"The road from 9/11: Shanksville, Pa.: The serenity we lost" - StarTribune

(Snippet.  Emphasis mine.  Commentary below.)

The road from 9/11: Shanksville, Pa.: The serenity we lost

Article by: CURT BROWN , Star Tribune | Updated: August 31, 2011 - 10:56 PM

A twist of fate ends the serenity in rolling Pennsylvania hills.

Val McClatchey, a real estate agent who lives about 1.6 miles from the Shanksville crash site, held a photo she took from her front porch 10 years ago.

STOYSTOWN, PA. -- "Right here is where she went over," says Maluchnick, 55, a retired cop in Stoystown, population 385. "It was going so fast, all I caught was the tail. It was flying way too low and I told Ralph: If he doesn't elevate and get his nose up. ... Then we heard the boom and seen the smoke about three seconds later."

~

'End of serenity'

McClatchey is president of the Keystone Camaro Club, so she usually has her Hewlett-Packard 315 point-and-shoot camera handy for car shows. It was sitting on her coffee table at 10:05 a.m. that morning 10 years ago, as she watched the "Today Show" at her house on Indian Lake, a filled-in strip mine.

"Then I heard a surge of an engine and, man, was it loud," she says.

The explosion a couple miles west nearly knocked her off the couch. She instinctively stepped out on the porch and took one shot of a massive plume of gray smoke filling the sky next to her neighbor's red barn. Then she dropped the camera and the battery fell out.

Her photo instantly popped up in newspapers, websites and magazines around the world. She hired a lawyer to copyright her image, which she titled "End of Serenity."

"Another blink of an eye and it would have hit the Shanksville school and all those kids would be gone," she says. "After a while, it gets overwhelming just to think about it."

Ten years later, as grandchildren play in the driveway and an American flag flutters on her porch, McClatchey says she's had enough. She's trying to sell her acre on Indian Lake after 25 years. It's not going well. With the economy sputtering, McClatchey says the market "stinks."

Her famous photo, which sells for $20 at a nearby general store, "has been a blessing and a cure," she says.

Conspiracy theorists hound her on the Internet and even come to her door, claiming she faked the shot. She's burned through five lawyers, trying to protect her copyright. The FBI confiscated her camera immediately and she had to leap through all kinds of hoops to get it back. She keeps the memory card in a safe deposit box.

http://www.startribune.com/local/128842558.html

This article confirms that Val's digital camera was an HP 315 that we had identified back in Oct '06.  We also showed that this camera has four AA batteries, not one battery which this article and the Post-Gazette article before it implies it did when describing how Val supposedly dropped her camera after the single shot and the "battery" dislodged. Notice the article also says she usually had this camera handy for her car shows, which seems to suggest this camera wasn't that new, though it could mean she just had her new month-old camera handy for upcoming car shows.  

Note that the article says she burned through "five lawyers" trying to protect her copyright.  Sounds expensive for someone who was supposedly donating all the proceeds from her photo to charity.  It's also the first time we've heard that Val supposedly had trouble getting her confiscated camera's memory card back from the FBI.

"McClatchey shares Sept. 11 experience with Ohio kids" - Daily American

(My comments below.)

McClatchey shares Sept. 11 experience with Ohio kids

April 29, 2011

INDIAN LAKE- — Two Ohio educators have found a unique source of Sept. 11, 2001, history for their sixth-grade class.

She is a source that many conspiracy theorists have made synonymous with controversy. Val McClatchey’s famous “End of Serenity” photograph — which depicts an ominous billow of smoke rising above the fields west of her Indian Lake home — has brought her some unwanted attention during the years.

McClatchey said she’s been called a fraud, accused of altering the image with a computer program. She said some have even suggested that since she moved to the Shanksville area in 1986 she has been a CIA “plant” to cover up the real Sept. 11 occurrences.

But teachers Jim DiPofi and Tim Bowens of Chardon Middle School in Ohio don’t subscribe to any such theory. The two adopted McClatchey as the unofficial tour guide for their sixth-grade students’ trip to the Flight 93 memorial after she visited the children in March.

And they repaid that visit Friday afternoon as part of planning their sixth annual trip to the crash site. The educators said their students — who live approximately 30 miles east of Cleveland — can’t wait to make the journey this summer.

“One of the parents told me it’s kind of like prom,” said Bowens, a social studies teacher. “I was told that starting in first grade kids start talking about it.”

This year’s sixth class was energized by McClatchey’s visit March 29. She was contacted by a fellow member of the North Eastern Ohio Camaro Club in January. The individual had saw an ad in the Chardon, Ohio, local newspaper asking for people with interesting Sept. 11 stories to come forward and speak with middle school students.

McClatchey readily agreed and packed a briefcase full of memorabilia: everything from pictures with late U.S. Rep. John Murtha, to her 2004 amateur photography award from the  International Society of Photographers.

“I find it encouraging that kids who were toddlers at the time have taken an interest,” she said.

McClatchey said she enjoyed her conversations with the enthusiastic students.

“It was very surprising,” she added.

Her husband, Jack, wasn’t as shocked.

“We as grownups don’t give kids the right appreciation for their ability to understand,” he said.

Bus loads of Ohio students will visit the memorial June 1 en route to Hersheypark. According to DiPofi, a science teacher, the idea of visiting the Flight 93 crash site came from his travels to Somerset County in 2002 to check out the wind farms.

He said a single visit to the memorial was powerful enough to spur his excitement for the idea.

“You realize it could have just as easily been me on that plane,” DiPofi said.

It took until 2005, however, before the field trip became a reality, as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, was still fresh in many people’s minds.

“It took some convincing,” DiPofi said. “This was supposed to be a fun trip.”

And as the journey to Shanksville becomes tradition, the 3,000-population Ohio school district is developing its own link to Sept. 11. Since 2009 Chardon students have raised more than $7,500 for the permanent Flight 93 memorial. Bowens and DiPofi said they expect this figure to exceed $10,000 by the end of the school year.

“It’s just little kids making a difference,” DiPofi said.

As for McClatchey, she’s ready to leave the conspiracy allegations in the past. She said that “End of Serenity” has been admitted to the Smithsonian Institute and that, in 2006, the FBI finally returned the original memory card containing the picture.

Most of all, she said, she’s happy to work with the students.

“It’s quite a unique story will all these guys,” McClatchey said. “They’re all very active (in fundraising).”

http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2011-04-29/news/29489570_1_crash-site-visit-science-teacher

If I had a dime for every time they make it out like we are calling Val a "fraud."  Notice the articles says that it's Val who says she's been called a fraud.  Now what we think of her photo is a different story!

The article is also making it out that I'm accusing Val of altering her photo.  I've done no such thing.  I only brought up the fact that an article had said she had no access to photo-altering software when technically she did (or at least her HP camera supposedly came with some).  Doesn't mean I'm saying she altered anything.  Just getting the facts straight.

I'm not aware that she's been accused of being a CIA-plant as far as I can recall. I don't think she is.  If some truther accused her of that, well, there are some really paranoid truthers out there.  LOL

I still don't know why the FBI had to confiscate her camera's memory card if her photo of the mushroom cloud was real.  I can see why the FBI would want to confiscate it if her original photo did not contained a mushroom cloud as one local claims it didn't.  I've said before that if her photo is fake,  I believe the FBI, or other government agency did it, not Val, or anyone in her family.

Chardon Middle School students capturing Flight 93/Sept. 11 stories for oral history project - The News-Herald

Chardon Middle School students capturing Flight 93/Sept. 11 stories for oral history project

Published: Sunday, March 27, 2011
By Rachel Jackson

Few circumstances develop the way we would expect.

For Val McClatchey of Indian Lake, Pa., a simple interest in a certain make of automobile has led to a number of twists in her life's path she could never have anticipated a decade ago.

As a real estate agent and member of the North Eastern Ohio Camaro Club in August 2001, she replaced a series of disposable cameras with a digital camera for snapping images at car shows. Less than a month later, that camera happened to be sitting by her front door when a plane crashed in a field not far from her home. Acting on instinct more than conscious thought, she grabbed the camera, ran onto the porch and snapped a photo.

That photo was the first picture to be taken of the crash of Flight 93, a photo that permanently altered her life.

Jeff Forman/JForman@News-Herald.com
Val McClatchey shows a copy of the photo she took of the smoke from the crash of Flight 93 from her front porch in Indian Lake, Pa. McClatchey came to Chardon Middle School Friday to share her 9/11 experiences with the students.

A decade later, the NEOCC connection came full circle for McClatchey. A fellow club member had seen a public notice asking for memories of the Sept. 11 tragedies from those with local connections. That club member told McClatchey, who then contacted Tim Bowens, a Chardon Middle School teacher with a long history of working to keep the Flight 93 memories alive.

McClatchey visited the school Friday to share her experiences and the now-famous photo with sixth-graders working on an oral history project.

She thought she had become numb to the experiences of that day through a decade of retelling them, but found that sharing them with a pair of Chardon sixth-graders helped bring the experiences back to her in a fresh way.
~
The interviews were captured on video and will be combined with live portrayals and readings by students in a special presentation at Geauga Theater in May, said Kristan Rothman of Young Audiences.
~
In June, Bowens' students will make the annual sixth-grade pilgrimage to Pennsylvania, to the Flight 93 memorial.

"I'll be there to greet them in Shanksville," McClatchey said.

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/03/27/news/nh3811717.txt?viewmode=fullstory

The reporter should have said why Val's camera "happened" to be sitting by her front door; she was supposedly anticipating a helicopter fly-over the morning of 9/11.

Witness: There should have been more smoke

WITNESS: ...and it was fairly low.  It wasn't treetop low, but it was lower than it should have been.  And like I said it was cocked like it had been turning to the left.  And, just in a nose dive position once it cleared the tree tops I couldn't see it no more.  And then when I got out to [Hwy] 30 is when I seen the big puff of smoke, and-- I even had thought to myself that there should have been more smoke than that whenever it crashed cause the jet was extremely big.  But, you know-- even when I was telling the dentist about it he thought I was talkin' commercial-- er-- you know a small aircraft that would be a personal airplane.  And I said no it was-- it was a big one.

ANDY BRIGGS (KDKA): Did you HEAR something?  You say you just saw the smoke.

WITNESS: No, I didn't.  And I even-- I stopped in the road.  And, you know, cause I had to take a second to realize what I had seen.  And I had tried calling my mom on my cell phone, and I couldn't get a hold of her..

More evidence that the 'End of Serenity' photo, with the massive smoke plume seen in it, is a fraud.

Hat tip to Ligon.

Anti-conspiracist removes fake photo accusation on Wikipedia's Flight 93 article

Talk:United Airlines Flight 93

Verifiability

"Val McClatchey had been watching footage of the attacks when she heard the plane. She saw it briefly, then heard the impact. The crash knocked out the electricity and phones. McClatchey grabbed her camera and took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion.[64][65] Conspiracy theorists have accused her of manufacturing the photograph.[66]"

The mention of Val McClatchey's photo is unnecessary and the claim that it is fake is difficult to verify. Searching her name seems only to turn up conspiracy theorists' websites. I think that the last quoted sentence should be removed. It is distracting from the rest of the article content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.93.56 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

     I removed it, this page is no place for wacko conspiracy claims. The FBI, and various other agencies have examined the photo and verified it's authenticity. Supertheman (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:46, 20 August 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org

The 'End of Serenity' of a certain picture

The following analysis is from rSpieker found at CIT forum. I've corrected some spelling and formated his hyperlinks.

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

The "End of Serenity" of a certain picture

by rSpieker

Most of you will know the famous ©opyrighted picture of Val McClatchey showing a mushroom cloud over the "crash-site" allegedly seconds after the crash of UA 93.

For an overview see the following pictures of an analysis provided from rumpl4skn.




Note that in the pictures above the cloud fits perfect between the red an white barn. We will use them later as reference points for the diameter of the cloud. And please note that the shape of the cloud is quite sharp and clear.

Quote Val McClatchey:

"It turns out to be the very first photo taken related. It’s -- timed it out -- it was approximately 5 seconds after impact that I snapped the photo."

There are a lot of serious doubts e.g. from killtown, rumpl4skn, and terrorcell that this photo is true e.g. at:
Flight93photo.blogspot.com and plume-analysis


...I found some more aspects to endorse the impossibility of this picture.

These are especially:

- the terrain between Val McClatchey and the "crash"-site
- the diameter of the cloud,
- how "old" the cloud must be,
- the influence of wind and turbulences.


When we draw a profile of elevation between the "crash"-site and Val's POV then we get this:

Note that the hilltop at 1.2 miles determines her horizon. ( I ignore the trees at this point)
With a little geometry we´ll find that the top(!) of the cloud has to climb at least 380ft agl to come in sight.

If we put the things together then we get the next picture:




Note that our POV is about 40ft higher than that of Vals camera.

Distance to the cloud is about 1.4 miles.
View is to the west, the blue line indicates the direction of wind from NW to SE, windspeed at that day was 9-12 mph means Beaufort 3.

If we follow the horizontal angle over the red and white barn to the "crash"-site then we can calculate the diameter of the cloud to be at least 1,900 ft (indicated by the thick red horizontal line, a little bit hidden by "c")

I've put the center of the plume to an altitude 700 agl which is obviously too low. To get the complete cloud in our view it has to climb 380ft for the skyline plus 1,900 ft for the diameter = 2,280ft agl ! ("crater" is agl zero!)

The center of the clouds "chimney" is in a distance of about 970ft from the "crater" (indicated by paddle "C")

For the horizontal movement of the chimney at 9-12mph we need between 55 and 73 seconds to come in position.

For the vertical climb I tried to clock the expansion rates of the wtc2 fireball, result about 35ft/sec in the very first seconds means we need 65 seconds for Val's cloud.

A research for the climb rates of stratospheric balloons gave me values between 10 and max 50ft/sec.

So if we want to believe at this point that this mushroom cloud existed, then we have to accept that it is at least 1 minute old (the "crash" being t=0 in this example).

To be fair subtract the 8 seconds the explosion-sound needed to travel to Val. 52(!) seconds is another dimension than her claim that it had been only 5 seconds.

And the cloud is long time disconnected from the "crater"!
But a strong source of energy and smoke is absolutely necessary to conserve a constant climb rate and the clear shape of the cloud.

See yourself in the videos and pictures from the WTC and the Pentagon how the smoke-plume develops ans fades!

A 21-sec video showing the shockwave and typical black smoke cloud from a detonation of 350lb of pure TNT you can see here.


Note: When the energy is gone the clear shape of the cloud fades away.

This is due to the natural turbulence of the air even at very low windspeeds.
(Did you ever see snowflakes dancing in the air?)

Most people aren't aware of it but there are more than 1,000 micro-gusts per hour.


Source: Lecture "Properties of turbulence" , pages 3 and 4.


Now see that even a smooth movement of a human body results in chaotic motion of the air (52 secs).

What we didn't take into account at this point is the additional strong turbulence caused by thermals.

Aviation experts define turbulence as random, unpredictable motion that occurs at the boundary between layers of air moving at different speeds. Just as the smooth flow of an ocean wave breaks up into a maelstrom of swirls and eddies when it crashes on the shore, uniformly moving layers of the atmosphere that brush against each other fragment into vortices, and other small-scale disturbances.

Turbulence is often triggered when energy released by the sun-warmed ground or by a group of forming clouds heats a parcel of air at low altitude. The heated parcel rises, distorting the wind-flow pattern at higher altitudes and generating chaotic motion.

[emphasis by rSpieker]


And now consider the wind at 9/11 in Shanksville (13 to 17 ft/sec):

The following pictures from a scientific study to improve the performance of a chimney shows the influence of the wind at different speeds. Source (page 7):



Conclusion:

Apart from the fact that even if a B757 crashed near Shanksville there was simply not enough energy to produce a mushroom cloud then:

If some way a "mushroom cloud" existed in the very first seconds, there is absolute no way under the atmospheric conditions of that day to keep it stable so long that Val McClatchey's camera had a chance to "see" it.

This spells the definite "End of Serenity" for Val McClatchey's picture.

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

rSpieker has also found this nice aerial photo of the Shanksville area.

'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 911movement.org (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.

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!

Spanair crash plume vs. 'Flight 93 plume'

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

Spanair Flight 5022

crashed Aug 20, 2008

Val McClatchey's "End of Serenity" photo

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

(Below was the original video.)

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.

'Doctored'

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.

"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."

http://media.www.pointparkglobe.com/media/storage/paper1255/news/2008/03/26/Perspectives/Photo.Dispute.Challenges.Copyright.Law-3284396.shtml

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.

http://www.windsorparktheater.com/news_shanksvilletrip%202007.html

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.

"Photographer of Flight 93 Somerset crash settles" - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Photographer of Flight 93 Somerset crash settles

Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Somerset County woman who took the only known photograph of United Airlines Flight 93 moments after the crash has settled a federal lawsuit she filed against the Associated Press.

Valencia M. McClatchey claimed the news organization violated her federal copyright by obtaining a copy of the photo and transmitting it to more than 1,000 news outlets.

Ms. McClatchey's attorney, Douglas Hall, said the parties reached a confidential settlement. Part of the agreement, though, calls for the Associated Press to destroy copies of the photograph.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07318/833685-56.stm

So will Val give all this to charity, because she's not in it for the money, right?

"Somerset Hospital marks Sept. 11 anniversary" - Daily American

Somerset Hospital marks Sept. 11 anniversary
By MADOLIN EDWARDS
Daily American Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:25 AM EDT

“We were ready Sept. 11 and then it took the wind out of our sails,” said Somerset Hospital’s director of corporate communications, Greg Chiappelli.

He was talking about hospital employees who were ready to offer medical help on Sept. 11, 2001, but in the end, weren’t needed. He mentioned this commemoration to employees prior to a Sept. 11, 2001, memorial service Tuesday, which was sponsored by the Pastoral Care Committee at Somerset Hospital. Hospital employees, as well as the public, were invited to the service.

The Rev. Ruth Ann Campagna and the Rev. Mark Bendes offered prayers and scripture. Danny Conner performed two musical selections.

Valencia McClatchey was the featured speaker. She took the photo “The End of Serenity” of the smoke from the Flight 93 plane crash in the field near her home.

McClatchey said she heard a tremendously loud noise, unlike anything she’s heard in her years of living near coal mines, and looked outside of her house to see a flash like sunlight reflecting off a plane. She said she always has a camera by the door because she has a friend who is a helicopter pilot and does training runs around the Indian Lake area.

She said her friend will fly by her house, and she wanted to be ready to get a photo of him flying over for a car club newsletter.

Then she saw the mushroom cloud. She took the photo that has made the news all over the world.

She said she called the photo, which now hangs in the Smithsonian Institute, “The End of Serenity” because it was the end of our peaceful lives as we knew them to be. She said we are slowly getting back to that, but that we’ll never forget Sept. 11, 2001.



Valencia McClatchey, the woman who took the photo “The End of Serenity” on Sept. 11, 2001, of the mushroom cloud after United Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, was the guest speaker at Somerset Hospital’s memorial service Tuesday.

http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2007/09/12/news/news576.txt

"Picture Made on 9/11 Takes a Toll on Photographer" - NY Times

(Response to this article below.)

(Secondary NY Times title: A Sept. 11 Photo Brings Out the Conspiracy Theorists)

September 10, 2007

Picture Made on 9/11 Takes a Toll on Photographer

By SEAN D. HAMILL


Emily Jerich told visitors at a temporary memorial for victims of United Flight 93 about a photograph that Valencia M. McClatchey took of the crash on Sept. 11, 2001. In numerous online postings, critics have ripped apart every element of the photo, and Mrs. McClatchey’s life.


SHANKSVILLE, Pa. , Sept. 7 — Valencia M. McClatchey thought she was doing the right thing when she gave the F.B.I. a copy of her photo of the mushroom cloud that rose over the hill outside her home after United Flight 93 crashed in a field here on Sept. 11, 2001.

And, after it became apparent that hers was the only known picture of that ominous, gray cloud — and the first shot after Flight 93 crashed — she thought she was still doing the right thing when she gave copies to people who asked for them, and let newspapers and television stations use it.

But fame for the photo has had an unexpected cost for the photographer.

“Every time I’ve done any stories it goes online and all these conspiracy theorists start up and they call me and harass me,” said Mrs. McClatchey, 51, who runs her own real estate company.

In numerous online postings, critics have ripped apart every element of the photo, and Mrs. McClatchey’s life. They accuse her of faking the photo, of profiteering from it and of being part of a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Flight 93 was shot down by the government.

They claim the mushroom cloud is from an ordnance blast, not a jet crashing; the cloud is the wrong color for burning jet fuel; the cloud is too small and in the wrong position.

They’ve posted her personal e-mail, phone numbers and street address online. One Canadian “9/11 debunker” surreptitiously taped a phone conversation with her, quizzing her about the photo, and then uploaded it to his Web site.

“It’s just gotten so bad, I’m just fed up with it,” Mrs. McClatchey said. “This thing has become too much of a distraction in my life. I have a husband and a new business to deal with, too.”

The F.B.I., the Smithsonian Institution — which used the photo in an exhibition on Sept. 11 — and the National Park Service’s Flight 93 National Memorial — which has used the photo in pamphlets — all consider the photo legitimate.

“We have no reason to doubt it,” said Bill Crowley, an agent who is a spokesman for the Pittsburgh F.B.I. office, which oversaw evidence collection in Shanksville.

Along with the rest of the nation, Mrs. McClatchey was watching the coverage of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington when she was shaken from her couch by a ground-shaking blast just over a mile away. She grabbed her new digital camera and took just one picture from her front porch.

It is a simple photo, showing a sloping green farm field, with a brilliant red barn in the foreground. Hovering above the barn in a brilliant blue sky is an ominous, dark gray mushroom cloud. Mrs. McClatchey named the photo “The End of Serenity.”

Barbara Black, acting site manager for the Flight 93 memorial, said, “What makes the image so powerful is that it’s this serene scene in Pennsylvania, this typical red barn, green trees, and then this terrible cloud above it that changed our life here forever.”

At the temporary memorial site, Flight 93 “ambassadors,” local residents who volunteer to tell visitors what happened here, always start the story by showing people Mrs. McClatchey’s photo.

From the beginning, Mrs. McClatchey said, she tried to use the photograph to help remember the 40 passengers on Flight 93. She sells copies to people and lets them choose whether $18 of the $20 fee goes to the Flight 93 National Memorial or the Heroic Choices organization (formerly the Todd Beamer Foundation).

To ensure that she controlled distribution of the photograph, in January 2002 she copyrighted it. To “protect the integrity of the photo,” Mrs. McClatchey said, she filed suit in 2005 against The Associated Press, saying that it violated her copyright by distributing the photo to its clients as part of a story. The lawsuit is pending.

One of Mrs. McClatchey’s neighbors here defended her against the allegations of the people he called the “Internet crazies.”

The McClatcheys “are as good neighbors as you could possibly have,” said Robert Musser, who owns the red barn that is so prominent in Mrs. McClatchey’s photo.

To accommodate visitors who will show up on Sept. 11 to recreate the picture, and who eventually find their way to the Mussers’ 94-year-old barn, they’ve tried to spruce it up this past week, adding a touch of paint. They plan to spend thousands in the near future to shore up the foundation on one side so the barn will endure for years to come.

“Here this barn could fall down, and it’s in the picture that’s so famous,” said Mr. Musser’s wife, Phyllis. “We have to do something.”


"The photograph Valencia M. McClatchey took from her front porch on Sept. 11, 2001."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10cnd-shanksville.html

This NY Times article is very misleading, gets a major point wrong and again, fails to mention me by name (so what's new?).

First, they say "we" accuse Val for taking part of the cover-up of Flight 93 being shot down. I have never made that claim, especially when I think it never crashed.

Second, they say my claim is that the plume in her photo is too small, but my claim is that her plume is too big, 7 football fields too big!

Third, they make it sound like I posted her email, phone numbers, and address as if they were all private. I posted her home address, which is posted on the website that advertises her photo for sale and posted her work phone number from her own business' website that also advertises the photo for sale. I posted her email address from the email she sent me, but after I checked and saw her email address is publicly available on the net too.


Btw, did you notice the title of this NY Times article:

Picture Made on 9/11 Takes a Toll on Photographer

"Picture made". Well, guess they got something right. ; )

History Channel's 9/11 conspiracies episode featured 'Flight 93 Photo Fraud' blog

The History Channel showed a fairly lengthy segment about this blog on their The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction hit piece.

To no one's surprise, the History Channel got most of my claims about Val, her photo, and what happened to Flight 93 wrong and they didn't even bring up most of the evidence I presented (such as the plume in her photo being about 7 football fields wide) that shows her photo proves that the official story of Flight 93 crashing is a fraud or that her photo is a fraud other than the plume in her photo couldn't have been from a plane crashing.


However, there are a couple of interesting things in their clip about her photo. Here is the breakdown in order:

- First the show a picture of Val's house, but notice they only show the back of her house.

They never show the front where she allegedly took her photo. Why the big deal? Well I've been informed that Val has since remolded the front of her house after 9/11. Not bad for filing bankruptcy on their business 9 days after 9/11 and was in danger of losing their house too.

- Also note that they only show the red barn featured on the right of her photo and never the white barn seen on the left side of her photo. That white barn is now painted red.

- She says she heard a load surge of an engine. What the History Channel doesn't tell you is that Val said she heard this roar of an engine over Indian Lake which is in the opposite direction that Flight 93 allegedly flew in at. Val then skips the part where she had said that she almost got knocked off her couch from the shock wave from the "crash" of Flight 93 and that is why she jumped up to grab her camera.

- The narrator then says Val says 9/11 conspiracists have "harassed her" with emails and phone calls. I've never contacted Val by any method ever. However, Val has sent me a harrassing email threatening to sue me for putting her photo on my website (not this blog).

- Next they say that we, the conspiracists who think her photo is a fraud, think Flight 93 was shot down and "accuse" Val of being a part of it. I've stopped thinking Flight 93 was shot down years before I discovered Val's photo was a fraud and I now think the shot-down theory was started on purpose to distract from Flight 93 not crashing in shanksville. I've also never said that I thought Val was part of some conspiracy involving Flight 93 being shot down.


Another thing to notice about History Channel's segment of my claim that her photo is a fraud is that they didn't even have any of their "experts" try to debunk my analysis showing that the plume on Val's photo is way to big and is about 250 yards south of the crater!

Did Val actually photograph the small white mystery aircraft at Shanksville?

New theory by Domenick DiMaggio (a.k.a. Terrorcell):

Other than a blanket statement of "I don't believe Val's picture to be that of a 757 crash" I've never really spoken publicly on the matter.

I believe Val McClatchey is telling the truth to an extent and covering up something much bigger to another extent.

If one looks at Val's pic then it would appear that this photo had to be taken within 2-6 seconds that being because the smoke isn't "drifting off" but is still in the conceptual stage from the massive explosion which took place.

We know according to eyewitness Susan McElwain that a small white UAV was there at that exact moment. After speaking privately with some unpublished accounts and some published accounts it has been confirmed that the little white UAV was present at the scene.

According to Val, she dropped her camera and the batteries came out of it. In the time it took her to pick them back up and place them in the camera the smoke from this massive explosion was gone. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

People drove to the explosion from different areas. They drove towards this massive billowing smoke cloud from over 5 miles away. It's safe to assume one can reload batteries into a camera in the time it would take an individual driving 5+ miles at 50MPH(est fastest speed given terrain)- mostly rural windy roads in the area.

Val also stated a plane flew over her house before the explosion. She stated it sounded like a small plane but insists it was Flight 93. Of course we know this not to be true because at no point did Flight 93 ever fly towards the North. That would mean the "struggle" we were told was taking place on board quite possibly was successful.

Val's house is totally inconsistent with the flight path of the UAV as well. It is possible the fighter jets witnessed in the area passed over Val's house. That would also be consistent with the blast direction of the explosion being towards the west and into the woods.

Eyewitness accounts put the UAV at the site for minutes after the explosion "flying around like he was looking for something." According to Val though she didn't take anymore pics with her digital camera. Just that one. And that is where Val McClathchey is not telling the truth.

The FBI took her camera, her computer, & memory stick. This was in order to clean all of these of the CLASSIFIED UAV which Val managed to capture on film. The FBI would have also checked and confirmed that any images weren't sent out via email to anyone.

A local Shanksville area is currently writing a book that tells 'her' side of the story. If the female author of this book is who I suspect it is then Val is now writing a book detailing her 9/11 experience and life after 9/11 and dealing with "internet conspiracy kooks" in her post 9/11 life. I hope, in fact I am pleading with Val (because I suspect one way or another she will be reading this), to TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH IN HER BOOK.

DO NOT LEAVE OUT THE UAV WHICH WAS SEEN THAT DAY.

People are coming forward everyday. Some are willing to speak publicly like Susan has and others are not so willing out of fear. But there are more than enough who collaborate the story told by Susan McElwain that morning. And if Val really wants all the "internet conspiracy kooks" to finally stop then she needs to come clean. Otherwise history will look unfavorably upon her.

The FBI gave Val the image she titled "End of Serenity" and sells over the internet and various local places. So whether or not the image itself is fake is still debatable. I can't really pick one side or the other anymore. I don't believe it to be the smoke plume that is created from a massive jet fuel explosion. Perhaps the FBI gave Val a faked pic and she could be totally unaware it is a manipulated image or perhaps the image is genuine and not reflective of a jet fuel induced explosion. Either way Val knows something she isn't talking about.

If you read this Val please feel free to contact me at Reichstag_911@yahoo.com
If you have any doubt about my integrity or whether or not I am a man of my word than you need to speak to your friend John at the COF Motel.

What you can't do though is call me "another one of those anonymous internet kooks".

At the bare minimum you know I am telling the 100% TRUTH about the UAV that was there that morning. You saw it with your own eyes....just like everyone else who was in the vacinity.


Domenick DiMaggio

Discuss further at 911movement.org.

MCCLATCHEY v. ASSOCIATED PRESS

MCCLATCHEY v. ASSOCIATED PRESS

Plaintiff Valencia McClatchey alleged that defendant the Associated Press (AP) over the AP's unauthorized use of her copyright End of Serenity photograph.

Plaintiff: VALENCIA M. MCCLATCHEY
Defendant: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Case Number: 3:2005cv00145
Filed: February 24, 2005

Court: Pennsylvania Western District Court
Office: Johnstown Office
County: Somerset
Presiding Judge: Terrence F. McVerry

Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property - Copyrights
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Amount Demanded: $0.00

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.

~

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/pennsylvania/pawdce/3:2005cv00145/66017/

"Court Finds Single Act of Copyright Infringement Where Infringing Photo Was Distributed Numerous Times" - Winston & Strawn LLP

July 2, 2007

Court Finds Single Act of Copyright Infringement Where Infringing Photo Was Distributed Numerous Times

On September 11, 2001, Valencia McClatchey took a photograph of the mushroom cloud caused by the crash of United Fight 93. Although she obtained copyright of the image, the Associated Press allegedly distributed the image though its PhotoStream service to various AP members.

When McClatchey learned her photo was being used without permission, she sued AP for copyright infringement, alleging that each distribution to various Associated Press customers constituted an infringement. However, the court held that AP was only liable for the single act of releasing the photo to subscribers, even though the photo was re-distributed by AP to numerous parties.

TIP: In the event that you are accused of copyright infringement, and you are attempting to negotiate a settlement, this case may be helpful in attempting to limit the calculation of damages.

http://www.winston.com/index.Cfm?contentid=34&itemid=2381

Fair Use and Photos of 9-11, McClatchey v. AP

June 15, 2007

Fair Use and Photos of 9-11, McClatchey v. AP

In a decision dated June 4, 2007 the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania considered pretrial arguments for the McClatchey v. AP case.

On September 11, 2001, Valencia McClatchey took a photograph of the mushroom cloud caused by the crash of United Fight 93. She obtained copyright of the image and title it "End of Serenity." While doing a story about McClatchey a year later, Associated Press reporter, Charles Sheehan, took a photo of a copy of "End of Serenity" which included the title and copyright notice. Associated Press then allegedly cropped the title and copyright notice out of the image and distributed the unattributed image though their PhotoStream service to various AP members.

In August of 2003, McClatchey learned her photo was being used on AOL's homepage without permission and that AOL had obtained the image from AP. McClatchey brought suit against AP for direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and for removing and distributing false copyright information in violation of the DMCA.

This hearing made a decision regarding six pretrial motions: (1) motion in limine to exclude certain documents and testimony regarding AOL by AP; (2) motion in limine to limit plaintiff to one statutory damage award under the copyright act by AP; (3) motion in limine to limit plaintiff to two statutory damage awards under the DMCA by AP; (4) motion in limine to exclude certain documents and testimony regarding iPhotoart by AP; (5) first motion in limine to preclude Eric N. Lieberman from testifying at trial by Valencia M. McClatchey; and (6) motion in limine to exclude certain documents and testimony regarding alleged third-party infringements by AP.

The first motion, the motion to exclude certain documents and testimony regarding AOL by AP, is the only motion that touches on fair use issues. AP wanted the court to exclude documents and testimony related to the publication of McClatchey's image by AOL. AP claimed the AOL had a "separate and independent right to make fair use of the photograph," which would make AOL's use noninfringing, making AP not liable for contributory or vicarious infringement. McClatchey claimed that AOL's use was not "fair use" and was instead a direct infringement, and that evidence of that infringement is relevant for proving "AP distributed the photograph to its subscribers." The Court found that a fair use analysis of AOL's use would be relevant for the case and denied the motion to exclude.

The Court granted the second motion, the motion to limit plaintiff to one statutory damage award under the copyright act by AP, and imposed a limit on AP's statutory damages to one award, following the statute on damages in 17 U.S.C. § 504©(1).

The Court granted the third motion, the motion to limit plaintiff to two statutory damage awards under the DMCA, reasoning that under 17 U.S.C. § 1203©(1), the term "each violation" refers to "each violative act performed by Defendant." Therefore AP could only be liable for the one time it distributed McMclatchey's imagine, even though it was distributed to multiple parties.

The Court denied the fourth motion, the motion to exclude certain documents and testimony regarding iPhotoArt by AP, reasoning that the evidence about the price of other historic images solid by iPhotoArt was a good benchmark for the value of McClatchey's image.

The Court denied the fifth motion, the motion to preclude Eric N. Lieberman from testifying at trial by McClatchey, reasoning that the factors laid out in Quinn v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 283 F.3d 572, 577 (3d Cir. 2002) (importance of the testimony, prejudice or surprise in facto to opposing party, ability of that party to cure the prejudice, disruption of trial and bad faith of willfulness), supported AP's argument to deny the motion.

The Court granted the sixth motion, the motion to exclude alleged third-party infringement, since McClatchey did not have any evidence of infringement by the third parties AP sought to exclude.

McClatchey v. AP, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40416, was decided on June 4, 2007. The opinion was written by Judge Terrence F. McVerry. The trial is scheduled for June 25, 2007, and should provide some interesting fair use analysis.

For only $20 you can order your very own copy of End of Serenity in 8.5 X 11 format here.

By Matthew Sag (Dan Rothenberg contributed to this post)

http://thefairuseblog.typepad.com/the_fair_use_blog/2007/06/fair_use_and_ph.html