dont' see why they would realyl bother to cover up that they shot down flight 93. All because, as this terror attack was going on, they decided that it'd be better to be able to say that passengers fought back, that it'd be inspiring?
And they faked the phone calls before shooting down the plane too?

If they shot it down, people'd accept it. It've been necessary. Tragic, but necessary. There's no need to cover it up.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join