Flight 93 Did Not Crash In Shanksville or Shot Down.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by wholetruth

 

I will not argue frivilous points that have already been shot down several times in here by myselfs and others just because YOU are late to the party. So to speak. Grab your sippy cup and use the ATS search function and look it up. I'm not going to indulge you with repititive answers to your cartoon hole theorys..

i'm sorry you are incapable of answering basic questions and apparently incapable of independent thought.

perhaps you should register over at randi's forums? you will find tons of people there who can't answer any questions or think for themselves.........

Originally posted by wholetruth

because the wing marks are a drainage ditch and the circular crater in the middle was most likely created by a missile or bomb.

Ok, so we are on the same page about the wing marks.

so you don't believe in this silly shoot down either, right?

the crater was prepped in advance just like bombs were put in the towers and the pentagon before 9/11.

so we agree, right?

Well, see this is where I am torn. I am not really sure what happened there but I have two choices. I can either Believe what the government told me or keep looking. The secretary of defense said it was shot down. This keeps me on the fence, you know.

reply to post by wholetruth

77 = No Hijack, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight

I think we just figured out who should go over to Randi's uh?!

Anyways, flight 93 was shot down like it or not. There is more evidence that points to that and if you really wanted answers than just to harrass or insult someone, then YOU TO would go get the answers as I have done. I'm finished replying to your immature & childish posts.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by Alfie1
wholetruth

I know you have been following the "New FDR decode" thread because you have been posting on it.

How can you say a final radio altitude of 4' combined with off the scale deceleration does not accord with witness statements ? Unless you are referring to CIT's cherry-picked segments.

personally, i dont trust the fdr data for anything.

it came from the criminals.

What is the point of you saying that " the data from 77 ends way too early and is inconsistent with all eyewitness accounts " when you now say you " don't trust the fdr data for anything ."

In fact the data doesn't end too early at all. With the extra 4 seconds it appears to end with the generator if not with the Pentagon wall itself.

There seems to be a direct correlation between the FDR confirming impact with the Pentagon and truthers trotting out the tired old " all faked " routine.

Originally posted by LillydaleWell, see this is where I am torn. I am not really sure what happened there but I have two choices. I can either Believe what the government told me or keep looking. The secretary of defense said it was shot down. This keeps me on the fence, you know.

if we're on the same page as the wingmarks then we should be on the same page on the shoot down.

ask yourself why would they make a plane shaped crater there and how did they know that was the spot the plane would be shot down and why shoot it down if you're letting other planes slam into buildings?

the 'wings' had to be there before 10:00am therefor it was planned in advance which explains why no one saw debris falling from 93 or smoke coming from it. all it did was flyover.

then the little white mystery plane susan mcelwain describes arrives and ka-boom!

plus mrs. mcelwain would have seen the plane or debris in the sky if it had been engaged.

by the time she got to that intersection flight 93 was already over indian lake flying away from the scene.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by wholetruth

 

77 = No Hijack, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight

I think we just figured out who should go over to Randi's uh?!

no, whats your question?

i'll answer it.

big difference.

should i add some smilie faces too now?

Anyways, flight 93 was shot down like it or not.

name a witness. name someone in shanksville who saw it.

There is more evidence that points to that and if you really wanted answers than just to harrass or insult someone, then YOU TO would go get the answers as I have done. I'm finished replying to your immature & childish posts.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

oh i want answers.

thats why unlike you, i went out and got them.

a few of them on film even........

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by wholetruth

Originally posted by Alfie1
wholetruth

I know you have been following the "New FDR decode" thread because you have been posting on it.

How can you say a final radio altitude of 4' combined with off the scale deceleration does not accord with witness statements ? Unless you are referring to CIT's cherry-picked segments.

personally, i dont trust the fdr data for anything.

it came from the criminals.

What is the point of you saying that " the data from 77 ends way too early and is inconsistent with all eyewitness accounts " when you now say you " don't trust the fdr data for anything ."

to stress the importance of the eyewitness testimony.

at ground zero, at arlington, at shanksville the eyewitnesses all contradict the story told by the government and the media.

the government and the media have lied to me about everything from who killed jfk and mlk to wmd's and global warming.

my neighbors don't have a history of doing that.

so i trust commoners way more than the elitists.

In fact the data doesn't end too early at all. With the extra 4 seconds it appears to end with the generator if not with the Pentagon wall itself.

you're jumping to conclusions. and besides i'm not interested in discussing the fdr data really which is why my interest in that thread didn't last long.

the supplied data most faked by the government shows the cockpit door never opened. so either your hijackers were in the seats when it was on the runway or they fakers fogot to add that little touch in for extra realism.

and the allegation that the alleged 11 previous flights weren't hijacked would corroborate the claim this flight wasn't hijacked.

There seems to be a direct correlation between the FDR confirming impact with the Pentagon and truthers trotting out the tired old " all faked " routine.

there seems to be a thing where people claim to be skeptical while simultaneously swallowing everything the government and media feeds them in their high chairs.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by wholetruth]

Originally posted by wholetruth
if we're on the same page as the wingmarks then we should be on the same page on the shoot down.

This is how you really start to lose my interest. Telling me what I should think. Thanks for playing.

You do not believe the OS, I do not believe the OS. If you want to tell me what to think, start a new thread with that argument.

ask yourself why would they make a plane shaped crater there and how did they know that was the spot the plane would be shot down and why shoot it down if you're letting other planes slam into buildings?

Ask yourself why they would admit to shooting it down.

the 'wings' had to be there before 10:00am therefor it was planned in advance which explains why no one saw debris falling from 93 or smoke coming from it. all it did was flyover.

I would not know. I have spent a week just getting a list of witness names from the truth seeking members of ATS who claimed to have it.

then the little white mystery plane susan mcelwain describes arrives and ka-boom!

plus mrs. mcelwain would have seen the plane or debris in the sky if it had been engaged.

So what did she see? How does it apply? How does what she saw confirm or negate a shoot down? How credible is she? We have to start with what she saw. What was it?

by the time she got to that intersection flight 93 was already over indian lake flying away from the scene.

You mean after she saw the unmanned UFO? Thanks.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by wholetruth
if we're on the same page as the wingmarks then we should be on the same page on the shoot down.

This is how you really start to lose my interest. Telling me what I should think. Thanks for playing.

you think they faked the crash site, correct?

do you think they faked it on the fly or planned it in advance?

You do not believe the OS, I do not believe the OS. If you want to tell me what to think, start a new thread with that argument.

i think the OP of this thread is correct. why make a new one?

Ask yourself why they would admit to shooting it down.

i dont think they would admit if they did. but that isnt proof to me that they did.

I would not know. I have spent a week just getting a list of witness names from the truth seeking members of ATS who claimed to have it.

well do you think they showed up with shovels and made that drainage ditch after the explosion?

So what did she see?

not a 757 and a small white plane.

viola saylor confirms seeing it fly away from the scene. she said it was small and white and was high when she saw it and flying away from her. rick chaney confirmed it being there above the trees when he ran outside from the salt mill with everyone else there to see what was going on.

How does it apply?

no 757, no explosion or smoke, no plane crash.

white plane, explosion and smoke, white plane flies away.

757 confirmed flying low, level, and 'normal' by paul muro who was closer to the site than viola saylor who stated how she couldn't believe it crashed the way it crashed because it had to pull up first to clear a ridge and then nose dive down.

witnesses at indian lake who saw or heard it fly over head prior to the explosion.

indian lake is a straight line from viola and paul and over the field where the explosion would take place seconds later.

How does what she saw confirm or negate a shoot down?

well had it crashed there she would have seen it nose diving down to the ground. if it had already crashed she would have seen the smoke as she was approaching the intersection. if it had been engaged and continued flying she would have noticed debris falling from the sky.

How credible is she?

she's a lifelong resident. she teaches special needs children. no one has discredited her in any way. she's been publicly corroborated by mrs. saylor and mr. chaney.

We have to start with what she saw. What was it?

some type of small white plane.

You mean after she saw the unmanned UFO? Thanks.

no it wasn't any alien space craft and mrs. mcelwain never said such.

how dare you mock someone who have the courage to speak the truth in this world of deception and lies.

mrs. mcelwain by being brave and speaking about what she saw and being corroborated publicly by mrs. saylor and mr. chaney has done more for the 9/11 truth movement than i suspect a lifetime of postings on the internet by you will ever accomplish.

Originally posted by wholetruth

you think they faked the crash site, correct?

do you think they faked it on the fly or planned it in advance?

No offense but I do not engage in conversations that suppose what I think and then offer me the options of agreeing or not. That is not how I roll. What I think about what happened in Shanksville is something not quite right. That is what I think.

i think the OP of this thread is correct. why make a new one?

Context is not going to be a strong point here is it. It was the new topic you introduced that I asked you to start a new thread on. Go back and read it again.

i dont think they would admit if they did. but that isnt proof to me that they did.

They did admit to shooting it down. That is why I asked you to consider why one might do that.

well do you think they showed up with shovels and made that drainage ditch after the explosion?

Seeing as how this started with me noting it was there pre-9/11...um no.

I will not bother with you if you are not going to actually read what I am writing.

not a 757 and a small white plane.

viola saylor confirms seeing it fly away from the scene. she said it was small and white and was high when she saw it and flying away from her. rick chaney confirmed it being there above the trees when he ran outside from the salt mill with everyone else there to see what was going on.

Ok...and...?

no 757, no explosion or smoke, no plane crash.

white plane, explosion and smoke, white plane flies away.

Wait. You just said NO EXPLOSION OR SMOKE. Then you said but she did see an EXPLOSION AND SMOKE.

You do see the conflict there, I hope.

757 confirmed flying low, level, and 'normal' by paul muro who was closer to the site than viola saylor who stated how she couldn't believe it crashed the way it crashed because it had to pull up first to clear a ridge and then nose dive down.

witnesses at indian lake who saw or heard it fly over head prior to the explosion.

indian lake is a straight line from viola and paul and over the field where the explosion would take place seconds later.

OK, all news to me.

well had it crashed there she would have seen it nose diving down to the ground. if it had already crashed she would have seen the smoke as she was approaching the intersection. if it had been engaged and continued flying she would have noticed debris falling from the sky.

So...it does neither actually. Are you sure you are not here just to muddy the waters?

she's a lifelong resident. she teaches special needs children. no one has discredited her in any way. she's been publicly corroborated by mrs. saylor and mr. chaney.

I do not know those whole 2 people that you claim can back here up but if you need a list of incredible people that have lived places all their life, ATS does not have the space. If you need a list of special needs workers that are also known to have lied or committed criminal acts, ATS does not have the space. I asked how credible she was. You did your best.

and what did she see?

some type of small white plane.

You mean after she saw the unmanned UFO? Thanks.

no it wasn't any alien space craft and mrs. mcelwain never said such.

When did I say anything about Aliens? Has it been identified? Was it flying? It was not an object as well was it? That my friend, is a UFO. Sorry if that hurts.

how dare you mock someone who have the courage to speak the truth in this world of deception and lies.

How dare you "how dare" me anything. I am sorry that you are not reading along and just responding for fun but you are tiresome and I am getting nothing out of this. You and 2 other people believe her. OK.

I never said she was a liar, you just are not helping at ALL!

mrs. mcelwain by being brave and speaking about what she saw and being corroborated publicly by mrs. saylor and mr. chaney has done more for the 9/11 truth movement than i suspect a lifetime of postings on the internet by you will ever accomplish.

Wow. So you came here to do what? Respond without reading? Get upset over words that confuse you? Tell me what I may or may not have done in comparison to a youtube star? I thought you were really interested in the topic and the truth around it. I can admit when I am wrong.

Originally posted by Lillydale
No offense but I do not engage in conversations that suppose what I think and then offer me the options of agreeing or not. That is not how I roll. What I think about what happened in Shanksville is something not quite right. That is what I think.

wow, thanks for 'something not quite right' and then arguing against the evidence that proves there was 'something not quite right'.

Context is not going to be a strong point here is it.

gee, i don't know. is that a question or a statement?

It was the new topic you introduced that I asked you to start a new thread on. Go back and read it again.

is the new topic how the wings were made at the fake crash site because the plane flew over or is it telling you how to think? which is ridiculous because i'm not.

They did admit to shooting it down. That is why I asked you to consider why one might do that.

and tim roemer said a missile hit the pentagon. doesn't make it true. rumsfeld is one of the worst liars in the world but now suddenly he has credibility?

Seeing as how this started with me noting it was there pre-9/11...um no.

I will not bother with you if you are not going to actually read what I am writing.

you're not reading what i write. all you do is get defensive over it.

so you know the ditch was there before 9/11.

do you think then that they knew this plane was going to flyover that spot so then could fake a crash site?

Ok...and...?

just corroborating mrs. mcelwain is all.

no 757, no explosion or smoke, no plane crash.

white plane, explosion and smoke, white plane flies away.

Wait. You just said NO EXPLOSION OR SMOKE. Then you said but she did see an EXPLOSION AND SMOKE.

You do see the conflict there, I hope.

yes let me try again for you.

mrs. mcelwain pulls up to the intersection.

she sees no 757 in the sky nor any smoke in the sky.

you stated you don't believe a plane had crashed there. therefor we need to account for what happened to the 757 bob blair, doug miller, viola saylor, & paul muro all saw heading in that direction.

since in a direct line 3 miles away we have a group of witnesses who either see or hear the 757 fly over them prior to the explosion we can conclude that this has to be the plane witnessed approaching the site.

so for mrs. mcelwain not to see it, it has to be in indian lake by the time she gets there.

then we have the white plane approach the same area the 757 was seen heading.

then we have an explosion which is also felt and heard in indian lake after the plane flew over.

then we have viola saylor and rick chaney both witnessing the little white plane flying away from the site.

OK, all news to me.

yeah well this is the evidence that a lot of people try to suppress because a shoot down and can still be spun in favor of the bush administration. sorry we lied, but we had no choice to shoot down. no new investigation.....

Originally posted by Lillydale
So...it does neither actually. Are you sure you are not here just to muddy the waters?

i'm not here to muddy any waters. i just try to explain what 3 years of research in the area with the witnesses leads me to believe. you can dismiss it or not. i dont argue about the government data or anything else, i just relay what the eyewitnesses have stated, the implications of their accounts, and defend them or clarify them.

I do not know those whole 2 people that you claim can back here up but if you need a list of incredible people that have lived places all their life, ATS does not have the space. If you need a list of special needs workers that are also known to have lied or committed criminal acts, ATS does not have the space. I asked how credible she was. You did your best.

here's viola saylor, she is in the video in the OP :

Google Video Link

rick chaney can be heard telling his account and how the fbi came back and told everyone at the salt mill not to talk about it in this video :

When did I say anything about Aliens? Has it been identified? Was it flying? It was not an object as well was it? That my friend, is a UFO. Sorry if that hurts.

don't play games like you dont know the negative connotations of attaching those letters to an eyewitness on 9/11.

How dare you "how dare" me anything. I am sorry that you are not reading along and just responding for fun but you are tiresome and I am getting nothing out of this. You and 2 other people believe her. OK.

so tell me which 911 eyewitness you believe are telling the truth then. then explain to me why they are so much more credible than mrs. mcelwain who is corroborated by mrs. saylor and mr. chaney.

bet you won't.

I never said she was a liar,

no, she just saw a ufo on 9/11......

you just are not helping at ALL!

wow, what an orwellian statement.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by wholetruth]

[edit on 21-1-2010 by wholetruth]

My problem with flight 93 is that the passengers supposively overthrew the terrorist and then they did what? They crashed the plane on purpose so that it wouldn't hit DC or other buildings? Why not try to contact flight control and attempt to land the plane?

That just does not make any sense.

Don't try to tell me that the passengers were fighting over control of the plane with the terrorist when it crashed, becuase 20 to 200 passengers could have carried all of the terrorist out of the cockpit and kept the plane level. Instead of immediately crashing it into the ground.

reply to post by tooo many pills


You mean the default position of any plane when in the middle of any kind of distress or simple lack of control from human input is not to point straight down? Hmmmm.....

reply to post by Lillydale


LOL!

It is either that or the first button the passengers pressed after they gained control of the plane was the nose dive button.

Seriously though, doesn't that bother anyone?

[edit on 21-1-2010 by tooo many pills]

Originally posted by wholetruth
i'm not here to muddy any waters. i just try to explain what 3 years of research in the area with the witnesses leads me to believe. you can dismiss it or not. i dont argue about the government data or anything else, i just relay what the eyewitnesses have stated, the implications of their accounts, and defend them or clarify them.

OK, whatever. Why are you hounding me about it? If you have something to share, please share it with the entire class.

here's viola saylor, she is in the video in the OP :

Google Video Link

I have already seen this video. I saw "Cloverfield" too. That did not make it any more real than reading the synopsis did. You remind me of a very certain type of ATSer. Mars buildings and credible Meyer photos and blah blah blah. When I point out that there is no real reason to believe their story, you repeat it. When I point out repeating it does not make it any more credible, YOU YELL IT. Tell the story as many ways, with as many colorful video representations of THE EXACT SAME THING as you like. Repetition does not create truth.

rick chaney can be heard telling his account and how the fbi came back and told everyone at the salt mill not to talk about it in this video :

Awesome! Nice job. You took my questioning 3 people's story and turned it into 2 videos. Well if that does not convert me, who knows what would? I might even be one of those psychos that needs a little more than a few guys talking about just about anything in order to JUST BELIEVE IT.

don't play games like you dont know the negative connotations of attaching those letters to an eyewitness on 9/11.

We are playing games? Am I winning then if you ask to forfeit? I do not care what negative connotations go along with attaching anything to anything. I said nothing negative or untrue. You took it that way. I can not be held responsible for your dislike for the language we are using to discuss this. Do you have a better suggestion? I will admit now that I know very little Spanish and even less Japanese but I am game. A UFO is a UFO whether you like how it sounds or not. Have you identified it? Was it not real? Has the story since changed and it was doing anything but flying?

so tell me which 911 eyewitness you believe are telling the truth then.

Out of...? A lot of things happened that way and there are lots of people that either were a witness to something on 9/11 or claim to be. Among the thousands of real witnesses in NY, it has also become the new "I am shipping out tomorrow, baby." Well, one of the new ones anyway. So who is the pool from which I am sure you have decided for me to choose from.

then explain to me why they are so much more credible than mrs. mcelwain who is corroborated by mrs. saylor and mr. chaney.

bet you won't.

Bet I can't. I am not even sure I actually claimed that I specifically denied her story was true. I think you are here to argue and that is about it. How about you argue with someone that is promoting the 'Official Story' around here? There is really no shortage. I am not sure what you want from me. I am not really buying your story. Sorry. Go sell your books next door.

I never said she was a liar,

no, she just saw a ufo on 9/11......

She did claim to see a UFO. You are the one that shared that with us.

you just are not helping at ALL!

wow, what an orwellian statement.

In what way?

[edit on 1/21/10 by Lillydale]

reply to post by tooo many pills


I stated that in another thread of mine.
Why would the passengers even fight back in the first place because most people are taught NOT to fight with terrorists on airplanes. Primarily because they can't tell how many of them they are or if they have any bombs or hidden weapons.

The OS says the terrorists were in the cockpit THEN it also says the passnegers were in the cockpit. But the recorder transcripts shows only the terrorists in the cockpit....

My name for the OS is: TOL = The Official Lie





[edit on 21-1-2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by tooo many pills
My problem with flight 93 is that the passengers supposively overthrew the terrorist and then they did what? They crashed the plane on purpose so that it wouldn't hit DC or other buildings? Why not try to contact flight control and attempt to land the plane?

That just does not make any sense.

Don't try to tell me that the passengers were fighting over control of the plane with the terrorist when it crashed, becuase 20 to 200 passengers could have carried all of the terrorist out of the cockpit and kept the plane level. Instead of immediately crashing it into the ground.

there is no version of this story where the passengers were successful in breaching the cockpit.

reply to post by Lillydale


i have nothing more to say to you.

reply to post by wholetruth


FBI says they did as does many newscasts as well. Check your facts there bud.