It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:04 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: funbox

More nose down. They went on their back, and pointed the nose to about a 95 degree angle or so. Almost completely vertical to the ground.

Zaphod58, do you remember the posted earliest color photos of the inside of that Flight 93 crater's soil imprint, with the untouched grass still growing green on the slopes of that crater?
I believe we can find those in the longest ever thread on ATS by CatHerder. Or look up the photos from Killtown his site on the web.
After 13.5 years I also came to the conclusion that that plane could have burried itself inside the northern border of that loosely refilled soil, inside that former huge and circa 30 meters deep open-mining pit in Pennsylvania.

However, there is still no explanation at all by the military or agencies, of the sighting of that small white "plastic molded" drone (about 3 meter wingspan) by Susan McElwain, the woman in her car near the 93 crash site, while stopping at the crossroad south of Flight 93 its impact point. That drone flew only a few meters above her car roof, coming from behind her, then hopped over the tree line in front of her, out of sight, in the direction of the impact crater. And after she turned right on that right side road, the smoke column arose above that tree line, now on her left side.
In any European country, this statement would have been followed by long inquiries.
Not in the USA.
She phoned the FBI, got an evening home visit by 2 FBI men, who left after she asked them one key logical question, they could not answer.
She never heard from them anymore, nor any news agency, only Domenick DiMaggio and his independent journalist friend Sam Ettaro came to interview her on the same crossroads :

Perhaps, as in the opening post of this thread proposed, that drone was loaded with explosives and launched itself into a prepared plane-parts deposititory in that loose soil.
After that, it's all just a case of cordonning off the place a.s.a.p., to then roll in your own "investigation" teams. One of many possible scenarios, of course. A tad bit far off, I admit, but in the world of NSA and CIA etc, not non-feasible at all. Local law has to bow out when the Feds or Agencies throw their weight in.
And we, the OS-doubters, all think something really stinks to heaven with all what happened on 9/11. And after 13.5 years, we still do think so.

I strongly advice all OS-doubters and especially trusters to read first all my posts in this following page seven, to get a grip on all the utterly strange aerial events unfolding far around that 93 crash crater :

Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor.

Especially this post about Susan McElwain.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:06 PM

Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor.

And then we have the sighting by the two older sisters, one of them Viola Saylor, only a few miles north from the later impact crater, from their house its backdoor, of Flight 93 flying at tree top level (30 meters) above the maple trees in their back garden, coming straight over their house its roof, in the direction of the later impact crater. Which is not at all in comparison with the deducted height of that plane at that spot, from its recovered FDR (about 1500 meters high in the FDR above her house). (FDR = FlightDataRecorder).

I have deciphered the 93 FDR at the point above Viola's house, and it flew according to that FDR at 1487 meters (4,878 feet). Not at all at about 50 meters high, as Viola and her sister remembered it.

You know of course that if Viola and her sister are right, there must have been two wide-body planes flying above their house, or that FDR is falsified.
Just view that interview with Viola Saylor, if you have ever seen a honest, no nonsense 'settler mom' type before, you know this is one too.
The same goes for Susan McElwain. Honest, down to earth people live there.

And this one awfully looks like she describes a E-4B "Doomsday" plane, which we know now, three of four of them flew around on 9/11 :

Then Viola went to her porch, about 5 to 10 minutes later, and sees a new plane coming to her, but now from the side of the crash crater, the south side. This plane was "bigger, white, with two kinds of eyeballs on top of this plane" and flying medium low. The fact that she described it as bigger as 93 and military-like with swept-back wings is amazing. It will be difficult to find a picture of such kind of plane which she could recognize. If we find one she does recognize, that will be an interesting day.

SEARCH ATS is now the magnifier glass logo at the top right of the ATS window.
It used to be the text logo [SEARCH], quite easier to find, for sure.
It does not show a text under it when hovering over the magnifier glass logo at the right screen top, you have to look at the left bottom to see its linked text label, in Firefox.
I posted extensively about these two interviews by Domenick DiMaggio and his friend Ettaro in the above linked thread. Find many more (3 pages) of my posts about Flight 93 by using these two Search function terms in ATS : LaBTop Susan
Or use all the names I gave you.

edit on 18/2/15 by LaBTop because: Not about 1800 meters above her house, but about 1500 meters !

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:08 PM
9/11 : FLIGHT 93 SHANKSVILLE FLYOVER INDIAN LAKE (with Viola Saylor and Susan McElrain and a few more).

List of 13 Videos about 9/11 Shanksville and Fl.93 by Domenick DiMaggio, a.k.a. Terrorcell2.

9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain.

These are the youngest videos :
Susan McElwain on Shanksville Lie on 9/11 (1 year ago).

9/11 - Flight 93 Eyewitness Susan McElwain Saw A Smaller Jet Moments Earlier In The Same Area (3 years ago).

United Flight 93 Small White Drone.
Pause the video at every text-over especially the last few ones.! The author claims falsified "recovered" drivers licenses from Ceecee Liles, flight attendant, and from other "passengers", shown in the Moussasoui trial, the only official 9/11 trial ever. He shows what is wrong with these "recoveries", and that looks convincing.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:18 PM

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: rebelv

I myself have for many years now come to a tentative
conclusion that the planes were swapped. It just made sense
all four planes (from my understanding) went below RADAR
for a number of minutes before reappearing above RADAR
with their transponders no longer working.

But you can't explain why all the serial numbers for all the parts match the original planes.

You do realize that each part in each aircraft has it's own serial number ?

Yes, I understand airplanes have serial numbers,
just like I understand that airplanes had cell towers
back on 9-11.

Rebel 5

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:41 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Leaving out the reliability of eyewitnesses, that description doesn't male sense for an E-4. The SATCOM antenna is small and sits on top just behind the cockpit. And there's only one.

I don't even know what "two kinds of eyeballs" means. The only plane that even makes sense having anything easily seen on the top, from the ground is the E-3.

I haven't kept up with 93 recently, but going from that description I wouldn't leap to NAOC. AWACS was my first thought, and the grey paint would appear white in the sun from the ground.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:49 PM
a reply to: rebelv

SamKent, that's quite some big news for me.
Care to post the link to those serial numbers finds?

Because I thought we all agreed on one strange thing. We never got any serial number from original 9/11 crashed flight parts that were "recovered".
All I have ever seen was one small bit of plane-green painted wreckage, laying under a guard rail beside Washington Boulevard, with some scribblings on it that looked like a number. No one I know of, ever gave a clue if that number fitted to the Fl. 77 flight-parts history.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod58, you must not take it literally, like two eyeballs in a face, on a horizontal plain.
But as two eyeballs stacked on top of each other, first a bigger one, than a small one, exactly like the E-4B, which is a rebuild 747, with its standard first class passengers hump on the top.
And then another smaller hump on the back of that original 747 hump, which is its hidden antenna dome.
The Doomsday planes were totally white in 2001.

I posted three pictures of them, parked on the tarmac, in that thread I linked to. I will post them for you.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:25 PM
Zaphod58, here first some models of types of planes that Susan McElwain could have seen flying right over her stopped van, south of the 93 crash site, just less than a minute before the smoke began to rise behind the tree line which that strange drone , not bigger than her own van, flew just over, right in front of her eyes.

A very new drone from around 2001 and later :

The white 1947 Bernouilli fighter, but then build smaller, like a modern drone :

And here are the three still visible online E-4B photos, you see the cockpit windows and the black front of the antenna hump? Two stacked eyeballs. In this post :

I am sure Viola Saylor described that white E-4B Doomsday plane as the second plane, but that one was coming from the crash site, but much higher than 93, which she saw just a few feet over her maple trees, 2 to 3 minutes earlier, going to the crash site.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:35 PM
ATS should ban from this day on, all derogatory names-calling in this 9/11 forum, except these two terms :

OS-truster and OS-doubter.

(OS = Official Story)

I believe they already tried that one time, but they loosened up on it again.
Those two terms have no intentional smear loads upon them, and are the most neutral description for most members here, I can think of.

The following two links to posts of a OS-d and an OS-t show quite good, their respective mindsets.
And if you read between the lines, both express a quest for confidence in a really honest government, and both know deep down, that in fact it is asking for a miracle :
humanityrising, OS-d.
AgentSmith, OS-t.

AgentSmith, we know each other from long time, and we respected each other. You sound awfully bitter last times.
You should change that attitude and switch to these neutral descriptions of your fellow CONCERNED members. On both sides of the debates.
Take an example to Zaphod58, who really keeps his posts as neutral minded as possible since he is a mod, and it gives them a lot more punch, more then all the derogatory posts in this thread by other members on both sides.
Let's return to posting with decorum.

And listen to the logic from both sides, and follow and read each others links, like we used to do.
I got convinced by OS-t posts in the past, that some of their arguments were indeed right, and I was wrong, and I admitted it here. The problem is, I only saw Zaphod58 do the same lately.
I saw none of you other OS-t'ers do the same, when confronted with irrefutable facts and evidence. I admit I do not read all threads and posts anymore, I got far too old and tired of the endless repeats.
This board is stuck full of impressive threads and posts, and you can find a lot of them back by cleverly use of the Search function, which is by the way the magnifier glass logo at the right top of your ATS screen.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:44 PM
Well, old names rise again.

I advice my fellow OS-doubter members, to read the three Charles M. Beck papers, and all the others I put in my "Three WTC collapses on 9/11" depository, all solidly based on math and engineering principles.
The last one on page 1, and the top two on page 2 are the three Charles M. Beck papers about the impossible "natural" Twin Tower collapses.

From there, we can proceed further in a constructive manner, without lowering ourselves to name-calling and derogatory comments.
I also advice all of them to read and reread, and follow all links in my 4 Signature links at the bottom of all my posts, especially the ANALYSIS one, since that is the latest one with the youngest information, including the Beck papers discussions. Which were abandoned by my opponents.

And to visit this Top Documentaries Video site with over 3000 documentaries :

48 Top 9/11 documentary films in one place, and 3032 films in other categories (f.ex. 133 in Conspiracies).

My six 9/11 preferences out of 48, in random order :

9/11 Conspiracy Solved :

9/11 Eyewitness :

9/11 Mysteries :

9/11 Revisited, Were Explosives Used? :

War and Globalization: The Truth Behind 9/11.
Lecture by Michel Chossudovsky :

Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11 by Barrie Zwicker from SnowshoeFilms :
(click on Play All, then it plays all four 9:56 parts, in total about 38 minutes long)

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:49 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

I know what NAOC is and looks like. I've handled them and been on them. I probably know more about them than just about anyone but the people assigned to them. The smaller piece on top of the upper deck is the SATCOM antenna.

From the ground without binoculars or something to get a better look you won't see the SATCOM.

Even if it was NAOC, being over Pennsylvania doesn't mean anything.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:04 PM
Verinage Compilation - Explosive-less Demolition

This is exactly like how the demolition initiation of the North Tower started, but then started by explosive charges instead of cables pulling from the side. As you can read in the last circa 10 pages of my signature link thread : ANALYSIS.

First the floors above the highest plane impacted floor collapsed after its exterior bulged inwards.
Which means that all composite floors were still firmly connected to that outer shell and pulled them inwards when the outer-core columns were getting cut by explosives.
Then first those upper 7 or 8 floors plus the hat truss collapsed, and only then the next 7 to 8 floors also collapsed.
But all the non-plane impacted floors under them did not move at all.
Only when the collapse front reached the lowest plane impacted floor, began the real big explosions, probably done by thermobaric bombs that easily will literally blow up floors, up and downwards, while spitting out huge clouds of white smoke, every few floors.
See my ANALYSIS link last few pages. VVVVVV for much more in-dept posts on the subject.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:29 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LaBTop

I know what NAOC is and looks like. I've handled them and been on them. I probably know more about them than just about anyone but the people assigned to them. The smaller piece on top of the upper deck is the SATCOM antenna.

From the ground without binoculars or something to get a better look you won't see the SATCOM.

Even if it was NAOC, being over Pennsylvania doesn't mean anything.

We could quite clearly see the two "eyes" on top of it in the sky above the restricted area in Washington just north of the Pentagon, because it was photographed from its side. I assume Viola Saylor also saw it from its side.

Being over Pennsylvania means to me a lot, especially in combination with Susan McElwain's encounter with that small white drone. I know that NOAC could be fitted with these drones in emergency situations. Also the C-130, the one that flew over the Pentagon and also was about 3 miles from Shanksville and Lambertsville when 93 came down.
They both could have launched that small white drone when they were still airborne.
I do strongly believe in Susan her story about that white drone, and that fact alone implicates foreknowledge from one or even more parties, the military or some local or foreign agencies, of the exact spot where they would find a crater.
Or even created one themselves.

And don't forget the abnormal low sightings of Viola Saylor, Mr Petersen, both in Lambertsville 1.8 km from the crater, and the same low sightings from the four newspaper named witnesses. They all saw that plane in that same close vicinity from its crash site, which is in total disagreement with the FDR heights for that last piece of 93 its trajectory.
The FDR places 93 at 1487 meters above Viola's house, while Viola and her sister, mr Peterson and another Lambertsville witness who told the newspaper, all saw it fly at about 100 feet high above Lambertsville.

Something stinks to high heaven with either the FDR or the witnesses.
I trust witnesses when asked very basic questions. Like : did that plane you saw, fly at 100 feet, 30 meters high, or at 1500 meters high? All said about 100 feet which is 30 meters high.
You cannot mistake a plane flying at 30 meters for a plane flying at 1500 meters. At that height it looks like a finger long, while at 30 meters it looks really, really HUGE, you'll never forget that low sight of such a huge plane.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:40 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

NAOC couldn't have launched anything. The only way it could would be to carry it on a hard point that it doesn't have. Other than extra antennas and modified engines externally it's identical to any other 747-200.

A C-130 could theoretically launch it from the aft cargo ramp, but realistically it's harder than just pushing it out the door and firing up the engine and flying it away.

There used to be a DC-130 that carried them on external hard points but they were retired prior to 2001.

Just looking at some of the witness statements of that day I'm more inclined to trust hard data than witnesses.
edit on 2/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:42 PM
Everything I posted about 93 fits perfectly in a scenario that includes the C-130 that first flew over the Pentagon just after 77 crashed into it, then it flew on towards Lambertsville where it steered also 93 with its build in remote steering software and hardware into the ground after hearing that the passengers were trying to break the cockpit door.
And that white E-4B flew at exactly the same places around and was probably monitoring the whole process with its very suitable capabilities. Perhaps as the backup system, or just monitoring for the sickos who ordered this all.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:42 PM

originally posted by: LaBTop
I know that NOAC could be fitted with these drones in emergency situations. Also the C-130, the one that flew over the Pentagon and also was about 3 miles from Shanksville and Lambertsville when 93 came down.
They both could have launched that small white drone when they were still airborne.

What a load of rubbish, care to show us where the NOAC could carry and launch drones?

It is so funny how more and more silly stories about 9/11 are being made up by truthers, now we have aircraft launching drones, or drones being attached and launched on planes that never carried them before.... all because they refuse to accept the facts of what actually happened.
edit on 18-2-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:45 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

What remote steering software and hardware. There's nothing showing any of the aircraft had any kind of modification like that, including the -130, that would need a pod installed with the control gear.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:49 PM
A reply to: Zaphod58

I personally also believe more in a ground based launch of this little white drone, for a few reasons.
It would be much easier from f.ex. the deserted airfield at the north side of that lake southeast of the crater.
Or from a car mounted construction.
Both scenarios still implicate that surely there was foreknowledge in military or agencies circles.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 08:12 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LaBTop

What remote steering software and hardware. There's nothing showing any of the aircraft had any kind of modification like that, including the -130, that would need a pod installed with the control gear.

That C-130 could have been the Electronic-version, who had such pods installed at the back sides in front of the tail section.
And all your secret sites like Area 51, Skunk Works, all those secretive institutions that only work on the latest developments, they all are capable of constructing totally different remote controlled systems, that can be placed in swapped or real planes on a minutes notice, when the hardware has already been put in place before hand.
We are talking here about the biggest false flag operation in history. Then such a small hurdle will have been easily taken swiftly. You must not think in known to you, standard systems, but in more modern, sophisticated hidden systems, exactly for such a false flag purpose.

I still find it strange that the existence of that plane was kept secret until much later photos and a video were posted that showed it in the air above the Pentagon. Enough time to swap the E-version again for the standard version and fly the E-version back to its home base.
Those FDR's from 77 and 93 were extensively debated on the web, and the last 3 minutes of the voice recorder of 93 showed only wind noise, no hammering on the cockpit door. How can a cockpit window burst 3 minutes before impact?
Read my links above about 93, there is it explained in much more detail.
Those missing last 3 minutes are very telling. Radar, FAA, seismic stations, all clock 93 crash at 10:06.
Only the FDR clocked it at 10:03.

I gave you enough to read, sleep well for now.

posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 08:37 PM
a reply to: LaBTop "That" C-130 belonged to the Minnesota Air National Guard. It was a normal C-130, no special electronics on board

new topics

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in