More Evidence -Flight 93 Photo Fraud

I just did a couple of quick graphics showing the scale of the Flight 93 "smoke plume" in relation to the size of the WTCs.

Val McClatchey claims to have taken this photo within seconds of the crash of Flight 93 iin Pennsylvania.





Killtown originally did an analysis of the size of the smoke plume, which I confirmed. If the smoke plume was at the crash site, it would be 2200 feet wide (give or take!).






Here's what the WTCs would look like if they were under the plume in the McCLatchey photo, drawn to scale:






Here's what the McClatchey plume would look like if it were over NYC.

Notice how small the explosion in WTC2 is compared to the size of the smoke plume from the McClatchey photo.

Q: How could the crash of Flight 93 have created a smoke plume so large???

A: It couldn't!








Q: How could Flight 93 have created this big of a smoke plume from the crash, and yet fail to burn the grass next to the crater it supposedly left??

A: It couldn't!!

Originally posted by nick7261
Here's what the WTCs would look like if they were under the plume in the McCLatchey photo, drawn to scale:

Just a little constructive criticism. You might want to let people know that in this picture, the towers are scaled to where the crash site is and not next to the barn. At first, I was like what a big barn. It has to be 80 stories high. Just a suggestion.

But, I guess I figured it out, so others should be able to also.

Thanks for the suggestion!

You're right... it looks like the world's largest barn at first!

[edit on 22-2-2007 by nick7261]

Haha, i must assume this is a joke right?

Originally posted by Jugg
Haha, i must assume this is a joke right?

No, it's not a joke.

It's a serious scientifical optical study of the plumage displayed in Val McClatchey's photo of the two barns. (That was a joke... sort of)

Seriously, after looking at the famous photo of the smoke plume over the barns it became apparent that the size of the plume didn't make any sense at all. I dropped in WTC images to highlight the relative size of the smoke plume based on how far away the crash was from where the photo was taken.

im no expert, but just wondering, why doesnt it make sense?

Can you do a photo edit of what you think the plume should have looked like?

I'm very curious.

Keep in mind this is mountainous open farmland, no buildings (skyscrapers), very mild weather.......and the fact that most believe it was shot out of the sky.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by sky1]

I understand from the point I started reading this thread.. this is convincing, and someone wanted their 5 minutes of fame.. isnt she married to someone well known? Anyways, thanks for clearing this up the way you are doing.

Originally posted by purplecoral
im no expert, but just wondering, why doesnt it make sense?

The reason it doesn't make sense is because Val McClatchey took the photo from 1.6 miles away from the crash within (according to her) 5 seconds of the crash.

Based on her photo, if you extend lines from her house to the edges of where the smoke plume would have been 1.6 miles away, that means the smoke plume from the crashed Flight 93 would have been about 2200 feet (over 700 yards) wide!

The size of a 2200 foot wide smoke plume is enourmous! That's why I photoshopped in the WTCs to give you an idea of how a smoke plume the size of the one shown in McClatchey's photo would have looked if it were over the WTCs.

A crash of a commercial airliner, especially one that supposedly made the pristine hole in the ground, would have never produced a 2200 wide smoke plume. If you look at the Pentagon video you can see how big the smoke plume was there. For reference, each side of the Pentagon is something like 800 feet long. That means for the smoke plume from the Pentagon crash to be similar in scale to the smoke plume in the McClatchey photo, it would have been almost three times the length of the Pentagon building.

The Val McClatchey photo is SO far out of scale it's ridiculous.

sky1: I'm working on another graphic! In the meantime, you can go to killtown's blog... I think he has a photo there.

BigMoser: Thanks!!

[edit on 23-2-2007 by nick7261]

(im not arguing....) what do you think this smoke plume is then?

I'm sure this has been questioned and answered elsewhere but why did Val McClatchcey only take one single photograph of the crash?

I know if a plane crashed in my 'backyard' and I had a camera handy I'd try to
take as many as possible.

She claimed she dropped the camera after the first photo and the battery door stuck open and she couldn't get it closed again. She also claimed her dog ate her homework, I mean her dog chewed the cable that connects her camera to her computer so she couldn't download the photo right away. Lots of inconsistencies here.

That plume seems more like an ordinance blast more than anything a plane crash could have caused. The streak of smoke going down (or up into the cloud) could possibly be the path of the smoldering remains of the plane? This would have also placed the plume at a different location than the impact crater. With Val McClatchey's testimony, this picture and "official reports", it just doesn't add up..

That's a valid point. Maybe the plume is from when they shot it down (nearer to McClachey's house) and then the rest of the plane went into the ground at the impact point?

Still doesn't take into affect of the plane suppossedly doing a nose dive though.

Originally posted by purplecoral
(im not arguing....) what do you think this smoke plume is then?

Personally I think the plume was photoshopped into the shot. She's very protective of the copyright, and has even filed a suit against AP for using her photo.

If she and her family were really so financially strapped, why/how could she afford to file a lawsuit that's going to result in little, if any, damages even if she wins?

She also sells copies of the photo for $20 a pop, and claims to give $18 of each sale to the Todd Beamer Foundation.

Anybody else know of another person who took a photo of ANYTHING on 9/11, then copyrighted the photo and is selling it?

The FBI went on record as saying the photo is real.

I'm going out on a limb here to predict that this photo will be the FIRST part of the 9/11 story to be exposed, and confirmed, as a fraud.

who cares this is in the past and a waste of time lots know this was an inside job others can't stand to be WILLING to beleive it

That isn't the point.

The point is research like this goes a long way toward proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the complicity of rogue elements of our federal government in the events of 9/11. No matter what people want to believe, if confronted with definitive proof, they will have to believe the truth, or be swept aside.

It does matter.

Okay......so this 'fake' photo issue is based on the assumption that the passengers of flight 93 so bravely and gallantly 'took the plane down', correct?

Again...you would be hard pressed to find anyone in this area who believes that load of horses%!$.

A lot of people saw that 'photoshopped' plume of smoke. I guess they're all in on the conspiracy.

The plane was shot down, that is the smoke from the plane being shot down. It's not hard to understand.

Originally posted by sky1
The plane was shot down, that is the smoke from the plane being shot down.

That's what I'm starting to believe. Shot near her house (hence the large...seemingly...plume) and landed at the crash site.

Originally posted by cpdaman
who cares this is in the past and a waste of time

I care. I had friends in WTC1 when the 1st plane hit. I live an hour from Shanksville. And I have three kids who have grown up during a war, and who ask why we are at war.

I'd like to be able to tell my kids I know why we're at war, but I honestly don't know the answer. Is it because al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11? Or is it because the military industrial complex, along with the big banks and big oil companies, were able to get their boys (and girl) put into a position to reap billions in profits by being complicit in a false pretext for war.

If it's the former, then why isn't the government providing simple things like the NIST report on WTC7 after 5 years, or holding up the Pentagon videos for 5 years?

If it's the latter, the people who are complicit should be held accountable or else we might as well be living in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Damn right I care.

lots know this was an inside job others can't stand to be WILLING to beleive it

The people who believe it was an inside job are as traitorous as those who pulled it off if they sit by and do nothing to hold the criminals accountable.

But back to the point of this thread... the photo in my opinion has been shown to be an unequivocal fraud. And you believe it was an inside job, and yet your response is "who cares?"

Like the saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. WTF are YOU doing about any of this?

To me what's worse than the debunkers' believe-whatever-the-goverment-tells-them attitude is people who *know* the truth and don't do anything about it except argue with the debunkers on internet forums.

If you think it was an inside job, and you think the photo was a fraud, you should be getting on the phone or e-mailing every major news outlet in the country to try to help expose this (especially the Associated Press since Val McClatchy filed a lawsuit against them).