Flight 93 Smoke Plume Pic was a HOAX! For sure!

Recently a thread came up at the CIT forum, which is very important, and shows that Val McClatchey's famous smoke plume picture of the red barn and the mushroom cloud was a fabricated hoax. Imperative Read, for sure!

z3.invisionfree.com...

The highlights of this post include that once an elevation map is drawn, and lines of sight taken into account:

1) the "mushroom cloud" does not line up with the actual crash site

2) given the ground elevations involved and the actual rate of climb of the plume, the picture taken was impossible from her vantage point.

3) The age of the cloud relative to when she said she took the photo do not jive for several reasons

4) The diameter of the cloud was wrong

5) Known wind speeds and disturbances that day do not support this black cloud at all

Author's conclusion:

Conclusion:

Apart from the fact that even if a B757 crashed near Shanksville there was simply not enough energy to produce a mushroom cloud then:

If someway a "mushroom cloud" existed in the very first seconds, there is absolute no way under the atmospheric conditions of that day to keep it stable so long that Val McClatchey´s camera had a chance to "see" it.

This spells the definite "End of Serenity" for Val McClatchey´s picture.

Meaning, of course that is was fabricated. By who?

Well, let's consider:

What 3 letter agency also shut down Able Danger, and were accused of criminal negligence and obstruction of justice by one of their own agents?

articles.latimes.com...

What 3 letter agency yanked the serial numbers of the FDR's when they supplied them to the NTSB for analysis, thereby effectively concealing the true identities of the planes?

What 3 letter agency was responsible for confiscating all the videos around the Pentagon?

What 3 letter agency had the names of 19 hijackers plastered on the TV screens of America within 72 hours of the attacks?

What 3 letter agency still has Osama Bin Laden listed as a top wanted terrorist and yet has never indicted him for the crime of 9/11 due to lack of evidence?

What 3 letter agency went to Susan McElwain's house in Shanksville to make sure she "knew" the correct story?

What 3 letter agency had the nerve to even code name their very own investigation of the 9/11 attacks “PENTTBOM”- implying that there were bombs at the Pentagon?

What 3 letter agency denies ever having recovered the black boxes at ground zero when we have the testimony of the first responder who drove them there in an ATV to pick them up?

Give me an F

Give me a B

Give me an I

That'd be my guess on who fabricated this photo:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11686c463eed.jpg[/atsimg]

Read the whole thread please for more information:

z3.invisionfree.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican



Ohhh interesting find, 20 plus minutes with no debunking but when it does come my money is on character defamation, and a known flaw with the camera she used painting a completely different picture to what was taken .

Originally posted by Seventh
Ohhh interesting find, 20 plus minutes with no debunking but when it does come my money is on character defamation, and a known flaw with the camera she used painting a completely different picture to what was taken

.

OR, it may simply be the case we're ignoring it becuase we find it silly that the gov't would go out and make a fake crash site in order to trick us, and then put out disinformation to hide all the work they put into making the fake crash site meant to trick us. On the other hand, we see the FAA rarely released any detailed photos of any other crash site, NOT becuase of any supposed conspiracy, but becuase they usually likewise contain photos of human beings turned into bloody blobs of goo, so it should be obvious why they wouldn't release photos of this crash site either.

There, a debunking without character defamation. You owe us money, now.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Which 3-letter agency went around confiscating everybody's cameras and film and videos and video cameras within minutes including:

Jason Ingersoll at the Pentagon
Geoff Metcalf at the Pentagon
Doubletree and Citgo videos at the Pentagon
Sheraton Hotel (Hilton?) video which employees watched before confiscation
Many other people at the Pentagon?

Bob and Bri video of the WTC
Many other people at the WTC?

Val McClatchey at Shanksville

the fbi took val's camera, junk drive, & computer
Source

Many other people around the alleged Flight 93 crash site?

And returned the cameras and film/developed photos and videos to them later, possibly altered and some parts removed and censored or altered and photoshopped?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c4000f43519.jpg[/atsimg]

Bob and Bri Video

Google Video Link

[edit on 7/28/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

OR, it may simply be the case we're ignoring it becuase we find it silly that the gov't would go out and make a fake crash site in order to trick us, and then put out disinformation to hide all the work they put into making the fake crash site meant to trick us. On the other hand, we see the FAA rarely released any detailed photos of any other crash site, NOT becuase of any supposed conspiracy, but becuase they usually likewise contain photos of human beings turned into bloody blobs of goo, so it should be obvious why they wouldn't release photos of this crash site either.

There, a debunking without character defamation. You owe us money, now.

Well, good effort , but you haven`t really debunked it yet, so money stays in pocket, for now.

Originally posted by Seventh

Well, good effort

, but you haven`t really debunked it yet, so money stays in pocket, for now.

All right then, please explain to me how one or more of the statements I made were false. Here's a recap-

a) It's illogical to assume that a staged event would be covered up when the entire purpose of the staged event to begin with is to cover something up.

b) It's illogical to assume impropriety due to there no photos being released when past instances of similar cases show that photos have rarely if ever been released.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, please explain to me how one or more of the statements I made were false. Here's a recap-

a) It's illogical to assume that a staged event would be covered up when the entire purpose of the staged event to begin with is to cover something up.

b) It's illogical to assume impropriety due to there no photos being released when past instances of similar cases show that photos have rarely if ever been released.

a) If the photos were created to enforce the event (and we have to agree on this aspect) as there was barely if no evidence due to the fact it was manufactured, then is it not the case that somewhere no matter what or how trivial, a discrepancy will be found?.

b) If, as guys like me believe there is something wrong with the whole 9/11 fiasco then normal protocols will not be adhered to, if, and it`s a big if, if they are brought in to back up or try and enforce the OS the rules are somewhat broken.

Also to back this up and it`s kind of in reverse to this situation... Flight recorders, why don`t they release the audio from these? it surely would answer many questions.

I'm curious who had time to grab a camera and run outside, not knowing what happened...all within the time frame to get the first plume of smoke coming off the crash sight. Has anyone looked into the property in which this image was taken from, who owns it, etc.?

reply to post by SPreston


Wow, was that an explosion that knocked Bri back just as the north tower collapsed in that video, SPreston? It seems like you can just hear the start of it before it gets edited, and she clearly is knocked around by something. And the second plane hit was edited out as well? You'd figure the FBI would have copied the tape and returned it intact to the owners, or given the owners the copy and kept the original. But instead they got back an edited tape? What's the FBI hiding?

posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by SPreston

 

Wow, was that an explosion that knocked Bri back just as the north tower collapsed in that video, SPreston? It seems like you can just hear the start of it before it gets edited, and she clearly is knocked around by something. And the second plane hit was edited out as well? You'd figure the FBI would have copied the tape and returned it intact to the owners, or given the owners the copy and kept the original. But instead they got back an edited tape? What's the FBI hiding?

The pseudoskeptics and government loyalists and shills and dubunkers think it is perfectly normal for the FBI to confiscate all photographic and video evidence to a capital crime, and bully and threaten eyewitnesses to that capital crime, and return the photographic and video evidence altered and with sections cut out.

I guess our opponents do not believe in our Bill of Rights nor our constitutional system of jurisprudence. Evidently they believe the ends always justifies the means.

We should by no means ever trust such dishonest individuals with our freedom.

Most likely Bob and Bri and their family have never seen that portion of their own video which the corrupt FBI cut out and censored from the American people.



[edit on 7/28/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
Evidently they believe the ends always justifies the means.

Heh, it's not "evidently" my friend. There is absolute smoking gun proof of them admitting that the ends justifies the means, no matter how deadly, in the video:

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers

Google Video Link

And that's from 1987! Incredible video.

Odd quote by this lady.

"Right now, it's become more of a curse than a blessing that I took it at all," she said.

www.post-gazette.com...

When would photographing the aftermath of a tragic accident where a lot of people just died be considered a "blessing"?

Maybe it was just a bad response by her being on the spot from the reporter, but sounds almost as if she's calling the photo a blessing because she's able to sell copies of it for $20.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ATH911]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Meaning, of course that is was fabricated. By who?

Give me an F
Give me a B
Give me an I

That'd be my guess on who fabricated this photo

I'd have to agree.

"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...


She set her camera by the door, waiting for the sound of his flyover, but what she heard instead was the horrific roar of Flight 93 going down. The impact nearly knocked her over, but she got to the door in time to capture the black smoke billowing above a red barn seconds after the crash in Shanksville.

FBI agents inspecting the memory card from her digital camera

www.post-gazette.com...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ATH911]

The first problem I see is rSpieker got the wind speed wrong. The local weather conditions at the time of the crash where winds out of the NNW at 9-12 MPH gusting to 580 MPH with a chance of fire storms, wing tip vortices and light debris showers. The position of the mushroom cloud is right where it should be.

Most people think the stem below the cloud is where smoke rises and forms the cloud. This is not true. A mushroom cloud is actualy vortex ring and the stem is colum of smoke that this ring left behind and it will drift along with the wind and the cloud above it. It can not be used to position the source of the smoke.

I agree the cloud is about 2000 ft across and the top is about 3000 ft AGL

I would not be surprised if the average climb rate of this cloud was well over 3000 feet per min. I have seen thermals going up at over 2000 FPM in natural conditions (2000 fpm is where my rate of climb pegs).

I agree that the picture was taken more than 5 sec after the crash but, memory has a way of distorting time, So I don't think he can ethically use this to claim the photo is fake.

As for the micro gust breaking up the cloud, It's 9 Oclock in the morning the wind is going to be pretty smooth.

As for a thermal breaking it up, A mushroom cloud is a thermal and at that point in time it was the biggest and baddest one in the whole state of Pennsylvania.

DiMaggio claims no other witnesses saw a mushroom cloud. I remember seeing the words mushroom cloud and fireball in many witness statements. A fireball is what makes a mushroom cloud.

DiMaggio then goes on to claim: "I've established through multiple witnesses who drove to the crash site from several miles away [i.e. also several minutes] that the smoke remained for a period of at least 5 minutes and quite possibly up to 10 minutes."

Which kinda contradicts most everything they just claimed.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by waypastvne]

Originally posted by Seventh
a) If the photos were created to enforce the event (and we have to agree on this aspect) as there was barely if no evidence due to the fact it was manufactured, then is it not the case that somewhere no matter what or how trivial, a discrepancy will be found?.

But that contradicts all the other information being presented here that the conspirators took great care in preparing for this conspiracy. It necessarily would need to take a long time to rig the towers with demos, and great thought had to go into the manufacture of the fake wreckage, preplanted light pole, false witnesses, etc at the Pentagon, so it stands to reason they would have been diligent in preparing for THIS false event as well. It's obvious the conspirators had control of one or more actual disposable passenger jets so they wouldn't even need to fake anything. Simply crash a real one into the ground.

b) If, as guys like me believe there is something wrong with the whole 9/11 fiasco then normal protocols will not be adhered to, if, and it`s a big if, if they are brought in to back up or try and enforce the OS the rules are somewhat broken.

On the other hand, guys like me, who believe these conspiracy scenarios have little credibility, see that it's stretching things mightily to claim that following standard operating procedures is somehow evidence of suspicious activity. The FAA released few if any photos of any other crash site for the understandable reason that they show human casualties, so in truth, it would have been considered suspicious and out of order if they HAD released photos of this crash site.

Also to back this up and it`s kind of in reverse to this situation... Flight recorders, why don`t they release the audio from these? it surely would answer many questions.

You just contradicted YOURSELF, now. If you believe this crash site has been staged/manufactured, and all the evidence supporting it to have been staged/manufactured (I.E. the smoke plume pics), there's no way, shape, or form we should believe any flight recorder audio becuase if this was a staged/manufactured event then that too would necessarily have to have been staged and/or manufactured.

Am I wrong?

reply to post by Seventh


Of the official photos I have seen of the crash site, there are no plane pieces. I have been to military crash sites - there are ALWAYS, repeat, ALWAYS large pieces of aircraft debris - specially such as landing gear!

Originally posted by skycopilot
Of the official photos I have seen of the crash site, there are no plane pieces. I have been to military crash sites - there are ALWAYS, repeat, ALWAYS large pieces of aircraft debris - specially such as landing gear!

You need to provide more information than just this. For one thing, it's a given that an aircraft crash from a pilot trying to retain control during a crash landing is going to produce a different set of damage than a pilot taking a nose dive into the ground head on.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Okay let`s look at the whole event from a neutral pov, in fact let`s believe it happened exactly like the government said it did.

The main facts - Three buildings collapsed in very suspicious circumstances, first responders have mentioned explosives and some have been injured by them, plus there is explosion damage where there should not be none.

You are a high ranking government official with a basic understanding of gravity, strength and integrity of towered buildings what they are designed to withstand, and what it would take to completely remove every single rivet and weld, securing every floor truss to the inner core and exterior staggered steel supports.

You have eye witnessed 3 buildings vaporised and collapse into their own footprints at a speed (showing no signs whatsoever of any resistance at any floor from the thousands upon thousands of steel securing fasteners) akin to CD`s and a free fall collapse.

We have terrorists and witness accounts of explosions from the time of the initial impact until the collapses, common sense alone tells you those buildings were helped on their descent.

So we have terrorist attacks and many explosions, the way the buildings collapsed proves beyond doubt they had help, you are a top ranking official there are/is/was evidence of bombs, at this time you have no evidence of what type of bombs were used, hell they could even have been some form of chemical warfare, these are terrorists that don`t give a flying f*ck about anyone, you have rescue workers and the general public.

Would it not be a wise move to now treat the whole site as contaminated and use appropriate equipment?, hell knows what else these terrorists could have done.

If it turns out that there were no explosions nor internal bombs then no harm is done, but as it stands the amount of New Yorkers whom have contracted respiratory problems from cancers - asbestosis - pneumonia and a whole heap more, there were reports of tracker dogs dying within days, and an estimated figure in excess of 100k people inflicted by 9/11.

Why were no tests done for contamination and explosions instead of exposing all those people to it?.

Any high ranking government official worth their salt after witnessing the 3 collapses would have been screaming to those responsible for investigation..
`I want to know what blew those buildings up, and I want to know yesterday`.


[edit on 16/07/2009 by Seventh]

Originally posted by Seventh
The main facts - Three buildings collapsed in very suspicious circumstances, first responders have mentioned explosives and some have been injured by them, plus there is explosion damage where there should not be none.

I am aware of first responders hearing EXPLOSIONS, but I'm not aware of anyone witnessing actual EXPLOSIVES. Explosions, after all, are just really loud BANGs, and there are more non-conspiracy reasons for why there were really loud bangs (flammable objects in the building going BOOM as the fires reached them, large pieces of wreckage falling and hitting somethign below, pressurized pipes giving way, etc) than there are conspiracy reasons. Remember, they HEARD explosions. The didn't SEE explosions.

What do you have that shows someone saw actual explosives?

You are a high ranking government official with a basic understanding of gravity, strength and integrity of towered buildings what they are designed to withstand, and what it would take to completely remove every single rivet and weld, securing every floor truss to the inner core and exterior staggered steel supports.

The towers had a very distinct design that no other building in the world had (except for each other), sort of like a vertical roll of lifesavers with each floor supported entirely by the internal core and the outer wall. That's how they managed to get the towers to be so huge without weighing more than the planet Earth does.

You cannot predict how that design would behave under those circumstances by using models of behavior from completely different designs. Mike Tyson slugging Paris Hilton is going to have a completely different effect than Paris Hilton slugging Mike Tyson.

Would it not be a wise move to now treat the whole site as contaminated and use appropriate equipment?, hell knows what else these terrorists could have done.

Wise, yes, but humanitarian, no. You forget that after the collapse people were trapped in the wreckage. There weren't too many, maybe five, but there were survivors, and the primary goal was to find and rescue these people at the risk of their own safety.

Tell me, truthfully, if you were in a gigantic sea of destruction and you were hearing TAP-TAP-TAP from poor wretches trapped in the wreckage around you, what would YOU do? Leap in and try to help dig those people out, or leave until they conduct a study and issue a report on whether the air is safe? If it's the former, then you have your own answer.

Any high ranking government official worth their salt after witnessing the 3 collapses would have been screaming to those responsible for investigation..
`I want to know what blew those buildings up, and I want to know yesterday`.

I'm goign to quote Lee Hamilton here (the guy who wrote the 9/11 commission report) and say the reason there was so much resistance is becuase everyone knew there was going to be a lynch mob out to hang the ones who a) were responsible, and b) screwed up so badly that they let it happen. If you suspect that the attack might have been prevented if you only had a chance to read a critical intelligence report you found underneath a pizza box in the corner two weeks later, you're going to keep your mouth shut and crawl underneath any rock you can find. Remember, this is a gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. I will err on the side of incompetence, rather than any willful malice.

All this is neither here nor there. This is a discussion thread about the photos taken at Shanksville, and my point is that it's unrealistic to be dismissing the credibility of the photo simply becuase it shows something contrary to what you want to believe, particularly when the photo shows almost no actual details at all one way or the other.*



*Obligatory return to the relevent subject so the post won't be yanked by the moderators for being off-topic. The moderators, after all, are a handsome bunch, quite wise, and no doubt smell nice, too.



[edit on 29-7-2009 by GoodOlDave]

This is unbelievabe...

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...

Honor system???

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ATH911]