February 22, 2007

More Evidence - Flight 93 Photo Fraud

(Originally posted here by 'nick7261' on 22-2-2007.)


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!

*Note: Officially Flight 175 supposedly crashed with 65% more fuel left than Flight 93 supposedly did (9,100 gal vs. 5,500 gal) and most of Flight 93 (past the cockpit section on back) had supposedly buried deep into the ground so fast that "it didn’t have a chance to burn."


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!!


----------------------

 *My addition to nick7261's post.

February 11, 2007

Val and the 'honor system'

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether Val is able to profit from the sales of her photo. Conspiracy skeptics say that Val is unable to profit, because they point out that the website that advertises Val’s photo states that checks are to be made out to the Todd Beamer Foundation:

It is also important to note that Val is not profiting from this photo. She has stated that she is now keeping some of the proceeds to deal with legal fees relating to a lawsuit with this picture, but if you go to her website to order a copy of her picture, you'll find this:
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:
Last time I checked, her name was Val McClatchey, not "Todd Beamer Foundation". So she can't very well deposit these checks into her own account.



However, if all the checks are made out to the charity, how does Val get reimbursed $2 per print she keeps to cover for supplies and shipping and how is she able to keep some of the proceeds she admits keeping in order to help fight her lawsuit against the AP?

I’ve pointed out before that in at least one occasion, a magazine that had advertised Val’s photo for sale did not say to write checks out to the Beamer Foundation, but told people to make it out in Val’s name. I’ve also argued that it’s possible that people going to her work to buy a print might be able to pay cash for it.

I have also wondered how many people who went to the website that advertises Val’s photo where it says to write checks out to the Beamer Foundation accidentally goofed and wrote their check out in Val’s name and still got a print, so to test out this theory, I had someone “accidentally” write out a check in Val's name:

(Front view of cashed checked.)




...and this is what they got:


Remember, it’s by the honor system that Val forwards her proceeds. Let’s just hope Val is true to her word and forwards $18 from this check to the Beamer Foundation.

February 10, 2007

What you get for $20

Here is what you get when you send Val $20 for a print of her “End of Serenity” photo:

It is an 8.5 x 11 print on Kodak photo paper*.

(Back of print. Kodak photo paper used.)

(Three stamps used totally $1.17.)


Quality of the Print


The person who purchased this copy of her photo describes the blown up print as “horrible”. They said the print was blurry and there is all this ugly writing all over it:



I asked was the print worth the $20 and they responded with a big “No!”


It’s also interesting to note that Val had mentioned that the reason the FBI took her camera’s memory card back with them is because she said they saw debris flying out of the plume in her photo. If you look at a close-up of the plume in her photo print, there seems to be a few dark spots on it, but nothing that looks like plane or paper debris flying out from it, but more like just blotches of ink.


(*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.)


February 07, 2007

"9/11 Conspiracy Theory" - CW11 New York

Watch clip here (@17:00).


CW11's Fact Finders

9/11 Conspiracy Theory

"Other skeptics raising questions claim this picture showing the smoke cloud after United Flight 93 crashed looks like and out-and-out fake." - CW11 WPIX-TV New York (02/07/07)




See also: