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 After speaking privately with some unpublished accounts and some published accounts it has been confirmed that the little white UAV was present at the scene.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

All very interesting ... so FBI took her camera and computer.

But maybe one thing I wonder about. If people "drove towards this massive billowing smoke cloud from over 5 miles away" ... why did no one take a photo of the smoke ... I mean, I would expect that someone would grab a camera and take photo.

There are a lot of unpublished images from locals. I don't know of such an image though of that. I have seen lots of pics of debris in people's yards though. People were more worried about going to see what happened instead of photographing anything I suppose.

Yes. People did not knew at that time what was supposed to have happend ofcource.

But... if it was a huge smoke as would be expected from a jet crash... then it looks so strange to me that it is just one photo of smoke. (The plume photo)

It's not highly populated in the area...early Tuesday morning when most were probably at work although I am sure there has to be somewhere. Laws of probability. But who knows who or where?

Quote:

"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."

Indeed when a large plane is crushed on the ground with important quantity of fuel on board, the fires and the smoke of fires are stopped by the firemen who go on the spot of the accident. In absence of firemen, the fuel fire of plane is of very long duration.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-43...earch&plindex=0

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=579...earch&plindex=5

Quote:

"I don't believe it to be the smoke plume that is created from a massive jet fuel explosion."

I did not find any example of jet fuel explosion which resembles this image:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/plume_val1.jpg

who seems to show an explosives detonation:

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html

Tu-134 crash (full version):

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-42...earch&plindex=1

It is a perfect example of fuel explosion of a plane crushed on the ground. Comparison with the so-called crash of a Boeing 757 in Shanksville.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-24...023169054&hl=nl

Do you know the source of this report, Terrorcell?

Jeff Shure audio. I'm sure it's on his site.

Note a plane approach from Val's house would line up directly with the broken trees and the blast direction of the impact. ;)

I understand that Val was waiting for the helicopter of her friend flying over her house for taking a picture. She only heard the engines.
Its strange that she was using a camera with empty batteries for that event.

No batteries were in the camera.

Her story is she ran outside saw this plume, took the pic, and then out of shock or something dropped her camera which caused the case to open and the batteries to disperse. By the time she put the batteries back in and closed the case the smoke plume was gone and there was nothing left to photograph. :blink:

Now that's bullshit because people drove from miles away using this smoke plume as their marker.

And the UAV was flying over the area documenting the scene for whoever was on the other side watching what took place. If Val wouldn't have dropped the camera she would have taken pics of the UAV witnessed by everyone who was in the vacinity.

But the plane was there when the smoke plume was......!

A little punctuation would clear up any confusion in this statement.

"No batteries were in the camera."

No, batteries were in the camera.

I think it would also benefit readers if you identified the term "UAV".

Maybe it's just me, but I find too often terms get used that are obvious to the veterans but meaningless to the masses who are just beginning their quest.

I know terms like OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory), MIH (Make It Happen), LIH (Let It Happen) etc., totally confused me when I first joined this forum.

MM

Thank you for the punctuation correction!



No, batteries were in the camera. is what I meant!


UAV = UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE.

2 Eyewitnesses I have spoken with have told me they don't believe there is anyway a human being could have been inside the little white plane. I suspect more collaboration as I speak with more witnesses.

Do we? She described an A-10 Warthog. All the witnesses said they saw a small white plane, terrorcell. It is you who says they saw a UAV.

Tom Spinelli, 28 - was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said. "It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash." -Daily Mirror (9/13/02)

Dale Browning "It's the damndest darn thing," said Dale Browning, a farmer. "Everybody's seen this thing in the sky, but no one can tell us what it is." -The Bergen Record (9/14/01) (watch the disinfo people pick up on this guy).

Rick Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Dennis Decker"As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Decker/Chaney confusion: Learjet and A10 Thunderbolt/Warthog side-by-side:
(Susan Mcelwain saw the plane LOW)
http://i11.tinypic.com/62eewzp.jpg

Susan Custer said she saw a small white jet streaking overhead. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Robin Doppstadt was working inside her family food-and-supply store when she heard the crash. When she went outside, she said, she saw a small white jet that looked like it was making a single circle over the crash site. "Then it climbed very quickly and took off. "

Susan Mcelwain "There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."

You listed 7 names.

How many of those people have you spoken with?

I've spoken with more than 1 of them and they collaborate each other. :blink:

The photo was a total fake.

I don't know why the movement doesn't go after this obvious smoking gun more than it does.

I don't believe it is fake, I believe it is an incriminating photograph taken by an honest citizen which shows the Shanksville crash site was a munitions blast, not the huge black cloud that an airliner crash would have involved. I think the talk of this being fake is disinfo as there is no motive to fake this photo, not money as she gave the photo to a tiny local newspaper. There is definitely no motive for her to fake it.

It has been suggested she faked the photo for the money. Why are people diving on this honest citizen with a compact camera in her kitchen drawer? Why, because If you are taking flak you must be above the target.

It is an inconvenient photo, and a smoking gun. In my opinion: Shanksville solved.

Val McClatchey did not fake any picture.


That being said, I believe this picture is a total fake.

A high speed crash can disperse fuel, mix it with air and make it burn very quickly. This means a plume can form rapidly. With the fuel consumed quickly, there is little to keep the plume visible after a short period of time. The fuel can burn so quickly that it can seem like an explosion.

This is in contrast to a fiery crash that sends smoke into the air while the fuel continues to leak out of tanks and burn for several minutes or hours.

You claim that is was impossible for the smoke to disappear rapidly. What evidence do you have that an airliner crashing at a steep angle into the ground at high speed will have a large long-lived smoke plume?

What evidence do you have that the picture in question had anything in it besides landscape and a plume? Unless you have another photo taken at the same time and near the same location, then you should not be claiming that a UAV was in the original photo.

Ranb

No motive? Obviously you haven't read the story behind this photo.

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/...oking-guns.html

It is incredibly toxic to this movement to make accusations about being disinfo. You made the claim, now supply the evidence to support your claim. Or maybe you're disinfo? How does that feel?

See here's the problem I have. Having gone there, met people, and spoke with them I learned that people from where the crash was by driving towards the smoke. They drove from over 5 miles away to that spot in the middle of nowhere and that was their marker.

What evidence do you have that supports that's what happened and that this picture is a fair representation of that?

Well I can make that claim because I know quite a few people who were there and saw it.

Val McClatchey also claimed "UA93" flew over her house before it crashed. Do you believe the plane that flew over her house was "UA93" and if yes what evidence do you have that supports the plane flying north/northwest?

I speak my mind. The difference between me and terrorcell is I don't spam the forum with threads that contradict the available evidence and the work of many other investigators.

So far he has given us

UAV's flying around Shanksville
A Missile flying around Shanksville
The smoke plume is fake

If you can't see what is up to then you are blind, stupid or extremely guliable.

And all right on money.

I must be oh wise one. Please tell me what I am not seeing.

"The difference between me and terrorcell is I don't spam the forum with threads that contradict the available evidence and the work of many other investigators."

Did you really just fucking say that?

First :

1) Name 5 Shanksville researchers.
2) Please provide any audio/video recording of an area resident stating they saw an A10


While you sit here playing keyboard commando disrespecting me, the bottom line is you don't even know anyone who spoke to anyone in that entire area.

While I have made more trips, phone calls, emails, letter exchanges than you can possibly ever know.

I go there and I bring back the goods. You've only seen a sample. You're in store for a whole new reality very soon.

P.S. Maybe when you grow a set you'll have the actual courage to say it.

- Tom Spinelli, 28 - was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said. "It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash." -Daily Mirror (9/13/02)

- Dale Browning "It's the damndest darn thing," said Dale Browning, a farmer. "Everybody's seen this thing in the sky, but no one can tell us what it is." -The Bergen Record (9/14/01) (watch the disinfo people pick up on this guy).

- Rick Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

- Dennis Decker"As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

- Susan Custer said she saw a small white jet streaking overhead. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

- Robin Doppstadt was working inside her family food-and-supply store when she heard the crash. When she went outside, she said, she saw a small white jet that looked like it was making a single circle over the crash site. "Then it climbed very quickly and took off. "

- Susan Mcelwain "There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."


I was just wondering. Where do the witnesses describe the small white plane they all said they saw as a missile or UAV?

Same place they describe it as an A10.

The people you spoke with; did they say that the plume was visible for a long time? Or were they guided by a smaller amount of smoke rising from the crash site?

I have the official story of the Fl 93 crash, and that is good enough for me now. While McClatchey may be mistaken about certain details like the times involved during the incident, I have no reason to not believe that she took a picture of an airliner that crashed into the ground.

Unless your witnesses can place the alleged UAV in the proper place in the sky, then you should not be expecting it to be in the photo. It is a big sky up there, and UAV's are aircraft that move around. Are your witnesses saying the UAV was orbiting the crash site for an extended period of time and close enough to absolutely be in the photo?

Why are you trying to back up your claims with questions instead of evidence? This is weak.

Ranb

The plume didn't remain that shape for 5-10 minutes but there was enough smoke from it that people were able to drive to it from miles away. Obviously Val could have taken more pics.

Well the plume is totally inconsistent with a jet fuel induced explosion and Killtown has done a great job exposing the inconsistencies and anomalies within the image. I personally don't think Val faked this image but I believe it is a total fake.

The eyewitnesses do. There is no way that when Val walked outside she didn't see this odd little plane. It would be more eye catching than the explosion as everyone repeatedly confirms Susan's description.

Susan McElwain's account already destroys the credibility of the official story. When will you see more? When my research in this is over.

She could have taken more pics, but it is not suspicious that she did not. I see you are not accusing others of being part of a conspiracy because they did not take more photos than they did, i.e. none. Why is this?

Killtown's crappy opinions are not very convincing to me. He/she seems to be more interested in libel and tooting the horn than anything else.

Claiming that there is no way Val could have missed an aircraft in the sky is dishonest. You were not there, you are not her. I have seen explosions, I have seen aircraft in the sky, explosions are much more eye catching and loud. I think you need to get outside and look at the world more.

This woman has done nothing more than take a picture and tell others what she saw and did. The attitude towards her on this forum from people like you and Killtown is disgraceful.

Ranb

Actually I accuse Leo Titus of covering up evidence from the Pentagon because of his refusal to share photos he took inside because 'they'd further fuel conspiracy theorists' according to what Russell Pickering told me.

I haven't spoken to Mark Stahl in regards to his photos yet but I plan on calling him.

They won't even talk about Val's pic on the JREF forums because of his work on it.

It is not dishonest. Everyone who ran outside and looked when this happened saw it. Half the town of Stoystown seen it. One person who is afraid to go public told me "20-30 years from now I'm sure everyone here will be willing to talk about it, but I doubt many will now. We all got kids." Yet they positively stated it looked somewhat similar to a picture of a Global Hawk that I had shown them.

No it's not. The fact that she ran outside as fast as she said she did and took a picture and then invented an impossible account of dropping her camera and batteries popping out and it being gone by the time she could replace them is disgraceful. It's disgraceful to the families of the people on the plane Ed Felt made a phone call from. The Official Story regarding "UA93" is bullshit and I know that for a fact. I KNOW FOR A FACT.

And if I or someone I cared about was on the plane I would want to know the truth, I would want my family to know the truth. There is nothing disgraceful in what I am doing. Your petty insults are pathetic.

Titus has not shared his photos with anyone? How do you know he has pictures then?

Knowing how easy it is to use the search function to look up Val Mcclatchley's name on the JREF forum, I wonder why you would even say it is not being discussed. I briefly searched and found many threads discussing Val and her photo. The latest thread was started today. Therefore your claim that they won't even talk about Val's pic is obviously a lie.

Given your propensity towards lying, I do not believe it when you claim that everyone who went outside to look at the plume saw another aircraft. You interviewed everyone who saw the plume?

What is your evidence that her account of dropping the camera is impossible? I hope it is much better than your evidence that people won't even talk about Val's photo on the JREF forums because of killtown's work.

Ranb

There was a little white UAV there and it is not in the picture. The smoke plume does not line up with the crater nor does it look like a jet fuel explosion.


You don't believe it, fine good for you. I'm not here to convince you, you're not here looking for answers.

Ignore the haters, Dom. :)

BTW, thanks for sharing this info; it's been very instructing. However, I do have a doubt. Why are you so sure the plane flying by was an UAV; if it was simply flying by then why couldn't a normal pilot be piloting it?

I believe it to be a UAV because of corroborating witness accounts. I didn't get into detail as much as I would have liked with Susan because to be totally honest I was expecting her to identify it as an A10.

It's small like Susan described it to be. One person I have spoken in depth with that is afraid to go public told me there is no way they believe a human being could have been in it.

So are you standing behind the lie you told about the JREF forum?

Do you have actual evidence that Val Mcclatchley was not able to get her camera ready to take another picture of the plume before it was gone? I think not.

I am willing to bet that you can not show me a photo of a smoke plume caused by an airliner crashing into the ground at a steep angle and at high speed. If you can, I think it will look similar to the one made by FL 93.

LC is one of the last places I would look for answers. It would be like looking for compassion from a Nazi.

Ranb

I just spent like 10 minutes in that sewer looking for this thread. Here is my proof.

Can you link me to the Val thread there I'm getting quite nauseated.

Proof of what?

All you have to do is search for Val's name (make sure it is spelled correctly not like in this thread) and you will see lots of posts about her and the photo she took.

Ranb

proof a thread was started about Val McClatchey yesterday before I made my statement. don't play stupid.

First you said “They won't even talk about Val's pic on the JREF forums because of his work on it.” I countered that there are several threads on the photo in question. As proof of something, you link to this http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92093&page=2 , a 9/11 car bomb thread. I am not sure what you are getting at here.

I asked what your link was proof of and you state that it is “proof a thread was started about Val McClatchey yesterday before I made my statement.” which really has nothing to do with your claim that they (on JREF) will not talk about Val’s pic.

Val Mcclatchey’s photo has been a topic of discussion on JREF for a while now, and even if a few people have refused to discuss it because of Killtown, the forum has not ceased discussion of the topic at all.

Ranb

Listen, I don't care about that sewer. If you think you can discredit me because I don't keep up with the JREF sewer then run with it.

In the meantime if you got a question or a point you're trying to make get to it already.