July 18, 2006

Val McClatchey Photo: More Smoking Guns, or Total Fraud?

(Updated: 03/29/08)

Valencia (Val) McClatchey, a real estate agent who lives about 1.6 miles east from the Shanksville crash scene, is the person who took the famous photo of the mushroom cloud rising above a red barn that was supposedly from Flight 93 crashing down in Shanksville. Her photo, which she has called "End of Serenity," has been cheered by a lot of 9/11 researchers, including myself, who have argued that her photo proves that the crash of Flight 93 is fake because the smoke plume in her photo looks more like the plume coming from an ordnance blast because of its grey color rather than from a plane crash since smoke from jet fuel fires are almost black in color.

(Val photo source: pittsburghlive.com. Notice the barn on the left has been painted red on its sides since the original photo. It used to be all white.)



(Left is Val's photo. Middle is ordnance blast. Right is a jet crash.)



Now after nearly five years of speculating over this photo, evidence has been discovered that conclusively shows that the mushroom cloud in her photo did not come from a Boeing 757 crashing at Shanksville and not only that, but there is something else about this photo that makes it a 100% proof positive smoking gun photo!


However there is one slight problem, her photo may be a fake.



How She Got That 'Prize Winning' Shot

As the story goes, Val, founder of the Keystone Camaro Club and who owns Mtn. Lakes Realty east of Indian Lake near Indian Lake Air Park, was at her home watching the events of 9/11 unfold on the "Today" show just after getting her husband John off to work at their saw mill company, JCM Industries (JCM = John C. McClatchey). She had called her husband to talk about the attacks going on and as they were on the phone, she heard the Pentagon had just been hit.

Then she suddenly hears a load roar of a plane's engine fly over Indian Lake and managed to look out her front window and catch a glimpse of the plane's glare, which she states that she thought was a small plane, before it flew over the horizon behind the red barn. Note that Val lives near the northwest tip of Indian Lake and east of the crash site. If the plane flew over the lake towards the west, then the flight path she describes is almost in the opposite direction from the official version's flight path.



(Source: popularmechanics.com. Click photo for hi-res. Photo mirror.)


She then heard and felt a violent, house-shaking boom that reportedly knocked not only her lights and phone out, but almost knocked her off her couch. She then managed to race out on to her front porch and quickly took one and only one photo with her month-old digital camera of the smoke plume allegedly coming from Flight 93 crashing. She says she took the photo "approx. 5 seconds" after impact which is being confirmed by the FBI. She claims she didn't even aim her camera for the shot. However by looking at her photo, it looks like her camera was aimed perfectly and steady as if it were on a tripod, not from someone who just ran out in 5 seconds with there heart racing and all the anxiety of just hearing a horrendous explosion. Her photo is the only known photo of smoke seen in the sky from Flight 93 crash scene.


(Val's front porch. Photo source: Windsor Park Stories)


If this explosion caused her house to shake which she said almost knocked her off her couch, why didn't she report any of the windows, or glassware in her house breaking, or any pictures on her walls falling off from this "house-shaking explosion"? Also, if it was such a violent explosion, is it realistic to believe that her immediate thoughts and reaction would be to jump up and grab her camera to go out and take a picture, or would it be more realistic for her to have duck and cover from being startled and frightened from some unexpected horrendous blast?




The camera she apparently used has been identified as an HP PhotoSmart 315. It comes in two versions (HP315 and HP315xi), but it is not known at this time which version she has. Apparently the only difference between the two is the "xi" version comes with addition software. The camera is only a 2.1 MegaPixel with no optical zoom and had an MSRP of $299.


(Photo source: tribune-democrat.com)


In a Post-Gazette article, it said that Val did not have access to Photoshop or any other photo-altering software at the time of the attacks, however her camera came with editing software although it is not known at this time if the editing software her camera came with was capable of photoshopping a plume on her photo. Also, the reason Val said she only took one shot of the smoke plume is that after her first shot she dropped her camera. In that same Post-Gazette article it mentions that when the camera dropped, it jolted the battery loose. However, her camera doesn't have just one battery as the article implies, but four AA batteries. When did Val exactly drop her camera? Why didn't she just put the batteries back in afterward, close the latch and continue to take more photos? Is she going to say now that the battery latch, or camera broke after it dropped?


(Photo source: imaging-resource.com)


So how did Val manage to grab her camera so fast as she raced out the door? Well get this, supposedly her friend who she had helped out recently was supposed to fly over her house in a helicopter and she had her camera ready right by the front door waiting for him to buzz over her house! Amazing coincidence that on the same morning she hears a plane flies over her area from the most rare and unusual of circumstances, she had already prepared to run out and take of photo of her friend doing a flyby over her house in a helicopter? Remember as already mentioned above, this strange plane she heard fly over head was flying in the nearly the opposite direction Flight 93 was said to have come in.




After taking this photo and dropping her camera, she then ran and grabbed her cell phone. She got in her truck and tried to call 9/11, but she couldn't get through. She says the cell phone service around Indian Lake is not very good. (Now think of the passengers aboard Flight 93 allegedly making all those cell phone calls.) She then went up to her husband's saw mill company which still had their power and phone lines working. This is where she heard it was a commercial airliner that had crashed.

(Photo source: Windsor Park Stories)


It's unclear when she came back home, but she never walked up the road beyond the horizon to see what she allegedly photographed. Instead, she just heard the sirens and went into the kitchen and put on a barbecue for the rescue crews as if she was anticipating the events. How did she even think to start cooking for the rescue crews and how did the crews know she was even cooking for them? Did she bring the food down to the rescuers, or did they stop by her house? Wouldn't some official group, such as the Red-Cross, come and feed the crews instead?



FBI Enters the Picture

Val apparently didn't realize what she had just taken a picture of. She says the photo sat in her camera for a few days until the state police and FBI had put a call out to people in the area for photos, debris, or any other evidence of the crash.

She then went to download her photo onto her new computer, but her seven month old puppy had chewed the end of her camera's cord attachment needed for downloading. She went to get a new cord, but couldn't get it to recognize when connecting, so she went back to get a memory card reader and then was able to download it.



She then made a printout of her photo and took it to the police and within an hour, three FBI agents, Special agents David J Hacker, Todd J. Brown, and Phil Lewzander*, came into her house to look at her photo. They looked at her photo on her computer and then she said they saw what appeared to be debris flying out from the smoke plume and then they took her original memory card from her camera with them. She said, “I’m sure with modern technology they could do, you know, a little more scientific evidence I believe.” Look at her photo and see if you can see any debris coming out of the plume. I sure couldn’t see any debris coming out of that plume over 1.5 miles away.

(*Spelling of their names?)


One more very interesting thing to point out. In this Windsor Park Stories interview of Val, there is a reenactment of somebody opening up a computer and taking a hard drive out. Did the FBI take her hard drive back with them too?



(Photo source: Windsor Park Stories)

If Val's photo was legit, then why would three FBI agents come over to her house so quickly to not only look at her photo, but to also confiscate her memory card and possibly her computer's hard drive?



Don't Use it or I'll Sue!

Val, who's nickname is "stooge" from collecting 3 Stooges memorabilia, has copyrighted her photo and is selling copies of it to raise money for the Todd Beamer Foundation (now called Heroic Choices). She says she has no idea if her photo has raised hundreds, or thousands of dollars for the charity. She is very protective of her photo in which she is suing the Associated Press for $150,00 plus any profits the AP realized for alleged unauthorized use of her photo. She even threatened to sue me once for when I had used her photo on my website, but I never bothered contacting her back about this and never heard back from her or her attorney since. (Note that I have never contacted Val by email, phone, or by any other means.)

From: "stooge" {stooge@shol.com}
To: killtown@yahoo.com

Subject: Flight 93
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004

I am very dismayed that you have used my photo as part of your article. It has been forwarded to my attorney for copyright infringement. You will be prosecuted to the fullest extent since you did not have my consent to publish my copyrighted photo "End of Serenity"


Val McClatchey


Her photo also has been used in a fund-raising brochure for the Flight 93 Memorial fund and is used in the Smithsonian Institution's Bearing Witness exhibit. It has also appeared in several magazines and newspapers, from Newsweek to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.


(Photo source: Windsor Park Stories)

When Lisa and Victor of Wing TV went to interview her at her office during their Flight 93 investigation tour of the area, they said she was pleasant and businesslike at first, but then become very hostile and defensive when they started showing her evidence that Flight 93 couldn't have crashed there. Then they said she became absolutely "livid" when they tried to show her that the mushroom cloud in her photo looked more like it came from an ordnance blast rather than from a plane crash. They said she seemed to just want to discuss her alleged lawsuit against the AP in an apparent attempt to intimidate them and stated that she “didn’t want to be around any people who question the government.” She then jumped up and threw them out of her office, calling them “conspiracy theorists” on the way out. Lisa told me that Val never mentioned to them that her lights and phone service were knocked out by the crash by the way and as Lisa says, Val seems uninterested in learning about the truth about the crash she allegedly caught on camera, but would rather milk her prized photo she is so protective of for all that it's worth.


Cashing In


For people wishing to purchase copies of her photo, it is also sold at Ida's Country Store in Shanksville and several websites currently have it advertised for sale, such as shanksvillememorial.com and thepittsburghchannel.com, which lists her home address to send checks or money orders too. She also advertises it at her real estate business' website mtnlakesrealty.com (archive) which doesn't tell you to send a check, but tells you to drop by her office, or to call her at her at her work:

(Ida’s photo source: Wikipedia)

Prints are available only at the office or by calling Val at Mtn. Lakes Realty, LLC.


Val charges a whooping $20 a pop for a copy of photo in which $18 supposedly goes to the Todd Beamer Foundation (now called Heroic Choices) and Val supposedly only keeps a measly $2 per sale. She also has charged $250 to $350 to various news organizations for one-time use of her photo. If almost all of her proceeds from the sale of her photo goes to charity, why is she even bothering to sue the AP for $150,000?



So what do you get for a whooping $20 a pop? You get an 8 1/2" x 11" print on photo paper*. When purchasing a copy, most of the websites that advertise her photo asks you to make your check, or money order out to the Todd Beamer Foundation. But Val has admitted to keeping some of the proceeds supposedly only for her legal battle with the AP. A question would be is how is she getting reimbursed for the $2 per photo and how is she able to keep some of the profits for her lawsuit if all the checks and money orders are made out to the foundation? Is the foundation simply reimbursing her and agreeing to a certain amount extra for her to help fight her lawsuit? Does Val have access to their account to withdrawal money? That last one seems unlikely for obvious security reasons for the Foundation.

(*Note that I was incorrect in previously speculating that the print out you get was printed out on regular computer paper which her interview on Windsor Park Stories showed a copy of her photo being printed out on regular computer paper.)


Perhaps the answers are much more simpler. Even though the websites that advertise her photo say to make checks and money orders out to the foundation, at least one magazine where her photo has been advertised tells people to make it out in her name. As already mentioned, her photo has been featured in several magazines and newspapers throughout the world. How many of those have said to make your checks/money orders out to her and not the charity? Now go back and checkout shanksvillememorial.com. Even though they clearly say to make checks/money orders out to the foundation and even bold it (in white lettering on that site), it lists her name and address below it more clearly:


To order an 8.5 X 11 print of this photo, send a $20.00 check made payable to the Todd Beamer Foundation to the following address:

Val McClatchey
107 Osage Path
Stoystown, PA 15563



Also, how many people simply have goofed and made their checks/money orders directly out to Val and still recieved a print? Well, we decided to try it ourselves and found out we were correct:

(Front side of cashed check.)


Also, people in her area that stop by her work to purchase a copy, how many of them simply pay cash for it and what if Val and her husband keep copies of the photo in her car where they can sell to people off the streets and they pay cash for it? So at least in some cases as we proved, Val receives check/money orders made out in her name and possibly receives cash for copies sold in person.


So how does Val forward all the proceeds from her photo to the foundation? By the "honor system". Maybe the Todd Beamer foundation* could shed some more light on this story, but when they were called by the Post-Gazette for questioning, they didn't not return their phone calls. Why didn't the foundation return the reporter's calls for comment? Were they too busy at the time, or are they hiding something?


(*Some curious things about the Todd Beamer Foundation. First, their website's domain name was registered only 9 days after the attacks. Second, they applied for a trademark on Todd's famous "Let's Roll!" phrase 15 days after the attacks. Lastly, they have come under scrutiny for taking in far more money than paying out in services. From 2001 through 2004, the foundation used only 53% of its proceeds to fund its programs which falls short of the Better Business Bureau's Standards for Charity Accountability of least 65% being paid out. Curious to note about Todd Beamer’s father David, who raised Todd to love the Lord, his company received two Pentagon contracts worth over $40 million after the attacks and Todd’s wife Lisa says Todd is still alive, but in a “much different scenario.”)



More Smoking Guns, or Proof of a Fraud?

So how do I know that the mushroom cloud seen on her photo is more likely from a non-plane crash explosion and what is the other even bigger smoking gun? Well first, 9/11 researcher Rumpl4skn was the first person to have pointed something out about Val's photo that would give very strong evidence that the plume in her photo was caused by a different explosion than from a plane crash at the crash scene. He found out (and I concur) that if you line up the camera trajectory of where the smoke plume is from where Val took her photo on her front porch, the smoke plume does not line up with where the crater is! It lines up approx. 250 yards away right next to a pond in back of the crash site and would have taken approx. 50 sec to travel that far in the reported 9 knot wind in the area (remember as mentioned above that Val said that the FBI said they saw what appeared to be debris flying out from the smoke plume and that’s why they took her original memory card from her camera. Not only is there no debris seen flying out of the plume, but I hardly doubt any debris could fly out of a plume that traveled over 250yds 50 seconds after a crash!). Remember that Val supposedly took this shot "approx. 5 seconds" after the crash and the plume in her photo looks consistent with a plume that is still in its infancy and is seen going straight up in the air, apparently not affected by any wind and it doesn't look like it has dissipated at all.


(Plume in photo lines up about 250 yd away from the crater. It would have taken approx. 50 sec to travel that distance in the reported 9 knot wind in the area. Click photo for hi-res. Photo mirror.)


(Photo source: Pittsburg Post-Gazette. See also ordnance comparison photo above.)


This is a huge smoking gun! It proves that this blast did not come from the crater thereby not from Flight 93 supposedly nose-diving in the ground there. However, this huge smoking gun gets even bigger and better! According to my analysis, this plume could not possibly have come anywhere near the crash site!



The Smokiest Smoking Gun

When I was doing my analysis and observing Val's photo closely to verify Rumpl4skn's results, something astonishing had jumped out at me. When staring closely at the smoke plume in her photo, I realized this smoke plume looked way too big and tall to have come from 1.5 miles away from where she snapped her photo.


I started drawing lines on a satellite photo of her area to determine how wide this plume would have been if it came anywhere near the crash crater. What I concluded (and Rumpl4skn concurred) is that if the smoke plume in Val's photo was near the crater, it would have been a whooping 700+ yards, or approx. 2,200 ft wide! That is over 7 football field lengths, or nearly half a mile wide! Also, notice the landscape rises up to the horizon which is only approx. 440 yards from Val's house. I've been told the crash scene area sits lower than Val's house so imagine how long it would have to take for a smoke plume to rise to even be seen over the horizon and then look how tall the plume in her photo towers over the horizon!




(
See also plume comparison. Diagrams and animated gif by Rumpl4skn. Click photos for hi-res. Mirrors: top photo, middle photo.)


I also estimated a "more realistic" sized explosion at approx. 200 yards wide (or 2 football field lengths) based mostly on the fire damage at the scene. If a 757 had crashed and made this size smoke plume at the time Val snapped her photo, you can clearly see that the explosion cloud in Val's photo could not have been anywhere near the crash scene, but much closer to her house:



(Photo scale at 1,000 ft/200 m. Click photo for hi-res. Photo mirror.)



Local Says Photo is Fake

Secrets are hard to keep in small towns. Shanksville appears to be no different.

9/11 researcher Jeff Hill called Kelly Leverknight, who was one of the witnesses who reportedly saw Flight 93 in the air before it allegedly crashed, to ask her about what really happened at Shanksville. Jeff spoke to a woman who claimed to be Kelly's daughter. However, it is thought that this woman was Kelly trying to hide her identity.

Upon their conversation, Jeff asked her about Val's photo. Here is what Ms. Leverknight had to say about it:

Jeff: Val McClatchey... she has a famous photo.
Ms. Leverknight: It was a fake photo, because it didn't have a mushroom cloud.
Jeff: So it was a fake photo?
Ms. Leverknight: Yeah.


Well what do you know? We discover that the plume in Val's photo lines up far from the crater, it looks way too big to have originated from the crater, we speculate that the plume might have been photoshopped on the photo, and then a local Shanksville resident* confirms our speculation by saying that the photo is fake because the original didn't have a mushroom cloud. How about that?


(*Note that I have never had any contact with any of the Leverknight's and I have no reason to believe that Jeff's and Ms. Leverknight's conversation wasn't real and honest.)





Motive

Are there any motives for Val to be in on faking this photo if it is indeed fake? Unfortunately, there are.

Right before 9/11, her and her husband had suffered "severe business loss." They were later forced to file for bankruptcy for their saw mill company:

(Photo source: Windsor Park Stories)


"On September 20, 2001, JCM Industries, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On February 12, 2002, the filing was converted to a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. John C. McClatchey, a director and nominee, is President, director and principal shareholder of JCM Industries, Inc." - Edgar-Online.com

"On February 12, 2002, JCM Industries, Inc. filed a liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. John C. McClatchey, a director, was Chief Executive Officer, director and principal shareholder of JCM Industries, Inc." - Edgar-Online.com


They ended up losing their business as of Dec 31, 2001, putting 40 people out of work. Val also mentions that they may lose their house.

And it gets worse. Val mentions that her and one of her children have major health problems. Just imagine if they lost their health insurance around the time when their business goes under. They also have some other potential major expenses coming up with her son buying a house and her daughter getting married in eight months. Remember it's tradition in America for the bride's family to pay for most of a wedding.


Other important questions to ask are, after 9/11 during all this time of financial hardship, having health problems and surgery, then starting classes to for a new career to help out her family, who is taking the time and energy to process all the incoming orders for copies of her photo, print them all out, stuff them in envelopes, stamp them, take them to the post office, and buy future supplies? Was it mostly her husband who she says now works at home after their saw mill business closed, but didn't say does specifically what as she works out of the house with her new real estate career? They are supposedly in a time of severe financial crisis. Do they really have enough time to sell all these copies of their photo in which they say they are not profitting from? Wouldn't that be just too risky to take on this commitment of selling their photo essentially all for charity when they just lost their business, might lose their home, going through major health problems, and potentially having major expenses in the near future with their kids?



So with their severe financial crisis right before 9/11 along with her and one of her kids having major health problems, she buys a new $299 MSRP digital camera and a new computer, which most likely cost over $1,000, and a month after this expensive purchase in a time were they might lose their business and house, she happens to be the only person to photograph the alleged smoke aftermath of the most unusual plane crash in essentially her backyard after having her new camera ready by the front expecting a flyover by a friend with his helicopter, only took one photo because she "drops" her camera afterward which "jolted the battery loose," copyrights this one-in-a-million shot and sues the AP for $150,00 for alleged unauthorized use, sells it for $20 bucks a pop in which she supposedly only keeps a measly $2 per sale with the rest going to charity, has the time to process and printout all the orders for copies of her photo, she admits to keeping some of the profits, and 3 1/2 years later, she is able to open up her own realty company in the spring of 2005. Did any of that sound fishy to you?


Also, note that Val's husband John seems to be no stranger to how money works:

John C McClatchey

Director at
Commercial National Financial Corporation
Latrobe, Pennsylvania
FINANCIAL / REGIONAL - MIDWEST BANKS
Director since 1990
66 years old
Retired, Former Chief Executive Officer, JCM Industries, Inc. Manufacturer of hardwood lumber and pallets

- Forbes

(Photo source: SNL Financial)

And in May 2004, he seems to indicate he’s not in financial trouble anymore from refusing an offer of $1,200 for his domain name (www.jcm.com [archived]) he used for his now defunct saw mill business that he was asking $5,000 for by saying “I do not need the money”.


Now there are lots of reasons to need to buy a new digital camera and a new computer in the time of financial hardship. Some might say she had to make this expensive investment for her new career in real estate which would be very logical. However according to her, she didn't even start taking real estate classes until the after at least Christmas.


Did they just plan this so well in advance for this expensive purchase?


It's sad to think about a family who is having major financial and health problems, but unfortunately, these are the types of extreme circumstances that can cause people to do unethical things in the such dire times and these are the types of things the police would look for in a criminal investigation.



A More Sinister Motive?


But what if there was another motive, one that is a little more sinister like . . . bribery?


Remember the official story is that three FBI agents came over to her house within a half hour after Val took a printed copy of her photo to the police because the claim is that the FBI thought they saw debris falling out of the smoke plume on Val's photo. Does it really make sense that not only one, but three FBI agents would come over to Val's house so quickly because they thought they saw debris falling out of the smoke plume???


Well what would make more sense to have three FBI agents come over her house so quickly and confiscating her camera equipment? Remember that Val had mentioned hearing the roar of an engine over Indian Lake that was going in the opposite direction that Flight 93 allegedly flew and that there were over a dozen witnesses near the Shanksville crash that reported seeing other mysterious small white aircraft in the area before and right after the alleged crash.


One of these witnesses who saw this mystery aircraft was Susan McElwain. She was one of the few who reported to see this aircraft before the crash and not only that, but the mystery aircraft she saw fly 40ft over her minivan was no airplane, but some kind of unmarked white wingless military aircraft!


So what if Val did take some photos that morning, some photos that she wasn't supposed to, like of that little white aircraft seen by all those eye witnesses before and after the crash? Now that would be a good reason for a bunch of FBI agents to rush over to her house. They wanted to confiscate her camera equipment and computer's hard drive to rid the evidence and then maybe, to the luck of the FBI, the McClatchey's, who were in financial dire straits, caved in and took a bribe by the FBI that they couldn't resist; agreeing to keep quiet about the photo Val really took to protect their family's safety and taking part in profiting over a fake photo supplied by the government to get out of the severe financial crisis they were in. That would be totally consistent with Ms. Leverknight's claim that Val's photo is fake because the original didn't have a mushroom cloud in it.


Also, was the reason Val, her husband, and her husband's brother all got into real estate because the FBI told them that the local land value would increase since the crash site would soon become a national memorial?



Here is what we have so far:


1. Val was at her house near the northwest tip of Indian Lake, about 1.6 miles from the crash scene.


2. She had her month-old digital camera ready near her front door waiting for a friend of hers to do a flyby over her house in his helicopter.


3. Val hears a loud roar of a plane fly over Indian Lake towards the crash scene, which flies in almost the opposite direction of the official flight path of Flight 93, manages to catch just a glimpse of when looking out her front window before it dips over the horizon behind the red barn. She thought it was a small plane which is consistent with the multiple other eyewitness reports of a strange small white plane in the area before and after the crash.


4. She is almost knocked off her couch and her lights and phone service get knocked out by the violent, house-shaking boom from the shock wave of the alleged crash. She never reports any of the windows, or glassware in her house breaking, or any pictures on her walls falling off from the this powerful blast.


5. She grabs her camera and runs out on to her front porch and takes only one photo of the smoke plume approx. 5 seconds after impact which is being confirmed by the FBI. Her photo is also the only known photo of smoke in the sky allegedly coming from the crash site.


6. Her digital camera she apparently used has been identified as a HP PhotoSmart 315 that has only 2.1 MegaPixel with no optical zoom and had a MSRP of $299. It came with a bundle of photo editing software, although it is not know at this time if that software could be used for photoshopping a plume on her photo.


7. She says the reason she took only one photo of the plume is because she dropped her camera afterward in and it jolted the four AA batteries lose from the camera.


8. She says her photo sat in her camera for days and didn’t realize any of the significance with the photo she had just taken and then she heard the state police and FBI put out a call to people in the area for photos, debris, or any other evidence of the crash. She printed out a copy of it using her new computer and took it over to the police.


9. Within an hour after taking her photo to the police, three FBI agents (Special agents David J Hacker, Todd J. Brown, and Phil Lewzander) come in her house, look at her photo on her computer, and see what appears to be debris flying out from the smoke plume that's over 250 yards from the crater and approx. 50 seconds after the crash. They take her original camera memory card and possibly her computer's hard drive back with them.


10. Val copyrights her photo and sells it for $20 dollars in which $18 supposedly goes to Todd Beamer Foundation (now called Heroic Choices). What you get for $20 is an 8 1/2" x 11" print on photo paper.


11. She has charged $250 to $350 to various news organizations for one-time use of her photo.


12. She says she uses the "honor system" in forwarding proceeds from selling her photo to the Todd Beamer foundation and she does receive checks in her name and will still send you a print.


13. She is suing the Associated Press for $150,000 plus any profits the AP realized for alleged copyright infringment over her photo.


14. She admits to keeping some of the proceeds made from selling her photo for her lawsuit against the AP


15. The Todd Beamer foundation were called by the Post-Gazette for questioning, but they didn't not return their phone calls.


16. Val claims her photo is authentic saying her neighbors saw the image still in her camera and that her digital camera and computer were new and that she didn't have anyphoto-altering software although her camera did come with photo editing software.


17. The FBI claims her photo is "very legitimate".


18. A local Shanksville resident says that Val's photo is fake because the original didn't have a mushroom cloud in it.


19. Right before 9/11, her husband's company, JCM Industries, is forced to filebankruptcy. The may lose their house. Val and one of her children have major health problems and her son is about to buy a house and her daughter is getting married in eight months.


20. Someone has to take the time to process all the orders for copies of her photo, print them out, stuff them in envelopes, stamp them, take them to the post office, and buy supplies.


21. She opens up her new realty company Spring of 2005.


22. Researcher Rumpl4skn is the first person to notice that the smoke plume in her photo does not line up with the crater at the crash scene and afterward I then noticed that the size of the smoke plume in her photo is way too large to have come anywhere near the crash scene.



Conclusions

So with this revelation that the smoke plume seen in Val's photo couldn't possibly have came from the crash area and that a local Shanksville resident even says the photo is a fake, I can only think of two possible explanations:


1) The smoke plume came from an explosion originating closer to her house.




(See plume analysis blogpost. Click photo for hi-res. Photo mirror.)



2) The smoke plume on her photo was photoshopped on there.


(Val's "End of Serenity" photo.)


(On a side note, Reuters has just admitted that one of their photographers has been suspended for doctoring smoke plumes on a Beirut photo.)



Who's Going to Jail?

If it really was an ordnance blast not too far beyond the white barn and white farm house, then this would be a true smoking gun and one of the clearest examples of complicity in the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. government because what else could have caused such a large explosion and who else would have been behind it?

If the smoke plume was photoshopped on there, then the photo is part of a scam in which the Todd Beamer Foundation is excepting scam money, even if unknowingly. The following are possibilities:


1. The photo was simply a fraud by Val and her possible accomplices, including the Todd Beamer Foundation who are in on a scam, but there are no connections to 9/11 even if the attacks turned out to be an inside job and the FBI were too clueless to have notice Val's photo was a fake.

2. The photo was a fraud by her and her possible accomplices including the FBI, who did inspect her photo and took away her original memory card and possibly her computer's hard drive, and with the FBI involved, there is a strong possibility that this scam has something to do with 9/11 being an inside job.

3. The photo was faked by the FBI after Val showed the authorities what she really photographed and was bribed to go along with the fraud.



If the first is true, then Val may be off the hook. If any of the latter two are the case then Val, you got some splainin'to do!


Val's home address was found here (archive) -- where her photo was being advertised -- and also here. Her work website is here (archive) which also advertises her photo and asks people to call her at her business for copies.


Contact her local media and urge them to question her about this photo:


Most of the credit for this goes to Rumpl4skn for first noticing that the smoke plume didn't line up with the crash scene.

See also:


Media articles:

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I happen to live in Geistown, I would say northwest of Indian Lake. I saw and heard the plane go over my house, because it seemed to be flying lower than a normal plane. Idian Lake DOES in fact have sporadic cell phone service...where are you from-we have mountains here! All phones in my area were out of order within minutes, to allow for emergency personell to have use of phone lines. I had electricity where I live, but as close as VAl Is she probably DID have hers interuppted, and as far as cooking, HELLO, we live in PA we use gas,ya know, electric gets kncokced out in the winter, DUH!

Lisa Guliani said...

The above commenter states:

"Sporadic cell phone service from the ground..."

When we were there in Indian Lake in May 2006, the day was clear and sunny with a mild breeze. the next day was similar as far as weather and still we had no cell phone service. We could not get a signal at all from a cell phone. When you say "sporadic", what specifically are you saying?
On average, would you say your cell phone works or doesn't work most often?

Interestingly enough, we also have mountains here in Central Pa. and I am able to get a signal from my cell phone from the ground. I am able to get a signal when it snows or when it rains or when there is strong wind.
I live at the foot of Mt. Nittany. the landscape surrounding this area has rolling hills as well as mountains.

I repeat: we could get NO signal at all on either of the 2 days we were in Shanksville/Indian lake/New Baltimore area. Not one signal anywhere we drove. Both days were sunny and clear.
If signal transmission is so "sporadic" at best in your area even now in 2006, then how "sporadic" might it have been from the much higher reported altitude of Flt. 93 when the legendary "cell phone calls" were said to have taken place on 9-11-01? With such admittedly "sporadic" signal transmission capabilities in your area from the GROUND, how likely is it that such cell phone calls ever occurred as the govt. claims on 9-11?
Hmm?

You make the statement:
"..and as far as cooking, HELLO, we live in PA we use gas,ya know,.."

Well, I suggest you might want to rephrase the above comment because NOT everybody in PA. uses GAS to cook. Are you saying that every single household in the Indian Lake and Shanksville area uses only gas for cooking? Or are you referring only to YOUR own household?

I can tell you straight up that your comment does not hold true for every Pennsylvania household, as you assert.
I live in Central PA. and in our household, we use electric, not gas, for cooking. I suspect that many other Pennsylvania residents use some other heating source other than gas for cooking purposes as well.

So, you both SAW and HEARD the plane...What exactly, precisely did you see and would you please identify yourself?

Lisa Guliani
WING TV

Anonymous said...

Either she actually saw an air-to-air missile explode on the ground, or she saw some type of "practice" smoke-bomb exploded as a diversion. The "crater" was too small for an aircraft, and there were no body parts, so the engine dug a little divet and bounced into the pond. That's why only the tops of the trees were broken and singed, but not fire damage on the ground nor crater. The main fuselage, wings and other engine crashed elsewhere, since the Sidewinder missile only needed to hit one engine, and the aircraft would barrel roll violently after one engine fell off, making it impossible to hit both engines. Col Donn De Grand Pre said 2 Sidewinders were fired, so one had to miss and hit the ground somewhere.

TV news audio clips of F16 pilot saying he's ready to shoot down US airliners, and that Bush and Cheney did allegedly give a shoot down order before Flight 93 crashed (a lie to take credit for Col Rick Gibney and his commander refusing Cheney's illegal Stand Down order):
http://piratenews.org/flight93.html
http://piratenews.org/audio_usaf_shoot_down_airliners1.wav
http://piratenews.org/audio_usaf_shoot_down_airliners2.wav
http://piratenews.org/audio_usaf_shoot_down_airliners3.wav
http://piratenews.org/audio_usaf_shoot_down_airliners4.wav

Flight 93 Giant Boxcutter Memorial Tombstone:
http://piratenews.org/ua93memorial3.jpg
This photo is now censored from the official websites.

Note that all the WTC victims are still rotting in Fresh Kills Landfill, or on the roofs of surrounding buildings in NY City, vaporized by 10,000s of explosions and Thermate firebombs. Gangsta Govt is hijacked by serial killers and pathological liars.

Anonymous said...

I notice this picture is referenced in an ABC disinfo special from 9/11/02 (see middle video at http://www.911blogger.com/node/3299).

There are two short short clip of the photo location - the photo itself and a brief clip of live footage with a pickup truck driving by taken from the same location the photo was taken.

What surprises me after some inspection is that there is absolutely zero rotation difference between the two when overlayed.

Maybe just another coincidence...What's one more? The odds of all these coincidences occurring are already staggering.

Rumpl4skn said...

As we say here in Bergs Connie, PA..... "Why say, Val, it chust don't wash."

Spooked said...

Excellent job, Kill!

Danny English said...

Some really good points.

I bet it's kinda ruined her life,
she'll go down in 9/11 history as the person who cashed in on a supposed fake/faulty photograph of the United 93 explosion.

I'm doing an Essay at school on United 93 and it's conpiracy theories. Thanks & keep up the good/bad work lol.

Anonymous said...

Unreal. I cannot believe your so called evidence. Sounds perfectly ok to me what she said. You continualy emphasise the camera was only a month old. so what?? You are trying to say what?? She bought it a month ago because she knew?Or that she couldnt use it?? How old it is means nothing. By the front door? I keep mine there as well. And i carry one in my car? Does that make me what? Where was she supposed to keep the camera/
Oh and then the snide remark the camera came with photo edit. They all do. And why dont you be honest? If the woman made the fake, are you saying the FBI, the supposed best in teh world, could not deduce a fake? Go to any site on the net. Fakes in digital photos are near impossible to do even for experts. so on one hand you say she is a novice with a camera only had it a month, then say wow how can she have the shot so still and centred and all that, but you change the arguement to suit . The inuendo again with ""well she has got photo editing. Hey you ever tried to use photo edit or similar?? takes a real good knowledge let alone a totaly perfect fraud that even the FBI cant detect".Any clown on their computer can enlarge and in a second see a fake. So what is she? A bankrupt novice, with a month old camera , who cant even get batteries back in and drops her camera and cant download because she has a new computer? Or is she an expert enhancer of digital photos that can fool FBI and no doubt millions of people on the net with computer enhances etc cant detect?? She was going bankrupt? Why are u trying to discredit her with that.Oh she faked the pic to make money? Did you check when the pic was taken? The memory card? The sequence of before or after shots on the camera? It will tell you when the pic was taken and verify if that pic was taken. How would she know days later to go out take the pic? how would she know the plane was going to crash there? How would she be so stupid if days after the crash and she realised that she would fake a photo of such a tragic event that wwould laand her in prison and be themost hated person in the USA for doing. Did you or anyone else check if her friend had arranged to fly over in a chopper that day? If its true it would support totaly wouldnt it. Thought it would be easy to do. Not everyone has a chopper they can fly over the house. See if its true and the plane crashed the authorities would have closed the airspace so he couldnt? Have you checked? You little detective you. n Now a days everone carries cameras and videos. You know why? Because you in america make millions with the right picture so now we all hope we can get a shot. Havnt got the space or time to go on but mate right or wrong, I dont make any comment on 9/11 just the pretty lame EVIDENCE, and inuendo and crap you have on.What People aint allowed to have a new camera, have it near there door, go outside and take a picture when a plane crashes or they see an explosion? They are not allowed to keep a camerasteady, dont drop it. Seems to me I have seen thousands of perfect photos from that daay taken by lots of people and they are rock steady. Video to, ameteurs, all steady. And gee dont be bankrupt and dont dare sell the photo in a country that started and thrives on doing it from public.Have you checked the sales of other photos taken on that day and their profit and all that??Have you checked all the financialpositions and where the money goes?? I could say you questioned how she could take a steady photo when she had heard the explosion, the house shake, race out side , new camera etc. Well then If you were honest what about her DROPPING the camera. Could say well hell that sorta makes sense if she is shaky, frightened? but u ignore that. Same as you did not say or maybe have never asked did the camera have an anti shake mode?? Most do seeing novices use it. You found the make and all that very well so how about telling if that model in fact has an anti shaake capability?If it did would not that explain a steady shot even though she may have been shaking? ohhhh ok. sorry i asked.You want to be a detective?? Do it properly. Havnt got the space or time here but anyone wnts to ask I try to explain more ok. regards.
SCAB

Anonymous said...

SCAB - I am interested in the points about the fraud in the picture. How do you explain the size of the plume, the wrong location, and all the other good points. Forget about the other things, your right, they don;t prove anything. But how bout the picture ? I am neutral, but something does seem fishy. Explain the picture points that were brought out ?

Mark J said...

I'm not disputing or agreeing with any part of your blog as I have only just read this part but I did just want to point out that it would be easier for cell phones to get a signal up in the air than down on the ground. Microwaves need a clear line of sight to a cell tower to get a signal. This would be less of a problem in the air compared to the ground where the terrain might block the wave's path.

Also, the plane would have been travelling at some speed covering large distances so the fact of there being signals on the plane would not dispute there being no signal near the crash site.

I don't dispute the possibility of fakery but it is important to get all the facts right. I will peruse the rest of your site to see if it offers any more food for thought.

Mark J said...

Oh I agree with you on the colour of ordinance explosions and jet fuel explosions. As I understand it, kerosene burns with a thick black smoke whereas the combination of smoke and dust from an ordinance explosions gives it that greyish colour.

I've heard Val's comments on a Google video that there might have been wind-drift. This could explain the lightening of the smoke—particularly if all the kerosene was burnt off fairly quickly—but this would contradict the fact that the picture was supposed to be taken after 5 seconds so it is unlikely that much wind-drift could have occurred.

bobbebop05 said...

What gets me is that there is no wreckage. I dont buy the whole crock story about the plane being vaporized when it hit the ground. There are ALWAYS pieces of the crash left. Tail, wings, or fuselage are always part of the crash scene. This lady is full of it. When jet fuel burns it burns black because its DUH an chemical agent. That photo was so clearly photoshopped that it amazes me that no one has caught on to it yet after five years. Flight 93 was shot down by either a missle or it was destroyed in the air. The house shaking boom is very similar to an Electric Magnetic Pulse. It does disrupt both electric and magnetic waves sometimes for long periods of time. She is a crock of shit and so is the government.

Respectfully,

Bob Jones Richmond, KY

Feel free to send me your comments at bobbebop05@msn.com

f said...

man you really need to get a life seriously

Matt_C said...

I don't understand the need to personally attack Val McClatchey(sp?). You question her personal integrity, her husbands integrity, her childrens integrity, her business interests, her real estate interests, her financial status and many, many other areas of her personal life. You've even gone so far as to publish her home and work addresses, email addresses and phone numbers without her permission. What I want to know is why this need to try to destroy her life in the manner in which you have? You accuse her through innunendo and outright false statements of what you call "facts", of photoshopping the pic., of siphoning funds from the Todd Beamer Foundation, of being in cahoots with the FBI or other gov't agencies. You mistate real facts and put out blatantly false information all in the intereests of totally discrediting McClatchey? Why? Is your own personal life so lonely and pathetic that you just aren't happy unless you're fu**ing with someone?

Is McClatchey not allowed to keep a camera near the door? Is she not allowed to take a photo (personally I have taken a lot of photos and had them come out nicely without ever using, or even learning to use, Photoshop or any other photo editing software) that comes out with a clear image?

You also question the cell phone calls made from Flt. 93. You moron, all it takes is about 5 seconds of rational thought to figure out that from a valley in the mountains you most likely aren't going to get good reception, whereas at slightly over 40,000 feet at its highet point, Flt. 93 actually had very good reception. Your theory of the gov't faking those calls has been widely and repeatedly discreditid and proven to be false, and yet here you are, still clinging to your own stupid, ignorant and unproven theories.

So many accusations of wrongdoing, impropriety and outright collusion between the gov't and McClatchey and yet you offer not one iota of proof of any wrongdoing by anyone at any time.

Why not look for proof before casting aspersions againts private citizens? Why not prove your case instead of simply attacking peoples integrity without one shred of evidence?

I'll tell you why not: Because when all else fails, and your argument is lost, launch personal attacks. The truly educated mind should always remain open and skeptical. It's sad to see that people like you cannot keep an open mind, cannot control their own mouths until proper proof of their claims is put forth and cannot see past their own bullshit.

Killtown said...

Matt_C,

Funny you accuse me of personal attacks and then you personally attack me.

I did not post any private info of Val's. Her phone #'s and address were PUBLICLY displayed one the website advertising her photo and her own WK website.

I love how you say in one breath "Why not prove your case instead of simply attacking peoples integrity without one shred of evidence?" and then in the next breath "The truly educated mind should always remain open and skeptical".

You should listen to your own advice.

Dog Boy said...

I hadn't seen this photo until today, and without even knowing the controversy, I recognized a fake from the THUMBNAIL... My first thought was "WTF? That CAN'T be a 911 crash and why is it supposedly coming from the foreground where no crash is visible?" ]

Your scale analysis is very astute, and from having watched a lot of explosions at various distances the original photo made me believe the explosion came from the foreground of the treeline, somewhere near the far white barns on the right... but your reworked photo is EXACTLY what I would expect to see from an explosion beyond the range of that treeline.

I'm no expert, but as a trained artillery observer I've watched enough ordinance from my army days and from watching the bombing ranges getting worked out in California pre-Gulf2.. That's what I see here. Ordnance of some kind, probably not heavy ground impact. Not to mention the clearly short burst of an ordnance explosion not the continuous burn of a heavily fueled plane crash which catches nearby brush on fire and requires professional firefighting intervention resulting in black smoke to white steam and lasts for sometimes hours! The clear blue sky under the burst shows a quick blast and no burn and it makes me think of something quickly photoshopped at the wrong scale and looks more like an airborne missile explosion to me since there doesn't appear to be that much dirt thrown airborne as with bombs and artillery explosions and not nearly black enough to be fuel.

I've also witnessed and videoed firey crashes... That's NOT what I see here.

I've ALSO walked on the ground in the 101st Airborne's firing range where decades of bombs, missiles, artillery, mortars, grenades and you NAME it have been lobbed, and from personal experience EVEN THINGS THAT ARE MADE TO EXPLODE DO NOT "VAPORIZE"... the firing range is a veritable junkyard of unexploded ordinance, twisted missile parts, hunks of shrapnel still with threaded grooves and serial numbers on it... REMEMBER, this stuff is MADE to blow up and KILL people and its still here decades later... Where did those "PLANES" go in Washington and Pennsylvania? A passenger plane 'vaporized' on impact, but a Hellfire or TOW missile doesn't? Why can I find aluminum parts and WIRE from MISSILES but they can't find parts from PLANES?

All of this just puzzles me more, why would someone fake a photo that is so CLEARLY a fake? Although I suppose to the casual observer it might appear real and given the national shock at the time our stock of disbelief seemed to be at an all time low. Hell, most people bought the notion that assholes with box cutters and planes made three skyscrapers improbably, yet profitably, defy physics and conveniently collapse.

Meanwhile our debate of semantics and trustworthiness of evidential minutia are mere fiddling while Rome burns and our freedoms evaporate before our very eyes...

This was clearly the biggest PsyOp in HISTORY with an ROI (return on investment) that is the stuff of legend and its goal and effect was not to fool ALL, but to fool ENOUGH and that's ALL that's needed. Don't STAY fooled. WAKE UP AND UNITE PEOPLE! Before it's too late...

The sooner people REALIZE 911 was allowed or planned from inside the US the sooner we can begin to address change in this country, and not through compromised, complicit electronic 'voting' schemes, but look instead to the Ukraine or Lebanon for inspiration from the common citizen.

Change only comes when we THINK it matters...

DaddyKane said...

Alot of people on here I have seen writing, are giving their own statements of this, based on a overly hyped sense of mistrust and a deep "conspiracy theorist" attitude. I have not seen anyone give a factual statement of anything. I do like the way you provided a draw your own conclusion base to the whole thing kill, but some of the people that are leaving replies, have no logicic, just speculatory conjectures, and accusations.

Here is a logical thought, but not an actual fact based statement.

She said she was waiting for her friend to fly overhead in a helo, yet I have never heard any helo, that has the engine thrust of jet engine, has anyone else? They are completely different sounds.
She siad she was in her living room, when she heard the plane fly overhead, and then got up to go to a window to look and caught a glimpse of it.
Then, she grabed her camera, went outside, turned it on, elevated it, and snapped the pic.

I can see it taking place as she said; if time had stopped long enough for her to accomplish all these things in sequential order.

My basis for this is as such.......

She admitted to being on her couch when it flew overhead, and the deafening sound, and rattling nearly knocked her off her couch. I have been around expolsions, and my equilibrium has been hampered by loud noises, as everyones are. Please keep that in mind.
Now, the plane crashed approx. 1.6 miles from her home. It was traveling at speeds in excess of 500 mph or so, according to reports.
Calculate the time it would take, for a plane traveling that fast to travel 1.6 miles, and factor in the angle of the plane as well. It was almost pitched over. That, for me; tells me the plane was already on its way to crash, via a nosedive. I calculated, that it would take around 2.4 seconds, for the plane to travel 1.6 miles (the distance from photo origination to crash site) based on the speed it was traveling, and the angle at which the plane was reported to be.
Now, that leaves around 7 or 8 seconds total, from the time it may have flown over her home, to the image of the cloud seen in her pic.

She claims, she was sitting on her couch when she heard the jet thrust, and felt the severe vibrations. I can tell you, from someone that has lived 1.5 miles from nellis air force base in las vegas nevada, for close to 15 years, that the vibrations, of transport craft, are a light runbble, from about 1500 to 2000 feet elevation. For her, at the altitude the plane was, and at the speed it was going, it would have been like a freight train rumbling through her living room. Also, she would not have felt the sever rumble like she claimed, until after the plane was already passed her home.

She was admittedly sitting on her couch right? and she was almost thrown from her couch right? Well, if a violent rumble had occured like she said, is it plausible, that she would have the presence of mind, to jump up, run to her window, from a shadowed house, look out, let her eyes adjust to the light of the sun outside, see a plane, and then have the presence of mind to grab her camera, and go outside? Yes, it is plausible.

However, what is the distance from her couch to the window? what is the distance from her window she looked out of, to her door?

Like I said, the plane would have been directly over her house at least, if not already passed, and with no more the 3 seconds from that point, to impact, I think to myself, with the rumble, and subsequent near dislodging from her couch, which I call a "loss of equilibrium", it would take about a second, to regain composure (after all, how many people have been tosseled around for a second, and had to steady them self afterward?)Another second to get off the couch. Another 1 or 2 seconds to get to her window, depending on placement of furniture and at least 1 more second to look out of the window, and search for, and possibly identify an object traveling at an extreme high rate of speed. That is minimum 4 to 5 seconds, just from the seated position from the couch, to looking out the window. How many people though, actually have the presence of mind, after being severely jarred as she claims, have the presence of mind to accomplish all that in that very short time frame? Test the theory for yourselves if you want to. I have, and I find it Highly unlikely if not impossible. I doubt, that she would have been able to catch a glimpse of a plane flying overhead, like she said. I do not believe she even saw the plane to begin with.

Now, say she did somehow catch a glimpse of the plane, it would not have been until it was just dipping behind the tree line, a mere second from impact.
Which means, based on reaction time, she would have been looking out her window as the impact happened.

She claims the photo was taken a mere 5 seconds after impact, but....

based on my theory, she would have been at her window at the moment of impact. for her brain to compute the info, and set the body in motion, more than likely, took a second at minimum. Grabbing her camera en route to her door took another 2 or three seconds, based on the distance from the closest point of her window to the door from the photo of the front of her house. Now thats 3 to 4 seconds so far. To open her door, step back to allow it time to open far enough for her to step through, and to actually step through her door to her porch, another 1 to 2 seconds. Turning on the camera, and allowing to load and get ready for picture taking ready 4 seconds. ( I know this because I had that same damn camera, and the wait always made me mad)raising the camera and leveling off to get a pic as good as she did, 2 seconds. However, the camera did have that thing where you could be moving, and it would still get a clear still pic. Now from window to picture snap, that 13 to 16 seconds; and a total of 17 to 21 seconds for the whole thing. This is my theory, but I am not stating as absolute fact, however, my calculations, lead me to this conclusion, and I invite any and all to share their opinions.
I personally believe the photo is fake, because honestly; unless her reaction time is some other worldly or god like power on the same level as superman, or the flash; I dont see her doing all that in that time frame.

As far as the whole "allegedly crashed" thing I read in this post; what do you mean alleged? Whether it was shot down, or nosedived on its own, it 'DID' crash.
As far as many saying the government shot the plane down, and then covered it up; I say; why would they?
I mean really, in that instance, with the worlds fore most military instilation having just been hit by a separate plane, and news that another plane was en route to D.C., the military would have known, from mointoring air traffic, that the plane was no longer in appropriate control; and would have figured the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And shot the plane down before it could have crashed into the white house or capital. They would not have covered it up as many say. They would have justified with an explaination of something like; "If the plane had crashed into the white house, or capital building, the U.S. government would have been hard pressed to get back to a functioning body in a dire time of need, and therefore, the destruction of the plane was necessary." or something to that effect. In a time of need like that, the military has the authority to fire on planes that may be used in the manner that they were, without needing to explain the actions.
I see no reason to cover up the united 93 crash myself. But many conspiracy theorists, that have nothing better to do than cast shadowed accusations at the government, continue to argue the point to raise an anarchist viewpoint in hopes of possibly causing disention and strife.

Seriously, how many trucks were seen leaving the scene of the crash, covered up with tarp to obscure the payload? Were they escorted by armed military vehicles? News camera were on the scene of the crash shortly after it went down, and stayed for days. I find it hard to believe that the government actually was able to cover up something, under the scrutiny that they were from many eyes.
As for their not being bebris in quantity at the crash site; I am not going to speculate on that, because I honestly, I cannot form a theory of it. To me, it is a big mystery. All I can possibly think is, perhaps the impact speed, and force of it, shattered the fuelselage into tiny pieces, and that they were strewn over a large area. But a nose dive at that speed, to my mind, would have left a hole bigger than 10 feet deep, and so many feet wide. so as you think you figure one thing out, another thing steps in to throw off the theory. Who knows the truth? Only those involved on that tragic day.

One last thing, with the exception of the "terrorists" that brought about the tragedy, I would like to say to those affected by this profoundly, I am with you. I had a cousin that died in the south tower of wtc.
May his, and every other soul that died tragically that day, before their time, find rest, and peace in the afterlife. Whatever it is for them.

John Lee, Hollywood winner said...

Pentagon exploring robot killers that can fire on their own
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/256/story/64779.html

Note this news article is by MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS...

Any relation?

Like that Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter in USA claiming to see babies thrown from incubators for Howlton PR firm?