SHOCKING VIDEO: Flight 93 Eyewitness says No BOEING 757 crashed in Shanksville on 9/11

This video is of an eyewitness named Susan. She is a brave woman who on many interviews has not strayed from what she saw or didn't see.
She claimes to have seen a 'Van-sized' flying craft that banked, went inverted and crashed in Shanksville and not Flight 93 the Boeing 757.


The crater in Shanksville corroberates with her story of something very small like a missile.

Here is something like what she describes.
here is the alleged flight 93 crash site

NOTE: Be aware of trolling of this thread by throatyogurt, boone, Seymore Butts ,thedman etc. They will come on after this post and say and ask stupid questions and statements in attempt to derail and obsefucate the truth in hopes that people will not learn the truth that no plane crashed in Shanksville.


[edit on 13-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 13-7-2008 by IvanZana]

The eyewitness clip is from the documentary " The Road to Shanksville"

Google Video Link

The Video asks, did flight 93 crash in Shanksville on 911?

reply to post by IvanZana


Pretty big hole for a "VAN SIZED" missile. Don't ya think?

[edit on 13-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by IvanZana

 

Pretty big hole for a "VAN SIZED" missile. Don't ya think?

[edit on 13-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Now you can imagine how stupid the idea of a fully fueled commercial Beoing 757 making that tiny hole.







Thanks for proving that Flight 93 did not crash in SHanksville on 911.



[edit on 13-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by IvanZana


Actually,
I am waiting for you to respond with some facts that back up your statement about professionals all agreeing that there was not a plane crash at Shanksville.

(don't play dumb I know you have read my responses.)

That road to Shanksville documentary is an eye opener. There are many witnesses around the crash site that saw fighter jets and other unidentified smaller craft before and after the crash.

reply to post by IvanZana


And many saw a plane crash.

Thanks for sharing.

I've read the eye-witness testimonies, and they're not worth the tape/paper/whatever they were recorded on.

One description goes to the effect of the aircraft flew along slowly, rolled inverted, stalled and crashed. If it stalled, it sure as hell couldn't be doing 530 MPH on impact!!

Even you can't deny how stupid that is.

A missile can blow quite a nice crater, and if it was a JSOW, it would bury itself before exploding anyway.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Eye witnesses are often unreliable - thats why need to be backed up
with hard evidence. If it was a missile explain how 60 tons of
parts from B 757 got there and how the first responders saw the
ground littered with debris from aircraft. Or the human remains
recovered - missiles don't have seats for passengers. Or the FDR
recording United 93 as being rolled over, nose down at 500 knots.

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Blair, of Stoystown, a driver with Jim Barron Trucking of Somerset, was traveling in a coal truck along with Doug Miller of Somerset, when they saw the plane spiraling to the ground and then explode on the outskirts of Lambertsville.

“I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene,” said Blair.

"It was low enough, I thought you could probably count the rivets. You could see more of the roof of the plane than you could the belly. It was on its side. There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud."

Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Peterson rushed to the scene on an all-terrain vehicle and when he arrived he saw bits and pieces of an airliner spread over a large area of an abandoned strip-mine in Stonycreek Township.

"There was a crater in the ground that was really burning," Peterson said. Strewn about were pieces of clothing hanging from trees and parts of the Boeing 757, but nothing bigger than a couple of feet long, he said. Many of the items were burning.

Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'"

Conspiracy kooks like to home in on those "witnesses" whose
stories can be twisted to confirm their fantasies while ignoring all
other evidence.

Originally posted by thedman
missiles don't have seats for passengers.

Your so right!!!

Thats why its no suprise they found none in the shanksville pseudo crash site.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by thedman

Care to show me anyone that actually used the scientific method to determine that flight 93 crashed in shanksville?

Theres a little experiment they do in psycology class and sometimes in the corporate world. They pull someone from the class at the begining and see how many people are able to identify what they were wearing. Usually half the people are incorrect.

You can't 'debunk' something with character assassination. Its a common logical fallacy. I'm not saying one or more of the witnesses can't be mistaken, I'm saying that using this method to disprove something that hasn't been proven with the scientific method is also armchair forensics.

See - this kind of inconsistency appears all the time:

Bob Blair was completing a routine drive to Shade Creek just after 10 a.m. Tuesday, when he saw a huge silver plane fly past him just above the treetops and crash into the woods along Lambertsville Road.

Here's a few things the official story suggests Flight 93 was doing in it's last few seconds:

* It was flying at 530 MPH
* It was rolled inverted
* It was pitched at 40° nose-down attitude
* It was flying at 530 MPH.

For it to fly "just above the treetops" suggests it was rolled inverted, but in level flight. Do you know how difficult that actually is if it isn't trimmed out?

I highlighted the part about its alleged speed (530 MPH). That's fast. You're getting close to supersonic (I think I figured something like Mach 0.85 or so).

Here is something else that is little-known outside aviation: there is a thing called control reversal. Fly an aircraft fast enough, and typically the ailerons work in the opposite sense. You roll right, the aircraft rolls left, and vice-versa.

Controls also become ineffective. The faster you go, the less movement you can make with the control surfaces before they stall.

A lot of these witnesses have the aircraft doing things it wouldn't be capable of doing in the time they suggest it did them in.

IMHO the aircraft would be rolled inverted and heading towards 40° nose-down attitude from as high as 7,000 ft AGL. It wouldn't be flying over anything - it would be a lawn dart, aiming straight at the earth.

At 530 MPH, aiming at 40° nose-down, you'd easily have a descent rate in excess of 10,000 ft/min. From my supposed 7,000 ft, that is less than 45 seconds to impact.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
One description goes to the effect of the aircraft flew along slowly, rolled inverted, stalled and crashed. If it stalled, it sure as hell couldn't be doing 530 MPH on impact!!

Even you can't deny how stupid that is.

I beg to differ. Airspeed is irrelevant to stalling. You can be going incredibly fast, but have too high of an AoA and still stall. TYPICALLY stalls are caused by low speeds and high AoA, but they can occur at any airspeed, any altitude, and any angle.

True, but to the untrained observer, they'd assume it would have to be going slow (unless they got lucky and interviewed a pilot or someone who was well-informed). From the rest of the witness account, I'm inclined to think they were untrained.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by thedman


Witnesses are often unreliable, unless they go along with the government story on 9/11. Im sure you will discret Susan accounts on that day. But will take Bob Blair on his word.

Conspiracy Kooks! Why are you on a conspiracy website?

The guy near the end of the documentary who says that before the crash the lights flickered. He was told by a friend that i was indicitive of a military ordinance of some sort.

Originally posted by driveshaft08
reply to post by thedman

 

Witnesses are often unreliable, unless they go along with the government story on 9/11. Im sure you will discret Susan accounts on that day. But will take Bob Blair on his word.

Conspiracy Kooks! Why are you on a conspiracy website?

No doubt. They seem to cherry pick their witnesses. You then have to question if these wintesses are really witnesses or plants.

We are victorious over the government debunkers.

THey have failed to prove a plane crashed in Shanksville so in return 3-4 disinformation threads came out to burry the fact that no plane crashed in Shanksville on the other threads.

I know little about the shanksville crash. but I have a few questions. wouldn't the impact site of an aircraft screaming along at tree top sevels leave a long smeared out sorta debris and crash site.

The picture looks like something lawndarted. but at the same time there is a debris field a mile long, but trees in the way of some of the debris indicating that the plane didn't plow through a mile of forest and meadow. wouldn't the aircraft had to have been breaking up in the air for that to happen.

Also if the plane lawn darted than why would the debris field have been stretched out for a mile in the direction it had come from. wouldn't the explosion blow the material in a roughly circular pattern favoring the forward momentum and inertia of the plane. how'd the debris get behind the plane if it hadn't been breaking up in the air.

a lot doesn't add up. A missile could have caused that impact crater in the picture or a plane going straight down. so what gives with the debris.

I am really confused

at the pentagon there was people saying they saw a big plane, other guy saw a small aircraft, and another one saw a helicopter..
eyewitnesses have said a lot of bs on 9/11 so im not gonna listen to them..
but hey, the pictures from Shanksville say enough..