9/11 POLL : Do You Believe a Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville?

Originally posted by Point of No Return
That whole theory about people blasting to confetti is complete nonsense.

Compared to what? Compared to the theory that there was no crash in Shanksville, that a covert team of gubbermint black ops agents somehow deceived several unrelated eyewitnesses into imagining that they saw an airliner dive straight out of the sky and explode on impact (with holograms, no doubt), and that these black ops agents set the woods on fire and pushed the dirt around with a bulldozer BEFORE the first-responders arrived on the scene within minutes of the crash? And then, of course, the gubbermint trucked in the wreckage and staged a photo-op of the recovery effort.

Who's talking nonsense now?

Damn, I just had a stroke and I've still got more common sense than you Flight 93 conspiracy theorists.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Point of No Return
he thinks the conical shape directs the blast, and gives it more blast output. This is completely wrong, and therefore his theory is complete nonsense....this has nothing do to with a conical impact crater, it's just stupid....Utter BS.

Yet your theory that nothing happened at the alleged crash site somehow makes more sense? There's more science behind my theory than behind your fantasy.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Point of No Return
he thinks the conical shape directs the blast, and gives it more blast output. This is completely wrong, and therefore his theory is complete nonsense....this has nothing do to with a conical impact crater, it's just stupid....Utter BS.

Yet your theory that nothing happened at the alleged crash site somehow makes more sense? There's more science behind my theory than behind your fantasy.

— Doc Velocity

You're deflecting Doc.

I think i have explained why your "Jet Cone Energy" theory has nothing to do with the alleged air-plane crash. Three times or so.

There is nothing scientific about your theory, it is just drivel, and you base it on the principle of a shaped charge, wich is a totally different situation.

It appears you have no way of countering my claims, so you have to resort to plain old ridiculing of "them stuupid twoofers". The so-called grasping at straws.

Who's talking nonsense now?

You are, I have proven your theory doesn't apply to an aircraft crash, instead of showing me where I'm wrong in my criticism, you start talking about what I might or might not think.

We were talking about your theory, you can't defend it, so you have to divert the discussion.

Damn, I just had a stroke and I've still got more common sense than you Flight 93 conspiracy theorists.

I see the stroke certainly hasn't affected the regions of your brain that gouvern the ego, logic, I'm not sure, then again you never did have much.

And I would show some humility, wouldn't want to jinx yourself now, would you?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Here a vid with an eye witness in Shanksville, Susan McElwain.

www.youtube.com...

She concludes that what she saw was either a missile, or more probable, an UAV.

Global Hawk or Predator maybe.

reply to post by Point of No Return


ONE witness, Susan McElwain.....versus the nearby private pilot in his Cherokee who SAW UAL 93, the radar tracking that SAW UAL 93, the DFDR and CVR recovered from the crash site, the many, many pounds (something on the order of approximately 90-95% of the total airframe, depending on the source) recovered from the crash site (and held in storage, belonging to United Airlines) the forensics examination and identification of the human remains, etc, etc.

Some woman, who knows nothing, is not schooled in the field of aviation, who saw something, but as is typical with some eyewitness tesitimony will misremember after the fact...and THAT is what 'conspiracists' hang their hats on??



[edit on 1 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ONE witness, Susan McElwain.....versus the nearby private pilot in his Cherokee who SAW UAL 93, the radar tracking that SAW UAL 93, the DFDR and CVR recovered from the crash site, the many, many pounds (something on the order of approximately 90-95% of the total airframe, depending on the source) recovered from the crash site (and held in storage, belonging to United Airlines) the forensics examination and identification of the human remains, etc, etc.

Moreover, there isn't anythign in Susan McElwain's testimony that contradicts the 9/11 commisison report. When flight 93 went down, ground controllers asked a passing corporate jet to descend and look for a crash site. This jet was a Fairchild Falcon 20.

Photo of Fairchild Falcon 20 jet

By her own testimony, she saw a plane with, "two rear engines and a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side" so it's blatantly obvious from the spot-on description that this is is the plane she saw . It's likewise blatantly obvious these conspiracy theorists are deliberately misrepresenting her testimony like they misrepresent everything else they touch to get people all paranoid over shadows. The outright dishonesty of these conspiracy people is thoroughly disgusting.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

By her own testimony, she saw a plane with, "two rear engines and a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side" so it's blatantly obvious from the spot-on description that this is is the plane she saw . It's likewise blatantly obvious these conspiracy theorists are deliberately misrepresenting her testimony like they misrepresent everything else they touch to get people all paranoid over shadows. The outright dishonesty of these conspiracy people is thoroughly disgusting.

More lies, so blatant. Watch the freakin video I posted. It's got the woman denying it was a Falcon 20 on freakin' camera.

She also concluded that she saw a missile, or more probable a UAV fly low over her car, without noise, go up over some tress and then crashed down.

Why can I never get a response to the evidence I provide, it's always lies, accusations and deflection.

I'm looking forward to seeing you counter this one.

reply to post by weedwhacker

ONE witness, Susan McElwain.....versus

I'm just presenting the evidence.

Should she be disregarded because her testimony differs from the testimonies from the OS?



[edit on 1-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return

I'm just presenting the evidence.

No, your "presenting" one youtube video made by some unknown person who may or may not have his own agenda. You are blatanly ignoring anything else to the contrary

Should she be disregarded because her testimony differs from the testimonies from the OS?

I have no problem with that. The so-called evidence was compiled by person or persons that may not have the most honest agenda, and there is nothing wrong with disregarding "outliers". Happens all the time. If the cops have 9 witness testifying they saw a blue sedan at the scene of the crime and one witness testifies that he/she saw a garbage truck the cops do not turn around and begin investigating the other 9 for perjury, do they?

reply to post by Point of No Return


This right here discredits her:

...or more probable a UAV fly low over her car, without noise

"silent" UAVs now?



(OK, should point out....some surveillance UAVs, when at altitude, can be pretty quiet...like when they're several thousand feet up).

And....if someone wishes to claim a 'cruise missile'? Well...."silent"? Hardly.

[edit on 1 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by hooper


Here this is what I mean. The deflection and disinfo.

You can see the woman say it with your own eyes for crying out loud! There's nothing to be taken out of context.

She denies it was a Falcon20, they showed her a pic, and she concluded later in the vid that it was a missile or an UAV, for the third time.

This is getting old, do I have to keep on correcting you guys in the face of obvious evidence?

edit to add:

Hooper, sofar, you haven't made a single reply to me in this thread that was actually correct in regards to what I said, or to the evidence that I posted.

And I'm not seeing a positive trend, maybe you should refrain from replying to me.



[edit on 1-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Whatever it was, it was not flight 97.

Off course you would discredit her.

reply to post by Point of No Return

Whatever it was, it was not flight 97.

Yeah. You're right.

She didn't see United Airlines flight 93. I don't know what she, saw, and SHE doesn't either. BUT, from the description, to suggest a UAV or cruise missile just shows a reach by the 'conspiracy' people, as they seem desperate to ignore facts, and substantial evidence to contrary.

I doubt very much she would be reliable eyewitness in any other circumstances, either. I have been around too many such people, in my lifetime...

That video is a 'darling' of conspiracy theorists, though...it's but one of the meager claims they have, and cling to. Irrationally, it seems.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Jeah, I meant flight 93.

BUT, from the description, to suggest a UAV or cruise missile just shows a reach by the 'conspiracy' people, as they seem desperate to ignore facts, and substantial evidence to contrary.

Hahaa, the irony. You didn't even watch the video of a live eye witness, and you accuse me of ignoring evidence?

You're pathetic

I doubt very much she would be reliable eyewitness in any other circumstances, either. I have been around too many such people, in my lifetime...

Too many such people, man what are you on about? Such people? On what basis do you condemn her and for what exactly?

Such an empty baseless statement, made in order to discredit.

That video is a 'darling' of conspiracy theorists, though...it's but one of the meager claims they have, and cling to. Irrationally, it seems.

At this point, it's just pure and utter drivel that comes from your fingertips.





[edit on 1-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

Like the patriot act and the middle east wars, the propaganda campaign to convince people of a massive lie was planned well before this massive illusion was foisted upon the world.

And people are still profiting from it, to this day.

A lie so big was told us that most people were too much in shock to ask questions, "witnesses" were arranged, films were quickly edited, debris was added and crime scenes wiped clean.

I pity those whose lies still cover the truth. They still do not understand "the reckoning".

Originally posted by Point of No Return
More lies, so blatant. Watch the freakin video I posted. It's got the woman denying it was a Falcon 20 on freakin' camera.

She also concluded that she saw a missile, or more probable a UAV fly low over her car, without noise, go up over some tress and then crashed down.

I shouldn't have to tell you that branding everything you don't want to hear as a lie is being intellectually lazy. I am quoting Susan Mcelwain's own eyewitness account as reported by the Bergen Record, published 9/14/2001: "Less than a minute before the Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside, she sees a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings swoop low over her minivan near an intersection and disappear over a hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge." I am likewise quoting her eyewitness account verbatim as reported to the Mirror, on 9/12/2002: "There’s no way I imagined this plane—it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."

Source: Historrycommons.com

I pointed out the irrefutable fact via photo that the Falcon 20 is a spot-on match to her description of a white plane with double rear engines with a rear tail like a spoiler and two upright fins on the wings, so her denying that it was a Falcon 20 is unrealistic. I will likewise point out that UAV have V shaped tails which hardly look like a spoiler on a car, while missiles don't have dual rear engines nor are they ever silent. Her "definitely military" is an unexplorable personal opinion since we have no idea what she thinks a "military look" is (though I wouldn't doubt that the military uses Falcon 20's somewhere).

Moreover, there were more eyewitnesses than just McElwain who were there, and who saw the same craft she saw. They all describe the same kind of craft as a Falcon 20-

-Dennis Decker and/or Rick Chaney, say: “As soon as we looked up [after hearing the Flight 93 crash], we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast. It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.” Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Learjet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings.

-Kathy Blades, who is staying about quarter of a mile from the impact site, runs outside after the crash and sees a jet, “with sleek back wings and an angled cockpit,” race overhead.

By the testimony of everyone who was there, it had to have been the Falcon 20 they all saw, and we know for a fact there was a Falcon 20 in the area. These are the facts, and any attempt on your part to obfuscate any of these facts to support your conspiracy fantasia will be a deliberate lie on your part.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
I think i have explained why your "Jet Cone Energy" theory has nothing to do with the alleged air-plane crash. Three times or so.

No, actually, you haven't "explained" anything. All you've done is criticize a physical principle about which you seem to know nothing. Your explanations seem dependent on words such as "nonsense" and "stupid" and "BS"... Which tells me that you don't understand the physics that can and do explain how 45 human beings can be blasted into confetti in a split second.

Then again, if conspiracy theorists were the least bit educated in physics, there wouldn't be any conspiracy theories. How much more simple to fabricate cartoonish scenarios of gubbermint cover-up, which have utterly no evidence to back them up.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Point of No Return


Oh, contraire....

You didn't even watch the video of a live eye witness...

I have watched THAT video, and many, mnay others as well, multiple times.


That's why I know she hasn't the faintest clue....

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Again, empty words.

All you've done is criticize a physical principle about which you seem to know nothing.

I didn't critisize the principle, I said the principle doesn't apply to the air crash and the conical impact crater.

Please qoute the part were I'm incorrect in describing the principle of a shaped charge, and where I'm incorrect in saying it doesn't fir the comparison.

You keep talking, but you aren't saying anything. Just the old accusations and deflections.

Refute my statements with arguments.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I shouldn't have to tell you that branding everything you don't want to hear as a lie is being intellectually lazy. I am quoting Susan Mcelwain's own eyewitness account as reported by the Bergen Record, published 9/14/2001:

Again, I have to correct someone, sigh.

This is why I posted the video, and why I'm talking about the video, watch the freaking video, they specifically ask her about those claims, and she denies ever saying that, Bergen misrepresented her.

Since the vid has her on camera, I know she is not misrepresented there.

You people keep attacking my evidence, but you don't even watch it. How thick can you be.