FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

I have to admit I had a heard time getting passed the first couple of pages due to the alarming amount of disinfo being sprouted from both sides of the fence. Although I have been hesitant to interact on these forums due to many negative things said about it, I'm going to attempt to engage in a real Shanksville/Flight 93 discussion.

First I highly recommend you watch the following presentations to catch you up to date on any information you are unaware of and we'll take it from there.

YouTube Link

Uncut Interview with eyewitness Susan McElwain

YouTube Link

Pandora's Black Box Chapter III : Flight of United 93

YouTube Link

Reichstag 911 : Shanksville Part I

YouTube Link

Reichstag 911 : Shanksville Part II

reply to post by Boone 870

---

I thank you for your integrity. However, without a direct retraction the story stands as published both officially and as it pertains to my own personal opinion.

Five years after the fact, the BBC made an insignificant change, basically saying that they couldn't be sure of the guy's real name but that he was "called Walled Al Shehri." They did not change the photo, and further stated in this follow-up,"The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive..."

reply to post by Boone 870

---

I fail to see this as evidence of anything.There is no corrected list, or evidence corroborating the original identification of the supposed hijackers. Mueller stating that the questions have been answered does is not an anwer. Are we supposed to take at face value, at this point, that they "definitely know" who the hijackers were?

Given the state of our "surveillance society" there should be videotape of these guys buying tickets, renting cars, renting a roomm, buying boxcutters at the nearest Home Depot, getting a slurpee and some beef jerky at the gas-n-go, etc. But there is nothing. Not one good picture.

This reminds me of one video that was out there for a while of a "hijacker" at Logan. I think it might have been Mohammed Atta, im not sure. The FBI said it was proof he was on the plane, but failed to notice the time-stamp on the airport surveillance tape actually proved that the plane had already taken off without him.

reply to post by jackinthebox

---

Is it not commendable that they left the story as it was originally posted instead of removing it completely?

Can you imagine the allegations if they would have removed it?

Ziad Jarrah was not a hijacker. There is no evidence to support this claim except a letter the FBI is in possession of but has never released. They gained possession of this allegedly because Ziad did not know his girlfriend of 5 years address.

Ziad's family has demanded in the media to be shown the evidence supporting the US Government against him and claimed the letter to be a fake. The US Government has released absolutely no evidence to date that shows Ziad Jarrah was a hijacker.

reply to post by jackinthebox

---

The Saudi government later acknowledged that the identification of the hijackers was correct.

Two of the hijackers were shown on an ATM video the night before. I believe it was Atta and al-Shehhi.

The FBI later confirmed all the hijackers names with photos during the Zacharias Moussaoui Trial.

reply to post by Terrorcell

---

Do you have a link?

BBC : Family of hijacker protests innocence

There's more if you research it.

YouTube Link

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Terrorcell]

reply to post by Terrorcell

---

I have just finished watching the first video you presented, and extend my thanks to you. This is obviously a very important piece...that you'll never see aired on the networks.

After seeing her interview I am of the opinion that what she saw may have been a UAV, packed with explosives and possibly some debris. Plain white would actually be an excellent camoflage choice for a clear day in civilian skies. Something that wouldn't attract attention. The fact that she didn't hear anything also leads me to believe that it was a drone. Propeller driven craft can run virtually silent with modern craftmanship. The A-10 mentioned in the end, certainly does not fit on the category of noiseless. This I can state first hand. They are loud.

reply to post by Boone 870

---

Why would they remove a legitimate story? Of course there would be an outcry. It would clearly be a coverup to remove facts from public record.

reply to post by Boone 870

---

That's like asking a mob boss, "who sent the hitman?"



This is quite possible. I have no overall prevailing theory on the events of 9/11, other than we are being lied to. I would not doubt that they were indeed in this country, if you could provide a link to those images. If not, it is still something I am still willing to take into consideration as a possibility.



The FBI later confirmed that they are lieing it seems to me. Comfirming that they have not changed their story is not evidence.

After I interviewed Susan and a buzz was generated over it and what she had said to me the History Channel went and found her and included her in their "debunking" hit piece that aired a few months ago. They completely took what she was saying out of complex as evident in my full uncut interview. Naturally the History Channel won't allow anyone to see their unedited uncut interview with her.



She definitely saw a UAV. I have confirmed this independently with other eyewitnesses who have agreed to be interviewed on film and some only willing to discuss it in private. No one saw it litter any debris and most of the eyewitnesses only saw it after the explosion. Susan and eyewitnesses South of the explosion saw it before, those at the crater and North only saw it afterwards.

All confirm it was "eerily" silent and way too small to accommodate a human being. It then pretty much shot up into the air flying directly towards the sun in order to keep witnesses from looking at it any longer.

I brought up the A10 because when originally going there I decided to bring the pic because of articles from Bollyn and American Free Press I believed it was the type of plane witnessed. If Bollyn spoke to the people he claims in his articles then he is deliberately spreading disinformation.

There were 3 crash sites. Shanksville, Indian Lake, & New Baltimore. FBI check points were set up at each location and the entire town of New Baltimore was sealed off. One resident even relayed a message to me about the DEP going into New Baltimore in October to "clean the woods" because the stench of the blood was still so thick that it was drawing in all the Pennsylvania black bear. Now that's only hearsay but just something interesting when taking into all the other info regarding New Baltimore.

The local media even initially confirmed reports that human remains were recovered from Indian Lake and Wally Miller disclosed having to document the "scene" there in a phone conversation with Jeff Hill which is up on pumpitout.org. Why would the coroner be photographing Indian Lake?

reply to post by Terrorcell

---

Also regarding the first video...

...why did the Federal Park Service have an interest in her story? I have heard fleeting rumors in the past few years about a growing influence of that organization. I usually equated it to drug interdiction, particularly in California, but now I am starting to wonder if there is more to it.

Submitted for consideration :


Houston 2



Truth News




Such aircraft are easily militarized.

reply to post by Terrorcell

---

I didn't see any demands from his family asking the media to prove it was him.

His uncle, the one he lived with in Germany, doesn't believe it. The rest of his family, in Lebanon, believed he was on flight 93 but not the pilot.

Apparently, he had asked them to send him an extra $700 in the weeks leading up to 9/11 for extra spending money "to go to California, possibly with friends." Kind of strange that he was on an airplane headed to California with friends on September 11.

Would it be beyond reason to believe that he lied to his family? Besides that, he was in a video with Atta and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and at a wedding with Atta. He attended mosque with Atta in Hamburg.

PDF of the letter that the FBI is in possession of but has never released.

Article with California quote.

They own the "Memorial" now. The 9/11 Disneyland the majority of the locals oppose.

Is there any confirmation from family members or other things allegedly written by Ziad for handwriting comparisons?

Why would Ziad buy a suit for his sisters wedding which takes place weeks after 9/11 if he planned on killing himself and becoming a martyr for Mohammed?

Why would he do something to cast doubt on his involvement in something considered to be an honor among extremists?

reply to post by jackinthebox

---

cooperativeresearch.org

reply to post by Terrorcell

---

I don't know. Couldn't the (insert nefarious NWO type agency here) match his handwriting anyway?

Did he actually buy the suit? Did he lie to his family again? Surely not.

His family wasn't extremist. His family sent him to a Catholic school when he was young. That's why it was hard for them to believe he was involved in it.

After watching the second video presented by "Terrorcell" I have had some new thoughts. (Thanks again Terrorcell.)

What if a drone was in the area, but not actually what cause the explosion? Perhaps it was there "coincidentally" or merely as surveillance for purposes that we cannot yet calculate.

At least three seperate witnesses, reporting inbound aircraft from three different directions. Maybe there actually were three different aircraft. Let's say, a UAV, and two fighter jets. The lights flickering up at the scrapyard suggest that ordinance was deployed. What if it was a jet fighter that was shot down and crashed there in Shanksville? I can't really say why yet, but it seems to jive with the evidence a bit better than the "official" version anyway. The broken (unburned trees) suggest a smaller craft may have descended through them, instead of being caused by the impact blast. The smoke plume is more characteristic of a jet fighter craft low on fuel, than of a well-fueled airliner. (See footage of airshow accidents.) This could also account for a lack of bodies on the scene. The pilot may have ejected, or perhaps a single body was indeed recovered. There is also mention elsewhere on this thread, of an engine being recovered from the site, but a second one missing. Could that engine have actually been a Pratt & Whitney turbofan engine, or even a GE? These are standard engines used by a highly popular lightweight multirole fighter, the F-16. I believe F-16's were indeed scrambled on 9/11.

As I said, I don't know how this would play out in an actual full hypothesis, but these are just thoughts I've had viewing the evidence. Why would the Airforce shoot down one of its own planes? Could it have even been an accident that was capitalized on by 9/11 conspirators?

Did flight 93 have enough fuel for a transatlantic flight?