Amateur video vindicates Val's plume photo?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3

Amateur video vindicates Val's plume photo?; "End of Serenity"
Topic Started: Feb 13 2008, 12:00 AM (1,624 Views)
Killtown	Feb 13 2008, 12:00 AM Post #1
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	That's the rumor: Quote: 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. http://www.windsorparktheater.com/news_sha...rip%202007.html Berlin, PA is about 9 miles SSE from the crater. http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2008/02/...as-amateur.html



Lin Kuei	Feb 13 2008, 04:01 AM Post #2
Posts: 1,308 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	...so........ when does the rest of the world get to see this 'amateur video' ...? Why has it taken so long to 'surface'?
Posts: 1,308 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


illeagalhunter	Feb 13 2008, 04:04 AM Post #3
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08	The footage was in the no planes that hit the twin towers
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08


SuperSkepticSlut	Feb 13 2008, 07:22 AM Post #4
Troublemaking Troll Posts: 21 Group: BANNED! Member #312 Joined: 02/12/08	Great those people who are saying she faked the photograph all should be ashamed.



look-up	Feb 13 2008, 03:12 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	SuperSkepticSlut Feb 13 2008, 07:22 AM Great those people who are saying she faked the photograph all should be ashamed. no one has every said, to my knowledge, that Val faked the photo. the photo either is showing something OTHER than a smoke plume from flight 93 crashing, or it was faked by someone else. val probably doesn't have the ability to do such a good job faking photos though... I believe the FBI did get to confiscate her camera before she looked at the pictures, so she may very well be clueless as to what happened.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Feb 13 2008, 03:23 PM Post #6
Posts: 2,004 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	look-up Feb 13 2008, 03:12 PM SuperSkepticSlut Feb 13 2008, 07:22 AM Great those people who are saying she faked the photograph all should be ashamed. no one has every said, to my knowledge, that Val faked the photo. the photo either is showing something OTHER than a smoke plume from flight 93 crashing, or it was faked by someone else. val probably doesn't have the ability to do such a good job faking photos though... I believe the FBI did get to confiscate her camera before she looked at the pictures, so she may very well be clueless as to what happened. There was a rumor such video existed a year or two ago as I recall. To date it has never surfaced. Perhaps I can track down the alleged source and try to obtain a copy. I never pursued it because I don't believe it to be anything other than rumor. I know I have never accused Val of faking any photo although at the same time I'm not 100% positive of the authenticity and how it relates to the crash of an alleged 757. I am also highly suspicious of her claims of dropping the camera and not being able to reload the batteries in time to take anymore photos. At the time Val is alleged to have been taking the picture I have through corroborated witnesses establish that the white UAV was in the air and would have definitely been captured by anyone taking photos or video. To the best of my knowledge Val has never once mentioned witnessing the white UAV. ETA : The FBI confiscated Val's camera, memory stick, and computer. But it was a digital camera and I believe I heard she was showing off the picture(s) long before the FBI got it. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Feb 13 2008, 03:55 PM.
Posts: 2,004 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Killtown	Feb 13 2008, 07:24 PM Post #7
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	look-up Feb 13 2008, 03:12 PM no one has every said, to my knowledge, that Val faked the photo. the photo either is showing something OTHER than a smoke plume from flight 93 crashing, or it was faked by someone else. I'm glad someone has been paying attention.



Killtown	Feb 13 2008, 07:32 PM Post #8
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Domenick DiMaggio CIT Feb 13 2008, 03:23 PM There was a rumor such video existed a year or two ago as I recall. To date it has never surfaced. Perhaps I can track down the alleged source and try to obtain a copy. I never pursued it because I don't believe it to be anything other than rumor. I had remember you told me when I stumbled upon that website and tried to find you last night to let you know what I found. Seems highly suspicious that Val has a copy and has not released it publicly. If the video truly vindicates her photo and she wants to put all the rumors to rest, you'd think she'd upload to youtube, or knowing her, sell it to the media (which I'm sure they'd LOVE to get a hold of) of give the profits to "charity".



look-up	Feb 14 2008, 03:11 PM Post #9
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	thing is, we know what a fireball from a large jetliner looks like, because we saw two of them at the WTC sites... those look nothing like the smoke plume that val allegedly captured on her camera. how convenient. it is in digital format, easily edited. they probably took the real pictures off the camera and then snapped a plain pic of the barn and trees and sky, and then at the shop they may have composited a plume of smoke behind it. either that, or it was a real smoke plume from something OTHER than a 757. Think about it, if there was lots of fuel onboard, then there would be a huge ball of fire shooting up perhaps hundreds of feet, similar to the WTC where the fireballs shot sideways and then up, and finally after a many seconds and travelling hundreds of yards, turning into black smoke plumes. and if ther was no fuel onboard, and the plane just simply dove at full speed into the ground, what is there to create so much smoke? a plane hit the ground... so what is the source of this large amount of smoke? an ordinance blast? That might explain the rounded center section of the crater, which does look like something impacted it, while the straight-outside portions of the crater, look like they were dug out in advanced by some kind of heavy machinery. what I don't get, is how skeptics claim that an underground mine would have swallowed the plane, which isn't by itself all that unbelievable, but if it did, wouldn't there be a huge gaping hole in the ground with a fucking plane in it? Instead, the ground just swallowed the plane, allegedly, and then went back to a relatively natural state, showing very little signs of any tampering at all. And then the skeptics also say that the plane was travelling towards the trees, and that is why they caught fire and debris is found there. But if that is true, why do the lines allegedly made by the wings not point directly to the trees? And even if they did point at the trees, it would mean that the plane was oriented in a way that it was pointing straight down, yet travelling sideways, which is impossible all by itself. So when people ask, "hmm this seems like a strange way to do a cover-up"... well they obviously don't think they needed to worry about people looking at it quite as closely as we all are. They had no idea how powerful the internet would become in the next couple years.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


JimBob	Feb 15 2008, 01:32 AM Post #10
Trolls R Us Posts: 245 Group: BANNED! Member #314 Joined: 02/12/08	look-up Feb 14 2008, 03:11 PM thing is, we know what a fireball from a large jetliner looks like, because we saw two of them at the WTC sites... those look nothing like the smoke plume that val allegedly captured on her camera. Why do you think the fireballs at the WTC would look like the one made by flight 93? The targets were much different.



Bongo Thud	Feb 15 2008, 02:38 AM Post #11
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	JimBob Feb 15 2008, 01:32 AM look-up Feb 14 2008, 03:11 PM thing is, we know what a fireball from a large jetliner looks like, because we saw two of them at the WTC sites... those look nothing like the smoke plume that val allegedly captured on her camera. Why do you think the fireballs at the WTC would look like the one made by flight 93? The targets were much different. It's called confirmation bias jimbob.



Killtown	Feb 15 2008, 04:09 AM Post #12
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Got those estimates on Val's plume yet Bongo?



Bongo Thud	Feb 15 2008, 09:22 AM Post #13
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Killtown Feb 15 2008, 04:09 AM Got those estimates on Val's plume yet Bongo? Because god knows I sure don't, and i am scared as hell to actually start using numbers because I know it will go nowhere.. So I'm going to have to use this "No, you!" tactic to distract people from my inability to defend my own position. Classic Killtown Redirection! Killtown, there is no formula for determining or predicting the size of a smoke plume based on just a rough estimate of the amount of fuel and you cannot determine the distance between the lens of val's camera and the smoke plume, or how far the plume has traveled perpendicular to the field of view in the photo, or exactly how much time has elapsed between impact and the photo. What makes you think you can make any sort of determination without that data? Oh yeah, i forgot your 'that's not the way i picture it looking in my head' analysis. How laughable. Please, bring something substantive to the table to back up your claims.



alexvegas	Feb 15 2008, 09:51 AM Post #14
alex25smash Posts: 607 Group: Members Member #34 Joined: 01/15/08	Why is she hanging onto it? Surely it should be with the authorities (yes I know what you're thinking) and the media by now.



look-up	Feb 15 2008, 11:21 AM Post #15
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 02:38 AM JimBob Feb 15 2008, 01:32 AM look-up Feb 14 2008, 03:11 PM thing is, we know what a fireball from a large jetliner looks like, because we saw two of them at the WTC sites... those look nothing like the smoke plume that val allegedly captured on her camera. Why do you think the fireballs at the WTC would look like the one made by flight 93? The targets were much different. It's called confirmation bias jimbob. nice try. your logic only further illustrates that the crater and plume is not from a 757. thank you. are you trying to say there wouldn't have been a fireball, or that it would act differently? if you are saying there was no fireball, then that would be like saying, "A tree falling in the woods makes no sound", when we all know that it does in fact make a sound, and we can prove this with physics and logic. if a plane crashes in a field and no one sees it. It DOES make a fireball. But that fireball may have acted differently than the WTC fireballs. The difference would be that the fuel may have been spread out accross a larger area on the ground when the impact allegedly occured, instead of shooting high up into the sky like val's plume. So it is possible that the plume could be real, assuming that the fuel was consumed on or near the ground, but that is not the case. We know very well that there is very little reason to think there was fuel anywhere near the crater. If there was a fireball, and that fireball did not shoot up into the sky, then it would have burned all of the grass in the vicinity, which it apparently did not do. Please, if you realely want to cling to the official story, and keep readers of this thread attached to that story, don't put forth such illogical claims, that when examined properly, reveal the idiocy of the official story even better than was done previously. Thank you, sir!
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Bongo Thud	Feb 15 2008, 12:26 PM Post #16
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	look-up Feb 15 2008, 11:21 AM Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 02:38 AM JimBob Feb 15 2008, 01:32 AM look-up Feb 14 2008, 03:11 PM thing is, we know what a fireball from a large jetliner looks like, because we saw two of them at the WTC sites... those look nothing like the smoke plume that val allegedly captured on her camera. Why do you think the fireballs at the WTC would look like the one made by flight 93? The targets were much different. It's called confirmation bias jimbob. nice try. your logic only further illustrates that the crater and plume is not from a 757. thank you. are you trying to say there wouldn't have been a fireball, or that it would act differently? if you are saying there was no fireball, then that would be like saying, "A tree falling in the woods makes no sound", when we all know that it does in fact make a sound, and we can prove this with physics and logic. if a plane crashes in a field and no one sees it. It DOES make a fireball. But that fireball may have acted differently than the WTC fireballs. The difference would be that the fuel may have been spread out accross a larger area on the ground when the impact allegedly occured, instead of shooting high up into the sky like val's plume. So it is possible that the plume could be real, assuming that the fuel was consumed on or near the ground, but that is not the case. We know very well that there is very little reason to think there was fuel anywhere near the crater. If there was a fireball, and that fireball did not shoot up into the sky, then it would have burned all of the grass in the vicinity, which it apparently did not do. Please, if you realely want to cling to the official story, and keep readers of this thread attached to that story, don't put forth such illogical claims, that when examined properly, reveal the idiocy of the official story even better than was done previously. Thank you, sir! All he said is that you cannot compare the results of 'jumbo jet+skyscraper' (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) with the results of 'jumbo jet+soft earth'. That statement does not serve your theory about the crater or plume in any manner.



look-up	Feb 15 2008, 03:22 PM Post #17
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	so what you're saying is that you didn't even read what I wrote. the logic is simple. if the fuel doe not harm the ground, then it would have been shot towards the sky, and since the plume doesn't show that. 1. the fuel hit the ground and burned it for many minutes and never rose above the ground as a fireball. 2. the fuel shot upwards and the "5 seconds" shot that val took is faked 3. or the plume was caused by something else entirely. Which do you prefer?
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Killtown	Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM Post #18
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 09:22 AM Classic Killtown Redirection! Killtown, there is no formula for determining or predicting the size of a smoke plume based on just a rough estimate of the amount of fuel and you cannot determine the distance between the lens of val's camera and the smoke plume, or how far the plume has traveled perpendicular to the field of view in the photo, or exactly how much time has elapsed between impact and the photo. What makes you think you can make any sort of determination without that data? Oh yeah, i forgot your 'that's not the way i picture it looking in my head' analysis. How laughable. Please, bring something substantive to the table to back up your claims. Funny, I was able to locate the line where her plume was centered and how wide it is in her photo. Don't know why you aren't able to (or maybe you're afraid to?)?



Killtown	Feb 15 2008, 05:26 PM Post #19
Childish Hypocrite Posts: 701 Group: BANNED! Member #208 Joined: 01/24/08	Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 12:26 PM 1) you cannot compare the results of 'jumbo jet+skyscraper' with the results of 'jumbo jet+soft earth'. That statement does not serve your theory about the crater or plume in any manner. 2) (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) 1) So you agree that it's ludicrous that someone tries to compare the results of 'jumbo jet+skyscraper' with 'jumbo jet+soft earth'? 2) How?



JimBob	Feb 15 2008, 11:58 PM Post #20
Trolls R Us Posts: 245 Group: BANNED! Member #314 Joined: 02/12/08	look-up Feb 15 2008, 03:22 PM Which do you prefer? The airplane hit the ground and made a crater, the explosion created a large plume which was photographed by Mcclatchey. It would be nice to see a video of the event. Is there any evidence that it actually exists?



Bongo Thud	Feb 16 2008, 01:06 AM Post #21
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Killtown Feb 15 2008, 05:26 PM Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 12:26 PM 1) you cannot compare the results of 'jumbo jet+skyscraper' with the results of 'jumbo jet+soft earth'. That statement does not serve your theory about the crater or plume in any manner. 2) (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) 1) So you agree that it's ludicrous that someone tries to compare the results of 'jumbo jet+skyscraper' with 'jumbo jet+soft earth'? 2) How? 1) not so much ludicrous, it's just pointless for purpose of comparison. 2) Videos and photos of great big planes slamming into great big skyscrapers, and plenty of eye witnesses.



Lin Kuei	Feb 17 2008, 05:00 AM Post #22
Posts: 1,308 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Killtown Feb 15 2008, 05:26 PM Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 12:26 PM 2) (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) 2) How? Bongo Thud, please do not attempt to redirect the conversation by inviting debate (however subtly) on NPT... and Killtown, don't bother responding. Please see the forum rules section re. discussion of No Plane (@ the WTC) Theories. Thanks.
Posts: 1,308 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Lord Tsukasa	Feb 17 2008, 11:01 AM Post #23
Posts: 73 Group: Members Member #310 Joined: 02/11/08	Quote: 2) (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) Classic Bongo Thud Redirection!
Posts: 73 Group: Members Member #310 Joined: 02/11/08


Bongo Thud	Feb 17 2008, 11:32 AM Post #24
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Lin Kuei Feb 17 2008, 05:00 AM Killtown Feb 15 2008, 05:26 PM Bongo Thud Feb 15 2008, 12:26 PM 2) (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) 2) How? Bongo Thud, please do not attempt to redirect the conversation by inviting debate (however subtly) on NPT... and Killtown, don't bother responding. Please see the forum rules section re. discussion of No Plane (@ the WTC) Theories. Thanks. Sorry if that seemed like i was baiting him, but it only looks that way because of how killtown COMPLETELY CHANGED THE SYNTAX OF MY POST IN HIS QUOTE and it was not the way it appearedin my post. regardless the statement is made because while it is possible something other than a plane caused the plume in val's photo, it is not possible something other than a plane caused the smoke plumes at the WTC. Considering we are discussing comparing the smoke plumes at the WTC with the one in shanksville, this is completely in line with the conversation because the plumes at the WTC are clearly caused by planes impacting skyscrapers yet they do not serve as an example of what the plume caused by a plane colliding with the earth would or should look like. Lord tsusuka, epic fail. Edited by Bongo Thud, Feb 17 2008, 11:34 AM.



Bongo Thud	Feb 17 2008, 11:35 AM Post #25
Libertarian Atheist Posts: 89 Group: Skeptics Member #27 Joined: 01/15/08	Lord Tsukasa Feb 17 2008, 11:01 AM Quote: 2) (and we all know jumbo jets hit those skyscrapers) Classic Bongo Thud Redirection! Do you realize you are quoting killtown's intentional mis-editting of my post?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Shanksville · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3