Susan McElwein Interview

[Revolutionary91]

I thought some people may be interested in this. It is a full interview with Susan McElwein from Shanksville. She saw a missile.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3949382240907258298

[uk_dave]

Can you provide a synopsis?

I got bored in the first few minutes because the camera work and music was very annoying. Then I noticed it ran for over 40 minutes.

Why do 'truthers' always make such crappy videos? Couldn't they just cut straight to the interview?

[T.A.M.]

Could you present (A) a shorter clip of the important part. I have not the patience sit through 40 minutes of WOO to get to one line. (B) Present a witness not interviewed by the WOO.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

rev91, why don't you and tc just tell us what she says?

That will serve several purposes:

1. It means we don't have to sit through someones attempt at professional filmaking
2. It means you will actually have had to watch and understand the video
3. It means that any spin you put on the words of the witness can be assessed

cheers

[Revolutionary91]

rev91, why don't you and tc just tell us what she says?

That will serve several purposes:

1. It means we don't have to sit through someones attempt at professional filmaking
2. It means you will actually have had to watch and understand the video
3. It means that any spin you put on the words of the witness can be assessed

cheers

If you want to avoid spin then watch the video. I deliberately didnt give my opinion in the opening post so you could make your own mind up.

I'm going out on a limb here and making the prediction that the "skeptics" here will just accuse her of lying or being confused.

[T.A.M.]

like I said, i am not going to sit through 40 minutes of the woo for what amounts to a one to two line comment.

TAM:)

[TC329]

Knowing she hadnt seen a 757, Susan came to the conclussion that what she saw that day had to be either a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane based on pictures of such vehicles sent to her by independent researchers. She has stated since 9/11/2001 what flew over her wasn't a 757 and that it was not much bigger than her van & all white. I clarified her descrpition in my interview. She called it a plane for lack of a better description. She really couldnt identify what it was, had never seen anything like, only knew that it was flying with some incredible manuevering.There's 2 minutes of music. If you cant get past that then you're full of **** and I have no interest in discussing this with you although I suspect you did watch and there is no way to dismiss her testimony so now the best thing to do is attack whether the film shakes or its quality.Tactic #426.... lame

I was going to post select quotes but you guys not watching this aint interested in anything but Bush's Fable........

And you think you're real researchers.

[Alt+F4]

I thought some people may be interested in this. It is a full interview with Susan McElwein from Shanksville. She saw a missile.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3949382240907258298

She says right in the begining that she saw a plane. Then she goes on to say that afterwards some man from California convinced her that she actually saw a missile.

Huh?

She also says:
"something else was there"
"whatever that was I saw"
"what did I see?"

Huh again....

[T.A.M.]

Knowing she hadnt seen a 757, Susan came to the conclussion that what she saw that day had to be either a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane based on pictures of such vehicles sent to her by independent researchers. She has stated since 9/11/2001 what flew over her wasn't a 757 and that it was not much bigger than her van & all white. I clarified her descrpition in my interview. She called it a plane for lack of a better description. She really couldnt identify what it was, had never seen anything like, only knew that it was flying with some incredible manuevering.There's 2 minutes of music. If you cant get past that then you're full of **** and I have no interest in discussing this with you although I suspect you did watch and there is no way to dismiss her testimony so now the best thing to do is attack whether the film shakes or its quality.Tactic #426.... lame

I was going to post select quotes but you guys not watching this aint interested in anything but Bush's Fable........

And you think you're real researchers.



Nice cop out...to be expected. Like I said at the beginning, give us a brief clip, not 40 minutes of padding, and I will watch it.

TAM:)

[TC329]

She says right in the begining that she saw a plane. Then she goes on to say that afterwards some man from California convinced her that she actually saw a missile.

Huh?

She also says:
"something else was there"
"whatever that was I saw"
"what did I see?"

Huh again....


"This.....I keep calling it a plane for lack of any other...."

"Because it was so low I ducked in my van and when I did I shut off my radio. And thats when I knew there was no sound."

"It cleared those trees, it was fall, no leaves moved on the tree..."

"It was pure white, there wasn't any markings on it, there was no rivets. It was that close I would have seen them. It was so molded like it was all one piece."

"It was cylinder, it came back and this spoiler was across it"

Question from me : "And there were no wings or...?"

Susan "I did not see any wings."

Question from me : "What do you think it was?"

Susan "I can only go by what other people have said to me cuz at the time I thought it was a plane. But like that guy from California WHO MAILED ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES and that guy from Bedford WHO SENT ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES, they all said the same thing that it had to be a missile or an unmanned plane or something..."

[T.A.M.]

What was the purpose of your reply. "You guessed wrong!"

I have a witness heavily referenced throughout the entire media uncut destroying the UA93 fairy tale. He isn't guessing what he said.

So there's no guessing wrong. So I stand by my assessment of you. Please report me, I really dont need to interact with such lowly individuals anyways.

SO let me guess, this astounding witness testimony, which you say puts the UA93 tale into the fictional catagory, you have brought this to media outlets but they have ignored you, right? I mean Hillary, Obama, John Edwards, they are all in on it, so they won't want to hear about this earth shattering account either, right?

Please.

TAM:)

[Firestone]

Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head.

"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.

"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.

"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.

Ididn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.

"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 haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.

"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.

"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."

Mrs Mcelwain, who looks after special needs children, is further convinced the whole truth has yet to come out because of a phone call she had within hours from the wife of an air force friend of the family.

"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93. I have no doubt those brave people on board tried to do something, but I don't believe what happened on the plane brought it down.

"If they shot it down, or something else happened, everyone, especially the victims' families, have a right to know."

Source: Mirror (http://web.archive.org/web/20030219235650/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full) (12/sep/2002)

(Bolding mine)

[T.A.M.]

"This.....I keep calling it a plane for lack of any other...."

"Because it was so low I ducked in my van and when I did I shut off my radio. And thats when I knew there was no sound."

"It cleared those trees, it was fall, no leaves moved on the tree..."

"It was pure white, there wasn't any markings on it, there was no rivets. It was that close I would have seen them. It was so molded like it was all one piece."

"It was cylinder, it came back and this spoiler was across it"

Question from me : "And there were no wings or...?"

Susan "I did not see any wings."

Question from me : "What do you think it was?"

Susan "I can only go by what other people have said to me cuz at the time I thought it was a plane. But like that guy from California WHO MAILED ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES and that guy from Bedford WHO SENT ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES, they all said the same thing that it had to be a missile or an unmanned plane or something..."


If she can see rivets on a plane travelling over her head at 400-500 mph, than the USG need to remove her eyes and study them, as she can see what noone else would see.


Susan "I can only go by what other people have said to me cuz at the time I thought it was a plane. But like that guy from California WHO MAILED ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES and that guy from Bedford WHO SENT ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES, they all said the same thing that it had to be a missile or an unmanned plane or something..."

So you are interviewing her, about what she saw, after she has been influenced by others, with pictures of other flying apparatus, and you feel her testimony is valid? When Police interview a suspect, or a witness, do they allow her to first go talk to other people about what she "Might" have seen before they get her testimony?

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

If you want to avoid spin then watch the video. I deliberately didnt give my opinion in the opening post so you could make your own mind up.


No, it's interesting to hear your take on it. And to make sure that you've watched the video.

Knowing she hadnt seen a 757, Susan came to the conclussion that what she saw that day had to be either a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane based on pictures of such vehicles sent to her by independent researchers.
Which one of the pictures sent to her did she identify as being what she saw?
She has stated since 9/11/2001 what flew over her wasn't a 757 and that it was not much bigger than her van & all white. I clarified her descrpition in my interview. She called it a plane for lack of a better description. She really couldnt identify what it was, had never seen anything like, only knew that it was flying with some incredible manuevering.
She is obviously an expert in judging height. Could it be that she didn't hear any noise because it was much higher than she estimated?
There's 2 minutes of music. why?
If you cant get past that then you're full of **** and I have no interest in discussing this with you although I suspect you did watch and there is no way to dismiss her testimony so now the best thing to do is attack whether the film shakes or its quality.Tactic #426.... lame
Nope I haven't watched it. Do you have a time stamp for the actual interview so I can avoid the crap?

I was going to post select quotes but you guys not watching this aint interested in anything but Bush's Fable........
No, please do

And you think you're real researchers.


Nope. But you do. And you're wrong.

[uk_dave]

Susan "I can only go by what other people have said to me cuz at the time I thought it was a plane. But like that guy from California WHO MAILED ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES and that guy from Bedford WHO SENT ME A BUNCH OF PICTURES, they all said the same thing that it had to be a missile or an unmanned plane or something..."

ouch! She's being told what it is by someone else?

good grief. Call yourself a researcher? lol

[Pardalis]

So there were two missiles at Ground Zero, one missile at the Pentagon, and now a missile at Shanksville...

WTF is up with the twoofer fascination with missiles?

[DGM]

So there were two missiles at Ground Zero, one missile at the Pentagon, and now a missile at Shanksville...

WTF is up with the twoofer fascination with missiles?
My avatar explains it all. Two twoofers

[kookbreaker]

And why is it that these missiles are going so slow that you can make out any detail?

Did the NWO use the 'pokey little missle set' that day?

[Pardalis]

Those big powerful beasts... Their shape oddly reminiscent of something...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/021B.MorrisAnothermissileinflight.jpg
One thing's for sure, they can do the job.

[Alt+F4]

And why is it that these missiles are going so slow that you can make out any detail?

Did the NWO use the 'pokey little missle set' that day?

Maybe these are Transformer© missles. They start out as planes then turn into missles.

[Arus808]

haha, that's what also gets me; any type of missile would be traveling faster than a plane would (at its top speed). seriously, no one would be able to "identify" a missile at a quick glance because by the time they "think" they saw it, its already gone; a person's mind can't even begin to understand what they saw because of the speed of the object


and the interview proves that she saw a plane, and that someone ELSE suggested that what she saw was actually a missile. dont understand how you truthers can mistake that statement as if she saw it herself.

again, chaotic situation, confusion and unfamiliarity of seeing something very strange, will affect someones perception at that time. as I have experienced first hand from a car accident (where I didn't even get the driver's shirt color and hair color right), eyewitness testimony is subjected to their own bias; and as seen here, through the bias of those around her (or who tells here what to say)

[uk_dave]

'Truthers' seem to be very prone to telling people what to see and what to believe.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Anecdotal evidence is always trumped by physical evidence.

[stateofgrace]

Knowing she hadnt seen a 757, Susan came to the conclussion that what she saw that day had to be either a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane based on pictures of such vehicles sent to her by independent researchers. She has stated since 9/11/2001 what flew over her wasn't a 757 and that it was not much bigger than her van & all white. I clarified her descrpition in my interview. She called it a plane for lack of a better description. She really couldnt identify what it was, had never seen anything like, only knew that it was flying with some incredible manuevering.There's 2 minutes of music. If you cant get past that then you're full of **** and I have no interest in discussing this with you although I suspect you did watch and there is no way to dismiss her testimony so now the best thing to do is attack whether the film shakes or its quality.Tactic #426.... lame

I was going to post select quotes but you guys not watching this aint interested in anything but Bush's Fable........

And you think you're real researchers.


I am interested, So Rev 91 and Top Cat , What happened to flight 93? Who made the phone calls to the passengers families? Who shot this plane down ? Who faked the plane crash site ? Who planted all the plane parts ? Who, oh who thought it was such a great idea to to do all this ?

What on earth is the point of shooting down a plane during a national emergency and then NOT admitting it ?

What is the point of going to all this trouble when they could have just said " Yep we shot it down, we had no choice" ?

Why go to this massive act of deception , including lying to the familes, the public, every single person on the planet, when they could have just admitted it and got even more milage? Was that too simple ?

[Alt+F4]

What is the point of going to all this trouble when they could have just said " Yep we shot it down, we had no choice" ?

Why go to this massive act of deception , including lying to the familes, the public, every single person on the planet, when they could have just admitted it and got even more milage? Was that too simple ?

Agreed. If the federal government admitted that the military shot down UA93 I think most Americans (with the exception of the victim's families, of course) would have believed this was the right course of action based on what had already happened so far that day.

I've flown about a dozen times since 9/11 and have always been of the belief that if the plane I'm on is hijacked there is a real possibility that it will be shot down by the American military. Yet I continue to fly. Am I alone in this belief?

[DGM]

What is the point of going to all this trouble when they could have just said " Yep we shot it down, we had no choice" ?

This of all the theory's makes the no sense (not that the others do either). They seem to think we should have shot it down but if we did we had to cover it up. :confused:

[Mince]

I'm going out on a limb here and making the prediction that the "skeptics" here will just accuse her of lying or being confused.

I'm going out on an equally precarious limb and predict that you accept this on its face, without empiricism. In other words, you're just accusing her of telling the truth or not being confused.

Personally, I am not accusing her of anything. I don't necessarily believe her; but that's only because she lacks empirical evidence. If you think that someone (anyone) is not capable of fabricating a story in an effort to curry fame and fortune, or that people are always accurate eywitnesses, I'm going to go out on a limb and call you naive.

[T.A.M.]

She was also in her car, was she not (had turned down the radio she said, I believe). So in the instant that it takes a flying object travelling at at least 500mph to go over her head, even if it is 100 feet above her head (she says she was close enough to make out rivets if their were any, which really, should put it at about 8 feet above here head...lol), she was able to identify a tail, and the absence of rivets, all from her seat in her car.

yup...that is a crack witness.

TAM:)

[Horatius]

"It was cylinder, it came back and this spoiler was across it"

Question from me : "And there were no wings or...?"

Susan "I did not see any wings."



Is there any kind of missile that has a "spoiler" but no wings? And if there is, is that missile about the same size as her van? Does it travel at the altitude she describes? Does it travel at a speed that she could make any kind of useful observations? Is it as silent as she describes?

You keep insisting that we have to say she's either lying or mistaken. Okay, I'll say it: she's mistaken. Her perceptions and memories are flawed. Unless you can demonstrate that a majority of her testimony corresponds in same way to a known missile, this evidence is worthless.


Happy now?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Is this another sad attempt to use a single eyewitness to refute numerous others?

I guess if that's all the truthers have, it's what they have to run with... :rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

I'm going out on an equally precarious limb and predict that you accept this on its face, without empiricism.

Actually, that limb looks pretty solid to me.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you want to avoid spin then watch the video.

When I want to avoid spin, I watch The O'Rielly Factor!

It's a 'no spin' zone!

[TC329]

Source: Mirror (http://web.archive.org/web/20030219235650/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full) (12/sep/2002)

(Bolding mine)


The media is lying to you. Always been.

[Pardalis]

The media is lying to you. Always been.

You'll have to find better than that.

[TC329]

So you are interviewing her, about what she saw, after she has been influenced by others, with pictures of other flying apparatus, and you feel her testimony is valid? When Police interview a suspect, or a witness, do they allow her to first go talk to other people about what she "Might" have seen before they get her testimony?

TAM:)


Do you know what a police lineup is and how it works?

Was it like this : 757 NO
Was it like this : Falcon20 NO
Was it like this : a10 Warthog NO
Was it like this : (missile/unmanned drone plane) YES

Imagine that. Being shown a picture of something used in a crime and the eyewitness saying "Yes, That is What/Who I Saw"..........

You're kidding me, right?

[TC329]

ouch! She's being told what it is by someone else?

good grief. Call yourself a researcher? lol

See my "police lineup" example.

[Devil's Advocate]

If you watch it, she shows where they told her that flight 93 was coming from, and the 'object' she saw was seemingly heading to it on an intercept.
(Like a missile tracking a target.)

I personally do not have a problem with people sending her pictures to try to figure out what she she had seen. No wings and cylindrical does not sound like a plane to me.
I do not see what the big deal is with that.
I was hoping the guys interviewing her would have done it.

[TC329]

Which one of the pictures sent to her did she identify as being what she saw?

I'm bringing her some for confirmation.

She is obviously an expert in judging height. Could it be that she didn't hear any noise because it was much higher than she estimated?

No, most likely it was traveling so fast that she saw the fireball by the time she was hearing it.



Nope I haven't watched it. Do you have a time stamp for the actual interview so I can avoid the crap?

3:00 On, smartass.


No, please do

Done



Nope. But you do. And you're wrong.

Oh, Ok. I guess after doing what the media has failed to do for this country I should just call it quits and join the rest of the Al CIADA sympathizers in Cuba. Thanks for saving a lot of crooked politicians and CEO's and shareholders a lot of trouble! The general public tends to frown upon treason.

[TC329]

You'll have to find better than that.

You know the official story is Susan McElwain had the "little white plane" aka the "corporate jet" fly over her in the printed media, right?

I showed her a picture of that "little white corporate jet". She said "NO, thats definitely not what it was."

[ktesibios]

The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

Here's a picture of a Dassault Falcon 20:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/378469a9c8d802ef.jpg

Two rear engines- check.
A big fin in the back like a spoiler on a car- check (it's called a horizontal stabilizer, dear)
All white- as I've learned from spending quite a bit of time at Balboa Lake Park watching the waterfowl and the planes arriving and leaving Van Nuys Airport a couple of blocks away, white is a very popular color scheme for private jets- check.
The fences on the upper surfaces of the wings could correspond to the "two upright fins" in the description.

As for size and height, if you can't tell how far away an object is there's no sane way to estimate its absolute size, and if something is flying over you, away from any references on the ground that could help to estimate distance, you can't tell how high it is unless you either:

happen to be carrying an optical rangefinder and have the presence of mind to make immediate use of it, or

make a reasonably accurate estimate of its angular dimensions (this can be done using, for example, the width of your fingers held at arms length, in which case the subtended angle can be worked out with a tape measure and elementary trigonometry) and know what its linear dimensions are, in which case the distance can be worked out with a bit more elementary trigonometry.

So, the plane which the "official story" states examined the crash site corresponds reasonably well with the witness' description, well enough for a description given by a clearly inexpert witness who doesn't know enough not to draw conclusions about size, distance and speed which can't be justified by eyeball observation.

Okay, troofers- now show us either an air-to-air missile which fits that description, or a military plane which fits the description and is equipped to intercept planes and fire air-to-air missiles at them.

Or tell us which plane she picked out from the California guy's mugshots, and we'll see if it fits the description better than a Dassault Falcon.

[GregoryUrich]

I think Mrs. McElwain presents as a reliable witness with no agenda. The guys making the film clearly have an agenda though. Clearly the woman saw something and didn't know what it was. She says it was small and low and I see no reason to question that. Here's an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG) of a missile fitting the proportions, color (if you take away the markings), sub-sonic speed and molded (no rivets) fiberglass look.

I think at least her testimony would warrant investigation by the authorities. It is hard to imagine why the FBI would tell her to "have faith in her country".

[Mince]

TC329, have you seen TK421? Why isn't he at his post?

[Unsecured Coins]

TC329, have you seen TK421? Why isn't he at his post?

Stupid droids!!

[Devil's Advocate]

Stupid droids!!

I LOLed for real.
:D

Nice Avtar, B.T.W

[Horatius]

Here's an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ALCMCruiseMissile.JPG) of a missile fitting the proportions, color (if you take away the markings), sub-sonic speed and molded (no rivets) fiberglass look.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM
Speed AGM-86B: 550 mph (890 km/h, Mach 0.73); AGM 86C: classified (nominal high subsonic)
...
Launch platform B-52H bomber



So you think it's reasonable that she saw a missile traveling at 550 MPH in enough detail to ID it, that no one else reports a B-52 in the area, and that, for some reason, they used a cruise missile to do ----- something, I'm not sure what, but it sure wasn't to shoot down flight 93?





And she missed the fact that this missile has wings?

[Corsair 115]

The media is lying to you. Always been.All the media in every country?

Do you know what a police lineup is and how it works?

Was it like this : 757 NO
Was it like this : Falcon20 NO
Was it like this : a10 Warthog NO
Was it like this : (missile/unmanned drone plane) YES

Imagine that. Being shown a picture of something used in a crime and the eyewitness saying "Yes, That is What/Who I Saw"..........

You're kidding me, right?You are familiar with studies that have shown over and over again how eyewitnesses in such lineup situations get it wrong?

Also, missiles, especially ones that would be used for an air-to-air intercept, leave smoke trails which would persist in the air for a few moments at least and would be quite visible to anyone.

[Unsecured Coins]

I LOLed for real.
:D

Nice Avtar, B.T.W

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/dimebag.jpg

[T.A.M.]

So she was show pictures with no commentary, and just asked to choose?

From what I can see, she was told based on her DESCRIPTION, that what she saw was MOST LIKELY X or Y. There is a big difference in the two.

But TC, like I said, if you are convinced, get the impeachment under way...lol

TAM:)

[Gravy]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/021B.MorrisAnothermissileinflight.jpg (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/021B.MorrisAnothermissileinflight.jpg)
Those big powerful beasts... Their shape oddly reminiscent of something...Rocket-powered suppositories: the only way the medication they need can be administered to 9/11 deniers.

[GregoryUrich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

So you think it's reasonable that she saw a missile traveling at 550 MPH in enough detail to ID it, that no one else reports a B-52 in the area, and that, for some reason, they used a cruise missile to do ----- something, I'm not sure what, but it sure wasn't to shoot down flight 93?

And she missed the fact that this missile has wings?

I just gave that as an example. Clearly, she saw something she couldn't identify as a normal airplane.

If I put on my tin hat, I would imagine that since the AGM-86 is air to ground maybe that's what made the crater...where very little identifiable reckage was found. Engines were found at WTC and the Pentagon. Not at Shanksville as far as I am aware. A B-52 could have let that sucker go from hundreds of miles away.

...if I put on my tin hat anyway.

[Gravy]

And she missed the fact that this missile has wings?You are arguing with an utterly hopeless case, who has repeatedly refused to answer my questions or contact the witnesses whose contact information I gave him. Oh, and remember that this is the plane that TC329 (AKA Terrorcell) believes crashed in Somerset:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790469acc3121adc.jpg

[Gravy]

I just gave that as an example. Clearly, she saw something she couldn't identify as a normal airplane.

If I put on my tin hat, I would imagine that since the AGM-86 is air to ground maybe that's what made the crater...where very little identifiable reckage was found. Engines were found at WTC and the Pentagon. Not at Shanksville as far as I am aware. A B-52 could have let that sucker go from hundreds of miles away.

...if I put on my tin hat anyway.You are wrong. Much identifiable wreckage was found at Shanksville, including engines, both black boxes, and the remains of every single passenger were positively identified. The FDR showed that the plane's systems were functioning normally when it hit the ground at 580 mph: as fast as a bullet fired from a .45.

Please stop this sad nonsense.

[Gravy]

I just gave that as an example. Clearly, she saw something she couldn't identify as a normal airplane. Thought she saw. She was mistaken. The plane was moving very fast. It was not 50 feet over her head and the size of her mini-van.

Other witnesses who were right there saw the airliner roll to its right, turn upside-down, and dive, followed by the explosion, all of which corresponds to the FDR data.

Please stop this nonsense. It is undignified.

[GregoryUrich]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Jaye77/dimebag.jpg

I've never seen a missle that looked like that. It must be the latest secret weapon...

What is that thing? It looks kind of like a Gibson Explorer/Flying-V mutant except for the headstock. Is it a Washburn Green Munky?

[GregoryUrich]

Thought she saw. She was mistaken. The plane was moving very fast. It was not 50 feet over her head and the size of her mini-van.

Other witnesses who were right there saw the airliner roll to its right, turn upside-down, and dive, followed by the explosion, all of which corresponds to the FDR data.

Please stop this nonsense. It is undignified.

You know she is mistaken. God, what arrogance. Stop your nonsense and I'll stop mine.

[Gravy]

You know she is mistaken. God, what arrogance. Stop your nonsense and I'll stop mine.I've reviewed the evidence at length. You haven't. Please do so and then you'll know.

[Jonnyclueless]

So which missiles have all those spoilers and rivets, but are also completely silent and don't blow leave of trees? Which ones are flown 10 feet off the ground to hit a target much higher up? Why were no missile parts found?

Why do they keep using magical missiles?

[kookbreaker]

So which missiles have all those spoilers and rivets, but are also completely silent and don't blow leave of trees? Which ones are flown 10 feet off the ground to hit a target much higher up? Why were no missile parts found?

Why do they keep using magical missiles?

They were attacking the darkness!

/Dead AleWives

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why do they keep using magical missiles?


"I cast... Magic Missile!"

[slingblade]

If you want to avoid spin then watch the video. I deliberately didnt give my opinion in the opening post so you could make your own mind up.

I'm going out on a limb here and making the prediction that the "skeptics" here will just accuse her of lying or being confused.

Why do you not get that since the evidence doesn't point to missiles, that's the only thing a reasonable person can conclude? Especially when you want us to base our opinions on the slipshod "testimony" that's always provided.

You can't have a room full of blue furbles, see one pink furble come running out the door, and conclude the room must be full of pink furbles instead. This isn't how it works.

Please do yourself a favor (never mind us) and learn sometihng about how to argue, what evidence is, what fallacies are, and the ways in which eye-witness testimony can be unreliable. Please. Learn something.

[Corsair 115]

You know she is mistaken. God, what arrogance. Stop your nonsense and I'll stop mine.It seems you missed this part of Gravy's statement (bolding added):

Other witnesses who were right there saw the airliner roll to its right, turn upside-down, and dive, followed by the explosion, all of which corresponds to the FDR data.


How much weight do you give these other witnesses and the FDR data, GU? Why does McElwain's account take precedence over what others have testified to seeing and the physical evidence?

[Unsecured Coins]

I've never seen a missle that looked like that. It must be the latest secret weapon...

What is that thing? It looks kind of like a Gibson Explorer/Flying-V mutant except for the headstock. Is it a Washburn Green Munky?

not to jack the thread, but that is Washburn Dimebag Signature Model 333. Based off the Dean ML 14 model a yound Darrell Abott played in his teens, which was based off of, you guessed it, the Gibson Explorer and the Flying V guitars. I own 2 of them.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/MVC-022S.jpg

[Devil's Advocate]

1. Time of Crash
On September 12, 2001, the FAA turned over a radar record of Flight 93's flight path to the FBI. At that time, a reporter from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was told that radar contact with the plane was lost at 10:06am.


The Maryland Geological Survey released a report entitled 'Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist AttacK on March 10, 2002. Using data recorded by the Seismographic Station in Standing Stone, PA (SSPA), the report's authors (Won-Young Kim of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Gerald R. Baum of the MGS) concluded that United 93 crashed at around 10:06:05 (+/- 5sec).

This seismically deduced crash time for UA93 is contradicted by three sources: the 9/11 Commission, UA93's Flight Data Recorder (FDR), and UA93's Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR).

The 9/11 Commission's report, in particular, uses a series of unverifiable assertions to discount the accuracy of the MGS report, saying in a footnote (Chap. 1, note #168) that "the seismic data ... are far too weak ... and far too speculative...". The footnote refers to an unpublished email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission, and an unpublished (or unavailable) follow-up paper written by Mr. Kim, which allegedly contradicts his earlier report, still online @ the MGS website. While the seismic data for the recorded event at 10:06:05 may indeed be 'weak', it's interesting to note that there are even LESS seismic data to indicate that United 93, or for that matter anything else, crashed at 10:03am.

The same footnote goes on to say that the Commission established 10:03 as the time of impact by using "the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets." Aside from the obvious question of how the impact site could give any indication whatsoever as to the exact time of the crash, there's also the fact that most of the ATC and radar data are unavailable to the public, and the only known media reports that reference these data all mention a crash time of 10:06am.

Which leaves the FDR and CVR, both of which apparently stopped recording at 10:03am, and one of which was allegedly found 25 feet underground.


2. FDR Data - NTSB DCA01MA065
United 93's Flight Data Recorder, an Allied Signal SSFDR, was allegedly recovered in the crater in Somerset County, and the data stored in its memory card was extracted by Honeywell. The contents of the Flight Data Recorder have been made available to the public, thanks to a FOIA request. Several interesting points are illuminated by this data.

a. The aircraft apparently crashed at a speed of over 500mph, inverted (upside-down), at an angle of ~40 degrees. This angle does not correspond with the actual crater in Shanksville, a crude outline of what one would expect to see from a jet that had crashed 'straight down' into the ground.

b. the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) aboard United 93 never activated, but neither did 'GPWC Failure', implying that the GPWS was operating, but failed to register any alerts in the moments leading up to the alleged crash.


SINK RATE - generally sounds when an aircraft's rate of descent is dangerously high (the threshold for a 'dangerously high' rate of descent is variable, and depends on the aircraft’s altitude, flap position, and landing gear position). According to the FDR, Flight 93 descended from 10000ft to impact in its final alleged minute. From 10:02am – 10:03am, UA93 supposedly descended at a rate of 10000ft/min, yet the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.

TERRAIN - Did not activate

TOO LOW TERRAIN - Did not activate

TERRAIN AHEAD PULL UP - Did not activate

GROUND PROX WARNING - Did not activate

GPWC FAILURE - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC onboard UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.


3. CVR Data
The Cockpit Voice Recorder was also allegedly recovered in the crater, at a depth of 25 feet. The recorder was described as being in 'fairly good condition', and a transcript of the CVR data was admitted into evidence during the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. The CVR transcript, like the FDR data, shows that NONE of the typical GPWS warnings which should have activated (esp. 'Sink Rate') did, in fact, activate. It has been suggested that this could be a result of the alleged hijackers pulling the aural warning breakers, but this suggestion overlooks the fact that there is nothing in the FDR data to indicate that the warning(s) would have activated, as no trigger conditions were encountered by the GPWC or recorded by the FDR.

4. Crash Site
The spot where United 93 is said to have crashed is an open field near Shanksville, PA - the former site of a stripmine which had since been covered over with soil. One engine was allegedly recovered from the 'crater', as were both black boxes. Those black boxes are installed in the tail of an aircraft, which seems to indicate that the entire plane from nose to tail crumpled into the soft ground. Also allegedly discovered in that crater, however, was a pristine red bandana (another piece of 'evidence' featured at the Moussaoui trial). The government asserts that the alleged hijackers of UAL93 were all wearing red bandanas on their heads, and to think one of these bandanas survived in such mint condition, while the head around which it was supposedly wrapped was 'vaporized' by the crash, strains credulity.

5. Debris Field
The debris field is perhaps the most puzzling of all, with initial reports claiming that 'nothing larger than a phone book' had been seen, followed by reports of debris falling like confetti from the sky, nearly six miles from the alleged crash site. Debris was found at Indian Lake, and also at businesses outside Shanksville proper, which is itself miles away from the alleged crash site. It has been alleged that the wind on 9/11 (9mph) was sufficient to blow light pieces of paper and fabric over these great distances, but the on-the-scene reports from local media indicate that the items found included "clothing, books, ...and what appeared to be human remains." - common sense suggests that a 9mph wind is not powerful enough to blow anything much heavier than a feather across a distance of a few hundred feet, let alone a few miles. And yet enough substantial debris was recovered at these distant locations that local residents were turning in bags full of it. Additionally, one of the two engines (or rather a one-ton piece of one of the engines) was allegedly discovered hundreds of yards from the crater, though Popular Mechanics and its cadre of experts have asserted that the 2000 lb. engine-piece likely 'bounced' that distance...

It can be interesting stuff. http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/united-93.html
How much is real?

[Yaters]

1. Time of Crash
On September 12, 2001, the FAA turned over a radar record of Flight 93's flight path to the FBI. At that time, a reporter from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was told that radar contact with the plane was lost at 10:06am.


The Maryland Geological Survey released a report entitled 'Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist AttacK on March 10, 2002. Using data recorded by the Seismographic Station in Standing Stone, PA (SSPA), the report's authors (Won-Young Kim of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Gerald R. Baum of the MGS) concluded that United 93 crashed at around 10:06:05 (+/- 5sec).

This seismically deduced crash time for UA93 is contradicted by three sources: the 9/11 Commission, UA93's Flight Data Recorder (FDR), and UA93's Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR).

The 9/11 Commission's report, in particular, uses a series of unverifiable assertions to discount the accuracy of the MGS report, saying in a footnote (Chap. 1, note #168) that "the seismic data ... are far too weak ... and far too speculative...". The footnote refers to an unpublished email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission, and an unpublished (or unavailable) follow-up paper written by Mr. Kim, which allegedly contradicts his earlier report, still online @ the MGS website. While the seismic data for the recorded event at 10:06:05 may indeed be 'weak', it's interesting to note that there are even LESS seismic data to indicate that United 93, or for that matter anything else, crashed at 10:03am.

The same footnote goes on to say that the Commission established 10:03 as the time of impact by using "the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets." Aside from the obvious question of how the impact site could give any indication whatsoever as to the exact time of the crash, there's also the fact that most of the ATC and radar data are unavailable to the public, and the only known media reports that reference these data all mention a crash time of 10:06am.

Which leaves the FDR and CVR, both of which apparently stopped recording at 10:03am, and one of which was allegedly found 25 feet underground.


2. FDR Data - NTSB DCA01MA065
United 93's Flight Data Recorder, an Allied Signal SSFDR, was allegedly recovered in the crater in Somerset County, and the data stored in its memory card was extracted by Honeywell. The contents of the Flight Data Recorder have been made available to the public, thanks to a FOIA request. Several interesting points are illuminated by this data.

a. The aircraft apparently crashed at a speed of over 500mph, inverted (upside-down), at an angle of ~40 degrees. This angle does not correspond with the actual crater in Shanksville, a crude outline of what one would expect to see from a jet that had crashed 'straight down' into the ground.

b. the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) aboard United 93 never activated, but neither did 'GPWC Failure', implying that the GPWS was operating, but failed to register any alerts in the moments leading up to the alleged crash.


SINK RATE - generally sounds when an aircraft's rate of descent is dangerously high (the threshold for a 'dangerously high' rate of descent is variable, and depends on the aircraft’s altitude, flap position, and landing gear position). According to the FDR, Flight 93 descended from 10000ft to impact in its final alleged minute. From 10:02am – 10:03am, UA93 supposedly descended at a rate of 10000ft/min, yet the ‘Sink Rate’ warning did not activate.

TERRAIN - Did not activate

TOO LOW TERRAIN - Did not activate

TERRAIN AHEAD PULL UP - Did not activate

GROUND PROX WARNING - Did not activate

GPWC FAILURE - Did not activate. Again, this seems to indicate that the GPWC onboard UA93 was functioning throughout the flight.


3. CVR Data
The Cockpit Voice Recorder was also allegedly recovered in the crater, at a depth of 25 feet. The recorder was described as being in 'fairly good condition', and a transcript of the CVR data was admitted into evidence during the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. The CVR transcript, like the FDR data, shows that NONE of the typical GPWS warnings which should have activated (esp. 'Sink Rate') did, in fact, activate. It has been suggested that this could be a result of the alleged hijackers pulling the aural warning breakers, but this suggestion overlooks the fact that there is nothing in the FDR data to indicate that the warning(s) would have activated, as no trigger conditions were encountered by the GPWC or recorded by the FDR.

4. Crash Site
The spot where United 93 is said to have crashed is an open field near Shanksville, PA - the former site of a stripmine which had since been covered over with soil. One engine was allegedly recovered from the 'crater', as were both black boxes. Those black boxes are installed in the tail of an aircraft, which seems to indicate that the entire plane from nose to tail crumpled into the soft ground. Also allegedly discovered in that crater, however, was a pristine red bandana (another piece of 'evidence' featured at the Moussaoui trial). The government asserts that the alleged hijackers of UAL93 were all wearing red bandanas on their heads, and to think one of these bandanas survived in such mint condition, while the head around which it was supposedly wrapped was 'vaporized' by the crash, strains credulity.

5. Debris Field
The debris field is perhaps the most puzzling of all, with initial reports claiming that 'nothing larger than a phone book' had been seen, followed by reports of debris falling like confetti from the sky, nearly six miles from the alleged crash site. Debris was found at Indian Lake, and also at businesses outside Shanksville proper, which is itself miles away from the alleged crash site. It has been alleged that the wind on 9/11 (9mph) was sufficient to blow light pieces of paper and fabric over these great distances, but the on-the-scene reports from local media indicate that the items found included "clothing, books, ...and what appeared to be human remains." - common sense suggests that a 9mph wind is not powerful enough to blow anything much heavier than a feather across a distance of a few hundred feet, let alone a few miles. And yet enough substantial debris was recovered at these distant locations that local residents were turning in bags full of it. Additionally, one of the two engines (or rather a one-ton piece of one of the engines) was allegedly discovered hundreds of yards from the crater, though Popular Mechanics and its cadre of experts have asserted that the 2000 lb. engine-piece likely 'bounced' that distance...

It can be interesting stuff. http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/united-93.html
How much is real?

Bravo. Now, go do something useful with your "evidence".

Or, if you hate the government so much, move to a different country. Enjoy!

Lastly, and I say this to all of the truthers who post videos and theories, if you were on trial and the prosecutors used the same type of evidence and logic in prosecuting you, you would cry foul and call the evidence ridiculous, as it would be. However, in your corner, suddenly, that same type of evidence is valid. Funny.

[Devil's Advocate]

Bravo. Now, go do something useful with your "evidence".

Or, if you hate the government so much, move to a different country. Enjoy!

Lastly, and I say this to all of the truthers who post videos and theories, if you were on trial and the prosecutors used the same type of evidence and logic in prosecuting you, you would cry foul and call the evidence ridiculous, as it would be. However, in your corner, suddenly, that same type of evidence is valid. Funny.

So, you read the post (or maybe not), make an assumption of who I am and what I am about, then get pissy like a spoiled child and expect me to follow your advice on what I should do about anything?
Why don't you do a little background on someone before you get on your flimsy little soap box. Ok, little one?

[Corsair 115]

Time of Crash... I'm not sure how much weight should be attached to discrepancies of a few minutes, since it depends on how accurate the clocks are that are being used to determine the time of an event. I've got four clocks in my home right now (my watch, the clock on my computer, the clock on the VCR, and the clock in my bedroom), and they all show slightly different times (I'm too lazy to synchronize them).

The aircraft apparently crashed at a speed of over 500mph, inverted (upside-down), at an angle of ~40 degrees. This angle does not correspond with the actual crater in Shanksville, a crude outline of what one would expect to see from a jet that had crashed 'straight down' into the ground. What's the basis for that expectation?

The government asserts that the alleged hijackers of UAL93 were all wearing red bandanas on their heads, and to think one of these bandanas survived in such mint condition, while the head around which it was supposedly wrapped was 'vaporized' by the crash, strains credulity.What's the basis for saying finding a piece of intact clothing "strains credulity"? The nature of some of the debris found after the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia during re-entry would indicate that some things can indeed survive extreme conditions in relatively good shape.

[T.A.M.]

So, you read the post (or maybe not), make an assumption of who I am and what I am about, then get pissy like a spoiled child and expect me to follow your advice on what I should do about anything?
Why don't you do a little background on someone before you get on your flimsy little soap box. Ok, little one?

While I have been following your posts enough to know that you try to post as per your username sake, others may not. On a busy forum, where CTers posting such shaite to infuriate is common, I think it is a little much to expect someone to "background check" each poster who posts such things. As I suggested earlier, you need some form of posting entry line to identify your role as D.A., or else be prepared for much more of this...but you know that.

TAM;)

[Devil's Advocate]

While I have been following your posts enough to know that you try to post as per your username sake, others may not. On a busy forum, where CTers posting such shaite to infuriate is common, I think it is a little much to expect someone to "background check" each poster who posts such things. As I suggested earlier, you need some form of posting entry line to identify your role as D.A., or else be prepared for much more of this...but you know that.

TAM;)

You love me, don't you T.A.M ?...you want to give me some blue blob sugars.
:blush:

[T.A.M.]

D.A.

My affection for you, as a guy to another guy (I assume), and myself being heterosexual, is purely plutonic, and is put forth solely for the purpose of fair play.

I am not sure what blue blob sugars are, but I am sure they are delicious.

TAM:) (The Artistic Macrophage)

[Devil's Advocate]

What's the basis for that expectation?

Their stipulation is the angle of crash is inconsistent with the ground evidence.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RczDTJPfJvI/AAAAAAAAAGI/5TTqDaJt2xo/s1600-h/Slide2.1.jpg
Compare with ground damage.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RcoShy_6WFI/AAAAAAAAAEM/VGBj5-BpDJc/s1600-h/aerial_msnbc.jpg

What's the basis for saying finding a piece of intact clothing "strains credulity"? The nature of some of the debris found after the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia during re-entry would indicate that some things can indeed survive extreme conditions in relatively good shape.

I think their point was the bandana was found in the crater were there was a fire. I do not have enough info on the bandana so it is not really that important to me.

[Corsair 115]

Their stipulation is the angle of crash is inconsistent with the ground evidence. Yes, but what's the basis for them making that assessment? Why are they so sure the inconsistencies they claim exist are definitive proof and are not explainable by other reasons?

I think their point was the bandana was found in the crater were there was a fire.That requires a presumption on their part that the bandana was there in the crater when a fire was taking place. It is possible it was blown out in the impact and explosion and only came to rest in the crater later.

[TC329]

You are arguing with an utterly hopeless case, who has repeatedly refused to answer my questions or contact the witnesses whose contact information I gave him. Oh, and remember that this is the plane that TC329 (AKA Terrorcell) believes crashed in Somerset:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790469acc3121adc.jpg


That's an unfair biased diagram which I asked you repeatedly to correct. The reason the fuselage appeared to be so wide was because the engines were mounted on the tail of the plane instead of the wings. You push things you know to be bogus because you're a fraud Mark.

[TC329]

2. FDR Data - NTSB DCA01MA065



3. CVR Data





One of these is not like the other
One of these is fake

(Come on, sing along with me now! :D)

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, but what's the basis for them making that assessment? Why are they so sure the inconsistencies they claim exist are definitive proof and are not explainable by other reasons?

I have not gone over their site fully so I am not sure if they are giving opinions on the data or not. As far as I can tell, it seems they have put up issues they have with the data, and it's conflict with ground evidence.
(I edited in another pic in the last reply, check it out if you missed it because it was edited in a few mintes after the reply.)

That requires a presumption on their part that the bandana was there in the crater when a fire was taking place. It is possible it was blown out in the impact and explosion and only came to rest in the crater later.
I agree. I was going to snip it out, but I do not like doing that with source information. It could be viewed as trying to 'hide' something.

[Arus808]

That's an unfair biased diagram which I asked you repeatedly to correct. The reason the fuselage appeared to be so wide was because the engines were mounted on the tail of the plane instead of the wings. You push things you know to be bogus because you're a fraud Mark.

notice how you sidestep the issue.

please explain how someone in a car, reported to seeing rivets and that plane was less than 100 feet above her when reports from other eye witnesses claimed it was higher?

[Arus808]

One of these is not like the other
One of these is fake

(Come on, sing along with me now! :D)

prove it. we dont take speculation
you say one is faked. then prove that it was

[T.A.M.]

99% of the truth movements theories are bogus, so, infact, almost everytime a truther opens their mouth, they are pushing things that are bogus...so I guess the entire truth movement is a fraud...yep.

or, a shorter version...

Pot meet kettle.

TAM:)

[Devil's Advocate]

D.A.

My affection for you, as a guy to another guy (I assume), and myself being heterosexual, is purely plutonic, and is put forth solely for the purpose of fair play.

I am not sure what blue blob sugars are, but I am sure they are delicious.

TAM:) (The Artistic Macrophage)

Yes, I am a guy. That pic is me. Yes, I am not ashamed. I'm not a pretty man, I know. :(
But I have a huge jaw and can crush ice cubes!
:D

[T.A.M.]

This mistaking me for a female has happened a few times now. I guess my posting style and comments are gender neutral. Perhaps I need to throw in a few belches, a fart or two, and the occasional crotch grab or scratch...lol

TAM:)

[Devil's Advocate]

Perhaps I need to throw in a few belches, a fart or two, and the occasional crotch grab or scratch...lol
TAM:)

You're talking about grabbing your own, right? :covereyes





:D

[TC329]

prove it. we dont take speculation
you say one is faked. then prove that it was

Please provide the positive identification for the CVR.

[Gravy]

That's an unfair biased diagram which I asked you repeatedly to correct. The reason the fuselage appeared to be so wide was because the engines were mounted on the tail of the plane instead of the wings. You push things you know to be bogus because you're a fraud Mark.No, it's drawn exactly to your specs. You said you are looking for a plane with a 60-foot wingspan and a fuselage that's 16 feet wide and 20 feet high. You didn't specify the location of the engines.

I, of course, have evidence of your ignorant statements. You, of course, have still not contacted the witnesses and investigators whose contact information I gave you. That's pure intellectual cowardice.

[Arus808]

Please provide the positive identification for the CVR.

you can get that from the NTSB. its your claim that it was faked. its not our job to prove that it wasn't. you make an extraordinary claim, you have to provide proof or retract your claim

this kind of "round" robin debate doesn't help your case. only shows that you have lies to tell.


prove your case or retract your claim

[uk_dave]

The media is lying to you. Always been.

Really? Have you any idea just how paranoid that makes you appear?

Ironic really, since the biggest proven liars in this whole sad affair are the CT websites who spin and manipulate details to fit their agenda, tell the faithful what to see and what to believe (we need to be told because rarely is it obvious precisely what the CTer is seeing) and then profit off of the gullible sheeple who get a buzz out of thinking they're part of some great new rebellion against 'da man'.

[TC329]

No, it's drawn exactly to your specs. You said you are looking for a plane with a 60-foot wingspan and a fuselage that's 16 feet wide and 20 feet high. You didn't specify the location of the engines.

I, of course, have evidence of your ignorant statements. You, of course, have still not contacted the witnesses and investigators whose contact information I gave you. That's pure intellectual cowardice.

When I described the circumference of the crater's fuselage impression I stated 16-20' and you were well aware that I believed at the time of that statement that the plane had 2 rear mounted engines on the tail and I immediately corrected you in order for you to correct your mistake. That is also evident in the thread. No spin, Mark.

[TC329]

you can get that from the NTSB. its your claim that it was faked.

No, you can't get that from the NTSB.

[TC329]

Really? Have you any idea just how paranoid that makes you appear?

Not as much as it shows how naive you are?

[Arus808]

No, you can't get that from the NTSB.

and how does this negate you from your responsibility to back up your claim? dont dodge tc, otherwise retract your claim


ntsb, fbi - they'd have it. ntsb WOULD have it, tc, no matter how much you say otherwise. it belongs to them. FBI wouldl get it from them for their case they are building, and then it would be returned to the NTSB for their records.


again, prove that the CVR was faked or retract your claim

[SpitfireIX]

While I have been following your posts enough to know that you try to post as per your username sake, others may not. On a busy forum, where CTers posting such shaite to infuriate is common, I think it is a little much to expect someone to "background check" each poster who posts such things. As I suggested earlier, you need some form of posting entry line to identify your role as D.A., or else be prepared for much more of this...but you know that.

TAM;)


There are Devil's Advocate tags available, viz:

[/da]

[da]Why wouldn't the air traffic controllers have realized the planes had been hijacked as soon as they turned off their transponders?

[Devil's Advocate]

There are Devil's Advocate tags available, viz:

[/da]

[da]Why wouldn't the air traffic controllers have realized the planes had been hijacked as soon as they turned off their transponders?

WTF?
I never said that. Lies!
Screen Shot or it didn't happen.
:)

[Gravy]

When I described the circumference of the crater's fuselage impression I stated 16-20' and you were well aware that I believed at the time of that statement that the plane had 2 rear mounted engines on the tail and I immediately corrected you in order for you to correct your mistake. That is also evident in the thread. No spin, Mark.Any particular reason that you make this crap up? Do you really forget that I use evidence to back my claims?

I never once stated anywhere that someone dug a fake impact crater. I happen to believe that the crater in Shanksville was made by a plane. One with a 60 foot wingspan and a fuselage that is 16' wide x 20' high.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13706&view=findpost&p=7653829



Remember this? Still waiting for your response, Mr. Cell. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2467452&postcount=35)

(Here's my recap, since I don't expect anyone to read TC329's drivel):

You have posited that:
Fiight 93 was shot down in PA, passenger remains were recovered. Evidence from the scene is real. The other three flights contained CIA agents and crew, not the passengers on the manifests. Phone calls from passengers and crew were faked. Investigation into "passengers" needed.
Flight 11 was shot down in PA.
Flight 93 was shot down in PA after passengers regained control of the plane from hijackers, necessitating, for some reason, that it be shot down.
Flight 93 landed in Cleveland.
"The plane in Shanksville hit its target," whatever that means.
Currently: flight 93's disposition unknown. Some other plane crashed at Shanksville, all evidence to the contrary is faked. First responders and investigators are liars.Reading that list is so disturbing to me that I actually get chills. It is the product of an agonized mind.

[gumboot]

It's really obvious that this woman saw the business jet that was asked to check on UA93. I honestly don't understand why Conspiracy Theorists are so mentally inept.

-Gumboot

[Corsair 115]

No, you can't get that from the NTSB.You can't get a copy of the actual CVR recording, because it's against the law for the NTSB to release audio copies. You can, however, get transcripts of the CVR. In fact, there are web sites out there which have on them the transcripts of CVRs from air crashes; it can make for interesting, if sobering, reading. Here's (http://www.tailstrike.com/) one such site.

[uk_dave]

Or tell us which plane she picked out from the California guy's mugshots, and we'll see if it fits the description better than a Dassault Falcon.

Well TC?

[leftysergeant]

The crater was exactly the right size and shape to have been made by a 757 or some such aircraft of comparable size. THe round hole is about 20 feet wide. That fits, considering that the fuselage of an aircraft crushes very easily. There are chevron-like trenches out to the side, suggesting that a pair of wings with a dihedral matching that of a 757 dug in there. There is a tail print slightly cocked to one side, suggesting that the fuselage had begun to tear apart shortly after impact. A lot of people take the word of a Colonel Nelson, an alleged aircraft accident investigator, that the crater was too small. He cites figures for the round hole only.

Bear in mind that the colonel is going a little outside hios AFSC when he addresses the crash scene. He was an aircraft maintenance officer. He was called in, by his own admission, on a rotational basis, to assist with various aircrafdt incidents. His role was to analyse the piles of pieces that people like me would pick up at the crash scene for transport to some site usually miles from the scene to see if he could find evidence of things like over-torque bolts and fitting, bearings that had no been lubricated, little birdy skeletons sucked into engines and that sort of thing.

I have not had time to sit through the google video. My computer takes something on the order of a day or two to download 40 minutes of google. I might not need to. I caught a reference to the alleged witness' describing a "spoiler" on the back of the missile.

Someone tried to sell her the idea that it was a Global Hawk, apparently.

And there is no way a Global Hawk would dig the crater at Shanksville, any more thaan there is a possibility that a Global Hawk made the hole in the Pentagon.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, leftysergeant, and thanks for your interesting contributions. A little history: we've been all through this and presented mountains of evidence to TC329 and his ilk. Evidence makes no impression on the bizarre delusions of the true believer, and they won't attempt to justify their claims. What's most telling, and disturbing, is that they refuse to talk to the people who were there.

Cowards.

[ref]

Yawn.

That's all I had in mind at the moment. Keep on doing what you were doing.

[Alferd_Packer]

"Because it was so low I ducked in my van and when I did I shut off my radio. And thats when I knew there was no sound."

Even missiles make sounds.

"It cleared those trees, it was fall, no leaves moved on the tree..."

September 11 is Fall?

Why would the leaves have moved?

[uk_dave]

September 11 is Fall?

Why would the leaves have moved?

I know, suspicious eh?

Either it was a sooper seekrit missile/plane with the ability to not cause any turbulence........


......or it was a plane flying too high to cause any turbulence.

[GregoryUrich]

It seems you missed this part of Gravy's statement (bolding added):

How much weight do you give these other witnesses and the FDR data, GU? Why does McElwain's account take precedence over what others have testified to seeing and the physical evidence?

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.

[Gravy]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.Why? People who were closer were looking at the EXACT spot she describes, at the EXACT moment she describes, and none saw what she did. Things happened quickly. She was confused. It happens.

[gumboot]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.


Evidence it wasn't?

-Gumboot

[MRC_Hans]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.

A couple of practical notes.

Ms McElwain says that the craft passed right overhead, so low that she was about to duck and that she could positively see that there were no rivets in it. She also remarks that it oddly didn't make any noise and that there was no air disturbance. She describes a white cigar shape, no wings, some tail arrangement, including tailmounted engine(s?). Oh, and based on her estimate of its distance she says its the size of a van.

Those are her observations.

Let's see how that fits the possible realities:

1) AAM (Air-to-Air Missile): Too small (unless it was Phoenix), VERY noisy, trails white smoke, and is supersonic (in fact they go over MACH2). What she would have seen and heard was nothing but a streak and a sonic boom. AAM is ruled out.

2) SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile): Apart from size (they are indeed van-sized), the same as for AAM. A SAM passing low overhead would have knocked her teeth loose. SAM is ruled out.

3) Cruise missile: Size fits. Shape fits, except for the fact that cruise missiles have wings, but they are so thin she might have overlooked them. Cruise missiles are just subsonic, but that would still leave her only a fraction of a second to view it, and they are quite noisy. She would still just see a streak and hear a roar. Cruise missile is extremely unlikely.

4) Unmanned plane: Size fits. Speed would give her a shance for fairly close look (they're generally rather slow). Shape does not fit; there is no way she could overlook its wings. Sound does not. Depending on type, they are jet powered or propeller powered, and they are noisy. Unmanned plane is ruled out.

5) Executive jet: Size does not fit. Speed does not fit. Shape does not fit. Noise does not fit. An executive jet passing low overhead is not an experience to forget. However, if she estimated the distance wrong, and the angle was somehow sugh that she didn't notice the wings, then maybe the shape can fit. The lack of noise could be due to it flying at low throttle. Executive jet circling the site to investigate is possible.

6) Flight 93: Size, distance, speed, and noise don't fit, of course. However, if the distance was throughly underestimated, and the plane was in an unusual attitude, like rolling inverted and diving for the ground, She might have seen it in way that made her unable to recognize it. If the plane had the side turned towards her, she would not see the wings. and if it was upside down, the tail arrangement could have looked confusing. Due to the distance, she would not hear the sound before it blended in with the sound of the crash. It is actually not implausible that she saw flight 93.

Hans

[Undesired Walrus]

Dear Lord! What was with the interviewers voice??

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . . I honestly don't understand why Conspiracy Theorists are so mentally inept.

-Gumboot
Perhaps those that are mentally inept are predisposed to conspiratorial thinking.

[lapman]

Their stipulation is the angle of crash is inconsistent with the ground evidence.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RczDTJPfJvI/AAAAAAAAAGI/5TTqDaJt2xo/s1600-h/Slide2.1.jpg
The problem that I have with that pic is that it ignores two aspects of flight. Lift and gravity. In space, the momentum would be the only factor. However, here on earth, both gravity and the negative lift would keep the plane from traveling straight along the path of momentum.

[beachnut]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.
It was and it was found that a small plane was asked to look, and 93 crashed. What are you talking about? This was all done over 5 years ago and the only people who have a problem are dumb people with no ability to comprehend. What do you think?

[negativ]

So there were two missiles at Ground Zero, one missile at the Pentagon, and now a missile at Shanksville...

WTF is up with the twoofer fascination with missiles?

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but other times it's a great big phallus." -- Sigmund Freud after a few too many.

[leftysergeant]

Okay, the 911Blogger comment about the ground evidence's not being consistant with the angle of the crash is good evidence to support Arkan_Wolfshade's assertion that the mentally inept are prone to believe the whacky stuff.

The round portion of the crater is the right size. There is a distinct ridge on one side consistant with the angle at which the nose penetrated the ground. The two chevron-shaped trenches reflect the proper dihedral for the wings, but indicate that they entered the ground behind the fuselage, indicating that the fuselage was breaking up, as did the skewed tail print.

It is logical to expect that at least one of the egines might be torn loose from its pylon in this scenario. As for various bits of fuselage and cargo and personal effects being found away from the crater, one must bear in mind that stressing a closed tube to the point of collapsing it will most likely cause some over-pressurization inside that tube, so that when structural integrity is lost, some of its contents will be expelled in the rush of air. The brief fireball that resulted from the expulsion of fuel probably created a significant updraft of air. Torn aluminum is relatively light and offers a lot of resistance to air and so might be easily scattered around the site.

The engines would have had a tendancy to continue on in a straight line. The one that broke off SHOULD have been quite a distance from the crash site. In most cases, engines are found farther from the impact point than most other parts of similar weight. The one that remained attached would obviously dig in.

The strongest parts of an aircraft are the wing roots and the longitudinal spars of the flight deck. The passengers were strapped into seats attacjhed to those spars, or were tilted to the front of the plane, if they were taking part in the resistance. Obviously, they would then have been buried so deeply that no bodies would be visible until well into the recovery effort.

A lot of MIHOP and false-crash scene blather is based on the statement by the coroner that he could find no bodies to identify. That statement, as I recall, was made the day of the crash. Well DUH!

I think the major problem that MIHOPers and other CTs have is a tendancy to run their mouths with ensuring that their brains are fully engaged.

[Juustin]

Why is it if someone's testimony is favorable to the Truthers, it's "she said it was a plane, just because she didn't know what word to use"; but anyone who uses the word "pull" and later clarifies that they wanted firefighters to be "pulled" is part of a Zionist conspiracy?

[Stellafane]

...Ms McElwain says that the craft passed right overhead, so low that she was about to duck and that she could positively see that there were no rivets in it. She also remarks that it oddly didn't make any noise and that there was no air disturbance. She describes a white cigar shape, no wings, some tail arrangement, including tailmounted engine(s?). Oh, and based on her estimate of its distance she says its the size of a van...

Shucks, there's really no other way around it -- she saw a UFO from another planet!! It must have been, because nothing that exists here on Earth created by human technology can do all those things. Thus we now have the leading contender for the most sensible 9/11 CT (not that the competition is all that fierce): 9/11 was done by extraterrestrials! Damn aliens!!

[SpitfireIX]

You can't get a copy of the actual CVR recording, because it's against the law for the NTSB to release audio copies. You can, however, get transcripts of the CVR. In fact, there are web sites out there which have on them the transcripts of CVRs from air crashes; it can make for interesting, if sobering, reading. Here's (http://www.tailstrike.com/) one such site.


Just a clarification that I stumbled upon after I answered this question about a year ago--it's also illegal for any other agency that takes over an investigation (e.g., the FBI) to do so.

[TC329]

Thought she saw. She was mistaken. The plane was moving very fast. It was not 50 feet over her head and the size of her mini-van.

Other witnesses who were right there saw the airliner roll to its right, turn upside-down, and dive, followed by the explosion, all of which corresponds to the FDR data.

Please stop this nonsense. It is undignified.

Please present all the eyewitnesses on the south of the crater who saw a 757, prove their position and explain why UA93 turn away from DC and started flying North to get to that spot.

We'll be waiting for your "dignified" reply Mark.

[TC329]

I've reviewed the evidence at length. You haven't. Please do so and then you'll know.

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

[T.A.M.]

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

How original...a truther putting out a crockumentary.

TAM:)

[TC329]

The crater was exactly the right size and shape to have been made by a 757 or some such aircraft of comparable size. THe round hole is about 20 feet wide. That fits, considering that the fuselage of an aircraft crushes very easily. There are chevron-like trenches out to the side, suggesting that a pair of wings with a dihedral matching that of a 757 dug in there. There is a tail print slightly cocked to one side, suggesting that the fuselage had begun to tear apart shortly after impact. A lot of people take the word of a Colonel Nelson, an alleged aircraft accident investigator, that the crater was too small. He cites figures for the round hole only.

Is it your claim that the craters wingspan is 125' like Mark Roberts claims?

Bear in mind that the colonel is going a little outside hios AFSC when he addresses the crash scene. He was an aircraft maintenance officer. He was called in, by his own admission, on a rotational basis, to assist with various aircrafdt incidents. His role was to analyse the piles of pieces that people like me would pick up at the crash scene for transport to some site usually miles from the scene to see if he could find evidence of things like over-torque bolts and fitting, bearings that had no been lubricated, little birdy skeletons sucked into engines and that sort of thing.

I have not had time to sit through the google video. My computer takes something on the order of a day or two to download 40 minutes of google. I might not need to. I caught a reference to the alleged witness' describing a "spoiler" on the back of the missile.

The eyewitness says it had to be a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane. If it is a UAV which is looking more likely then it is also consistent with her description.

Someone tried to sell her the idea that it was a Global Hawk, apparently.

And there is no way a Global Hawk would dig the crater at Shanksville, any more thaan there is a possibility that a Global Hawk made the hole in the Pentagon.

Yes, she stated what she saw and independent researchers contacted her for clarification. After getting her description they set out to identify the type of craft it was.

Here is what has been 100% ruled out of the possibilities :

1) 757 or similar commercial type airliner
2) Falcon20
3) C130
3) A10 Thunderbolt

Sorry you don't have time for new evidence. The world is still flat, Mark Roberts believes so as well.

[Redtail]

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

... You've done the research, you've found that almost all of the eyewitness accounts conflict with the official story, and instead of presenting them to some authority outside of the country you're making a documentary. Sure! Why bring these criminal to justice? Why not allow them to further screw up the country AND the world? It's far better to try to cash in and get a little fame out of the deal.

[TC329]

How original...a truther putting out a crockumentary.

TAM:)


So you're calling Shanksville eyewitness accounts a "crock of ****"?

Is that what you think about Susan's account?

[T.A.M.]

No, I was making a comment on the continued, almost comical, desire for almost every truther to feel the need to make for themselves a "doc"umentary about some angle or issue of 9/11 that proposes something besides "what we know" occured on 9/11.

The word crockumentary I have adopted from others as a label to place on any truthers 9/11 truth documentary, not yours, so don't feel it is any more special.

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

... You've done the research, you've found that almost all of the eyewitness accounts conflict with the official story, and instead of presenting them to some authority outside of the country you're making a documentary. Sure! Why bring these criminal to justice? Why not allow them to further screw up the country AND the world? It's far better to try to cash in and get a little fame out of the deal.

I expect we will find his film to be eerily similar to Lytes, both in approach, and the pov.

TAM:)

[TC329]

Why? People who were closer were looking at the EXACT spot she describes, at the EXACT moment she describes, and none saw what she did. Things happened quickly. She was confused. It happens.

Name all the people who were at the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same moment Mark. I will contact all of them for clarification. And I'm not asking for Wally Miller's phone number. Although I am interested in seeing all the images he took in the Indian Lake debris field that no one has ever seen before. I am making an appoitment with him. :D

[Storm Warning]

I expect we will find his film to be eerily similar to Lytes, both in approach, and the pov.

TAM:)
I'll betcha that it turns out to be just as craptacular!

[TC329]

... You've done the research, you've found that almost all of the eyewitness accounts conflict with the official story, and instead of presenting them to some authority outside of the country you're making a documentary. Sure! Why bring these criminal to justice? Why not allow them to further screw up the country AND the world? It's far better to try to cash in and get a little fame out of the deal.

1) You don't know whats going on behind the scenes so don't embarrass yourself.

2) Why would I take it outside of the country? Do I want UN & NATO "peacekeepers" in my town "liberating" me next?

3) Please show how I am receiving cash for this and prove that my motive is for fame or you can apologize and keep your ignorant mouth shut until you are actually capable of a real contribution.

[Devil's Advocate]

Name all the people who were at the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same moment Mark. I will contact all of them for clarification. And I'm not asking for Wally Miller's phone number. Although I am interested in seeing all the images he took in the Indian Lake debris field that no one has ever seen before. I am making an appoitment with him. :D

I would not post such information. NWO agents may read it and rush to eliminate Mr. Miller or corrupt him and his data.
Better safe then sorry.:boggled:
And if you want any measure of credibility with people, you'll release your findings free of charge. (Post video on google or the like)
Anyone that tries to make money off 'investigation' only proves to me that they have a desire for wealth, not truth.

[T.A.M.]

1) You don't know whats going on behind the scenes so don't embarrass yourself.

2) Why would I take it outside of the country? Do I want UN & NATO "peacekeepers" in my town "liberating" me next?

3) Please show how I am receiving cash for this and prove that my motive is for fame or you can apologize and keep your ignorant mouth shut until you are actually capable of a real contribution.

I am 100% positive, like Lyte Trip, you will make all of your full, unaltered interviews available for scruitiny, including the manner in which you ask all questions, which of course will NEVER be leading...right?

Oh wait, Lyte never has released such things.

TAM:)

[qarnos]

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2643468d8dfe4cf09.png

[TC329]

No, I was making a comment on the continued, almost comical, desire for almost every truther to feel the need to make for themselves a "doc"umentary about some angle or issue of 9/11 that proposes something besides "what we know" occured on 9/11.

The word crockumentary I have adopted from others as a label to place on any truthers 9/11 truth documentary, not yours, so don't feel it is any more special.

TAM;)

Ok, so you call the eyewitness's at Shanksville, Stoystown, Central City, Indian Lake, New Baltimore, etc liars.......

Gotcha!

The people who aren't telling a "crock of ****" would be people like Lee Purbaugh who's unedited account also conflicts with the official story....oh wait you don't know that because you don't do research. You just sit here and fling insults at those who do......

D;)

[DGM]

... You've done the research, you've found that almost all of the eyewitness accounts conflict with the official story, and instead of presenting them to some authority outside of the country you're making a documentary. Sure! Why bring these criminal to justice? Why not allow them to further screw up the country AND the world? It's far better to try to cash in and get a little fame out of the deal.
TC329:

Why no responce to this post?

EDIT- Sorry I'm not quick enough.

[TC329]

I am 100% positive, like Lyte Trip, you will make all of your full, unaltered interviews available for scruitiny, including the manner in which you ask all questions, which of course will NEVER be leading...right?

Oh wait, Lyte never has released such things.

TAM:)


I will make every eyewitness account available as I did Susan's. Absolutely. I will also make a condensed version for people who can't sit through 18 hours (or however many witnesses there agree by the time this is finished) of unedited eyewitness interviews.........


I'm not Val "You bought my pic now buy my book" McClatchey.....oh wait thats something else you all dont know about either because you're not researchers.

D;)

[TC329]

I would not post such information. NWO agents may read it and rush to eliminate Mr. Miller or corrupt him and his data.
Better safe then sorry.:boggled:
And if you want any measure of credibility with people, you'll release your findings free of charge. (Post video on google or the like)
Anyone that tries to make money off 'investigation' only proves to me that they have a desire for wealth, not truth.


Did you have to give me any money to watch Susan's account?

Expect more of the same.

[T.A.M.]

Ok, so you call the eyewitness's at Shanksville, Stoystown, Central City, Indian Lake, New Baltimore, etc liars.......

Gotcha!

The people who aren't telling a "crock of ****" would be people like Lee Purbaugh who's unedited account also conflicts with the official story....oh wait you don't know that because you don't do research. You just sit here and fling insults at those who do......

D;)

No, no, no. I am saying that the 9/11 truth movement churn out ridiculous videos with little to no truth to them, or if there are seeds of truth, they put enough spin on them, or twist them to their world pov with respect to 9/11. I expect, based on your pov, and postings here, that your video will be no different. The "Crock" part in no way refers to the witness testimony.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

So the honest thing would be to give us a list of the witnesses you are going to interview before hand, so we can see which ones you include, and which ones you might mysteriously leave out, or who suddenly, after your interview with them, decide they do not want you to put it out to the public. People who say they saw, oh perhaps, maybe, a large UA Jet Airliner crash there. It would be convenient if those who provide evidence that contradict your theory suddenly decide they do not want their videos interviews shown...wouldnt it?

TAM:)

[Devil's Advocate]

Did you have to give me any money to watch Susan's account?

Expect more of the same.

I was making no accusation against you, it was just a statement.
Just please do not lead people to conclusions though.
I hate it when people hit someone with a wall of words and sneak a yes or no question on the end so it seems that they are confirming or denying the entire body of words.

[DGM]

1) You don't know whats going on behind the scenes so don't embarrass yourself.

2) Why would I take it outside of the country? Do I want UN & NATO "peacekeepers" in my town "liberating" me next?

3) Please show how I am receiving cash for this and prove that my motive is for fame or you can apologize and keep your ignorant mouth shut until you are actually capable of a real contribution.
We're already reading your posts

[Redtail]

1) You don't know whats going on behind the scenes so don't embarrass yourself.

Then prove me wrong. It should be simple to do with all of your research.

2) Why would I take it outside of the country? Do I want UN & NATO "peacekeepers" in my town "liberating" me next?I see, so what Law enforcement agencies have you contacted with this information.

3) Please show how I am receiving cash for this and prove that my motive is for fame or you can apologize and keep your ignorant mouth shut until you are actually capable of a real contribution.

How about you just turn over the info instead of "making a documentary"? If you truly have "almost ALL of the eyewitnesses" at conflict with the official story then it needs no packaging. You claim to have the proof. Present it.

[Devil's Advocate]

TC329,

Why don't you have Susan draw what she saw?
Or take a boatload full of pictures for her to identify what she saw?

[Corsair 115]

No, you can't get that from the NTSB. Just a follow-up to my previous reply to the above.

First, from the web site (http://www.tailstrike.com) I mentioned, here's the reason why audio recordings of the CVR are not released to the public:

The CVR recordings are treated differently than the other factual information obtained in an accident investigation. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the verbal communications inside the cockpit, Congress has required that the Safety Board not release any part of a CVR tape recording. Because of this sensitivity, a high degree of security is provided for the CVR tape and its transcript. The content and timing of release of the written transcript are strictly regulated: under federal law, transcripts of pertinent portions of cockpit voice recordings are released at a Safety Board public hearing on the accident or, if no hearing is held, when a majority of the factual reports are made public.


Second, the web site has the transcript of the CVR for Flight 93; it can be found here (http://www.tailstrike.com/110901.pdf). Note: link is to a PDF file.

[Gravy]

Name all the people who were at the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same moment Mark. I will contact all of them for clarification. And I'm not asking for Wally Miller's phone number. Although I am interested in seeing all the images he took in the Indian Lake debris field that no one has ever seen before. I am making an appoitment with him. :DYet more nonsense? Do you take classes to learn this? They were watching the spot where the explosion was. There was no little white plane there. They did, however, see an airliner.

Contacted those witnesses and investigators yet, little boy?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Then prove me wrong.


Hey, hey... careful...

[Mince]

If you want to avoid spin then watch the video.

Dude, your video is nothing but spin; and I mean in the physiological sense. Shake you head from side to side (not violently) for 40 minutes. Then come back here and tell me how you feel. Then, maybe, you can begin to approach how I feel when I watch this atrocious (both artistically and physiologically) video. After you've spun your head for 40 minutes, come back here and tell us what it was like. Then, maybe, you can begin to experience what I did in the first few minutes of the atrocity you've created or are advocated here.

[uk_dave]

Can we see the pictures she positively identified as being the object which flew over her head please.

[westprog]

Name all the people who were at the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same moment Mark.

Not at

he said

Looking at.

It makes a huge difference.

[Devil's Advocate]

Not

he said

.

It makes a huge difference.

lmao
Now THAT is how you cherry pick a quote!
:D

[Jonnyclueless]

Didntcha know? The 9/11 cult movement is just a means of getting into the film industry. If you can't make it as a PA, you can make conspiracy videos for Youtube.

[Mince]

Didntcha know? The 9/11 cult movement is just a means of getting into the film industry.

Please. It takes talent to "make it" in the film industry. A cut-and-paste video every 3 years won't do it. I mean, really, where does Avery go from there? He obviously doesn't have the talent to succeed as a true filmmaker; and I think even he would admit that.

[T.A.M.]

I hear his local McDonalds is hiring.

TAM;)

[JimBenArm]

Great! Another "film" by another top notch "investigator"!
I'm sure we'll find out Flight 93 went North of the K-Mart or some such nonsense soon.
Arrogance and ignorance are not an attractive combination.

[uk_dave]

Well I managed to watch about 5 minutes of it.

And even within those five minutes (minus the terrible opening shots and music) there are some troubling anomalies.

Such as:

It starts off with shaven headed guy (who I understand to be mr terrorcell himself) doing a piece to camera about how this lady's always been quoted as having said that she saw a plane, but that this is wrong.

Now, I'm not sure if he means to imply that she has been wrongly represented in the media (perhaps TC could confirm his intent?) but considering that as she and the other guy are getting into her car she confirms that she'd always described it as a plane, we can hardly be accusing the media of twisting her words. Correct, TC?

(ETA: He (the other guy) even discusses with her that she called it a plane when they were at her house)

She then also says that it was some guy in california (she can't remember his name) who contacted her and convinced her that it wasn't a plane she had seen.

Now, this lady seems to be a very trusting person. So trusting that she is apparently prepared to drive a couple of strange men (strange as in 'not known to her':D) to the crash site while being interviewed on camera (I bet TC was pleased when that journey ended if he was the cameraman down in the passenger footwell). So trusting in fact that her belief in what she saw could be influenced by a some guy in california.

But I think the most surprising comment she made was concerning her interpretation of what this flying object was doing. She thinks it was there to make sure there was nothing left at the crash site. Meaning the crash had already happened.

Shall I spell it out? She doesn't think it was flight 93 because that had already crashed.

She IS talking about the dassault falcon.

Please may we see the picture she positively identified as having been the craft which flew over her vehicle?

[apathoid]

I see Dylan has asked for Koreys expert opinion on the matter and Korey thinks it was a Predator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1_Predator){giggle}. I was on exercise in '98 and we were working with a Predator unit from the Air Force and we were able to achieve some firsts in UAV history(I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.......I'm not joking ;) ), but one thing that stood out to me about these aircraft was how slow they were, they just appeared to hover at times. I dont think they are able to break the 100 mph mark. They also sound very much like a Cessna and nothing like a missile.

This topic is actually fascinating. What the witness described sounds nothing like a airliner.....or anything else for that matter. But if I had to guess, I'd imagine that this person saw the Falcon 20 flying low, less than 1000' or so and simply didnt see the wings or notice the wings because she saw the plane side-on. If you can find multiple witnesses to this wingless, rivetless, spoilered missile - I'd be impressed TC.

[uk_dave]

Bumping for TC coz I really really want to see the picture his witness pointed to and said "That's it!! There! That one! That's what flew over me"

[Mince]

Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts.

Nooooo! Please, please God no! I'll pay you $3 a month for every month you don't produce your little video, payable at the end of every year.

[uk_dave]

Nooooo! Please, please God no! I'll pay you $3 a month for every month you don't produce your little video, payable at the end of every year.

That's gotta be tax deductible. Send form 23/i/refund/23j to dept 23/9/11 in green ink on 80gsm paper ...oh just put it down as 'sund rational expenses'

[Yaters]

So, you read the post (or maybe not), make an assumption of who I am and what I am about, then get pissy like a spoiled child and expect me to follow your advice on what I should do about anything?
Why don't you do a little background on someone before you get on your flimsy little soap box. Ok, little one?

Yes, I made an assumption. You came to a message forum on the internet with "evidence". Someone truly out for justice will take the evidence where something can be done with it.

And if that's what you consider "pissy", you have a LOT to learn in life. That's what's called motivation.

So, go do something useful with your evidence. You've obviously got it all figured out, so why are you coming here at all?

[SpitfireIX]

I hear his local McDonalds is hiring.

TAM;)


What did the "truther" say to the debunker?

Would you like fries with that? :D

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, I made an assumption. You came to a message forum on the internet with "evidence". Someone truly out for justice will take the evidence where something can be done with it.

And if that's what you consider "pissy", you have a LOT to learn in life. That's what's called motivation.

So, go do something useful with your evidence. You've obviously got it all figured out, so why are you coming here at all?

What are you talking about?
Do you even know?
When I came to this forum I did so to look at research, get questions answered, and debate topics.
Thats what you do at a forum, genius.
Forum: "an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest."

[TC329]

Yet more nonsense? Do you take classes to learn this? They were watching the spot where the explosion was. There was no little white plane there. They did, however, see an airliner.

Contacted those witnesses and investigators yet, little boy?

So your new claim is UA93 turned away from Washington DC and was heading north or that Susan McElwain (and many others) is lying?

Please clarify.

[Gravy]

So your new claim is UA93 turned away from Washington DC and was heading north or that Susan McElwain (and many others) is lying?

Please clarify.Have you ever, once, just once, just one time, gotten anything right?

"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.

...The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.1) She was looking at the spot where the fireball rose.
2) That's exactly where the plane she says she saw was headed.
3) That's exactly when the plane she says she saw was there.
4) Several people were looking at that exact spot at that exact time.
5) There was only one explosion and fireball.
6) There was only one airliner.
7) No one saw a different plane there at that time.
8) Your see-saw analogy does not render calculations moot.
9) Grow up. Your behavior is despicable.

[uk_dave]

How come your video is no longer on Google, TC?

Re-editing it, perhaps?

[BigAl]

.....the fact that there is nothing in the FDR data to indicate that the warning(s) would have activated, as no trigger conditions were encountered by the GPWC [should be GPWS] or recorded by the FDR.

The GPWS is radar-based and I'll bet it point down when the plane isn't doing acrobatics and since the plane was inverted, the radar was pointing up to the sky.

[T.A.M.]

How come your video is no longer on Google, TC?

Re-editing it, perhaps?

well it was only available for free for a limited time...lol

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

The GPWS is radar-based and I'll bet it point down when the plane isn't doing acrobatics and since the plane was inverted, the radar was pointing up to the sky.

Good point!

[TC329]

Have you ever, once, just once, just one time, gotten anything right?

1) She was looking at the spot where the fireball rose.

Correctly, at the intersection of Bridge St & Buckstown Rd in Stoystown, PA. Roughly 1.2 miles SouthWest of the fireball.


2) That's exactly where the plane she says she saw was headed.

Correct. It was flying NORTHEAST towards the explosion.

3) That's exactly when the plane she says she saw was there.

Agreed.

4) Several people were looking at that exact spot at that exact time.

Not before the explosion but after it, that is correct.

5) There was only one explosion and fireball.

Correct.

6) There was only one airliner.

Incorrect. There were 4 planes in the immediate vacinity.

1) "UA93"
2) "Fighter Jet 1"
3) "Fighter Jet 2"
4) "UAV"

7) No one saw a different plane there at that time.

Incorrect. There are many eyewitness accounts in the printed media of the "little white plane". The fighter jet accounts come from people like me going there and interviewing eyewitnesses.

And why is Johnstown Air Traffic Control under a gag order?

And West Moreland Country 911 Operators?

And who has all the 911 calls from the Indian Lake residents calling about the plane that flew over "breaking apart on their homes"?


8) Your see-saw analogy does not render calculations moot.

My eyewitness accounts render fairy tales to rest.

9) Grow up. Your behavior is despicable.

The next couple months are really going to suck for you.....

[WildCat]

Incorrect. There were 4 planes in the immediate vacinity.

1) "UA93"
2) "Fighter Jet 1"
3) "Fighter Jet 2"
4) "UAV"

:dl:

[TC329]

:dl:

So you're saying Lee Purbaugh is lying about the "little white plane" and telling the truth about "UA93"?

[WildCat]

So you're saying Lee Purbaugh is lying about the "little white plane" and telling the truth about "UA93"?
No, I think it's hilarious that you somehow derive 2 fighter jets and a UAV from that.

[TC329]

No, I think it's hilarious that you somehow derive 2 fighter jets and a UAV from that.

So Susan McElwain and other locals like the 3 Seniors interviewed who all describe 2 fighters jets are the liars?

Susan also saw the same 'UAV' Purbaugh saw after the crash. And there are also other published accounts of it like Dale Browning who said "Everybody has seen this thing but no one can tell us what it is." Indian Lake employees saw it before (flying NORTH towards Stoystown) and also saw it afterwards. Quite a few published and unpublished accounts.

[WildCat]

So Susan McElwain and other locals like the 3 Seniors interviewed who all describe 2 fighters jets are the liars?
They did?

Susan also saw the same 'UAV' Purbaugh saw after the crash. And there are also other published accounts of it like Dale Browning who said "Everybody has seen this thing but no one can tell us what it is."
It was a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. :solved1

[Lyte Trip]

It was a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. :solved1

No, unless the Falcon looked like a brand new mini van sized UAV hybrid that flew low enough that it was below phone lines.

The mystery is solved.

[WildCat]

No, unless the Falcon looked like a brand new mini van sized UAV hybrid that flew low enough that it was below phone lines.
:dl:

And who makes this "UAV hybrid"? Toyota?

:dl:

And why would a UAV need to fly below phone lines?

:dl:

[TC329]

They did?


It was a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. :solved1

So then in the video when I show Susan a picture of a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp and ask her if that was the plane and she says "NO" you're saying she's lying?

[Arus808]

tc - everyone to lYTE is a liar, unless they make a statement that supports his ideology.

[WildCat]

So then in the video when I show Susan a picture of a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp and ask her if that was the plane and she says "NO" you're saying she's lying?
Or mistaken, doesn't really matter. But a "UAV hybrid" flying below phone lines? What the hell for? Bring it on home terrorcell!

:dl:

[Reheat]

No, unless the Falcon looked like a brand new mini van sized UAV hybrid that flew low enough that it was below phone lines.

The mystery is solved.

You're really good! I'll bet that was the same thing that knocked down the light poles at the Pentagon. Now that mystery is solved too.

That's not a "hole in one", that's "two in one". Wow!

[TC329]

:dl:

And who makes this "UAV hybrid"? Toyota?

:dl:

And why would a UAV need to fly below phone lines?

:dl:


I thought this was the home of "critical thinking"?

Now why would the military fly a UAV close to the ground below treelines? The most logical answer which requites very little "critical thinking" would be to attempt to keep the number of eyewitnesses to said craft at a minimum.

[TC329]

Or mistaken, doesn't really matter. But a "UAV hybrid" flying below phone lines? What the hell for? Bring it on home terrorcell!

:dl:

"or mistaken"?

Pick one.

[TC329]

You're really good! I'll bet that was the same thing that knocked down the light poles at the Pentagon. Now that mystery is solved too.

That's not a "hole in one", that's "two in one". Wow!

I don't understand why the moderators tolerate this type of garbage.

[WildCat]

I thought this was the home of "critical thinking"?

Now why would the military fly a UAV close to the ground below treelines? The most logical answer which requites very little "critical thinking" would be to attempt to keep the number of eyewitnesses to said craft at a minimum.
Funny, because actual military UAV's fly at very high altitudes to avoid detection. Your "UAV hybrid" is flying 20 feet above the ground on a highway! No one will ever notice that!

:dl:

I really need to go to bed, but this is just too funny!

[Reheat]

I don't understand why the moderators tolerate this type of garbage.

Yep, it is...just like what you're posting.......:crowded:

[TC329]

Funny, because actual military UAV's fly at very high altitudes to avoid detection. Your "UAV hybrid" is flying 20 feet above the ground on a highway! No one will ever notice that!

:dl:

I really need to go to bed, but this is just too funny!


North on Bridge St in Stoystown = Highway

:dl:

Seems appropriate. No wonder I don't waste my time on this board. I see why someone else said Lyte calls everyone here a liar. You're either one of the most ignorant human beings I have ever encountered on a message board or a paid hack. You make things up like "highways" to support a story that is a fabrication and to further insure more Americans will die in the middle east to line the elite of this country's pockets with more gold. If you're not ignorant of the topic you're attempting to discredit then you're a traitor.

[Reheat]

One would think that these guys would use their resources. There are several at PFT that proclaim themselves Aircraft Accident Investigation "EXPERTS".

These amateur investigators obvious need training and one of the very first things the "EXPERTS" will tell them is that unqualified witnesses are notoriously unreliable for these types of incidents.

Nah, there has to be a brain for learning first! :covereyes

[WildCat]

North on Bridge St in Stoystown = Highway
A "mini-van sized" "UAV hybrid" flying 20 feet above the ground in the middle of town, why? So as not to be seen! Holy crap terrorcell, this really makes sense to you?

:dl:

Seems appropriate. No wonder I don't waste my time on this board. I see why someone else said Lyte calls everyone here a liar. You're either one of the most ignorant human beings I have ever encountered on a message board or a paid hack. You make things up like "highways" to support a story that is a fabrication and to further insure more Americans will die in the middle east to line the elite of this country's pockets with more gold. If you're not ignorant of the topic you're attempting to discredit then you're a traitor.
Look! Behind that tree! It's a NWO agent!!!11!11!!!11!!!

[Lyte Trip]

Or mistaken, doesn't really matter. But a "UAV hybrid" flying below phone lines? What the hell for? Bring it on home terrorcell!

:dl:

UAV hybrid obviously meaning a hybrid with a missile. I figured you would get that. But apparently all you've got is a laughing dog.

[Lyte Trip]

The following is an email exchange with an eyewitness who wishes to not go public out of fear

Hi Domenick,

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I was out of town for a couple of days. You know how it goes then - work to catch up on.

Of the pictures you sent me - if I remember correctly, the closest one is the hawk - but it still is not exactly it. The drone is also similar. Definately not the "corporate plane".

Hope this helps you. Have a good day.


So kind of like these :

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/global/images/4_global_hawk.jpg
http://www.realnews247.com/predator_drone.jpg

DEFINITELY NOT ONE OF THESE!!!!! :
http://www.aircraft-charter-world.com/images/jets/f20e.jpg

Dom also showed Susan's video to an Iraq War Vet and he told me it sounded like the type of drone planes he had seen in Iraq, but had only seen them twice in the 2 years he was there.

[R.Mackey]

Ooh crikey, not this again.

It wasn't a ruddy Global Hawk. No way.

That's a rare bird. Not even NASA can get hold of one -- DFRC has been trying for years, and it looks like they may finally get a pre-production prototype. maybe.

It's not that big, either. Large wingspan but shockingly light.

Those of you who propose "UAV's" simply have no concept of what UAV's actually exist. Kindly keep to subjects you have some knowledge of, whatever that might be.

[T.A.M.]

I love interviews conducted years later about an event that people saw, nearly in the blink of an eye.

Details, details, details...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Ooh crikey, not this again.

It wasn't a ruddy Global Hawk. No way.

That's a rare bird. Not even NASA can get hold of one -- DFRC has been trying for years, and it looks like they may finally get a pre-production prototype. maybe.

It's not that big, either. Large wingspan but shockingly light.

Those of you who propose "UAV's" simply have no concept of what UAV's actually exist. Kindly keep to subjects you have some knowledge of, whatever that might be.

Moloch and the NWO can get ANYTHING. NASA is nothing compared to the might and power of Moloch....bow down and worship Moloch or face the deathly Hoot!!

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Pff. Your Moloch can't fly. Not without some help, anyway.

Any time you want to drop the arrogance and make a deal, let me know. Until then, enjoy your flatlander life, "bird."

[T.A.M.]

Now you have done it. Moloch will visit you in the middle of the night and drop vile poisonous "droppings" upon you.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

"Drop" them? :D

I trust you mean "throw" them, O Worshipper of the Bird of Insufficient Lift.

[TC329]

One would think that these guys would use their resources. There are several at PFT that proclaim themselves Aircraft Accident Investigation "EXPERTS".

These amateur investigators obvious need training and one of the very first things the "EXPERTS" will tell them is that unqualified witnesses are notoriously unreliable for these types of incidents.

Nah, there has to be a brain for learning first! :covereyes

Your public display of ignorance is amusing.

[TC329]

I love interviews conducted years later about an event that people saw, nearly in the blink of an eye.

Details, details, details...

TAM:)

But if Lee Purbaugh told his story and left out the "little white plane" that he and everyone else saw you wouldn't dare criticize him.

Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites....

[TC329]

A "mini-van sized" "UAV hybrid" flying 20 feet above the ground in the middle of town, why? So as not to be seen! Holy crap terrorcell, this really makes sense to you?

:dl:


Look! Behind that tree! It's a NWO agent!!!11!11!!!11!!!

Go to google earth and go to Bridge St in Stoystown. Take a screen capture and come back and post it. Then we'll examine "the middle of town" together in front of everyone and see who posts the picture of the stupid dog.......

[T.A.M.]

But if Lee Purbaugh told his story and left out the "little white plane" that he and everyone else saw you wouldn't dare criticize him.

Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites....

please do not generalize. You do not know me. If a witness that falls on either side, testified for the first time 5-6 years after an event that he witnessed for a maximum of 5-6 seconds, I would question the validity of details in his story.

TAM:)

[Lyte Trip]

please do not generalize. You do not know me. If a witness that falls on either side, testified for the first time 5-6 years after an event that he witnessed for a maximum of 5-6 seconds, I would question the validity of details in his story.

TAM:)

And yet she told the same story to FBI agents the same/next day and they didn't do anything about it.

Imagine that.

You guys are really bordering on the line of traitors now.

[uk_dave]

Yeah TAM, you're a traitor to the US of A.

Shame on you!

[T.A.M.]

lol

US of eh?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

And yet she told the same story to FBI agents the same/next day and they didn't do anything about it.

Imagine that.

You guys are really bordering on the line of traitors now.

please try to read Lyte...

I said if anyone had been interviewed/testified about such an event FOR THE FIRST TIME 5-6 years later, I would question the validity of the details of their testimony.

I was referring to "Lee".

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

You guys are really bordering on the line of traitors now.You are withholding evidence of a federal crime by refusing to present it to authorities.

You are the one that is guilty of a criminal offense.

[WildCat]

The following is an email exchange with an eyewitness who wishes to not go public out of fear




So kind of like these :
Oh dear lord, let's go through this scenario:

NWO Agent 1: We'll need an aircraft to shoot a missile/drop plane and body parts/etc etc for the fake crash in rural Pennsylvania.

NWO Agent 2: Why are we faking a crash in Pennsylvania again?

NWO Agent 1: Don't question us! Now, what can we use that won't attract unwanted attention?

NWO Agent 2: How about a modified civilian plane?

NWO Agent 1: Don't be stupid! We're going to use a UAV so strange looking it would be the star of any air show!

NWO Agent 2: But it will be flying very high so people won't notice it, right?

NWO Agent 1: No way! We're gonna fly that sucker low and slow, right through town! And we're going to paint it bright white!

NWO Agent 2: But won't that risk our cover sir?

NWO Agent 1: From who, the sheeple? They won't question anything we tell them!

(both agents) Muahahahahahaha!

[Gravy]

Mackey is not considering the MGH and MPred, the miniature versions of the larger UAVs, which are exactly the size of a minivan, fly at treetop level, make no noise, and which are invisible when near airliner crash scenes, all of which fits Susan McElwain's account.

[firecoins]

there were real people who died on these planes on 9/11. There remains were found at all the crash sites. Case Closed.

I find it ironic that years later, "the truth movement" brings foward an eyewitness here or there to contradict all the other eyewitnesses, survivors and rescuers who saw "the official version" and despite all the physical evidence.

There was no cruise missles, UAVs, space beams or 3 rigged skyscrapers for controlled demolition.

[beachnut]

I don't understand why the moderators tolerate this type of garbage.
I don't understand why your family has not had you commited.

[TC329]

please do not generalize. You do not know me. If a witness that falls on either side, testified for the first time 5-6 years after an event that he witnessed for a maximum of 5-6 seconds, I would question the validity of details in his story.

TAM:)

Well this is where you're mistaken. I chose Susan McElwain because she is one of the most heavily cited Shanksville witness's. There are some misspellings like McIlwain.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Sommerset Daily American, BBC, etc.

All about the little white plane that flew over the van that morning.....

[TC329]

please try to read Lyte...

I said if anyone had been interviewed/testified about such an event FOR THE FIRST TIME 5-6 years later, I would question the validity of the details of their testimony.

I was referring to "Lee".

TAM:)


Lee Purbaugh is also heavily quoted by the same soures as having seen a little white plane at the scene of the crash at the time of the crash.

There's no way he could have missed it.....

[TC329]

there were real people who died on these planes on 9/11. There remains were found at all the crash sites. Case Closed.

I find it ironic that years later, "the truth movement" brings foward an eyewitness here or there to contradict all the other eyewitnesses, survivors and rescuers who saw "the official version" and despite all the physical evidence.

There was no cruise missles, UAVs, space beams or 3 rigged skyscrapers for controlled demolition.


She's not contradicting any of the eyewitness's. I even suspect the reason Val McClathcy lost her camera and PC to the FBI was that she took pictures of it. And then there was this story invented about her dropping her camera and the batteries coming out and the plume being gone by the time she could put them back in.

I've spoken with people who drove to the smoke plume from 5 miles away. It didn't disappear in the time it took to put batteries into a camera.......

[firecoins]

yes she is contradicting other witnesses, many of whom claimed to a jetliner with American Airlines on it. Pretty contradicting to other eyewitnesses plus physical evidence.

you suspect the FBI took a camera? Whatever.

[Corsair 115]

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/global/images/4_global_hawk.jpg
http://www.realnews247.com/predator_drone.jpg

DEFINITELY NOT ONE OF THESE!!!!! :
http://www.aircraft-charter-world.com/images/jets/f20e.jpg



The specifications for the Global Hawk UAV:

Length: 44.4'
Wingspan: 116.2'
Height: 15.2'
Weight: 25,600 lbs empty
Power plant: 7,150 lb. thrust jet engine
Speed: 395 knots
Ceiling: 65,000 feet

The specifications for the Predator UAV:

Length: 26.7'
Wingspan: 48.4'
Height: 6'
Weight: 1,130 lbs empty; 2,100 lbs. max. takeoff
Power plant: 101 horsepower prop engine in a pusher configuration
Speed: 70-90 knots cruising; 120 knots maximum.
Ceiling: up to 26,000 feet operational; 40,000+ feet maximum

The specifications for the Dassault Falcon 20 business jet:

Length: 53.3'
Wingspan: 53.6'
Height: 17.5'
Weight: 16,600 lbs empty; 28,660 lbs max. takeoff
Power plant: two 4,500 lb. thrust turbofan jet engines
Speed: 466 knots max. cruising
Ceiling: 45,000 feet


As the specifications reveal, there is quite a bit of difference between all three of these aircraft.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"Drop" them? :D

I trust you mean "throw" them, O Worshipper of the Bird of Insufficient Lift.
I thought Moloch was an owl; not an ostrich, emu, or kiwi.

[T.A.M.]

maybe a penguin, chicken, or turkey...lol

TAM:)

[TC329]

yes she is contradicting other witnesses, many of whom claimed to a jetliner with American Airlines on it. Pretty contradicting to other eyewitnesses plus physical evidence.

you suspect the FBI took a camera? Whatever.


So you know of witnesses who claimed they saw an American Airlines jet in Shanksville? Please prting a comprehensive list of them.

NO ONE IN SHANKSVILLE SAW AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET. 100% FACT!

People did see a airliner flying south towards Indian Lake. Those down on the Indian Lake side saw a small unmarked white UAV flying north.

Is this thread moderated or can it be? I shouldnt have to waste time debating the facts with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

1) The person above me doesnt even know which airliner crashed in Shanksville.
2) This person also has no idea about Val McClatchey's story.

Perhaps I should restrict all responses to gravy only. If you actually know something he can add it into his questions but this type of stuff is a waste of my time.......

[Gravy]

NO ONE IN SHANKSVILLE SAW AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET. 100% FACT!


What made you change your mind?

I personally believe AA11 was the plane shot down in PA.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77941 (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12564&view=findpost&p=7136990)


And what have these people told you in the nine months since I gave you their contact information?

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Co
Shanksville, PA 15560
(814) 267-4737
Terry Schaffer, Fire Chief
Rick King, Assistant Chief

Somerset County Coroner's Office
555 Tayman Avenue, Somerset, PA 15501
(814) 445-6900
Wallace Miller, Coroner

Somerset County Emergency Services
100 East Union Street, Somerset, PA 15501
(814) 445-1515

WESTMORELAND COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
12 Court House Square
Greensburg, PA 15601
724-600-7300

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 651-2001

Paul Sledzik (Led flight 93 DMORT investigation)
Curator, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology National Museum of Health and Medicine
202-782-2204 sledzik@email.afip.osd.mil

Disaster Mortuary Team Main office: 1-800-USA-NDMS, ext. 205
DMORT Region 3 office (includes Pennsylvania) 410-676-4600

Dr. Dennis C. Dirkmaat
Chief scientific advisor to Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller
Director, Applied Forensic Sciences Department
Mercyhurst College
501 E. 38th St.
Erie, PA 16546
dirkmaat@mercyhurst.edu
(814) 824-2105

Also:

Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the
Hooversville Rescue Squad.

[Gravy]

That reminds me of this spectacular bit of deliberate ignorance and incredible insensitivity:

There were no body parts nor blood at the "crash" site. Period. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2224808#post2224808)

You don't hear from the families of the plane victims because there was really only a small amount of people who died and they all died on the plane shot down in PA. The rest were CIA agents(think Northwoods). With their phony phone calls and fake histories. Someone should just take 5 random names from any flight other than 77 and run background checks on them and see what they find. I suspect that'll really open up a whole new can of worms. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77941 (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12564&view=findpost&p=7136990)

It must be very difficult to be inside your head and have these wildly contradictory and wildly irrational thoughts.

[Hyperviolet]

What made you change your mind?




And what have these people told you in the nine months since I gave you their contact information?

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Co
Shanksville, PA 15560
(814) 267-4737
Terry Schaffer, Fire Chief
Rick King, Assistant Chief

Somerset County Coroner's Office
555 Tayman Avenue, Somerset, PA 15501
(814) 445-6900
Wallace Miller, Coroner

Somerset County Emergency Services
100 East Union Street, Somerset, PA 15501
(814) 445-1515

WESTMORELAND COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
12 Court House Square
Greensburg, PA 15601
724-600-7300

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 651-2001

Paul Sledzik (Led flight 93 DMORT investigation)
Curator, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology National Museum of Health and Medicine
202-782-2204 sledzik@email.afip.osd.mil

Disaster Mortuary Team Main office: 1-800-USA-NDMS, ext. 205
DMORT Region 3 office (includes Pennsylvania) 410-676-4600

Dr. Dennis C. Dirkmaat
Chief scientific advisor to Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller
Director, Applied Forensic Sciences Department
Mercyhurst College
501 E. 38th St.
Erie, PA 16546
dirkmaat@mercyhurst.edu
(814) 824-2105

Also:

Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the
Hooversville Rescue Squad.

Flight 11?

Err..

[Gravy]

Of course, this one is also awesome, and pithy.

"Here's a fact : wingspan of Flight 93 = 40' " (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2282259&postcount=329)

[Gravy]

And who can forget this blast from the past?

September, 2006 – TC329 starts a thread at LC insisting that flight 93 was shot down:

Flight "93" Was Shot Down, I challenge all "no planers. (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12564&view=findpost&p=7136990)
Please start a thread and prove that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Do you have more than the 2 statements made that morning?


January, 2007 (http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t2723.htm): Did I say shot down in Shanksville? That was the liquor talking:

The fact that no 757 crashed in Shanksville and that UA93 landed at Cleveland Airport. ...I cant say with a 100% certainty it landed in Cleveland but more than likely it did.

[Gravy]

I get warm all over thinking of this one:

"There was not a single fire on the scene when anyone arrived. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2011684&postcount=140)"


...Aaaaand a witness he quotes:

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning."

[Hyperviolet]

And who can forget this blast from the past?

September, 2006 – TC329 starts a thread at LC insisting that flight 93 was shot down:




January, 2007 (http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t2723.htm): Did I say shot down in Shanksville? That was the liquor talking:

Hahaha 40 foot wings? Thats a weird shaped plane. One must wonder how the government convinced Captain Dahl to board such an aircraft.

It worthwhile to add that this quote :
"The fact that no 757 crashed in Shanksville and that UA93 landed at Cleveland Airport. ...I cant say with a 100% certainty it landed in Cleveland but more than likely it did."
..is quite telling

When using such facts, its easy to see why you could come to these conclusions.

[Gravy]

Flight 11?

Err..Yah. And in case you think it was just TC having a brain freeze and typing the wrong info, here's the whole quote:

Flight 93 doesn't have to be the plane shot down in PA. I personally believe AA11 was the plane shot down in PA. It was tracked by the FAA for an hour after it hit the North Tower. FAA transmissions confirm that the military confirmed to the FAA that AA11 was still airborne at least 45 minutes after it hit the North tower and was traveling south I believe over New Jersey.

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12564&st=0&#entry7136990

[Hyperviolet]

Yah. And in case you think it was just TC having a brain freeze and typing the wrong info, here's the whole quote:



:jaw-dropp

[Calcas]

That reminds me of this spectacular bit of deliberate ignorance and incredible insensitivity:





It must be very difficult to be inside your head and have these wildly contradictory and wildly irrational thoughts.


Is TC329 "terrorcell" from lcf?

Because that would explain a lot...

[Gravy]

Is TC329 "terrorcell" from lcf?

Because that would explain a lot...
Confirmed. Caveat debator.

[TC329]

What made you change your mind?

So then you're people are right it was an American Airliners plane?

I'm on the fence, I theorized it was flight 11 because Flight 11 flew around for a good 90 minutes after hitting the North Tower which tells me Flight 11 couldn't have hit the North Tower.

Apparently some of the JREF here have evidence that it was an American Airlines plane. I am most interested in seeing this evidence so I asked for it.

I high a funny feeling no one is going to post it though.........




And what have these people told you in the nine months since I gave you their contact information?

Shanksville Volunteer Fire Co
Shanksville, PA 15560
(814) 267-4737
Terry Schaffer, Fire Chief
Rick King, Assistant Chief

Somerset County Coroner's Office
555 Tayman Avenue, Somerset, PA 15501
(814) 445-6900
Wallace Miller, Coroner

Somerset County Emergency Services
100 East Union Street, Somerset, PA 15501
(814) 445-1515

WESTMORELAND COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
12 Court House Square
Greensburg, PA 15601
724-600-7300

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 651-2001

Paul Sledzik (Led flight 93 DMORT investigation)
Curator, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology National Museum of Health and Medicine
202-782-2204 sledzik@email.afip.osd.mil

Disaster Mortuary Team Main office: 1-800-USA-NDMS, ext. 205
DMORT Region 3 office (includes Pennsylvania) 410-676-4600

Dr. Dennis C. Dirkmaat
Chief scientific advisor to Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller
Director, Applied Forensic Sciences Department
Mercyhurst College
501 E. 38th St.
Erie, PA 16546
dirkmaat@mercyhurst.edu
(814) 824-2105

Also:

Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company,
Central City Fire Department,
Berlin Fire Department,
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department,
Listie Volunteer Fire Company,
Somerset Volunteer Fire Department,
Somerset Ambulance Association,
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department, and the
Hooversville Rescue Squad.


I made an appoitment with Wally Miller to see the Indian Lake debris field and the body parts photographed there for starters....

[TC329]

Of course, this one is also awesome, and pithy.

"Here's a fact : wingspan of Flight 93 = 40' " (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2282259&postcount=329)

Well it must suck that the Flight 93 Ambassador at the Memorial says the crater was officially 30'x20'........We asked her a few questions about that. It bothered her, she didn't know what to say and the group of people that were listening became real interested in us....but you'll see that soon enough!

Wow, Gravy imagine that. Instead of discussing this new evidence you go instantly into the "attempt to discredit" mode. Wonder why?

[TC329]

And who can forget this blast from the past?

September, 2006 – TC329 starts a thread at LC insisting that flight 93 was shot down:




January, 2007 (http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t2723.htm): Did I say shot down in Shanksville? That was the liquor talking:


Well I talked off the record with some Johnstown ATC. Why don't you call them and see what they have to say to you about 9/11 & Flight 93 Gravy? Oh wait, they're all under gag orders.

Westmoreland County 911 is also under gag orders.

Indian Lake residents (south of the crater) made numerous 911 calls about a low flying plane "breaking apart above their homes". Even Jim Stop seen it while fishing in the lake.

And then there was a 3rd debris field in New Baltimore. Hole secion of the woods cornered off. No media was allowed anywhere near....must have been because of all the "paper" there from the crash. Locals tell a different story though.....


So why drive this off topic Mark?

Are you afraid to address Susan's account? I think so.

[T.A.M.]

What kind of lame, pathetic F&*K goes to a place like the UA93 Memorial, and starts pissing on the graves...So did you mention the fake phone calls, did you laugh at the Mark Bingham line, or was that too much, so you just pushed your silly bit of not so mean twoof?

TAM

[TC329]

What kind of lame, pathetic F&*K goes to a place like the UA93 Memorial, and starts pissing on the graves...So did you mention the fake phone calls, did you laugh at the Mark Bingham line, or was that too much, so you just pushed your silly bit of not so mean twoof?

TAM

History will show it's people as yourself who pissed all over the graves of the 9/11 victims.

"Flight 93" was shot down. Part of it ended up in Shanksville, part of it in Indian Lake, & part of it in New Baltimore.

Edward Felt was on board and made a call to Westmoreland County 911 saying he was in the bathroom, there had been some type of explosion on the plane, & there was white smoke filling the plane from it.

Westmoreland County 911 dispatchers are not allowed to talk about it.

There was 2 fighter jets & 1 UAV at the scene at the exact time as well.

Johnstown Air Traffic Control is not allowed to talk about it.

And the residents who witnessed the events are not lying and making this up......

[ref]

There was 2 fighter jets & 1 UAV at the scene at the exact time as well.

Johnstown Air Traffic Control is not allowed to talk about it.


Says who?

[uk_dave]

Says who?

When an official says "Go away little CTer, we don't have the time nor the inclination to discuss your repugnant fantasies" this is perceived by the CTer as "We're not allowed to talk about it (sigh)"

[T.A.M.]

History will show it's people as yourself who pissed all over the graves of the 9/11 victims.

"Flight 93" was shot down. Part of it ended up in Shanksville, part of it in Indian Lake, & part of it in New Baltimore.

Edward Felt was on board and made a call to Westmoreland County 911 saying he was in the bathroom, there had been some type of explosion on the plane, & there was white smoke filling the plane from it.

Westmoreland County 911 dispatchers are not allowed to talk about it.

There was 2 fighter jets & 1 UAV at the scene at the exact time as well.

Johnstown Air Traffic Control is not allowed to talk about it.

And the residents who witnessed the events are not lying and making this up......


Because people, GROWN UPS, with REAL LIVES, and REAL JOBS, do not want to give you fodder to connect them with your STUPID FANTASIES, does not mean THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.

GOT IT?

TAM:mad:

[Unfit4Command]

Only a few pieces of paper from the plane was found in New Baltimore. Why do you continue to act as if massive chunks of debris were found there?

[T.A.M.]

TC:

If you came to me and asked me any details about the medical history of a patient of mine, I would not be able to tell you...I would NOT be allowed to talk about it...so is that a conspiracy???

TAM:)

[Civilized Worm]

"Flight 93" was shot down. Part of it ended up in Shanksville, part of it in Indian Lake, & part of it in New Baltimore.


So I take it you're off the fence again?


You don't hear from the families of the plane victims because there was really only a small amount of people who died and they all died on the plane shot down in PA. The rest were CIA agents(think Northwoods).


Why would the CIA kill their own agents? Did they have a lot of suicidal agents willing to volunteer for such an assignment?

[TC329]

Because people, GROWN UPS, with REAL LIVES, and REAL JOBS, do not want to give you fodder to connect them with your STUPID FANTASIES, does not mean THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT IT.

GOT IT?

TAM:mad:

ABC News (http://web.archive.org/web/20010913044142/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/PA_airplanecrash010911.html)



According to The Associated Press, the man told officials, "We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!"


Emergency dispatcher Glenn Cramer said the man on board reported the plane "was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him."



You're a joke.



GOT IT?



DOM

[TC329]

TC:

If you came to me and asked me any details about the medical history of a patient of mine, I would not be able to tell you...I would NOT be allowed to talk about it...so is that a conspiracy???

TAM:)

911 Dispatchers are not routinely put under gag orders concerning 911 calls.
ATC is not routinely put under gag orders when there is a plane crash.

If you have some sort of proof this is a common practice please present it.

You are comparing apples & oranges and you know it.

[TC329]

Why would the CIA kill their own agents? Did they have a lot of suicidal agents willing to volunteer for such an assignment?

"critical thinking"

[TC329]

Only a few pieces of paper from the plane was found in New Baltimore. Why do you continue to act as if massive chunks of debris were found there?

Oh yeah?

Who told you that?

Ever been to New Baltimore?

[stateofgrace]

TC why are you posting here?

Why have you not passed on all your evidence the appropriate authorities?

Why are you with holding evidence?

[TC329]

TC why are you posting here?

Why have you not passed on all you evidence the appropriate authorities?

Why are you with holding evidence?

You have no idea what I am doing so please stop being ignorant.

This topic was started here, it seemed appropriate that someone who has spent nearly a year talking to and visiting eyewitnesses comment on it.

[stateofgrace]

You have no idea what I am doing so please stop being ignorant.

This topic was started here, it seemed appropriate that someone who has spent nearly a year talking to and visiting eyewitnesses comment on it.

Oh I see, so you have passed on your evidence to the authorities?

[T.A.M.]

Oh I see, so you have passed on your evidence to the authorities?

Well now you know the answer to that...

The authorities are the baddies...remember.

TC:

Please show me another Plane hijacking and crash, that was subsequently part of an FBI CRIMINAL investigation, where the ATCers were allowed to freely talk with people about the details of the events while that investigation was going on.

Thanks

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Oh yeah?

Who told you that?

Ever been to New Baltimore?
yes. but what does that have to do with the liars from 9/11 truth ?

[Gravy]

Hey, Killtown Jr. is back. Still waiting for your response to the thread from which you fled, junior.

I made an appoitment with Wally Miller to see the Indian Lake debris field and the body parts photographed there for starters....Outstanding. It only took me prodding you ten times. When is the appointment? And here's the big question, TC:

Will you believe him, and why don't you believe him now?

[TC329]

Hey, Killtown Jr. is back. Still waiting for your response to the thread from which you fled, junior.

Outstanding. It only took me prodding you ten times. When is the appointment? And here's the big question, TC:

Will you believe him, and why don't you believe him now?


I believe Wally Miller recovered DNA.

[T.A.M.]

planted DNA...planted by the FBI baddies...right?

TAM:)

[Gravy]

I believe Wally Miller recovered DNA.The 12 identifications that Wallace Miller made were by way of fingerprints and dental records. Strange that you didn't know that, since you've specialized in this subject for a year.

So what can Wallace Miller tell you or show you that will make you believe that the body parts and personal effects he found and identified came from flight 93?

What will it take to change your mind, TC?

[TC329]

planted DNA...planted by the FBI baddies...right?

TAM:)


don't you want to discuss the ABC News story about Ed Felt & Glenn Cramer?

perhaps you missed it on the last page?

[T.A.M.]

You are the one who brought up Wallie Miller. You don't like that subject anymore?

TAM:)

[TC329]

You are the one who brought up Wallie Miller. You don't like that subject anymore?

TAM:)

Somehow I knew you wouldn't. "Skeptics" never want to get into Ed Felt's phone call or westmoreland county 911.

Ever hear of Jim Stop? He was fishing on Indian Lake when "Flight 93" flew over him "breaking up" in the air. And do you know what Indian Lake residents did that morning? They called 911 as well to report a "low flying plane breaking up over their homes."

Pittsburgh Tribune Review 9/13/1

look it up.....

[Arus808]

why do you truthers like to jump from subject to subject ? you're like a bunny rabbit on crack

[TC329]

distraction, is that a required course for JREF members?