Val McClatchey and Flight 93 Photo

Originally posted by Nygdan

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.

I'd love to discuss all the other details, but for the sake of brevity and in the spirit of staying on topic, let's just stick to the photo for now.

You're right. It's a matter of perspective. However, there's something drastically wrong with the perspective.

Imagine drawing a line from the spot McClatchey took the photo to each edge of the smoke plume. This would form an angle that opens up, getting wider as the lines go out further. I.e., the further away the smoke plume, the wider it would have to be to fit in the same space in the photo.

The crash site is so far away from McClatchey's house (roughly 1.5 miles) that for the smoke plume to be from the crash, it would need to be over 2000 feet wide. There's no way a smoke plume from a plane crash is going to expand to 2000 feet in diameter. That's twice as wide as the WTCs were high.

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.

No, the government could not have planted a 2000 foot wide smoke plume. This has everything to do with McClatchey because, unlike the Pentagon and WTCs, there was NO visual evidence of Flight 93 crashing anywhere near Shanksville -with the exception of McClatchey's photo.

So in this formulation, terrorists did do 911, and did hijack Flight 93

Yes, but who ultimately funded and trained and allowed the terrorists to carry out their attack? And to what ultimate purpose? Seen in that perspective, the "heroic" actions of the passengers and the crash of Flt. 93 are just another part of the propaganda device that was 9/11.

Imo, it was the same folks who were behind the Anthrax Attacks. Please don't tell me you think Al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters to Daschle and Brokaw. You can't possibly believe that. The recipients of the anthrax letters alone should lead everyone to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job meant to galvanize the American people and fraudulently engender their support for the WOT against "Islamic extremism."

[edit on 18-2-2007 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by nick7261
The crash site is so far away from McClatchey's house (roughly 1.5 miles) that for the smoke plume to be from the crash, it would need to be over 2000 feet wide. There's no way a smoke plume from a plane crash is going to expand to 2000 feet in diameter. That's twice as wide as the WTCs were high.

Huh? There are smoke plume police?

A smoke plume is going to get as big as it wants, so long as there's stuff to burn and the wind doesn't disperse it.



edit/ I've actually seen smoke plumes bigger than this from an electrical transformer that blew a mile away from my home. The smoke was already about this size in the time it took me to turn my head towards the sound.




[edit on 2/18/2007 by mythatsabigprobe]

[edit on 2/18/2007 by mythatsabigprobe]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe


Huh? There are smoke plume police?

A smoke plume is going to get as big as it wants, so long as there's stuff to burn and the wind doesn't disperse it.

No, a smoke plume is not going to get as big as it wants. A smoke plume, as opposed to the smoke burning off from a fire, is the result of the initial explosion. It typically forms the shape of a mushroom-type cloud. Watch the Pentagon video to see how big the initial smoke plume was.

I've actually seen smoke plumes bigger than this from an electrical transformer that blew a mile away from my home. The smoke was already about this size in the time it took me to turn my head towards the sound.

How can you even make this statement? How do you know how big the smoke plume is in the McClatchey photo?

For you to make this type of comparison, you would need to know how big the smoke plume is in the photo, right?

After visiting the site, I can tell you that this photo doesn't accurately represent the scale involved. The trees on the horizon line at the top of the photo are nowhere near the crash site. Either the photo is faked, or the photo is real and the smoke plume is much closer to the McClatchey residence than the official crash site of Flight 93.

Originally posted by nick7261
How can you even make this statement? How do you know how big the smoke plume is in the McClatchey photo?

For you to make this type of comparison, you would need to know how big the smoke plume is in the photo, right?

After visiting the site, I can tell you that this photo doesn't accurately represent the scale involved. The trees on the horizon line at the top of the photo are nowhere near the crash site. Either the photo is faked, or the photo is real and the smoke plume is much closer to the McClatchey residence than the official crash site of Flight 93.

No, I don't need to know the size of the smoke plumes to compare them. Although you say it's impossible that it was 2000 feet without anything to compare against.

This photo is very similar to my own yard from where I was standing on that day, I have 3 acres of open field on one side, two adjoining properties about the same size and a treeline blocking the horizon. The power station is a mile from my neighborhood. The smoke plume in the photo takes up about the same amount of sky and is about the same height above the trees.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe


No, I don't need to know the size of the smoke plumes to compare them. Although you say it's impossible that it was 2000 feet without anything to compare against.

You don't need anything to compare it against when you have the overhead map of the area. The crash site is about 1.5 miles away from where the photo was taken. That's nearly 8000 feet. You draw a diagram lining up the smoke plume edges to Val's house, and extending the lines to the crash site. At the crash site, the width of the resulting triangle is about 2000 feet.

This photo is very similar to my own yard from where I was standing on that day, I have 3 acres of open field on one side, two adjoining properties about the same size and a treeline blocking the horizon. The power station is a mile from my neighborhood. The smoke plume in the photo takes up about the same amount of sky and is about the same height above the trees.

If your point is that you remember something that looked similar to the McClatchey photo, and therefore that means the McClatchey photo is legit, that's fine.

But it's also a nearly pointless argument to make because we have the actual McClatchey photo, and we also know precisely where the crash site is. Further, we know exactly where McClatchey took the photo.

Therefore, it's simple math to calculate the size of the smoke plume in the photo.

If you're argument is that a power generator or whatever can blow up and make a 2000 foot wide smoke cloud, I highly doubt it.

[edit on 18-2-2007 by nick7261]

[edit on 18-2-2007 by nick7261]

Just off the top of my head, what if the top of the plume isn't directly above the crash site, what if its drifted in the wind, and is this significantly closer?

Doesn't sound too reasonable though.

How many of you in this discussion live in Somerset Count, Pa?

She CLEARLY stated that she had to file Chapter 11 PRIOR to 9/11 because the business was failing, did you guys pay attention to the video?

Local residents have always and will always believe that the plane was taken out by a government order.

If you are familiar at all with Indian Lake and it's position to the crash site you will know that the picture is not a fake.

It's been over 5 years now, there are many other things that are REALLY going on in the world. It's sickening that there are people who have nothing better to do that trash people they don't know, have no idea about the schematics of the land, and have no idea what they are talking about.

Please, by all means, if you have posted on this thread and are from Somerset and KNOW what you are talking about and I am wrong, let me know.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Just off the top of my head, what if the top of the plume isn't directly above the crash site, what if its drifted in the wind, and is this significantly closer?

Doesn't sound too reasonable though.

If the plume drifted towards the McClatchey house, it would be proportionally smaller than the 2000+ foot estimate.

However, like you said, it would be odd, imo, for the plume to drift any significant distant without dispersing. The only other possible thought I had was that the fire from the crash site was burning, and the smoke was blowing directly towards the McClatchey house. But even then, if you look at the photo closely, there appears to be almost no smoke between the tree line and the plume.

I'm still saying it's 90/10 that she photoshopped the plume into the photo.

Originally posted by sky1

How many of you in this discussion live in Somerset Count, Pa?

I live about an hour away.

She CLEARLY stated that she had to file Chapter 11 PRIOR to 9/11 because the business was failing, did you guys pay attention to the video?

No, she didn't say this at all. She said she had financial troubles before 9/11, then 9/11 caused insurance companies to raise their rates, which forced her family into bankruptcy. Her husband filed bankruptcy for his business JCM Enterprises on Sept. 20, 2001. Pretty quick turnaround on that Chapter 11 filing, huh?

Local residents have always and will always believe that the plane was taken out by a government order.

Hmm.... wonder why? Could it be that the residents saw things like low flying military planes that the 9/11 Commission forgot to mention?

If you are familiar at all with Indian Lake and it's position to the crash site you will know that the picture is not a fake.

I'm VERY familiar with the area. I was there twice in the last couple of weeks. Seeing the scale of the size in person between Val's house and the crash site makes it very apparent that what's in her pic is not the plume from the crash. The plume would have needed to be incredibly large (2000+ feet wide) to take up that much space in her shot.

Either that, and the photo's is legit, but it's from something besides the plane crash.

It's been over 5 years now, there are many other things that are REALLY going on in the world. It's sickening that there are people who have nothing better to do that trash people they don't know, have no idea about the schematics of the land, and have no idea what they are talking about.

The things that are REALLY going on in the world are all affected by what happened on 9/11. I don't care if it's been 5 years or 500 years. A lie is still a lie. And if Val McClatchey is a lying opportunist, or is complicit in some sort of propaganda, it should be exposed whether it's been 5 years or not.

And I know in great detail the schematics of the land. It's exactly because I do know the schematics of the land that I believe the photo is very, very likely a fake.

Just look at the photo. Just by looking at the width of the smoke plume, estimate how far behind the tree line the smoke is rising from. 700-800 feet? 1000 feet maybe?

Since you know the area so well, give me your best estimate on how far away the smoke plume is from McClatchey's house.

And if you want to get into the fine details, if you google map this area, the smoke plume doesn't line up with the crash site either. Draw a line from McClatchey's house directly through the house between the barns and the line hits about 700-800 feet south of the crash site.

Please, by all means, if you have posted on this thread and are from Somerset and KNOW what you are talking about and I am wrong, let me know.

Ok, I'm letting you know. Now What?

Actually, she did say she had filed chapter 7 prior to 9/11. You are correct, though, that the chapter 11 filing did come about quickly thereafter.

Did anybody else catch the part where she talked about her family and the people she cares about being safe? That indicated to me, if there was a fraud involved, that she was an unwilling participant coerced into the arrangement with threats of harm to her and her loved ones.

John's business did grow rather rapidly the following year, it seems, and his $60 million net worth belies her claim to being the bread winner in the household, so something is very fishy there. Maybe the growth of his business was the payoff for her coerced cooperation.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Actually, she did say she had filed chapter 7 prior to 9/11. You are correct, though, that the chapter 11 filing did come about quickly thereafter.

I don't remember hearing the part about filing chapter 7.

Did anybody else catch the part where she talked about her family and the people she cares about being safe? That indicated to me, if there was a fraud involved, that she was an unwilling participant coerced into the arrangement with threats of harm to her and her loved ones.

Yes, I caught that too. It struck me as very odd language that she used, especially when her family has health problems. Usually you hear people talking about their families being healthy, not safe.

John's business did grow rather rapidly the following year, it seems, and his $60 million net worth belies her claim to being the bread winner in the household, so something is very fishy there. Maybe the growth of his business was the payoff for her coerced cooperation.

Actually, it wasn't John's business per se. He was just on the board of directors. But this bank stock did double in the next year while the overall market dropped about 20% or so.