History Channel Exposed - 9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain

Take a look here

wiredforwar.pwsinger.com...

And here

wiredforwar.pwsinger.com...:wired-for-war&catid=41:the-book-category&Itemid=27

Best book ever written on the subject - read it to understand - don't read it to ramble on without a clue.

posted by QweeQwa
Don't have enough posts to start my own thread but why fly an airplane into a building that is already rigged with explosives?

Won't waste too much time with a troll. QweeQua has committed ZERO time to research and ZERO time to look over what we have already researched for the past 4-5 years, which is easily available at multiple other forums which we have linked to and really good material at this ATS forum going back years.

QweeQwa has been here 4 days, started out in attack mode, and never entered learning mode, has only one friend, already has 2 warnings, has accumulated -926 ATS points, 1 thread, and 43 posts not one of which makes the teeniest bit of sense. QweeQwa is well on his way to finding a new forum to infest.

Susan McElwain witnessed a strange aircraft apparently on a reconnaissance mission. The Pentagon and WTC may have had similar reconnaissance missions. QweeQwa is curious about the Pentagon. QweeQwa needs to take the thread off-topic like most pseudoskeptics do. Perhaps those are standard pseudoskeptic training measures.

Flying an aircraft into a building such as the Pentagon with a steel reinforced wall, when a certain amount of damage is required and a limited amount of damage is required is a risky venture.

Bounce the aircraft along the lawn and the aircraft may not penetrate into the interior and create the required amount of death and destruction. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned destruction can be exact.

Pull the aircraft up too far due to pilot error or ground effect and there is a danger of crashing the aircraft into a much more vulnerable non-steel-reinforced area and creating ten times the death and destruction. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned destruction can be exact.

Pull the aircraft up too far due to pilot error or ground effect and there is a danger of missing the Pentagon all together creating a need to fly around and make another attempt. This might create great suspicion in a wary American public already sick of Pearl Harbor, JFK, RFK, MLK, Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Liberty, Oklahoma City, WTC 93, Flight 800, and multiple other US engineered events. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned destruction can be exact.

Blow the Pentagon West side up without the simulated aircraft and suspicious Americans might ask how terrorists could possibly get inside or even near what was supposedly the most secure building in the world. How would terrorists get past Secret Service security setup at the Pentagon to specifically protect the President and plant explosives inside? Am I using too much simple logic and common sense for your tastes QweeQwa?

The same precautions apply to the WTC. The towers could have stood there for years, heavily damaged and unusable until billions were spent to take them down piece by piece. Pre-planted explosives are much more reliable and the planned destruction can be exact.

We don't really know for sure why Flight 93 was where it was. If Flight 93 was shot down as QweeQwa assures us, then the government deliberately set up a paper trail of lies concerning Flight 93, including sending a C-130 all the way from the Pentagon, and including faking a crash site in a strip mine, and including planting an engine piece and black boxes in that strip mine, and including planting body parts and DNA in the area around the hole in the strip mine. But falsifying evidence is A-OK with QweeQwa, because falsifying evidence is what governments do.

If Flight 93 was shot down as QweeQwa assures us, then the government deliberately falsified flight paths from the very beginning. Then the government deliberately invented an entire drama script of passengers versus hijackers within the aircraft. QweeQwa believes that it would be OK for the government to lie about Flight 93, because if Flight 93 was actually shot down, somehow within the strange logic patterns within QweeQwa's brain, that means that Usama bin Laden did it. Logic 101 QweeQwa and 9-11 style.

I suspect the FBI man who visited Susan McElwain was indeed covering up a small UAV drone she saw or the fact that "UA93" was actually a C-17 and he didn't want Susan telling people there was a plane in the neighborhood which had a tail like the rear spoiler on a car. A C-17 tail looks kind of like a winged dragster.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agent Joe Friday: Open the door! It’s the FBI! Ma’am, are you the person who called in a report of seeing a plane this morning?

Susan: Yes, there was a plane the size of my mini-van and it had a tail like the spoiler on a car about a half mile south of the crash site. It was forty feet over me and it ducked under the powerlines and went over the trees toward the crash site and then the crash happened. I thought it was important that I tell people what I saw.

Agent Joe Friday: You don’t know what a 757 looks like.

Susan: Huh? I didn’t see a 757. I saw something smaller about a half mile south of the crash site.

Agent Joe Friday: You don’t know what a 757 looks like.

Susan: You’re saying that what I saw was really the 757 that crashed this morning?

Agent Joe Friday: Yes, ma’am. What you saw wasn’t a small plane about a half mile south of the crash site with a tail like the spoiler on a car ducking under the powerlines and going over the trees toward the crash site. What you saw was the 757 heading toward the crash site. But you don’t know what a 757 looks like.

Susan: I told you what I saw! And if what I saw was the plane that crashed this morning, it wasn’t a 757!

Agent Joe Friday: Here’s a picture of a 757. Get it in your head what it looks like and tell people that’s what you saw this morning heading toward the crash site. And, whatever you do, don’t go telling people that the plane that crashed this morning had a tail like the spoiler on a car!

Susan: Don’t be so condescending to me! I know what I saw and I know what a 757 looks like!

Agent Joe Friday (leaving): Ma’am, you don’t know what a 757 looks like!

………….

Susan: Hello, I want to report that the FBI agent who visited me last night was rude to me and told me I didn’t see what I saw.

…………

Agent Pep Streebek: Please open the door, ma’am. It’s the FBI. Ma’am, I’m here to tell you that your report is being taken seriously. Yes, ma’am, the FBI will take care of it. Please don’t lose your faith in the government. The government will take care of everything.

Mrs.McElwain clearly saw a drone from her description and since that was not what the FBI and History Channel wanted to hear so it was cut from the documentary.I believe the USAF shot down that jet over Shanksville thinking it was still hijacked.

reply to post by lightninboy

I suspect the FBI man who visited Susan McElwain was indeed covering up a small UAV drone she saw or the fact that "UA93" was actually a C-17 and he didn't want Susan telling people there was a plane in the neighborhood which had a tail like the rear spoiler on a car. A C-17 tail looks kind of like a winged dragster.

One problem genius.....

A C17 Globemaster has 4 ENGINES

A Boeing 757 has 2 EMGINES

Now I think Susan would know the difference between 2 and 4

Truthers are really getting desperate.....

, what happened to the high grade debunkers such as Reheat etc we once had?

TPTB are running out of money. This "financial crisis" hits everybody, even their own agents

Originally posted by thedman
One problem genius.....

A C17 Globemaster has 4 ENGINES

A Boeing 757 has 2 EMGINES

Now I think Susan would know the difference between 2 and 4

Truthers are really getting desperate.....

Study the Susan McElwain story. Where is it said that Susan saw four engines?
What do you non-truthers call yourselves? You are really getting desperate….

Originally posted by mike dangerously
I believe the USAF shot down that jet over Shanksville thinking it was still hijacked.

There’s a problem with that theory: who shot it down and where did it crash? No evidence.