Hardfire Debate Negotiations

[pomeroo]

TC329, You issued the following challenge in post #76:

"I'll debate you anytime and place just to see you squirm, Mark. :biggrin:"

I asked, "How about 'Hardfire'?

Predictably, there was no response.

Can we agree that you would not really debate Mark "anytime and place"?

[TC329]

It means that they are lying if you've reported what they said accurately, or you are lying if they never said it.

I'm definitely not lying.





I'd love to see your bluff called. I'd bet that you fail to show up.

Let's do it. Call my bluff. I dare ya.

[TC329]

TC329, You issued the following challenge in post #76:

"I'll debate you anytime and place just to see you squirm, Mark. :biggrin:"

I asked, "How about 'Hardfire'?

Predictably, there was no response.

Can we agree that you would not really debate Mark "anytime and place"?

Is Mark willing to?

I noticed he isn't willing to answer my questions in this thread. Why would he do so in person?

I have answered his again and again and again. I'm not avoiding questions because I'm not trying to protect anything or anyone except some good honest local people who are afraid to go public.

[pomeroo]

Is Mark willing to?

I noticed he isn't willing to answer my questions in this thread. Why would he do so in person?

I have answered his again and again and again. I'm not avoiding questions because I'm not trying to protect anything or anyone except some good honest local people who are afraid to go public.


If Mark agrees to debate you on 'Hardfire' you are willing?

Nobody is "afraid" to go public.

[TC329]

If Mark agrees to debate you on 'Hardfire' you are willing?

absolutely

Nobody is "afraid" to go public.

oh really? who have you spoken to?

[Gravy]

Is Mark willing to?Of course. I'll break my no-planer policy so that people can see your face on TV. Just interview some of the first responders and investigators whose information I've been giving you for a year, and publish the interviews.

Approximately eight people in the world think you aren't a loon, Dom. Show the rest otherwise. If you aren't willing to do the decent, honest thing, and talk to the people who were there, why would I want to give you more attention?

I noticed he isn't willing to answer my questions in this thread. Why would he do so in person?Over the past year, I have provided you with a tremendous amount of evidence, which you have completely ignored. Remember when I said I would not deal with you until you contacted the first responders and investigators?

I have answered his again and again and again. I'm not avoiding questions because I'm not trying to protect anything or anyone except some good honest local people who are afraid to go public.

To show that you're not lying, answer these questions:

1) Why haven't you interviewed the first responders and investigators on my list? For instance, the members of the Shanksville and Stoystown VFDs and Paul Sledzik? You've had their information for over a year.

2) What evidence would convince you that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville, and why?

[TC329]

Of course. I'll break my no-planer policy so that people can see your face on TV. Just interview some of the first responders and investigators whose information I've been giving you for a year, and publish the interviews.

Approximately eight people in the world think you aren't a loon, Dom. Show the rest otherwise. If you aren't willing to do the decent, honest thing, and talk to the people who were there, why would I want to give you more attention?

Over the past year, I have provided you with a tremendous amount of evidence, which you have completely ignored. Remember when I said I would not deal with you until you contacted the first responders and investigators?



To show that you're not lying, answer these questions:

1) Why haven't you interviewed the first responders and investigators on my list? For instance, the members of the Shanksville and Stoystown VFDs and Paul Sledzik? You've had their information for over a year.

2) What evidence would convince you that flight 93 crashed outside Shanksville, and why?


I'll make you a deal Mark.

How can I interview these people and prove it to you?

You decide.

I will do it.

In return you will interview my "Witness" list.

Game for that, big guy?

[Good Lt]

In return you will interview my "Witness" list.

You mean the list of your Troofer buddies?

HAH!

[Gravy]

I'll make you a deal Mark.

How can I interview these people and prove it to you?

You decide.

I will do it.

In return you will interview my "Witness" list.

Game for that, big guy? None of those people dispute the fact that flight 93 crashed there, correct, Dom? Neither do I. Therefore I gladly accept the interviews you've already done, and await their publication.

These are your claims and your investigation. What are we to make of an "investigator" who refuses to investigate?

Let me know when you've done those interviews with the first responders and investigators, and put the ones you've already done on the internet. For a year you've said you're going to release them in full, so no editing is necessary.

You can have them online tomorrow.

So do it.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'll make you a deal Mark.

How can I interview these people and prove it to you?

You decide.

I will do it.

In return you will interview my "Witness" list.

Game for that, big guy?

So you haven't interviewed these people, and are just making big assumptions about them? Mark needn't interview anyone as he is not the one making assumptions about their testimony and not cherry picking their testimony. He is summing the testimony with ALL the evidence so as to have a complete picture and not one that only enforces a pre-determined conclusion.

[Gravy]

Bumped to first page. Chillzero's cleanup moved posts to this thread, which I hadn't seen before.

[JAStewart]

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[TC329]

None of those people dispute the fact that flight 93 crashed there, correct, Dom? Neither do I. Therefore I gladly accept the interviews you've already done, and await their publication.

These are your claims and your investigation. What are we to make of an "investigator" who refuses to investigate?

Let me know when you've done those interviews with the first responders and investigators, and put the ones you've already done on the internet. For a year you've said you're going to release them in full, so no editing is necessary.

You can have them online tomorrow.

So do it.

I can't have them online tomorrow. There are people I have spoken with and got their accounts over the phone whom I have not returned to film yet. I also have to get your list to agree to be interviewed on film. Wally Miller is quite evasive. All of this will take some time and of course finances so "tomorrow" is in now way going to be a reality. When I finish I will release them in their entirety and of course a more condensed version in a documentary format which I will not charge for and will only be available online. Kind of like the 10 minute Susan clip.

But in the meantime I will upload the full unedited account of Susan and post it here later today. I will await your comments about her experience. I have seen a lot of people attack this woman and call her many names in the last few months. Hopefully you will be above insulting a special needs teacher.

There are others I am not willing to release at this point and time because I want to finish my investigation and not take a chance of any outside interference although there has already been some.

So in the meantime we will address Susan's testimonial when I post it.

[uk_dave]

ooooh gooody.

Can't wait to find out how....

1. the plane she saw was only as wide as her van

2. it was flying low enough to go under power lines and over trees without a sound or any air disturbance

3. it veered off to one side and then....crashed.

4. how she didn't see it crash and didn't remember hearing it crash until two days later

5. why she was so upset about this tiny, silent craft crashing (it wasn't a passenger jet or even an executive jet after all. Perhaps it was a remote controlled model airplane? Oh the humanity)

I'm sure susan is a lovely lady and is very eager to be of help, especially after someone on the internet convinced her that she hadn't seen either flight 93 or the falcon executive jet. And then two nice young men turn up and want to interview her on camera......

[A W Smith]

I will await your comments about her experience. I have seen a lot of people attack this woman and call her many names in the last few months. Hopefully you will be above insulting a special needs teacher.



well I didn't insult her. but I did explain what she most likely saw in a previous post last night
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3148732&postcount=199

[T.A.M.]

She could be nicer than Mother Teresa, she is still wrong/mistaken on this matter. There is no need to call her anything except wrong/mistaken.

TAM:)

[Spins]

She could be nicer than Mother Teresa, she is still wrong/mistaken on this matter. There is no need to call her anything except wrong/mistaken.

TAM:)Nicer than Mother Teresa, that's not a very difficult feat. She (Mother Teresa) was nothing but a simple minded fundamentalist who thought pain, hardship, and suffering were ennobling experiences. What a waste of a Nobel Peace Prize.

[Brainster]

Nicer than Mother Teresa, that's not a very difficult feat. She (Mother Teresa) was nothing but a simple minded fundamentalist who thought pain, hardship, and suffering were ennobling experiences. What a waste of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Considering some of the other recipients (Rigoberta Menchu, Yassir Arafat, Le Duc Tho, Henry Kissinger), you could argue that it was a step up.

[Quad4_72]

She could be nicer than Mother Teresa, she is still wrong/mistaken on this matter. There is no need to call her anything except wrong/mistaken.

TAM:)

Well just to add to that, if she is a no planer she is also a complete and utter lunatic.

[TC329]

well I didn't insult her. but I did explain what she most likely saw in a previous post last night
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3148732&postcount=199

Your "explanation" doesn't warrant a reply.

[TC329]

Well just to add to that, if she is a no planer she is also a complete and utter lunatic.

She is not a "no planer".

[Totovader]

She is not a "no planer".

Mother Theresa?

[TC329]

Mother Theresa?


No, Susan.

Mother Theresa is a no planer all the way. Everyone knows that. :D

[Norseman]

I can't have them online tomorrow. There are people I have spoken with and got their accounts over the phone whom I have not returned to film yet. I also have to get your list to agree to be interviewed on film. Wally Miller is quite evasive.

I understand very well why Wallace (Wally) Miller is evasive. And so should you if you listen to the phone call the no-planer Jeff Hill made to Wallace Miller. Quit simply Wallace Miller is fed up with people making up fantasy stories about Flight 93.

[Björn Toulouse]

I can't have them online tomorrow. There are people I have spoken with and got their accounts over the phone whom I have not returned to film yet. I also have to get your list to agree to be interviewed on film. Wally Miller is quite evasive. All of this will take some time and of course finances so "tomorrow" is in now way going to be a reality. When I finish I will release them in their entirety and of course a more condensed version in a documentary format which I will not charge for and will only be available online. Kind of like the 10 minute Susan clip.

But in the meantime I will upload the full unedited account of Susan and post it here later today. I will await your comments about her experience. I have seen a lot of people attack this woman and call her many names in the last few months. Hopefully you will be above insulting a special needs teacher.

There are others I am not willing to release at this point and time because I want to finish my investigation and not take a chance of any outside interference although there has already been some.

So in the meantime we will address Susan's testimonial when I post it.


Wait - where did I miss it? Was it to be posted in this thread or elsewhere?

[Gravy]

I can't have them online tomorrow. There are people I have spoken with and got their accounts over the phone whom I have not returned to film yet.

October 17, 2006:
Well I've been there and interviewed eyewitnesses multiple times so please enlighten me to what I got wrong.

Where can I find these witness accounts?

I'm trying to convince them to make interview tapes ala Susan McIlwain's..

Let us know when those tapes or transcripts are available.

It will surprise no one that you have done nothing about that in over a year, and that in fact you interviewed only one person.


All of this will take some time and of course finances so "tomorrow" is in now way going to be a reality.I live in western PA.
Need to borrow some cash so you can buy a new tube for your bicycle tire?

When I finish I will release them in their entirety and of course a more condensed version in a documentary format which I will not charge for and will only be available online. Kind of like the 10 minute Susan clip.Check in this time next year and let us know how that's going.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790473a60cbeb14b.jpg

McElwain: "It was no wider than my van."

"It was right down over my windshield, because it was so low that I ducked in my van. And when I did I shut off my radio. And that's when I knew there was no sound. I said it out loud, I said it two times, "Oh, my god, it's gonna crash, it's gonna crash!

So it cleared those trees. To my knowledge, it just seems to me, had to be below the power lines. It came in, swooped up, cleared those trees, it was fall, so it was full of leaves. No leaves moved on the trees. Nothing fell. Cause I kept thinking, you know, there should be, like a disturbance.

And it just smoothly went around, and went right over there, banked to the right*, and crashed. Now, you can't see where it crashed, because you can't see through the trees, but I saw the, – I heard the – well, I didn't hear the explosion that day. I don't know why. It was like two days later before I, you know.

But, um (starts crying)

"You seem a little shaken up."

"It does. It really upsets me."

...Your sense is that it was so low that it would have had to come underneath these power lines?

It had to! Because when I looked up, it was in my windshield. It was just, it was just, you know. ...It was like, right in my windshield. When I looked up, I could see the mid-belly of it.

...It was pure white. There was not any markings on it. There was no rivets. It was so molded, it looked like it was all one piece. ...I could not see any wings, because like I said I saw it from the mid-belly, back, and then it banked, so I could not see what would be on top of it or anything. ...My thought at the time was, 'this looks like it's brand new. It had never been used, or (shrugs).

"What do you think it was?"

"I can only go by what people have said to me. 'Cause at the time I thought it was a plane. But being, with, like, that guy from California that emailed me a lot of pictures, that guy from Bedford that sent me a lot of pictures, they all said the same thing: that, you know, it had to be a missile or a unmanned plane or something, just because...."

Int:"Because of the shape?"

"Because of the shape."

Int: "And the maneuvering–"

"And the way it maneuvered, because they've come up and looked at these wires."

Int: "How small it is, yeah. And the crater's so small. I mean, you've seen that."

"Right."

"What are we lookin' at here? Telephone pole, I'm six-six. Yeah, about 25 foot. (walks along road) Underneath these poles, down through here, up over the trees."*Note that all witnesses, and the flight data recorder, describe flight 93 rolling to the right as it turned upside-down and plunged to the ground.

Here's Susan McElwain's account as told to the rag The Daily Mirror, in which she clearly states that it was a plane.

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 (1) and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 (2) and told them what happened.


"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks (3) and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.
I didn'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. (4) 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."(1) Contradicts her statement in the video that she didn't hear the explosion.

(2) In the video, she says she didn't have her cell phone with her, so couldn't call.

(3) In the video, she says she ran to a nearby trailer, where she was told about the attacks.

(4) In the video, she says she couldn't see any wings because she couldn't see "what would be on top of it."

I encourage everyone to watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ), see how close the utility lines and trees are, listen to the leading questions, and determine for yourselves if she's a credible witness or a confused person who made a mistake and who shouldn't be hounded by despicable creeps.

[TC329]

October 17, 2006:
Need to borrow some cash so you can buy a new tube for your bicycle tire?

Smartass, Someone very close to me has had severe health issues for the last 8 months and this has really put a cramp into my "free" time. I know you have no respect for anyone who has a different belief than you but it doesn't make any of us a step below Tour Guide.


(1) Contradicts her statement in the video that she didn't hear the explosion.After seeing what Christopher Bollyn and his A10 fairytale have done in the print to Susan I would like to actually hear the interview and confirm those indeed are her exact words.

After watching this interview I would like to ask about your opinion in regards to how the History Channel portrayed her story. (Interesting to note they interviewed her about a month after me and a buzz was generating about what this heavily quoted witness real testimony was.)

(2) In the video, she says she didn't have her cell phone with her, so couldn't call.There is nothing in this article that indicates she made a cell phone call from her van. It is vague and Susan did call 911 after getting home.

(3) In the video, she says she ran to a nearby trailer, where she was told about the attacks. She also states in the video that it was only when she got home to she realize the relationship between what she saw and what had happened. If that is not in this version it will be in the uncut one which is currently uploading to google video.

You really should have held off until I got it uploaded Mark. I know you're excited and all but patience.

(4) In the video, she says she couldn't see any wings because she couldn't see "what would be on top of it." While she makes no reference to any engines in my interview she describes the tail exactly the same. And in the quote you reference she makes no mention of wings as she is clearly describing the tail she describes on the video.

I encourage everyone to watch the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ), see how close the utility lines and trees are, listen to the leading questions, and determine for yourselves if she's a credible witness or a confused person who made a mistake and who shouldn't be hounded by despicable creeps.In the video she states "It just seems it had to be that low". While it is safe to say the plane was flying close to the ground it could have been 15' above the lines. Susan only saw it with one set of lines and the plane would have had to pull up not to slam into the woods before it even got to those ones. She is speculating what the height is. It is obvious she could be wrong. I would imagine when a plane unexpectedly flies over you 25-50' probably feel equally scary.

This doesn't discredit her testimony or the description of the plane in any way shape or form.

You can do better than this Mark, can't you?

[Crungy]

TC's "Poor man's Anton LaVey" look certainly goes well with his poor man's Pentacon research...

[Gravy]

It is obvious she could be wrong.Great to see you finally admit that. It is obvious that she is wrong, for many, many reasons that have been discussed here before. Again, I encourage everyone to watch the end of the video and note the distance between the utility lines and the trees, and decide if it's physically possible for any vehicle, much less a mini-van-sized jet moving at extremely high speed, to make that maneuver, all while creating no noise, wind, or vibration, then rise up, roll to the right, and crash exactly where flight 93 crashed, without being seen by any of the witnesses who saw flight 93 roll to the right and go down there.

Time to switch from Smacco's razor, Dom. You're promoting the stupidest idea in the history of the internet.

I would imagine when a plane unexpectedly flies over you 25-50' probably feel equally scary.Tiny silent planes that create no disturbance never scare me.

Get to work, Dom. You've done nothing but interview one very confused and frightened person. Not much to build a sick fantasy on, is it?

Interview the first responders and investigators, and come back when you're done.

[pomeroo]

Smartass, Someone very close to me has had severe health issues for the last 8 months and this has really put a cramp into my "free" time. I know you have no respect for anyone who has a different belief than you but it doesn't make any of us a step below Tour Guide.


After seeing what Christopher Bollyn and his A10 fairytale have done in the print to Susan I would like to actually hear the interview and confirm those indeed are her exact words.

After watching this interview I would like to ask about your opinion in regards to how the History Channel portrayed her story. (Interesting to note they interviewed her about a month after me and a buzz was generating about what this heavily quoted witness real testimony was.)

There is nothing in this article that indicates she made a cell phone call from her van. It is vague and Susan did call 911 after getting home.

She also states in the video that it was only when she got home to she realize the relationship between what she saw and what had happened. If that is not in this version it will be in the uncut one which is currently uploading to google video.

You really should have held off until I got it uploaded Mark. I know you're excited and all but patience.

While she makes no reference to any engines in my interview she describes the tail exactly the same. And in the quote you reference she makes no mention of wings as she is clearly describing the tail she describes on the video.

In the video she states "It just seems it had to be that low". While it is safe to say the plane was flying close to the ground it could have been 15' above the lines. Susan only saw it with one set of lines and the plane would have had to pull up not to slam into the woods before it even got to those ones. She is speculating what the height is. It is obvious she could be wrong. I would imagine when a plane unexpectedly flies over you 25-50' probably feel equally scary.

This doesn't discredit her testimony or the description of the plane in any way shape or form.

You can do better than this Mark, can't you?


I had the mistaken impression that you were serious about investigating your fantasies.

[TC329]

Great to see you finally admit that. It is obvious that she is wrong, for many, many reasons that have been discussed here before. Again, I encourage everyone to watch the end of the video and note the distance between the utility lines and the trees, and decide if it's physically possible for any vehicle, much less a mini-van-sized jet moving at extremely high speed, to make that maneuver, all while creating no noise, wind, or vibration, then rise up, roll to the right, and crash exactly where flight 93 crashed, without being seen by any of the witnesses who saw flight 93 roll to the right and go down there.

Time to switch from Smacco's razor, Dom. You're promoting the stupidest idea in the history of the internet.

Tiny silent planes that create no disturbance never scare me.

Get to work, Dom. You've done nothing but interview one very confused and frightened person. Not much to build a sick fantasy on, is it?

Come back when you're done.


I knew you couldn't actually address each point individually. What was I even thinking?

Part of me thought you might be up for an "honest" debate but then I realize you're the guy who wants to call FDNY victims and tell them how wrong they are. Honest isn't a word that describes you and your motives.

The height of the plane which an eyewitness can only give as an estimation as anyone with a brain can conclude and who also states "it just seems it had to be this low" is still credible in their actual description and maneuvering of the plane, neither of which are speculation.

[Quad4_72]

Part of me thought you might be up for an "honest" debate but then I realize you're the guy who wants to call FDNY victims and tell them how wrong they are. Honest isn't a word that describes you and your motives.



Who wants to call the FDNY and tell them they are wrong? About what exactly?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I did some searching, and it appears that back in March, Pomeroo was going to have a hardfire debate with Frank Greening and TruthSeeker1234.

As far as I can tell, it was Pomeroo who backed out.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77435

[WildCat]

I think I found the mystery plane...

http://cache.gizmodo.com/archives/images/michel_concorde.jpg

[pomeroo]

I did some searching, and it appears that back in March, Pomeroo was going to have a hardfire debate with Frank Greening and TruthSeeker1234.

As far as I can tell, it was Pomeroo who backed out.


Frank lives in Canada and the thought of Ace raving for a half-hour that no planes hit the Twin Towers sent shivers up my spine. I find Ace quite pleasant when he talks about baseball, but Mark's policy is a good one: no no-planers!

[Gravy]

NVM

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

But, didn't Baker agree to leave planes out of it, and didn't Gravy just agree to ignore his no no-planes policy?

I mean, I agree with you guys that the conpiracists are wrong, and maybe crazy, I'm just sayin . . .

[Gravy]

But, didn't Baker agree to leave planes out of it, and didn't Gravy just agree to ignore his no no-planes policy?

I mean, I agree with you guys that the conpiracists are wrong, and maybe crazy, I'm just sayin . . .I made my conditions for appearing with TC329 clear. When you choose to debate 9/11 issues you can set your own conditions.

[TC329]

Why do you keep calling me a no planer?

I believe planes hit the WTC. I believe a plane was shot down in PA. How does this qualify me as a no planer?


Update : Google Video is processing it. If it isn't done by the time I go to bed I will post it in the AM sometime.

[Gravy]

People who deny that the four hijacked 9/11 airliners crashed where they did are no-planers living out a sick fantasy. Watch:

Dom, you've been "researching" this for ages. What happened to flight 93?

And for the fourth time, specifically what evidence would convince you that it crashed outside Shanksville? Why are you afraid to answer the question? If you can't answer it, then you have an unfalsifiable belief, akin to a religion. Do you understand this, Dom?

Then answer the question.

[OldTigerCub]

:popcorn2

...just waiting for the "Hardfire" version...

ETA: As someone who used to frequent Indian Lake, and having played golf there several times (not to mention making a little over 75 freefall jumps onto the airport) I am looking forward to the debate.

[Gravy]

:popcorn2

...just waiting for the "Hardfire" version...A certain Buddy Holly song comes to mind.

[~enigma~]

Smartass, Someone very close to me has had severe health issues for the last 8 months and this has really put a cramp into my "free" time.
Yet you had plenty of time to act the fool on LCF and whine to the admins about me. Please stop lying. I will apologize if it was your brother posting in your behalf on LCF (was your password password?)

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps what she saw was a chicken hawk, not a magical plane.

[funk de fino]

So this is the silent low flying plane/missile guy again?

Her claim about white military planes is dubious to say the least.

It was white with no markings but definitely military

What silent white military planes with no markings could it have been? Most military planes are grey, have markings and are most definitely not silent. Neither are missiles or UAV silent.

What type of propulsion unit did this vehicle use then TC?

[uk_dave]

So it was white with no markings, no wider than her van, silent, flying low and disappearing over some trees at which point she assumed it had crashed but doesn't remember hearing it crash until a couple of days later.

She then rushes to her neighbours house to report........ what? A plane crash? Even though she has now been convinced by intrepid internet investigators that what she saw wasn't any kind of plane we are used to seeing and it probably didn't carry any passengers, and yet she gets choked up at the memory of that day.

Could it be that she does believe it was flight 93 which crashed there?

Could it be that the reason she didn't hear it and couldn't make out any discernible features on it, and that it didn't even cause the leaves on the trees to moves and that it appeared to be no wider than her van, was that it was very much higher than she recalls/imagines/has been told?

Perhaps had it not been for the flattering attention paid to her by those lovely young investigators who may not be affiliated to any commercial media organisation (but that's ok because she trusts them and they wouldn't misrepresent her recollections in any way and they're very convincing in their beliefs and showed her a couple of photographs of planes which obviously were not what she saw that day so the official story must be false) or have any training or experience in dealing with eyewitnesses and the vagaries of human nature, then perhaps she would eventually come to realise that that what she saw that day wasn't only as wide as her van, wasn't low enough to fly under power lines and wasn't silent.

[gumboot]

I believe planes hit the WTC. I believe a plane was shot down in PA. How does this qualify me as a no planer?


Last time I checked four airliners were hijacked on 9/11. In your above comments I count only three.

-Gumboot

[Hyperviolet]

People who deny that the four hijacked 9/11 airliners crashed where they did are no-planers living out a sick fantasy. Watch:

Dom, you've been "researching" this for ages. What happened to flight 93?

And for the fourth time, specifically what evidence would convince you that it crashed outside Shanksville? Why are you afraid to answer the question? If you can't answer it, then you have an unfalsifiable belief, akin to a religion. Do you understand this, Dom?

Then answer the question.


Whilst i agree with what you've posted in this thread thus far, i have a slight contention with this.

A No-Planer isn't someone who just denies where the planes crashed. Surely.
If the above fits the label 'No-Planer,' then you have broken your No-Planer policy in debating the Loose Change guys and Jim Fetzer.

Now, i'll agree that those who think a plane did not strike the Pentagon can be accurately labelled a No-Planer. And, as far as i know, TC329 is of that stance (TC- if you are not, i'll admit my mistake).

In that regard, TC would fit the term No-Planer, but not because of his contention that he believes UA93 was shot down.

[Calcas]

People who deny that the four hijacked 9/11 airliners crashed where they did are no-planers living out a sick fantasy. Watch:

Dom, you've been "researching" this for ages. What happened to flight 93?

And for the fourth time, specifically what evidence would convince you that it crashed outside Shanksville? Why are you afraid to answer the question? If you can't answer it, then you have an unfalsifiable belief, akin to a religion. Do you understand this, Dom?

Then answer the question.

Don't forget that Dom has bought the whole CIT mumbo jumbo about "North side" and flyover at the Pentagon hook, line and sinker. That sounds like a no planer to me.

It's funny because even though Craig and Aldo are banned at lcf Dom posts Craigs latest ramblings over there word for word.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=19220

BTW, after watching a minute of his interview with Susan I retract my offer to him of a tour of Johnstown Control Tower. My credibility would be immeasurably damaged if I subjected my FAA friends to him and his version of journalism.

[TC329]

BTW, after watching a minute of his interview with Susan I retract my offer to him of a tour of Johnstown Control Tower. My credibility would be immeasurably damaged if I subjected my FAA friends to him and his version of journalism.

It's ok I know the real reason you backed out just as I expected you would. Too predictable.

[TC329]

Feel free to embed (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8051395578107358759)

[Gravy]

Whilst i agree with what you've posted in this thread thus far, i have a slight contention with this.

A No-Planer isn't someone who just denies where the planes crashed. Surely.
If the above fits the label 'No-Planer,' then you have broken your No-Planer policy in debating the Loose Change guys and Jim Fetzer.

Now, i'll agree that those who think a plane did not strike the Pentagon can be accurately labelled a No-Planer. And, as far as i know, TC329 is of that stance (TC- if you are not, i'll admit my mistake).

In that regard, TC would fit the term No-Planer, but not because of his contention that he believes UA93 was shot down.Yes, I call people who can't explain what happen to the four flights, but who believe one or more of them disappeared, "no-planers." If they can't make it that far, they are beyond my help. Dom does not believe that flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, as he's stated in the past few days.

I started my "no no-planer" policy after debating Fetzer.

[TC329]

Yes, I call people who can't explain what happen to the four flights, but who believe one or more of them disappeared, "no-planers." If they can't make it that far, they are beyond my help. Dom does not believe that flight 93 crashed at Shanksville, as he's stated in the past few days.

I started my "no no-planer" policy after debating Fetzer.

I said that the plane has not been positively identified therefor I am unable to honestly state that it is United 93. Since I am under the belief that Ed Felt was most likely not on the same plane as Todd Beamer & Jeremy Glick because of demeanor, actions, and descriptions of events happening I can't honestly state if the plane shot down over Pennsylvania is Flight 93 or another flight which tends to fit the description that it was an all grey plane. Purbaugh clearly stated it was not upside down so I'm not debating his story with people who choose to interpret it differently and claim someone that they can't even name is his boss.

I suspected giving you Susan's unedited testimony would leave you looking for a way out of any possible flight 93 debate in the future especially after I release more testimonials in the same unedited format.

In the meantime I will enjoy the fact that after being posted here for around 8 hours that is the first response this has received. I kind of imagined that if most members here agreed not to insult this woman they weren't going to have too much to say about her experience.

:D

Maybe that funny guy can come back in and explain how the combination of the type of van coupled with the positioning of the sun which caused the trees to be dark caused a reflection of a 757 and she's just too stupid to know any better.

[Calcas]

Yes, I call people who can't explain what happen to the four flights, but who believe one or more of them disappeared, "no-planers." If they can't make it that far, they are beyond my help.

"No-planers" seems to be a term even the twoofers argue over but that's as good a definition as I've seen.

[Gravy]

TC329 has repeatedly said that the Shanksville crater is too small to have been made by flight 93, that no fires were at the scene when people arrived, and that no human remains were recovered there. All of these claims, of course are absurd.

In this thread or the other that he was involved in in the past two days, he said he believes the plane that crashed at Shanksville held 12-15 people. Flight 93 held 44 people. All 40 victims were positively identified from remains at the crash scene.

[TC329]

TC329 has repeatedly said that the Shanksville crater is too small to have been made by flight 93, that no fires were at the scene when people arrived, and that no human remains were recovered there. All of these claims, of course are absurd.

In this thread or the other that he was involved in in the past two days, he said he believes the plane that crashed at Shanksville held 12-15 people. Flight 93 held 44 people. All 40 victims were positively identified from remains at the crash scene.

1) Please provide one eyewitness quote of a 100 foot gouge in the earth.
2) Please provide proof of jet fuel fires.
3) My statement was remains were recovered from the crater. Please provide actual proof that they were.

As these claims are absurd you should have no problem doing the above. Also anything that positively identifies debris from the site as United 93 will also be appreciated greatly.

It appears from accounts in the media and my own research that remains were recovered from Indian Lake and in the woods near the actual impact crater.


4) How many people did Wally Miller identify, Mark?

[T.A.M.]

In this thread or the other that he was involved in in the past two days, he said he believes the plane that crashed at Shanksville held 12-15 people. Flight 93 held 44 people. All 40 victims were positively identified from remains at the crash scene.

Yes but that can be repeated until we turn blue. Some people will not be convinced until they are shown the actual bodies, taught how to do DNA analysis, allowed to verify the chain of custody, and then confirm that the DNA matches the people stated.

Very sad.

TAM

[Gravy]

I think it's quite clear why Dom did not previously release McElwain's unedited interview, as he said he would:

My story was very much letting them know that something else was there, either to destroy whatever evidence was left, I, I, I mean, I'd have to ask that person, 'why do you think that?' Because I've said that before in my interviews, that I feel that whatever it was that I saw, it was there to make sure that if there was anything left, it was destroyed.

She's a confused person whose confusion is being encouraged by creeps.

[Gravy]

1) Please provide one eyewitness quote of a 100 foot gouge in the earth.
2) Please provide proof of jet fuel fires.
3) My statement was [no] remains were recovered from the crater. Please provide actual proof that they were.
4) How many people did Wally Miller identify, Mark?

I have provided all this information to you several times in the past. Playing dumb is irrational and immature.

Oh, and as you well know, #3 is a lie.
no body parts or blood were found at the scene (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2222991#post2222991)

I said there was no blood or body parts at the scene (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2224773&postcount=191)

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


Lying and playing dumb is no way to go through life, Dom.

You're on ignore until you put those interviews with first responders and investigators online. Be sure to ask them if they are confident, based on the evidence, that flight 93 crashed there. I've been giving you their information for over a year.

Enough of your frightened fool act. It's your conspiracy theory. Get to work, no-planer.

[TC329]

I think it's quite clear why Dom did not previously release McElwain's unedited interview, as he said he would:


She's a confused person whose confusion is being encouraged by creeps.


I see you are unable to respond to my comments and accept that as your silent admittance of defeat.

Thanks for wasting my time yet again, Mark......

[Calcas]

Some people will not be convinced until they are shown the actual bodies, taught how to do DNA analysis, allowed to verify the chain of custody, and then confirm that the DNA matches the people stated.


That bears repeating.

It's the same at the Pentagon.

They just deny, deny, deny and say unless they have "proof" (to their liking) then it's all a mirage.

DNA???

Show me the chain of custody.

Plane parts from AA77???

Planted.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses???

Shills, Govt plants and "misinformed" civilians.

Very, VERY sad.

So, WHY do people like Dom continue this charade?

I swear questions like this keep me up at night.

[Gravy]

So, WHY do people like Dom continue this charade?

I swear questions like this keep me up at night.Some people don't care what kind of attention they get, as long as someone is paying attention to them.

[TC329]

I have provided all this information to you several times in the past. Playing dumb is irrational and immature.

Oh, and as you well know, #3 is a lie.


Lying and playing dumb is no way to go through life, Dom.

You're on ignore until you put those interviews with first responders and investigators online. Be sure to ask them if they are confident, based on the evidence, that flight 93 crashed there. I've been giving you their information for over a year.

Enough of your frightened fool act. It's your conspiracy theory. Get to work, no-planer.


Oh I see Mark doesn't want to get into eyewitnesses because there are a dozen more that tell the same story Susan does but from different angles or some only saw the plane afterwards but the description always stays the same.

So instead of discussing the real subject matter of this eyewitnesses testimony Mark belittles her intelligence by calling her "confused" as if this special needs teacher is some delusional senial dingbat.

Instead of debating future eyewitnesses that corroborate her claim Mark demands I interview people who only saw the after math and minutes, not seconds, later who will confirm that a plane crash and say that "Terra-ists put it into da ground" and call is case closed.

While everyone in Stoystown saw this plane and many at Indian Lake as well as it approached Shanksville corroborate the description the real story about Flight 93 is the aftermath. Not what happened in the final minutes but after those were done.

Mark, you are a waste of my time.

[pomeroo]

Oh I see Mark doesn't want to get into eyewitnesses because there are a dozen more that tell the same story Susan does but from different angles or some only saw the plane afterwards but the description always stays the same.

So instead of discussing the real subject matter of this eyewitnesses testimony Mark belittles her intelligence by calling her "confused" as if this special needs teacher is some delusional senial dingbat.

Instead of debating future eyewitnesses that corroborate her claim Mark demands I interview people who only saw the after math and minutes, not seconds, later who will confirm that a plane crash and say that "Terra-ists put it into da ground" and call is case closed.

While everyone in Stoystown saw this plane and many at Indian Lake as well as it approached Shanksville corroborate the description the real story about Flight 93 is the aftermath. Not what happened in the final minutes but after those were done.

Mark, you are a waste of my time.


Why won't the military take credit for downing Flight 93? How does this incident fit into Halliburton's plan to conquer the world? Why is making sense so unimportant to you?

[TheGrunion]

Oh I see Mark doesn't want to get into eyewitnesses because there are a dozen more that tell the same story Susan does but from different angles or some only saw the plane afterwards but the description always stays the same.

So instead of discussing the real subject matter of this eyewitnesses testimony Mark belittles her intelligence by calling her "confused" as if this special needs teacher is some delusional senial dingbat.

Instead of debating future eyewitnesses that corroborate her claim Mark demands I interview people who only saw the after math and minutes, not seconds, later who will confirm that a plane crash and say that "Terra-ists put it into da ground" and call is case closed.

While everyone in Stoystown saw this plane and many at Indian Lake as well as it approached Shanksville corroborate the description the real story about Flight 93 is the aftermath. Not what happened in the final minutes but after those were done.

Mark, you are a waste of my time.

Does this mean that you are not going to conduct the interviews and put them online?

[pomeroo]

Does this mean that you are not going to conduct the interviews and put them online?


Yes.

[TC329]

Does this mean that you are not going to conduct the interviews and put them online?

Oh no, I absolutely will. And I will do the same for other people I know who participated in different area's that Mark didn't name as well.

[OldTigerCub]

Oh I see Mark doesn't want to get into eyewitnesses because there are a dozen more that tell the same story Susan does but from different angles or some only saw the plane afterwards but the description always stays the same.

So instead of discussing the real subject matter of this eyewitnesses testimony Mark belittles her intelligence by calling her "confused" as if this special needs teacher is some delusional senial dingbat.

Instead of debating future eyewitnesses that corroborate her claim Mark demands I interview people who only saw the after math and minutes, not seconds, later who will confirm that a plane crash and say that "Terra-ists put it into da ground" and call is case closed.

While everyone in Stoystown saw this plane and many at Indian Lake as well as it approached Shanksville corroborate the description the real story about Flight 93 is the aftermath. Not what happened in the final minutes but after those were done.

Mark, you are a waste of my time.


The aftermath was thousands of pieces of human remains, more thousands of pieces of the airplane, the mangled but readable FDR and CVR recorders, and more people descending upon a small rural community than had ever been immagined. I doubt that "everyone in Stoystown" or Jennerstown, or Reels Corners or Indian Lake or Shanksville saw Flight 93, but some did...and the ones who did are on record, just like the volunteer firefighters, paramedics, sheriff's deputies, state police officers, dog handlers (cadaver dog handlers) and all of those federal agents from the FBI, FAA, NTSB...not to mention the Red Cross, Salvation Army....who responded to the worst disaster that tiny little town ever had to deal with...even though what they saw will be etched into their memories forever.
Sorry about the rant, but to doubt so many honest, hard working people from a rural community like that in the Shanksville area is something I find entirely without merit, and invalid from the start.:mad:

[TC329]

Sorry about the rant, but to doubt so many honest, hard working people from a rural community like that in the Shanksville area is something I find entirely without merit, and invalid from the start.:mad:

But it's ok to doubt all the before hand witnesses, gotcha.......

[quixotecoyote]

<checks>

Nope no interviews yet.

Just more hot air.

[LashL]

Oh no, I absolutely will. And I will do the same for other people I know who participated in different area's that Mark didn't name as well.

For the record, it is now November 14, 2007.

When will you post this evidence that you claim to have? Please be specific, as your claims have long grown stale without any evidence in support whatsoever.

[uk_dave]

So instead of discussing the real subject matter of this eyewitnesses testimony Mark belittles her intelligence by calling her "confused" as if this special needs teacher is some delusional senial dingbat.


You don't think the quote Gravy posted, together with other features of her story, indicate that she is indeed rather confused about the events of that day? Seriously?

She doesn't know what type of 'plane' it was that she saw, but she knows it crashed, though she didn't see it crash, but she knows it was there to destroy what had crashed and she knows it was too small to be a passenger jet because it was only as wide as her van and she didn't hear it fly over, but after it crashed silently into the woods she ran to a neighbors house to report an airplane crash, though she knows it was there to destroy....something.

And you don't consider that to be a confused account?

Also, much as her work as a special needs teacher is no doubt difficult and laudable, somehow I don't think that part of her training includes the ability to judge the height of a fast moving flying object of indeterminate size.

Therefore, her account of a small (no wider than her van), low flying (but silent) aircraft which causes no disturbance to nearby trees as it passes within feet of their tops, is founded more upon her inability to make those accurate assessments of height and size, together with her willingness to be guided by those she has come into contact with who have their own agendas at work, than with the reality of what happened on that day.

[Norseman]

After I yesterday watched both the short and the uncut version of the interview with Susan McElwain it is very evident that what she saw was Flight 93. And A W Smith has given a perfectly reasonable explanation why it confused her in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3148732#post3148732

It is also a possibility that the first thing that caught here attention and caused here to instinctively dive for cover was strong sun reflections from Flight 93, hitting here windshield. When she looks up again she sees Flight 93 above the trees in front over, thinking that it must have passed above her car.

The effect of reflections could have been amplified by a dusty or scratchy windshield like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/notmail/97259797/.
I do not know if this was the case, but dust is a possibility since it was a sunny day in a rural area.

There is no need to jump to stories without logic about UAV's or missiles to explain what she saw, when there are perfectly reasonable explanations telling us that it was Flight 93.

[TC329]

After I yesterday watched both the short and the uncut version of the interview with Susan McElwain it is very evident that what she saw was Flight 93. And A W Smith has given a perfectly reasonable explanation why it confused her in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3148732#post3148732

It is also a possibility that the first thing that caught here attention and caused here to instinctively dive for cover was strong sun reflections from Flight 93, hitting here windshield. When she looks up again she sees Flight 93 above the trees in front over, thinking that it must have passed above her car.

The effect of reflections could have been amplified by a dusty or scratchy windshield like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/notmail/97259797/.
I do not know if this was the case, but dust is a possibility since it was a sunny day in a rural area.

There is no need to jump to stories without logic about UAV's or missiles to explain what she saw, when there are perfectly reasonable explanations telling us that it was Flight 93.


Now maybe you can all explain how the following people saw UA93 and confused it for a small white plane like Susan did :

Lee Purbaugh
Dennis Decker
Rick Chaney
John Fleegle
Jim Brandt
Carol Delasko
Tim Lenbourer
Susan Custer
Robin Duppstadt

Perhaps there was some sort of windshield and shady trees in front of them creating an optical illusion as well?

[chillzero]

Please note that this thread was created for negotiating a debate, and not for debating the issue itself.

[A W Smith]

What did McElwain mean by this? So it cleared those trees. To my knowledge, it just seems to me, had to be below the power lines. It came in, swooped up, cleared those trees, it was fall, so it was full of leaves. No leaves moved on the trees. Nothing fell. Cause I kept thinking, you know, there should be, like a disturbance

Did she mean that what ever she saw caused no leaf drop?
In September (http://www.foliagenetwork.com/reports/northeast_us/archive/2001/report3_sept_12_2001_ne_us.php)???

[uk_dave]

What did McElwain mean by this?

Did she mean that what ever she saw caused no leaf drop?
In September (http://www.foliagenetwork.com/reports/northeast_us/archive/2001/report3_sept_12_2001_ne_us.php)???

She's conf(used)

[nicepants]

Looks like the whining has carried over to LCF as well. (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=19259)

Mark has the right to choose whom he wishes to debate, although I do think it would be entertaining to watch him tear another CTer's arguments to shreds.

I understand his policy about refusing to debate no-planers. If you only believe that 3 planes crashed that day, then you've got a long way to go before you'll get anywhere in a debate.

[Norseman]

Perhaps what she saw was a chicken hawk, not a magical plane.

And the Red-tail Hawk version is also issued in all white versions. (http://www.naturescapes.net/portfolios/displayimage.php?pos=-9235)

And they are big with a wingspan (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Red-tailed_Hawk_dtl.html) of 114-133 cm (45-52 in). They can go fast with a flight speed (http://www.hangingrocktower.org/birds/red-tailedhawk.htm) of 20 to 40 MPH, can reach 120 MPH in dive. White versions is in fact quit common, here (http://gorp.away.com/gorp/activity/birding/expert/exp010425.htm) and here (http://www.diversityinutah.com/albino1.html).

Make sure that you to take a look at the picture of a Red-tail Hawk flying below a large two-engined airliner at the bottom of this page (http://jim-frizzell.com/2007_red_tail_hawk_on_the_wing.htm).

With fins deployed (http://www.iwishicouldfly.com/iwishicouldfly/temp/rtail_rwbb3.jpg).

Enjoy the pictures in the links above, I did when I read up on this, then go back and reread Gravy's transcript (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3152317#post3152317) of the interviews with Susan McElwain, then judge for yourself.

I took a closer look at this idea just to leave no stone unturned, and honestly found it to be a good fit. One of the odd coincidences of life, but life is full of coincidences. And it is far more likely than the odds that some suicidal terrorists decides to terminate the flight of their hijacked airliner in your backyard. Maybe she only saw the hawk that dived past her windshield and disappeared above the tree line in a flash before she could comprehend what happened, then she sees the smoke plume of flight 93 and connects the dots. Or maybe she first saw the hawk and ducked, then when she looked out again she saw Flight 93 above the tree line far away, the hawk gone behind the tree line. Thats it as far as I am concerned.

[anticonspiracy911]

TC, you spend more time whining on here rather than posting these interviews. If you have evidence then post it already. Is that so hard for you to do?

[Gravy]

TC, you spend more time whining on here rather than posting these interviews. If you have evidence then post it already. Is that so hard for you to do?He has no evidence to post, and never will. In over a year his entire investigative work is one interview with a very confused person. Can the revolution be far off?

[anticonspiracy911]

He has no evidence to post, and never will. In over a year his entire investigative work is one interview with a very confused person. Can the revolution be far off?

It's just more passive-aggressive ******** on the part of the truthers. You owned him Gravy, and he knows it.

[T.A.M.]

Seems like DRG and Monbiot will duke it out (or did). Funny he still won't take on Mark Roberts...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12244

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

oops, looks like it "didnt happen" again.

http://www.911blogger.com/

DRG, who will you debate?

TAM:)