December 10, 2008

'Terrorcell': Val's photo fake 'beyond all shadow of a doubt'

Expert Shanksville researcher Domenick DiMaggio (a.k.a. "Terrorcell"), who has been to Shanksville and interviewed more witnesses there than probably anyone outside the govt, has this response to the following poll question "*If* Val's plume photo turns out to be a fake, is it evidence of a 9/11 cover-up?" which I started at (bolding and hyperlink mine):

yes. it absolutely is.

and i know beyond all shadow of a doubt that it is a fabrication created by [most likely] the fbi.

i know this from talking to eyewitnesses who all describe a black smoke rising into the air and trailing off as one would expect from a violent explosion. none of them described a mushroom cloud and i have spoken with a witness [off the record] who agrees with kelly leverknights assessment that it is faked. furthermore this witness could not believe the whole i dropped my camera and couldn't load the batteries before it was gone because they said the smoke lasted for several minutes.

The two question options for my poll were:
  1. Yes, because the FBI were involved with the forgery.
  2. No, it was just a simple scam for money/fame. No govt involvement.

Domenick was one of the people who interviewed Susan McElwain who saw an unmarked silent white UAV fly a few feet over her minivan moments before the alleged crash of Flight 93, but who never saw a Boeing 757.

September 22, 2008

Two 'Flight 93 plume' videos pulled by YouTube

Two days after uploading the video Spanair crash plume vs. 'Flight 93 plume' (blogpost) , YouTube pulls it along with the video Shanksville local says Flight 93 plume photo is fake! (blogpost) because of a "copyright infringement" complaint issued by Mtn. Lakes Realty, LLC, Val McClatchey's real estate business.

Notices from YouTube:

Spanair crash plume vs. 'Flight 93 plume'

Shanksville local says Flight 93 plume photo is fake!

September 20, 2008

Spanair crash plume vs. 'Flight 93 plume'

(Update 09/22/08: YouTube pulls original video.)

crashed Aug 20, 2008

Val McClatchey's "End of Serenity" photo


(Below was the original video.)

July 11, 2008

Iran 'faked missile test image'

To show an example of photo fakery and how well it can be made to look:

"Iran has been accused of altering an image of a missile test, possibly to exaggerate its military capabilities.

Four missiles appear to take off from a desert launch pad in one image of the test published on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards website.

But a similar image has emerged that shows one missile still in its launcher after apparently failing to fire.

Analysts said that in the image apparently showing four missiles taking off, one of the projectiles was added using elements from the smoke trail and dust clouds from two of the other successfully launched missiles.


The image said to have been digitally altered was disseminated by the AFP news agency and reproduced by media organisations around the world - including the BBC News website, which removed it from pages when doubts about its authenticity were raised. "

- BBC (07/10/08)

Remember that Ms. Leverknight said about Val McClatchey's photo in a phone call from Jeff Hill that the original photo didn't have a mushroom cloud in it which means someone added one in.

March 26, 2008

"Photo dispute challenges copyright law" - The Globe

Photo dispute challenges copyright law

By: Rebecca Shaffer
Posted: 3/26/08

When Somerset County resident Valencia McClatchey captured the fleeting moments of peace on a warm fall morning with her digital camera, she never thought that photograph, "End of Serenity," would be the basis for a law suit against the Associated Press (AP) over copyright infringement.

On Sept.11, 2001
McClatchey was at home, glued to the television coverage of the morning's tragic events when she was shaken from her seat by a loud boom. From her living room window she saw a large gray cloud of smoke rising over the horizon. She instinctively went to the door, grabbed her digital camera and captured the infamous image of the smoke rising into the blue cloudless sky over her neighbors' red barn seconds after the crash of United Airlines Flight 93.

In the ensuing months McClatchey's photograph gained so much notoriety that
in January 2002 she obtained a copyright for her famous snapshot, which was supposed to allow her the rights to control its use. Eight months later, she would sue the AP, claiming that the large media organization infringed her copyrights, which the AP disputed.

According to Mass Media Law, a copyright protects a work like McClatchey's photograph from being put on display, distributed or reproduced without consent. McClatchey said that she obtained the copyright because she did not want her photo to be misused in any way and she said firmly, "When I copyright the photo, I have the rights."

On the first anniversary of the crash McClatchey was interviewed by AP reporter Charles Sheehan. AP photographer Gene Puskar visited McClatchey a short time later and took her photo to accompany Sheehan's article.

McClatchey posed with her original photograph for Puskar. She said she believed the picture was of both her and her photograph.

McClatchey said that she also gave a copy of her photograph to Puskar as a gift. The copy contained her copyright management information. "They knew it was copyrighted," McClatchey said.

Sheehan's article ran on Friday, Sept. 13, 2002 in numerous newspapers. Rather than a photo of McClatchey and her famous Sept.11 image, the AP published her "End of Serenity" photograph without her permission.

The AP's use was based on their assumption that Puskar's use of McClatchey's copyrighted image could be used freely because it was considered news.

Then, unbeknownst to McClatchey, in August 2003 her photo appeared through the AP on America Online's Web site with an article concerning a conspiracy theory surrounding Flight 93.
"I didn't want the photo used in conspiracy theory stories, because it degrades the passengers and crew," McClatchey said.

McClatchey was horrified to discover the photograph posted on several other news Web sites who subscribe to the AP, without her permission and did not bear the copyright information.

"I didn't know it would be all over the internet," she said.

In January 2005 McClatchey filed a lawsuit in federal court against the AP concerning five counts, three of which dealt with copyright infringement and the other two regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). McClatchey was seeking $150,000 in damages for copyright infringement and $25,000 in damages for the violations under the DMCA. She also requested that the AP's use of the photograph be permanently barred.

McClatchey said that the AP used her photo with knowledge of her copyright, which demonstrates willful disregard. "Pure down and out willfulness," McClatchey said, shaking her head.

The AP disagrees.

"In my view, this is classic fair use," Robert Penchina, AP lead legal council said.

According to Penchina, a copyright is meant to be a balanced protection for both the author of the work and also for the public's best interest, which is to be aware of what is going on in society.

Penchina also said that even if the story was about the photographer and her life one year after shooting the famous photo, she was still being featured because of that photograph.

Because McClatchey had given her photo earlier to many other organizations and she later sold individual prints with a portion of the proceeds donated to charity, the AP argues its distribution of it. The AP feels that their use of the image only brought attention to it and increased its demand.

McClatchey's attorney, Doug Hall countered and said her market was large news organization that now had use of the photo from the AP. Hall compared the availability of the photo online to illegally downloading music.

"They know there is damage done but it is hard to measure how much," Hall said.

McClatchey's case lasted over two and a half years. U.S. District Court Judge Terrence McVerry summarized the situation writing in one opinion, "Puskar's assignment was to 'take pictures of a woman with a picture.' Instead, Plaintiff contends that Puskar, under false pretenses, took a picture only of the 'End of Serenity' photograph itself."

"The Sheehan article and the photograph were distributed as separate items to AP's roughly 2000 PhotoStream member news organizations without her permission," McVerry wrote.

In November 2007 McClatchey accepted a settlement from the AP, which remains confidential.

Today, McClatchey says she would do things differently. She says that any use of her photo will be stated in writing with full disclosure. McClatchey is glad that the case has been settled and she no longer has to defend her photograph. In the end, McClatchey said, "Nothing will ever change the fact that I took the photo."

February 12, 2008

Val McClatchey reportedly has amateur footage that 'vindicates' her photo

Val reportedly showed amateur footage of the aftermath from the alleged Shanksville crash site at the 2007 Shanksville memorial reunion that supposedly vindicates her photo:

By: Tony Mussari


For the past six years we have taken students, relatives, neighbors, friends, and friends of friends to the site of the temporary memorial of the Heroes of Flight 93.

Once there we listen to Janie Kiehl, a Flight 93 Ambassador and dear friend tell the story of United 93. Val McClatchey another good friend, explains the history of her famous photograph, The End of Serenity. Chuck and Jayne Wagner, Flight 93 Ambassadors, are usually on hand to help us and their daughter, Leigh Snyder provides our guests with her book, Patriots of Peace.

At the Lutheran church hall we come together in a community dinner compliments of Janie Kiehl and her family. This year Val McClatchey shared a priceless piece of history with our guests. She played a DVD of the amateur video recorded in Berlin, PA, of the aftermath of the end of United 93 and the now famous plume of black smoke that looked like a mushroom cloud.

For Val McClatchey it was a moment of vindication. It gave lie to the conspiracy theorists. For those of us in the room, it was a chilling moment of discovery and verification of what Val’s picture had recorded for millions of people around the world. We were watching moving images of The End of Serenity. We were experiencing an historically significant event.

Why did it take 6 years for this reported amateur footage to surface and when does the rest of the world get to see it?

This video was reportedly filmed in Berlin, PA, which is about 9 miles SSW of the crater. Remember that the wind near the crater was reported blowing 9 knots in a SE direction.

Also note that I've never suggested that there wasn't an explosion in that empty Shanksville field, or that there was never any smoke being emitted from there. I do not even doubt there might have been a mushroom cloud there after whatever exploded. I just doubt than any mushroom cloud that may have formed over the immediate area around the crater grew to a whopping 700 yards wide, the width that I estimate the plume in Val's photo had to be if it was near the crater.