Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I certainly believe Susan McElwain saw something

So what do you think it was coming from the opposite direct as UA93 officially did, swooping down to tree-top level, practically on top of her car seconds before the "crash" and what was it doing in the vicinity?

Originally posted by ATH911
So what do you think it was coming from the opposite direct as UA93 officially did, swooping down to tree-top level, practically on top of her car seconds before the "crash" and what was it doing in the vicinity?

I think she saw that Falcon jet and she misjudged the actual size and height of the craft, especially since she only saw it for a second. She reported that the craft was white, had two rear engines, and had a tail like a car spoiler, which matches the Falcon jet perfectly. Her claim that she looked online and couldn't find what she saw makes perfect sense- she saw it entirely from below and wouldn't know what the top of the craft looked like. Likewise about the craft being silent- she had the radio on, and by the time she turned if off the craft was already gone. I am also going by the testimony of all the OTHER eyewitnesses, who similarly testified they saw a white jet in the vicinity, after the crash, including Viola Saylor.

I'm also going by the interview video, and her testimony of a craft no bigger than her van, flying below 25 feet, travelling slow enough to turn right and then up to clear the treeline without disturbing the tops of the trees, all without a sound, makes no sense whatsoever. The laws of physics have to apply to these conspiracies just as they have to apply to everyone else.

Here's the rub- if you're going to admit she may have misjudged even a little of what she saw, you're necessarily admitting she may have misjudged any nunber of things, and that goes for all the eyewitnesses, not just McElwain.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Good find OP.

Heresay tho believeable isn't proof unfortunatley S+F

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think she saw that Falcon jet

That alleged plane didn't supposedly arrive at the scene until many minutes after the "crash," so that right there proves it wasn't that reported Lear jet. Try again.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think she saw that Falcon jet

That alleged plane didn't supposedly arrive at the scene until many minutes after the "crash," so that right there proves it wasn't that reported Lear jet. Try again.

I think you better check your "timelines" the pilot of the lear jet did not report seeing Flight 93 crash, he reported seeing smoke from the crash site.

All a moot point, the "witness" speaks of a wholly and completely silent craft, without seams or markings, pure white with a spoiler but no wings, making aerobatic manuvers without disturbing the air it is moving through. I think a big grain of salt is in order here.

Originally posted by ATH911
That alleged plane didn't supposedly arrive at the scene until many minutes after the "crash," so that right there proves it wasn't that reported Lear jet. Try again.

Hooper beat me to it- in her own words, McElwain grudgingly admitted she didn't see nor hear anything crash. She heard about the crash later and she's assuming on her own that the craft she had seen was what crashed. As you pointed out yourself, this ISN'T the plane that crashed since it was flying in the opposite direction, and since there was only one plane crash, you're only PROVING this wasn't flight 93 she saw. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what plane it was she had seen.

Thank you for proving me right- her testimony cannot be taken at face value becuase she's making errors of misjudgement. She's certainly not lying, she's simply mistaken.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No, she didn't hear that something crashed later, she heard later that it supposedly wasn't the mystery white wingless aircraft that she thought crashed moments after it buzzed her car, but that it was reportedly Flight 93, a Boeing 757. That's when she tried to contact the authorities to tell them that that's not what crashed, that she thought is was that small white aircraft and that's when the FBI sent the two agents immediately over to her house to harass her.

Also, go watch the video interview of her again. Right at the beginning she's shown a photo of a white Falcon jet and an A-10 Warthog and asked if any of those are what she saw and she answer an emphatic "NO" to both.

Plus, the other day a white Lear-type jet flew over me in a pre-approach to the airport. There is NO way anybody could not see the wings on a Lear type jet. The wings look as long and wide as the fuselage does. In fact it was hard to make out the rear tail from the height it was at, so that too eliminates your theory that Susan mistaken a high-flying Lear type jet with a wingless/rivetless aircraft almost hitting her vehicle.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by ATH911]

GoodOlDave,

Another Lear jet flew over me yesterday at about 1,000-1,500 feet and I couldn't help but laugh at your idea that Susan, in her car, would think a Lear jet around that height was a wingless-rivetless "military-looking" aircraft she couldn't later find on the internet, swooping down on top of her car and almost killing her. There's no way to miss the wings. It's the MOST noticeable part of the plane at that height. I barely could make out the fins on the ends of the wings, or the engines at the rear, or the tail at that height. There's just no doubt that a Lear jet at that height looks like a Lear jet. You can't mistake it.

Will you now concede that your theory about this doesn't "fly"?

reply to post by ATH911

Also, go watch the video interview of her again. Right at the beginning she's shown a photo of a white Falcon jet and an A-10 Warthog and asked if any of those are what she saw and she answer an emphatic "NO" to both.

Yes, but when she was shown them she was responding to something she saw that was, and I am paraphrasing here, way high up in the air like just a little triangle. So she did not eliminate those craft as potentially the UFO she later saw at the crossroads.

Originally posted by ATH911
Will you now concede that your theory about this doesn't "fly"?

No, becuase accepting her account verbatim is a violation of the laws of physics. For it to be a small, slow moving, fairly aerobatic craft, it necessarily requires wings and it most certainly wouldn't be soundless. Weight, lift, thrust, and drag have to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they do to everyone else. Unless you want to bring UFOs and antigravity technology into the mix, the craft necessarily had to have wings and it had to have an engine or engines, regardless of whether she saw them or not.

Now, will you concede that her account has problems and that it cannot be accepted at face value?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, becuase accepting her account verbatim is a violation of the laws of physics.

So we must take her account at face value, or not at all?!

For it to be a small, slow moving, fairly aerobatic craft, it necessarily requires wings and it most certainly wouldn't be soundless.

But she could have confused something she thought did that with a mid-altitude straight flying Lear jet???

Unless you want to bring UFOs and antigravity technology into the mix, the craft necessarily had to have wings and it had to have an engine or engines, regardless of whether she saw them or not.

Say, are you privy to every type of aircraft in the military's arsenal, even the top secret ones? Remember when Susan said it had that "military look" and that she searched the internet and couldn't find one like it?

Do you agree it's logical to think that *if* the military was going to commit a conspiracy like this that they would use some of the top secret weapons and/or aircraft? yes or no

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911
So we must take her account at face value, or not at all?!

No, my position is if it can be documented that she was mistaken on some things (I.E. what the craft actually looked like), she can be mistaken on other things, (I.E. the actual altitude of the craft). From what I'm seeing, it's your position that it's all or nothing, because it's patently obvious you want to interpret what McElwain saw as being something sinister.

Or am I incorrect?

Say, are you privy to every type of aircraft in the military's arsenal, even the top secret ones? Remember when Susan said it had that "military look" and that she searched the internet and couldn't find one like it?

It doesn't matter, becuase the plane McElwain saw still needed a mechanism to create lift and thrust like every other aircraft does, top secret or no, and it's not surprising that she couldn't find it on the internet becuase she admits she only saw the underside of the craft. How many volumes of "Janes list of undersides of military aircraft" are there?

Do you agree it's logical to think that *if* the military was going to commit a conspiracy like this that they would use some of the top secret weapons and/or aircraft? yes or no

It's possible, yes, but they wouldn't have used some weird looking thing that stands out in public like a sore thumb. They'd make some advanced top secret craft and rig it to look like a civilian aircraft that noone would notice.

To all the really dense people in this thread still playing dumb, and clinching to the plain FALSE assumption that the very small plane Susan saw had :

N O - W I N G S ,

You all need to go back a few pages, where I showed you how the stupid misconception that the small UAV had no wings, was introduced.

And how good old Hooper and GoodOlDave both jumped on that bandwagon and kept repeating all the time that it did not had any wings, thus would be some kind of guided missile which could not fly so slow as described by Susan.

Even continued the "no-wings myth" after I posted the cause of that no-wings story.
How dumb can you play to be in front of this audience?

In this post at the end of it, I explained the no-wings myth to both of you, and still you kept baiting all members :

www.abovetopsecret.com... :

Btw, GoodolDave, where did you get that idea that Susan McElwain said she saw a wingless plane?
You yourself were the one that started talking about a red missile (nearly wingless), which was depicted in that Amalgam Virgo pamphlet I posted after you introduced that red missile.
Which picture was placed under a real white UAV, the one I meant.

Then ATH911 sliced that word "wingless" in, still connecting that to a missile, in one of his short posts.
And Hooper and you then kept repeating it. But you connected it now not anymore to a red missile, but to a white smooth, rivet-less UAV.
'Wingless', as Hooper and you kept repeating.
But Susan never talked about a missile, she talked about a small plane.

And then you used it to humiliate Susan since ""she could have never seen a small plane without wings ( LaBTop :she NEVER said that ) making those acrobatic maneuvers"", as you said.
[edit on 13/7/10 by LaBTop]

Of course I T H A D W I N G S .
Don't you believe me?

Then review the first few minutes of Susan's video, and especially where she indicates with her index finger on the photo of an A-10 Warthog, aiming at and following the WINGS of that plane, and simultaneously telling us that the UAV she saw, had no rivets on ITS wings, and nowhere else on that very small UAV, she saw passing over her van :
Susan : ""You can see in the picture, like the rivets and everything, there was NOTHING, it was pure, molded, white. Fiberglass.""

www.youtube.com...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df656c0febc8.jpg[/atsimg]

She had a very small angle of view through her front windshield, as you can easily try out yourself. You can't see airplanes high up in the sky from inside a car, or it must be really far in front of your car. And she reported it as swooping over her roof and filling up her front view.

Also, in the same video, she first said that she saw two other real high flying planes, they looked like triangles to her so far up.
And she saw those two other planes that high up, long after the small UAV swooped just over the roof of her van.
Susan : "" They just looked like a triangle in the sky. It was really HIGH! ""

And anybody can show you videos of 3 meter wide UAV's or model planes which can easily perform the simple task of flying over the camera very low, and then banking to the right. At relatively very slow airspeeds, not at all the speeds involved in flights of remotely guided missiles like a Tomahawk or such things, which indeed have very small wings or no wings at all.
But missiles fly with subsonic or even supersonic speeds, while an electrically powered silent UAV not bigger than Susan's van would easily perform and still fly at a speed of 65 km per hour.

If anybody keeps repeating, the known lie (by 15 days now), that the UAV that Susan saw had no wings, it will be reported as knowingly misinforming our forum members.
Enough is enough.

Just above this post on this same page, hooper for the umpteenth time keeps feeding you, GoodOlDave, his deliberate misinformation :

Hooper : the "witness" speaks of a wholly and completely silent craft, without seams or markings, pure white with a spoiler but no wings, making aerobatic maneuvers without disturbing the air it is moving through.

There is nothing aerobatic about a small white colored fiberglass UAV, powered by Li-ion accumulators fed, double electro-motors, fitted at the rear side of the molded fiberglass fuselage, when performing a simple right bank at low height and speed.

But you again fell for the lie. And posted just above this post, again your faulty theory based solely on the no-wing myth. (Your aerobatics missile reasons).

I would really like you two to stop acting as if you really believe that small white fiberglass plane had no wings, from now on.

========================

This is another interview with Susan McElwain, and from that interview we can conclude via her own words, that she drove along northwards on Bridge Rd with her van's window open, so I was wrong to suppose she was driving home with her windows closed. She only had her radio on, which blocked out the noise of that small UAV's ( electrical? ) engines noise :

www.youtube.com...#



Yes, I can and will admit when I am wrong on any detail, contrary to the truster-posters here.
And I am always actively searching for any historically correct refinements of important events.

In this video you can see for yourself that a fairly big model plane, comparable to a small UAV, can seem to fly quite fast, but in fact is only traveling about 50 to 60 km per hour, and can make smooth right or left upward banks, such as Susan reported as comparable behavior seen by her :

Title : Get out of the way, stupid!
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by LaBTop
To all the really dense people in this thread still playing dumb, and clinching to the plain FALSE assumption that the very small plane Susan saw had :

N O - W I N G S ,

You all need to go back a few pages, where I showed you how the stupid misconception that the small UAV had no wings, was introduced.

And how good old Hooper and GoodOlDave both jumped on that bandwagon and kept repeating all the time that it did not had any wings, thus would be some kind of guided missile which could not fly so slow as described by Susan.

No, actually, you're the one who needs to go back and reread the posts to eliminate the misconceptions. I know 100% that the craft had wings becuase I know that it was simply an ordinary plane sent to investigate the crash site by controllers. It was ATH who keeps introducing the "no wings" bit, not me, and it's obvious why- you people are so much in love with the idea there was something sinister going on so you're clinging to her story verbatim regardless of how improbable it is. In your world, it simply can't be a Falcon 20 jet she mistakenly saw, it just has to be all these goofball things like top secret wingless aircraft (according to ATH) and secret miniature remote control observation drones (according to you).

I keep telling you truthers that you're only seeing what you want to see here and what you specifically want to see is some secret conspiracy regardless of whether there's really one there or not. Despite your bluster I have yet to see any of you actually prove me wrong.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, my position is if it can be documented that she was mistaken on some things (I.E. what the craft actually looked like), she can be mistaken on other things, (I.E. the actual altitude of the craft).

It was documented, the video of the 9/11 researchers interviewing her and the very first part of the video about her shows one of the truthers showing her photos of a white Lear jet and an A10 Warthog and ask if either of these was the aircraft that she said almost crashed into her car and she said an emphatic "no" to both.

From what I'm seeing, it's your position that it's all or nothing, because it's patently obvious you want to interpret what McElwain saw as being something sinister.

Let's see, a wing-less monocoque aircraft that was "definitely military" that she couldn't later find on the internet almost swoops on top of her car moments before and a couple hundred yards away from a most bizarre "terrorist hijacked plane crash" and then a couple of FBI agents rush over after she contacts authorities about what she saw to try to convince her it was a 757 what she saw, even being condescending to her. Gee, what's not sinister sounded about that?!

It doesn't matter, becuase the plane McElwain saw still needed a mechanism to create lift and thrust like every other aircraft does, top secret or no

A missile can do the mechanism she described and if it's a secret aircraft, how can you be sure it can't do what you think is impossible to even though you just complained about me taking her testimony at face value?!

and it's not surprising that she couldn't find it on the internet becuase she admits she only saw the underside of the craft. How many volumes of "Janes list of undersides of military aircraft" are there?

Oh brother.

It's possible, yes, but they wouldn't have used some weird looking thing that stands out in public like a sore thumb. They'd make some advanced top secret craft and rig it to look like a civilian aircraft that noone would notice.

Where was the incident, in a very rural town! And guess what, people DID saw something that stuck out like a sore thumb BEFORE and at LOWER ALTITUDE than the alleged Falcon come to the seen many minutes after!

How can you even stick to your she-confused-it-with-a-high-flying-Lear-jet theory when that alleged jet wasn't even at the scene until many minute after?!!

Originally posted by LaBTop
To all the really dense people in this thread still playing dumb, and clinching to the plain FALSE assumption that the very small plane Susan saw had :

N O - W I N G S

Then ATH911 sliced that word "wingless" in, still connecting that to a missile, in one of his short posts.

Um buddy, from Mrs. McElwain herself @7:51:

Dominick: And there were no wings or?
Susan: I did not see any wings because, like I said, I saw from mid-belly...

Therefor, "wingless."

Yes, I can and will admit when I am wrong on any detail, contrary to the truster-posters here.

I accept your apology.

She had a very small angle of view through her front windshield, as you can easily try out yourself. You can't see airplanes high up in the sky from inside a car, or it must be really far in front of your car. And she reported it as swooping over her roof and filling up her front view.

Good point! Further destroys GoodOlDave's "she misjudged it for a high-flying Falcon" theory.

Also, in the same video, she first said that she saw two other real high flying planes, they looked like triangles to her so far up.
And she saw those two other planes that high up, long after the small UAV swooped just over the roof of her van.
Susan : "" They just looked like a triangle in the sky. It was really HIGH! ""

Another good point. Hey skeptics, what were those "triangle-like" planes doing in the area right afterward flying really high?!

[edit on 29-7-2010 by ATH911]

ATH911, it seems like you missed this part :
"", still connecting that to a missile,"".
The red colored missile photo GODave suddenly introduced.
That's where you were pointing at when you wrote the words wingless or no wings. At that red missile having nearly no wings.
Not a wingless UAV, which you never said.

GoodOlDave must have searched for the Amalgam Virgo pamphlet photo I offered to post, before I actually posted that many posts later, because he directly posted a link to exactly the same red colored target practice missile that was depicted in that second photo on that pamphlet, as one of the other pictures. And acting as if I meant that one.

To anyone with a sane brain, it would be obvious that I meant the WHITE small UAV depicted in that pamphlet in the top right corner. Just above that red target practice missile.
With the horizontal spoiler at the tail !
Just like Susan described seeing such a type of UAV on 911.
And she did NOT describe an A-10 Warthog Tank-Killer, as she explicitly stated herself in the start of the video, when shown a photo of an A-10.
But what was reported as the plane being described by Susan in The Mirror, USA-edition, and was pure dis-info, a full blown LIE.

Which type of white small rivet-less fiberglass drone I was talking about all the time before I wrote that small piece of text about the Amalgam Virgo depicted UAV. But did not post a picture of yet, that came many posts later.

That's why it looks as if he sneaks small misconceptions in, and then keeps hammering on that one for pages long.
"A missile with no wings"

While I clearly talked all the time, before he threw in that red missile, about a small white fiberglass UAV.

Could be that he just lacks a good portion of comprehension, of course, since a first grader can understand that Susan could have never mixed up a small very slow and low flying UAV which arrived from the south one minute before the crash + following smoke column; with a really high flying Falcon jet north of the scene, which has been NTSB-documented to arrive minutes after the first smoke rose up in the sky at the crash site.
Really high means to the human eye about 1/2 an inch wide !
Certainly not blocking her whole windscreen, as she said in the video!

You are now really trampling the most basic rules of all internet forums:
DO NOT SPREAD KNOWN LIES.

GoodOlDave : No, actually, you're the one who needs to go back and reread the posts to eliminate the misconceptions. I know 100% that the craft had wings because I know that it was simply an ordinary plane sent to investigate the crash site by controllers. It was ATH who keeps introducing the "no wings" bit, not me, and it's obvious why- you people are so much in love with the idea there was something sinister going on so you're clinging to her story verbatim regardless of how improbable it is. In your world, it simply can't be a Falcon 20 jet she mistakenly saw, it just has to be all these goofball things like top secret wingless aircraft (according to ATH) and secret miniature remote control observation drones (according to you).
I keep telling you truthers that you're only seeing what you want to see here and what you specifically want to see is some secret conspiracy regardless of whether there's really one there or not. Despite your bluster I have yet to see any of you actually prove me wrong.

Do you realize that you are now spreading straight out, multiple lies; and keep repeating them while already been offered the solid reason why your reasoning was simply wrong :

Lie 1. You just stated to have re-read your past posts, since you advice me to do the same.
Actually, I did that for the past few days and nights long already before you came on the idea to give me that advice, since I got a bit interested why fresh members like you and hooper seem to pop up all the time in pairs when a touchy (and dangerous to the establishment) subject is brought forward.
And in a sneaky manner alter a few words in some important witness statements, and then keep spreading these lies in every post about their statements, thus smearing the reputation of those witnesses in a "drecky" (filthy) manner. It was weedwhacker who introduced the word "dreck" in this discussion. To describe our research.

So I made a list for you and "hooper", GoodOlDave.
And in it are your own words in a chronologically correct listing, and I also added hooper's comments on that favorite subject of you both :
that UAV, UFO or whatever, had "no wings; performed thus impossible aerobatics",
that you both kept spreading, even after I explained 18 days ago to you both, that it was you two who kept feeding it to the not yet fully informed masses here who seem to star you based only on USA-based conservative political reasons, not based on any logic, historical truth or reading comprehension.
You used several times those words "no wings" and "Impossible aerobatics", since in your written down opinion that UAV had "no wings", so could not fly so slow, and could not perform a smooth, slow, upward right-bank over the tree line, 40 meters further of Susan's car's front bumper.
Thus it must have been that really high flying Falcon jet. High according to the NTSB.
Your applauders only needed to do what you advised me, re-read your own posts, and ours, and they would have recognized your above excuser statement as hogwash.

LIST :

It started with this, one of my own, posts :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop : You know perfectly well that Susan was talking about a white, sort of plastic molded drone with no rivets visible, and the most important remark from her, NOT BIGGER AS HER VAN.
And you have the decadency to re-introduce that Global Hawk which is TEN TIMES BIGGER as a van?

I'll show you one, if you want, which fits her description, with an official date attached, from operation Amalgam Virgo from June 2001, a counter terrorism combined training exercise from 1-2 June 2001.
That's 3.5 months before 911.

GoodOlDave started the misconception by posting the following right after my post, but he cut out the whole first part, where I clearly describe ""a white, sort of plastic molded drone with no rivets visible, and the most important remark from her, NOT BIGGER AS HER VAN. ""

Now it looked in his next post as if he in a logical manner answered to my second part of my above quoted text, and in fact he admits by posting that red missile link, to surely have already seen the Amalgam Virgo pamphlet I mentioned BUT NOT POSTED YET, but he does not introduce the logical candidate for my remark " I'll show you one, if you want, which fits her description"", which is the first, white UAV in that pamphlet.
No, he comes up with a totally illogical one, the fat big red missile under it, in that pamphlet, AND DOES NOT POST THE LINK to that pamphlet !!! :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"" Originally posted by LaBTop
I'll show you one, if you want, which fits her description, with an official date attached, from operation Amalgam Virgo from June 2001, a counter terrorism combined training exercise from 1-2 June 2001.
That's 3.5 months before 911. ""

GoodOlDave : Are you genuinely trying to say she saw a MQM streaker?!? Dude, those things fly at around 500 MPH. There's no flipping way an object flying 500 MPH is going to fly some 25 feet below the nearby powerlines (her own testimony) dip down so low that it filled her windshield (her own testimony) and then bank up and clear the tree line thirty yards away (her own testimony). Anythign flying 500MPH below the power lines and dipping down over her windshield is going to crash into the ground right in front of her. Sheesh, physics has to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they do the rest of us.

Then TrickoftheShade introduced also the missile concept :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What can fly that isn't as wide as a van? A missile, I guess.

It's BLATANTLY obvious by now what idiot reasoning all these guys use all the time.
I talk for two pages about a small fiberglass drone or UAV with wings, clearly described by Susan McElwain, and suddenly out of the blue they all introduce the missile concept, and then start ranting about how stupid Susan must be to not see the difference between a missile and a plane, while she never ever talked about any kind of missile, she clearly unmistakable talks all the time about an ultralight, slow, white, fiberglass drone with wings. But GoodOlDave rants on, with the main purpose to confuse the hell out of the uninformed reader, his following post is really comical, if not so sad for reasons of truth finding and using sane arguments.
He totally reverses all the factual arguments from Susan to fulfill his own twisted view :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

""Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What can fly that isn't as wide as a van? A missile, I guess""

GoodOlDave : Yeah, but what missile roughly equal to the size of her van travels so slowly that it can fly beneath a 25 foot power line, dip down to fill her windshield, and bank up to avoid a treeline some thirty yards away? The way she describes it verbatim, the only thing that fits is one of those giant sized remote control model airplanes, but we know that can't be it. Not sinister sounding enough.
(LaBTop : HUHHH? what kind of twisted reasoning is all this text? He ignores totally that she clearly describes a slow UAV with wings. A plane, be it small. Not at all any kind of flying pipe, not a missile, but certainly a small light plane with wings !
And that is exactly what she is describing, a "giant sized remote control model airplane", in military circles they call that an UAV or Drone, and you know that damn well ! )

It's blatantly obvious to anyone who can think critically that this craft really didn't fly beneath a 25 foot powerline and Susan McElwain was mistaken as to exactly how low it was flying, but these conspiracy people know that necessarily means she could be mistaken about a number of other things, so to stay loyal to their conspiracy mongoring agenda they'd rather prefer to believe the conspirators invented a machine that could violate the laws of physics. This blind fanaticism of theirs is incredible.
(LaBTop : This is such a prime example of totally twisted reasoning we will probably not see that for a long time anymore. And he is the one talking about fanaticism, good Lord!)

She never talked one iota about any sub or supersonic missile. But according to Dave cum suis, she now suddenly saw a missile, and a missile can not fly under power-lines etc, so she must be nuts, no better, we Truthers must be nuts. What fine, complicated mind must be at work to come up with this utterly NONSENSE.
If this kind of rotten insane argumentation is not ripe for some major MODERATING, than I do not know anymore why we, long time posters, should further participate in this forum and help to keep it truthfully, reliable and based on facts and their logical consequences.
The use of these kind of twisted around facts, into false arguments shows the intention of bending any factual story into any convenient LIE.
To try to keep the small but most intelligent part of the population which still reads, quiet and obedient. The silent majority of television locked slaves is already a lost cause.

(PS: I'll return after some hard needed sleep to end this list.)


Lie 2. You can read in my last post, first quotation of my old post, that I told you already that ATH911 introduced as the first, but only ONCE the no wings subject, and not as you say : ""It was ATH who keeps introducing the "no wings" bit, not me, and it's obvious why"".
To the contrary, it was you and hooper and a few others who "keeps" introducing the "no wings" bit.!
Pages long.
See the above list. (when it's ready, but no one stops you to read further on for yourself).


Lie 3. You have been told that the Falcon business jet was sent to investigate the last known position of UAL93 when it disappeared from the radar screens, and thus arrived near (not at) the crash scene minutes later.
Are you really lacking so much comprehension? Or are you BAITING us, long time conspiracy forum members?

Susan sees an UAV passing just over the roof of her car and then flying very low over the tree-line in the direction of the crash site, then 1 minute later a smoke column rose above the trees, which is then visible to her left all the time while on her way back home. Then minutes later she sees 2 really high flying planes, seemingly shaped in a triangular form because they flew so high.
Those two planes must have flown further north, since she drove all the way home in her car northwards, with the crash site to her left. And from inside a car, looking through the windshield, you only have a small viewing angle upward, especially in a van, where you have a wide deep dashboard in front of you.
One of these two planes she much later saw, was the Falcon. It was on its way to Johnstown airport, which is 20 miles (30 km) north of the crash site. Arriving minutes later near the scene, not at the scene,""Falcon pilot to ATC : from a few miles distance I see some smoke at the position you gave me"", and reported seeing smoke on the ground, which was minutes after Susan saw the UAV, drone, UFO, whatever name you need to give it. Then the Falcon returned northwards to Johnstown Airport.

Susan saw a small fiberglass UAV, one minute BEFORE the crash.
How on earth could she have mixed that up with a really high flying Falcon jet, arriving at the scene minutes later than the crash?
Really high means for the human eye about half an inch big.
How on earth you can think she can mix that Falcon flying really high up (1/2 inch wide) with a small, rivet-less fiberglass white plane/UAV flying at near-ground level, is beyond any logic.
She explicitly stated in the video that it filled her windscreen in front of her when it flew over her van.
And it is you who dare to use the word "misconception" on this subject and throw it at us, as if we do not understand what you are doing.

LIST continuation-1 :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here TrickoftheShade posted a pertinent lie, he probably copied it from that lying journalist of "The Mirror" still quoted in the 911 time-lines from "History Commons" I linked to already in this thread.
And by many or even all Trusters in this and other forums online.
In Weedwhacker's own unforgettable words in this thread : a piece of DRECK journalism !

He fully reversed Susan's statement and own words in the first minutes of the already shown video of Susan McElwain in the first pages of this thread, where she definitely rejected an A-10 Warthog and a Falcon business jet as the one she witnessed swooping over the roof of her van, and then she repeatedly said herself that it was no bigger than her van and flew very low and slow, had no rivets at all and was smoothly molded like white fiberglass.
And she reported seeing, much later than her seeing the white UAV, - two !!! - very high flying planes, which looked to her like very small triangles, flying so high up.
The Falcon and the military C-130 flown by pilot O'Brien? How can we be sure?

He however, posted exactly the opposite than what she said in her own words, thus not written down by a clearly lying journalist like the USA editor of the British tabloid "The Mirror", and what every genuinely interested reader of this thread could have checked in 5 minutes viewing of her own words in the start of the video I posted multiple times :

When Viola Saylor was shown a picture of one of these

www.militaryfactory.com...
(LaBTop : linked to is a picture of a big A-10 Thunderbolt Warthog military tank-attack jet with two big rear jet engines and two pair of fins, horizontal and vertical, at the rear tail. All to reinforce the lie of "The Mirror". )

she confirmed that this is what she saw.
(LaBTop : she confirmed exactly the opposite, this was surely not what she saw! She even pointed at all the rivets on both wings and said that the little plane she witnessed close by, had no rivets at all, it was made of smoothly molded white fiberglass.)
I think it's safe to assume she was a bit confused about its size.

This is also where the false assumption is introduced that she would have been confused about its size. Hogwash!
Look up on YouTube, any video of a model plane or UAV, sweeping very low over the camera.
It will be an instant eye-catcher and fill up your angle of view nearly completely.
You will intuitively understand what hogwash it is to try to steer the non-technically inclined reader towards this obvious lie. And just watch overflying passenger planes or even better Lear jets or Falcon 20 or 50 jets flying at 5,000 feet high. It will appear to your eyes and between your measuring fingers as not wider than half an inch to an inch.
The model plane or UAV sweeping over and above the camera will seem to be as big as its original measures, 2 to 3 meters wide and long.

Learn to always firmly distinguish between witnesses their own video-taped words, and the secondary level of reporting of an opinionated journalist and his editor in a newspaper.
The newspaper will always sneak in their own political and social views and will not hesitate to quench the truth to influence their reader populace.

Quite some easy to expose LIES posted in this thread alone already, ain't it !
And I'm only at page 6 and the top of page 7 with my much needed review !

And still not one of these posters touched the real important facts I posted and asked multiple times to respond to, instead of this Psycho-game they try to play.
Facts which expose the UAL93 FDR and CVR as a fat big LIE.

There's three more pages to review, and after that, the psycho factor will be so clearly laid out for all of you; members, mods and owners alike, that you will start to understand what tactics this board, and especially the 911 and UFO forums are momentarily exposed to.

I'm really wondering what the task of moderation in this forum is?
To scare too easily aroused old and new members away who got irritated by clever psychological-operations techniques, with only Board Police moderation tactics, or, at last, interfere in an integer manner, ALSO with the intrinsic value of a thread and its posts. And expose the lies so easily to be proved.