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.


Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 09:32 PM

The only comment I can make about what she said is the "eyeball" plane maybe an A-10 only one I can think of off hand that has the engines above the plane. Sure there are more but I'm just not remembering them. I've never seen a white A-10 before but doesn't mean their isn't one maybe someone here has seen one or knows of a similar plane.

White plane was Falcon business jet owned by VF company which
makes North Face. Was heading into Johnstown when FAA controllers
alerted it to verify crash site. Was descending into Johnstown when
received call. Made pass over scene to verify Flight 93 was down

In fact, one of the planes, a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, was directed to the crash site to help rescuers. The request for the jet to fly low and obtain the coordinates for the crash explains reports by people in the vicinity who said a white or silver jet flew by moments after the crash.

A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed, FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said yesterday, but was not diverted.

"There was a hole in the ground -- that was it," said Yates Caldwell, the pilot who was at the controls of the 10-passenger corporate jet for Greensboro, N.C.-based apparel maker VF Corp. "There was no way to know what it was .... I didn't know there had been a crash until I landed, until I was on the ground in Johnstown."

Picture of Falcon jet

Notice it is white with rear mounted engines similar to A10 which also has
rear mounted engines

No mystery unless you are trying to distort things to fit your fantasy....

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 09:33 PM
Image of Falcon jet


posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 09:34 PM
Try this again

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:38 AM
LaBTop - great stuff!!!! sorry i haven't had time to respond i've been quite busy the past few days. i will dedicate time to give you the proper reply in the near future i promise. although i see without having any interaction you are coming to some of the same conclusions as i have. i actually think this may be better as it proves that i am not influencing your beliefs or thought process any and we are coming to similar conclusions.

thedman = there was no corporate jet in shanksville. i've spoken to susan, viola, rick chaney, bob blair, doug miller, and several other eyewitnesses.

witnesses to the little white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet.

witnesses to the big white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet.

both groups of witnesses also corroborate the claims that both white planes had a 'military' appearance.

i have made this offer to duh-bunkers on every forum even randi's sewer and not to you :

name 1 eyewitness who will confirm a corporate jet was either of these planes and i will make every attempt possible to contact them and document their account.

i've been doing this since the 5th anniversary.

to date i still have not met a single person.

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 10:47 PM

"There was a hole in the ground -- that was it," said Yates Caldwell, the pilot who was at the controls of the 10-passenger corporate jet for Greensboro, N.C.-based apparel maker VF Corp. "There was no way to know what it was .... I didn't know there had been a crash until I landed, until I was on the ground in Johnstown."

So we have a report by the pilot of the jet indicating what he saw

Problem is most people do not know one type of aircraft from another,
add in distance, speed and angle - details get blurred, depending on what
angle being viewwd a white aircraft can look black.

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by pinch
I don't have the time to listen to this dribble all the way through,

So what else is new pinch? You never listen to nor read any evidence all the way through do you? Your mind was made up for you a long time ago. I don't think anybody is interested in your knee-jerk opinions nor your extreme bias. Most people here at ATS are quite capable of making up their own minds without your help.

Why did you even bother commenting if you did not bother to watch the video? You added absolutely nothing to the conversation except your bias.

[edit on 12/24/08 by SPreston]

I think this post should be saved and brought out every time someone presents something that conflicts with your agenda...since it is perfect for you.

posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:45 PM
Another interview with Susan McElwain, where at the very end she says against FBI agents at her house on the evening of 9/11, about the presence of the white little drone flying in front of her van, then hopping over the tree line in front of her:
""When it was sent, why should it be taking pictures BEFORE the plane (93) went down?""

And a short video about a 1994 USGS (United States Geological Survey) aerial photo, where I took a screen shot from, then placed in, two possible flight 93 crash spots, much smaller in fact than the already long ago discussed and “debunked” second scars in this same type of 1994 screen shot-photo.

The mistake made by the poster at that time, was a scaling one. He thought that one of the bigger scars present in this aerial view from 1994 was the false preset scar, which was added with a circular bomb explosion crater in the middle of such a long scar, thus fabricating the phony flight 93 crash scar.
But those scars were at another spot, AND, the real much smaller ones in this video seem to be surely there already in 1994….!
See the two possible candidates in my 2 small yellow circles in this full screenshot from the above YouTube video:

Big map 1024x768 link:

Realize, that the flight 93 wings scar was imprinted perpendicular to that dirt road with that long ditch beside it, and the tree line on its other side. And that it nearly sure was set in the ground inside my little yellow drawn oval, just at the end of that whitish swallow ditch.
This is a video with some very early photos and video from the flight 93 impact crater:

The following videos describe the last moments of flight 93, according to NTSB data from the recovered flight 93 recordings, first you see my screenshot from the last second:

Link 1024x768 :

Notice early in the video already, when you see the name Stoystown printed on the map, that the flight height of the plane in the left bottom is noted as about 1200 meters, or about 3600 feet!
Thus that depicted flight 93, according to the NTSB data, could not have flown about 30 meter or 100 feet high above Viola’s backyard Oak tree in Lambertsville, which is very near to Stoystown, which lays just a bit north, in fact.

United Airlines flight 93 Google Earth animation, by CelestrinA.

NTSB UA93 flight animation on Google Earth by Killtown:

Volo 93 - Animazione NTSB (sintesi) 4a parte by antibufala:

And some more witnesses to the 93 crash :

Very early raw CNN footage, story changes several times:

[edit on 30/12/08 by LaBTop]

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 08:02 AM
I had a closer look at the last, Italian NTSB simulation.

I took that one, since it gave me the impression that it was as near to the official NTSB released data interpretation as possible.
At the end of the video you can read that the data were taken from the Moussasoui law suit proceedings.
So we may assume that these are the officially endorsed data sets from the flight 93 black box and radar returns data, given to the NTSB.

Let's look at the first lines on the screen at the beginning of that video.
It gives the overall height of the terrain towards the crash site at the beginning of this NTSB simulation as an average of 700 meters / 0.3048 = 2296 feet above sea level, let's round it off to 2300 feet.
Of course this is an approximation, so I decided to find the time of impact in the video, and read the altimeter.
The height above sea level at impact was 2182 feet (665 m), which is 0 feet (0 m) above the local ground level.
Time of impact was 10:03:07 and then all readings stayed the same for a few repeated clicks of my mouse on the forward animation/pause arrow, thus we may assume the readings of all the meters indicate the values at impact.
Because then the animation stopped and only text on a black background was shown after that in the video.

Knots Versus Miles per Hour:

Knots is how the speed of aircraft and boats is measured.
Both miles per hour and knots is a speed which is the number of units of distance that is covered for a certain amount of time.
1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 6076 feet per hour
1 mph =1 mile per hour = 5280 feet per hour

1 knot = 1 x (6076ft / 3600s in 1hr) = 1.687 feet per second
1 mph = 1 x (5280ft / 3600s in 1hr) = 1.466 feet per second

Readings on-screen at impact:

CAM: sound of loud air noise stops.
EDT = 10:03:07 (parts of seconds not available; 5:53 of 6:53 on video time-bar)
Air-Speed = 488 (knots)
Height above sea level = 2182 feet (665 m)
Plane is clearly still flying upside-down. Which synchronizes well with some of the eyewitness statements I linked to in my last post above.
We determined the distance from Viola's house to the crash site to be 1.72 miles.

Some speed and height values on the meter in the last 12 seconds before impact.
Speed is in knots, height is in feet above sea level, so we must subtract the average height of the terrain in the last 15 seconds, which is minimum 665 meters or minimum 2182 feet.
We start with the values read on-screen at 12 seconds before impact, I added the ft/ground values by subtracting 2182 feet from the ft/sea on-screen values :

10:02:55.....394 knots.....6210 ft/sea = 4028 ft/gr = 1227 m/ground
10:02:56.....396 knots.....6066 ft/sea = 3766 ft/gr = 1148 m/ground
10:02:57.....399 knots.....5950 ft/sea
10:02:58.....423 knots.....5760 ft/sea
10:02:59.....426 knots.....5556 ft/sea
10:03:00.....413 knots.....5341 ft/sea = 3159 ft/gr = 963 m/ground,
NTSB shows plane flipped upside-down for the first time at nearly 1 km high, 5 sec later than Viola has seen that plane flying very low over her house between 10:02:55 and :56.
10:03:01.....419 knots.....5123 ft/sea
10:03:02.....424 knots.....4818 ft/sea
10:03:03.....432 knots.....4430 ft/sea
10:03:04.....438 knots.....4019 ft/sea
10:03:05.....446 knots.....3642 ft/sea
10:03:06.....458 knots.....3148 ft/sea
10:03:07.....488 knots.....2182 ft/sea = 0 ft/gr = 0 m/ground, it hit the ground.

So lets take an average air speed in the last 3 seconds of 460 knots, since only the last 2 seconds indicate a sharp nose dive into the ground.
Military conversion calculators :
Knots to miles/hr :
Thus, 460 knots = 529.359 miles per hour.

460 knots = 460 x (6076ft / 3600s in 1hr) = 460 x 1.687 ft/s =
776 feet/second (x 0.3048 ft/m = 236.5 meters/second)

Important question:
How many seconds go by, when 1.72 miles are covered with an average speed of 460 knots?
And if we count these seconds back in the NTSB video, from the 10:03:07 time of impact, what altitude does the meter at that point in time from the simulation indicate?
Because that will be the altitude according to the flight 93 black box data delivered to the Moussasoui trial by the NTSB, which should indicate the height of the plane seen by Viola from her back door, looking up, if we believe the NTSB data sets.

(1.72 miles x 5280 ft/mile =) 9082 feet in X seconds at an average speed of 460 knots which is a speed of 776 ft/s from Viola's house to the flight 93 crash site.

X = 9082 ft / 776 ft/s = 11.70 seconds.

For the metric inclined :
1.72 mile = 2.768 km (x 1.609)
2.768 km is 2768 m,
460 knots is 236.5 m/s,
2768 m divided by 236.5 m/s is still 11.70 seconds.

That's probably much longer than most of you thought.
At 12 seconds before impact, the NTSB placed the plane at circa 4028 feet above the ground.
For the metric scale users, that's 1227 meter above ground, that's 1-1/4 kilometer high, above where Viola was standing.

But Viola says the plane she saw was already UPSIDE-DOWN flying, and NEARLY SKIMMED her backyard Oak tree top, its leafs moving from the wake of the plane.
That's no more than 100 feet or 30 meter high, she said.

So, who's mistaken here, the NTSB or Viola?

Domenick, or any other person, please go out and interview her sister too, her neighborhood villagers at that time too, find as much corroborating evidence as you can, that the plane Viola saw on 9/11 was really flying as low as she reported at her house, and ALREADY upside-down, while the NTSB data show us the first moment of flying upside-down five seconds later than the moment the plane passed Viola's house.

If you can collect many more eyewitnesses around the Lambertsville junction, then we have to seriously doubt the NTSB data, and thus the black box data they were given, and thus we may suppose very foul play by some part of the government or the military, when presenting this data after 9/11.

And could you contact Susan McElwain again, and ask her one important question:
Did she remember the time when she saw that little white drone passing low in front of her van, and why did she say that only later in the week did she remember an explosion sound or cloud.
I have the impression that she is not really sure if that drone passed her before, or after the factual crash of flight 93.
She said in the second interview, where she wears the blue vest instead of the red one she wore in the first interview (by you and crew), that she countered the FBI man asking her questions in the evening of 9/11 at her house, after she reported the existence of that drone at the 93 scene, and he explained the drone away by telling her it was sent to take pictures afterwards :
"Why then, would that drone take pictures, BEFORE the actual crash?"

So she must have had a strong notion already on the day of 9/11, that the drone passed her before the plane crashed. HOW did she know of that, and be so sure of it in that evening's FBI interrogation?
She tells us she heard the crash reporting on her car radio, but I may expect that the radio reporting started at least a few minutes later than 93 crash time.
That means that the explanation is quite simple, she heard the media report the crash, LATER, than she saw the drone.
If however she saw the drone AFTER the radio already talked about a plane crash at Shanksville, then the drone could have been launched by that C-130 cruising around the scene, the same C-130 cruising around the Pentagon scene half an hour earlier.
What a fabulous coincidence, by the way, USAF personnel being witness to two 9/11 events.

By the way, who says it's impossible that that same plane wasn't at the New York events? Flight plans are easily falsified by all authorities involved, as we slowly start to see, when we compare CIT's thirteen, North of Citgo gas station, flight 77 flight-path witness reports; to the thus clearly fabricated NTSB, RADES and other official data sets, where the planes are reported according to the released data sets as being in very different positions.
And to repeat it again, in that case it would have been impossible that the 5 downed light poles were hit by flight 77.

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 01:46 PM
Well, in fact it's even longer before the plane impacted, after first crossing over Viola's house very near the junction at Lambertsville.

I will make it all a bit more precise, by averaging the first 10 airspeed values in knots on my above listed 13 seconds list, which will give an average speed of 416.4 knots during those first listed 10 seconds.
We can quite reasonably suppose that average speed value to be the average speed during the flight from Viola's house to the moment the plane FIRST flipped upside-down, according to the NTSB data.

416.4 knots = 479.185 miles per hour is 770.432 km per hour.

416.4 knots = 416.4 x (6076ft per nautical mile / 3600s in 1hr) = 416.4 x 1.687 ft/s =
702.5 feet/second (x 0.3048 ft/m = 214.1 meters/second).

(1.72 miles x 5280 ft/mile =) 9082 feet in X seconds at an average speed of 416.4 knots which is an average speed of 702.5 ft/s from Viola's house to 3 seconds before flight 93 crashed.

X = 9082 ft / 702.5 ft/s = 12.93 seconds plus the added last 3 s is 15.93 s, so lets make that 16 seconds in total from Viola's house to the impact crater at those speeds.

For the metric inclined :
1.72 mile = 2.768 km (x 1.609)
2.768 km is 2768 m,
416.4 knots is 214.1 m/s,
2768 m divided by 214.1 m/s is still 12.93 seconds plus 3 s is also about 16 seconds from Viola's house to the impact crater at those NTSB-recorded speeds.

We now look at the newly found moment of crossing of the plane above Viola's house, that's 16 seconds before the 10:03:07 impact position, which is 10:02:52.
We note the air speed and height above sea level readings in the Italian NTSB animation.
We register 383 knots speed, and 6733 ft above sea level, which is (minus 2182 feet) 4551 ft above local ground level (x 0.3048) is 1387 meter above Lambertsville junction's ground level, even higher than we first assumed.
That NTSB plane flew 1387 meters above Viola, while she insists it flew just above her, not more than 30 to 40 meters.

And nobody feels the need anymore to react on such blatantly falsified data from official sources ???
Are you all really so numbed down, that you let the greatest con-job in history pass by without a glimmer of hope to DO something about it?

OK, I'll repeat it again, who thinks he or she can debate my seismic proof of external energy input, many seconds before the first external signs of the WTC 7 tower starting to collapse?
Especially now that the final NIST WTC 7 collapse report reinforces all my already years old data, on which my whole thesis is based upon.
Debate me here :

Pay especially attention to my posts on page 8 from that thread.
And follow all links to other threads where I debated several opponents.
They all failed to prove me wrong.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 06:48 PM
This is a good starting point for understanding why seismic data and NIST computed data do not compare, and why the WTC 7 "east penthouse dent forming" photograph is so immense important.
It was thoroughly timestamped by NIST, and they kept to this early time-stamp all these years to this very day, they still use it in their Final WTC 7 Report.
This is one of my posts in the most interesting to date debate with a few opponents and neutral bystanders:

Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition :

Read the thread through especially until the, at this date, last interesting post by NIcon on page 18,
( )

and read my 3 conclusions post and my others at page 16 carefully please:
( )

Then ask yourself why there were identifiable seismic data found for the 3 collapsing towers, even for a Shanksville event (if I'm not mistaken), but not for the Pentagon.

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 09:05 PM
I just now read this thread
CHALLENGE: Find 2+ pieces of United Airline debris at Shanksville: and page 3
and found a few very interesting pieces of evidence posted by Throat Yoghurt.
First, he posted this list of 35 Airfone phone calls and 2 cell phone calls I never saw before :

Let's carefully observe what is offered in this phone calls list :
1. The 2 only Cell Phone calls placed both at 9:58:00 were at last succeeding to connect to a cell phone tower at the ground level because then the plane flew at an altitude of 5000 feet or lower, as you can see in the second column of this list.

Now we have a second opinion to compare with the NTSB data from the posted Italian NTSB animation, since there the NTSB gives us at 09:58:00 a height of 5882 feet above sea level, just subtract the average local height of 2182 feet from the feet above sea level on-screen value and we get 3700 feet above local ground level.
And this falls well within the given value of 5 to u/k from the phone calls list.

Please note however, that according to the NTSB data, the plane climbed in the four minutes after that to 6, 7, 8, 9 and nearly 10000 feet above sea level, that's 7700 feet (+/- 2.35 km) above local ground level, before it started to nose dive under an angle of approximately 40° to the ground at 10:02:14.

2. Jeremy Glick called or was connected to Joanne Makely via the Airfone for the row 27 seats D,E and F during 7565 seconds which is 126 minutes, starting at 9:37:41. That means the call ended 2 hours and 6 minutes later. Which is at 11:43:41.
The plane however crashed at 10:03:07. So this line stood open for one hour and 40 minutes after the crash.

Todd Beamer also made a curiously long connected call, he was connected to a GTE Operator via the Airfone for the row 32 seats DEF for 3925 seconds which is 65.5 minutes, that's 1 hour and 5.5 minutes after he made connection at 9:42:48.
So his call/connection ended at 10:48:18. Thus this connection was kept open for 45 minutes after the crash.

Did the receiving parties leave the line for so long after the crash open, and were they not automatically disconnected when the Airfones were wrecked in the crash?

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 09:10 PM
ThroatYoghurt posted a few excerpts from linked newspaper sources, but the links to The Somerset Daily American are defunct, their only flight 93 pages left, are these recent working links :
but they don't have any interviews from 9/11/2001 on that page.

The post with his handy information about many flight 93 eyewitnesses in it was this one:
however he was looking for other info than I am looking for now.

I thus found someone also living in Lambertsville who saw a low flying plane pass by :

Eric Peterson, 28, was working in his shop in the Somerset County village of Lambertsville yesterday morning when he heard a plane, looked up and saw one fly over unusually low.
The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.
Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

Lambertsville consists of about 20 houses, so this is already a second corroboration of Viola's story, that the plane flew already very low above her house. Eric Peterson definitely also saw it passing very low, dropping out of sight behind a tree line. If the plane would have flown over 1 km high as the NTSB calculated from the black box data, then he would have easily been able to follow it in the sky, much further on its flight path.
He also saw the point where it started to nose dive, he called that "turning end-over-end".

Lee Purbaugh saw the plane pass just 40 feet over his head, and then slam into the ground 300 yards away.
For the metric users, 40 feet is 12 meter, and 300 yards is about 300 meter, about one third of a km.

And I found that info in another report from the same newspaper, on the 12th :

Wednesday, September 12, 2001
The United Airlines Boeing 757 came in low, its engines screaming.
A handful of people working near or driving through a rural area of Somerset County watched as the plane flipped over and disappeared with a smoky boom at 10:06 a.m. yesterday, between the tiny communities of Lambertsville and Shanksville.

A few miles north of Lambertsville, yard man Terry Butler, 40, was toiling away at Stoystown Auto Wreckers.
He thought it was odd that a plane was in the area. He'd heard that all air traffic nationwide had been halted after the World Trade Center disaster about an hour earlier.
"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

Lee Purbaugh, 32, working just his second day at Rollock Inc., a scrap yard next to the reclaimed strip-mine land, looked up from operating a burning torch to see the jetliner just 40 feet above him.
"I couldn't believe this," Purbaugh said.
"I heard it for 10 or 15 seconds and it sounded like it was going full bore," said Tim Lensbouer, 35, Purbaugh's coworker.
The ground shook and the air thundered as the jetliner slammed into the ground about 300 yards away, Purbaugh said.
A mushroom of flame rose 200 feet and disappeared. Then there was a curtain of black smoke and finally a trail of fire as pieces of the fuselage shot hundreds of yards into the woods.
"My instinct was to run toward it, to try to help" said Nina Lensbouer, Tim's Lensbouer's wife and a former volunteer firefighter. "But I got there and there was nothing, nothing there but charcoal. Instantly, it was charcoal."

Charles Sturtz, 53, who lives just over the hillside from the crash site, said a fireball 200 feet high shot up over the hill. He got to the crash scene even before the firefighters.
"The biggest pieces you could find were probably four feet [long]. Most of the pieces you could put into a shopping bag, and there were clothes hanging from the trees."

Lambertsville, a collection of about 20 houses about a mile and a half from the crash site.

The apparent point of impact was a dark gash, not more than 30 feet wide, at the base of a gentle slope just before a line of trees.
There were few recognizable remnants of the plane or the passengers and crew. The trees beyond were still faintly smoldering but largely intact.
"If you would go down there, it would look like a trash heap," said state police Capt. Frank Monaco. "There's nothing but tiny pieces of debris. It's just littered with small pieces."

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 09:12 PM
Now follow a few excerpts from ThroatYoghurt's post, which indicate again the plane flew much, much lower than the NTSB wants us to believe.

This one is another corroboration of Viola's report of a very low, upside down flying plane :

Rob Kimmel, several miles from the crash site: He sees it fly overhead, banking hard to the right. It is 200 feet or less off the ground as it crests a hill to the southeast. "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom."
[Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, p. 210-211]

This one is another report from this already covered person :

Lee Purbaugh, 300 yards away: "There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head – maybe 50 feet up.... I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived."
[Independent, 8/13/02]

This next one is a bit confusing, the big bang doesn't fit any other eyewitness report, and the only explanation could be that this witness saw the plane quite a bit earlier than at Lambertsville or later.
It could indicate a missile hit in one jet engine, followed by a bank to the side caused by sudden loss of power on one wing side. The observed height indicates a position earlier than Viola Saylor at the Lambertsville junction :

Linda Shepley: She hears a loud bang and sees the plane bank to the side. [ABC News, 9/11/01] She sees the plane wobbling right and left, at a low altitude of roughly 2,500 feet, when suddenly the right wing dips straight down, and the plane plunges into the earth.
[Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01]

This one is giving a strange heading East. The plane was flying a straight line nearly straight South from passing Lambertsville :

Kelly Leverknight in Stony Creek Township of Shanksville: "There was no smoke, it just went straight down. I saw the belly of the plane." It sounds like it is flying low, and it's heading east.
[Daily American, 9/12/01, St. Petersburg Times, 9/12/01]

The last one confirms most of the last few seconds of the NTSB data :

Tim Thornsberg, working in a nearby strip mine: "It came in low over the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds ... and then it kind of stalled and did a nose dive over the trees."
[WPIX Channel 11, 9/13/01]

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:52 PM
A few observations:

This is a CONSPIRACY site.

I am basically talking to myself here, obviously there is no interaction going on at all.

I offer a few very compelling EYE-witness reports of a very low flying plane passing Lambertsville junction, which is 1.25 miles from the official flight 93 crash crater. It flew about 100 feet high, or 30 meters high.
However, the black box data given to the NTSB, place the same plane MUCH higher in the sky above that junction! About 1.25 KILOMETER high.

Conclusion: the black box data are FALSIFIED.
If so, we talk about a HUGE CONSPIRACY, but no one reacts, on this conspiracy board.....
Conclusion: this is not a conspiracy board at all, or no more.

I offer a few reports of scrapyard workers who report a plane flying upside down at 12 meter above their heads, then dive into the ground 300 meters further away.
If that's true, we would have seen a hundred meters long sliding scar in the ground, and not a small round mystery hole with two small side scars filled with essentially nothing, as reported by first responders (""only charcoal left"").
There was NO ROOM to ""nosedive into the ground under an angle of 40°"" as reported by the media and official sources.
At 12 meters high, the plane could have only slightly dip its nose, and it would have touched the ground already.

Conclusion: something stinks in the official Shanksville story, and it stinks like a cover-up.

So, where are you, conspiracy seekers on-board?

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Conclusion: the black box data are FALSIFIED.

The alleged black box serial numbers were never released.

None of the data contained within that alleged black box can be relied upon, as the true identity of the alleged black box has never been verified.

It's a great example of eyewitness reports contradicting what allegedly went on inside an alleged black box.

Nice work, LabTop.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:20 PM
I see that my old link to Susan McElwain's video has been removed from YouTube because of copyright infringement.
Thus, here is a new one, and many more from the same series :

9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness. Domenick interviews Susan McElwain.
by Terrorcell2 (9:45 min)
This uncut interview footage with Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain debunks the Official Story and exposes The History Channel's heavy editing.
Terrorcell2 is Domenick DiMaggio who interviewed so many eyewitnesses

You can find the whole "911 The Shanksville Files" series with all the personal interviews by Samuel Anthony Ettaro and Domenick V. DiMaggio, with Susan McElwain, Coroner Wally Miller and Viola Saylor in the above first YouTube search-link page :


9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 1 Part 1 (interview with Susan McElwain) (8:00 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 1 Part 2 (interview with Susan McElwain) (10:05 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 1 Part 3 (interview with Susan McElwain) (8:05 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 1 Part 4 (interview with Susan McElwain) (9:05 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 1 Part 5 (interview with Susan McElwain) (4:31 min)


9/11 Shanksville Files Volume 2 Part 1 (Coroner Wally Miller 1) (10:00 min)

9/11 Shanksville Files Volume 2 Part 2 (Coroner Wally Miller 2) (7:06 min)

9/11 Shanksville Files Volume 2 Part 3 (Coroner Wally Miller 3) (10:05 min)

9/11 Shanksville Files Volume 2 Part 4 (Coroner Wally Miller 4) (7:05 min)

9/11 Shanksville Files Volume 2 Part 5 (Coroner Wally Miller 5) (5:20 min)

9/11 Shanksville Files Volume 2 Part 6 (Coroner Wally Miller 6) (7:29 min)


9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 3 Part 1 (Viola Saylor 1) (10:01 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 3 Part 2 (Viola Saylor 2) (9:06 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 3 Part 3 (Viola Saylor 3) (10:06 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 3 Part 4 (Viola Saylor 4) (7:05 min)

9/11 The Shanksville Files Volume 3 Part 5 (Viola Saylor 5) (4:45 min)


When you have listened to all 5 parts of Susan's observations on 911, and also the 5 parts of Viola's testimony, one thing comes to mind :

A big passenger plane flew upside down just above Viola's Maple tree in her back garden, coming from the North, heading South. Which does not fit the FDR at all, that placed their passenger plane 1.4 km above Viola's garden.
Susan saw a small white drone coming from the South, no bigger than her van she rode in, hopping over her van in front of her, then dodging the trees at the road junction while turning to the right, in the direction of the crash site, which she could not see at that moment. But a big cloud of smoke rose above the tree tops, and while she drove home, she had an unhindered sight to her left, of the crash site's billowing smoke.

If the drone did not cause the smoke column, then how on earth could the army, navy or air force know in advance where to send that drone, and when? While they say till today, that they were caught off guard.
Of course the CIA and several other not so well known agencies also had drones.

The simple fact that Susan saw that little white drone proves foreknowledge by some government, be it the USA, or others. Of course the US is on top of that list, there will be only a faint possibility that a foreign military power would take the risk for such an operation in the mids of rural Pennsylvania.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio

Flight 93 was shot down and the behavior of the aircraft (rolling over/pitching) is typical of such an act. To have at least one witness to report there were more than one plane in or even near that area is very suspicious. Yet most just dismiss them as "country folk" who know no better. Thats ignorant!

The recordings were manipulated to jive with the OS that the plane "rolled" after a passenger assault...yeah right!

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio

it was white but it wasn't a business jet.

I just love statements like this. You have unilaterally declared not a "business jet". How exactly do you do that? What exactly is a "business jet"? How do you make the distinction, not only as a live witness on the ground but as an interviewer years later?

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by hooper
I just love statements like this. You have unilaterally declared not a "business jet". How exactly do you do that? What exactly is a "business jet"? How do you make the distinction, not only as a live witness on the ground but as an interviewer years later?

(Sigh) yep. These conspiracy people have been given and even shown photos of the make, model, and owner of the jet, and even given the name of the pilot. The design and even the color matches what eyewitnesses saw exactly, and I mean exactly, and yet these conspiracy people STILL can't give these conspiracy stories up. I think it's blatantly obvious at this point that these conspiracy people are so zealosly in love with their conspiracy stories that no evidence on the face of the Earth- no photos, no eyewitness testimony, no reports, NOTHING- will ever sway them from these conspiracy stories. No matter what you show them, they'll still find a way to brush it off as conspiracy disinformation.

Let's face it, it would be mind numbingly stupid for these supposed conspirators to fake a plane crash site, plant all sorts of manufactured evidence out in the middle of nowhere, and dispose of the real plane elsewhere when they could crash the plane and get the results they wanted for real. It serves no purpose, it's dangerous, and it adds unnecessary layers to an already convoluted plot. Rube Goldberg would have been proud of the truther movement.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 04:32 PM
Mikelee/Hooper/GoodoleDave - Since when do "Business jets" swoop down at the height of hydro lines and are they they "size of a van, silent, molded, no rivets or windows, looks like it may seat 1 person" ?

That is from what one of the last witnesses to see what crashed in Shanksville.

The shootdown theory is spread by debunkers posing as truthers to muddy the waters. If a Boeing 757 was shot down on 911 it certainly was not over the shanksville crater. The crater has been proven too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

Excellent work LaBtop. I recommend everyone to read his posts again and disregard the 3-4 "debunkers" who attempt to smear and ridicule these forums.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in