Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

I will address the rest of the posts on pages 7 to 9 later on, but first this important post about how they already falsified FDR's and CVR's in the past.


Weedwhacker, I remember you writing in this thread that an FDR and CVR are not possible to falsify, because of the myriad of data to be altered.
I answered you that I remembered one case we discussed at this forum many years ago, where it was discovered that the black boxes (in this case orange) were switched by an air crash investigator on the scene, to later on to be able to blame the pilot for the crash, while in fact the new Airbus fly-by-wire computer system was the cause of the crash.

The crook and his bosses did not notice that a photographer took some pictures of him with the originally found black boxes standing beside his legs in a hilly, woody area at the crash site.
The later shown boxes were clearly not the same!
It took ten years to get that proof out, showing that real concerned Truthers their stamina and endurance is not to be underestimated.

Well, have a look at the story of the altered and falsified black boxes from Air France Flight 296, an Airbus A320-111 which crashed at an air show at Habsheim, France :

Date: June 26, 1988
Time: 14:45
Location: Habsheim, France
Operator: Air France
Flight number: 296Q
Route: Basel - Basel
AC type: Airbus A320-111
Aboard: 136 (passengers: 130, crew:6)
Fatalities: 3 (passengers: 3, crew:0)

Summary: The plane was scheduled to perform a series of fly-bys at an air show. The plane was to descend to 100 ft. altitude with landing gear and flaps extended. The automatic go-around protection was inhibited for the maneuver. During the maneuver, the plane descended thru 100 ft. to an altitude of 30 feet and hit trees at the end of the runway. The aircraft was totally destroyed by the successive impacts and violent fire which followed. The pilot allowed the aircraft to descend through 100 ft. at slow speed and maximum angle of attack and was late in applying go-around power. Unfamiliarity of the crew with the landing field and lack of planning for the flyby.

Source: www.planecrashinfo.com...

For anybody searching for airplane accidents details, here is the full database covering all incidents from 1920 until 2010 :

www.planecrashinfo.com...

This is a comment posted on this page :
"Search for Air France Flight 447 victims ends; 51 bodies found."
blog.seattlepi.com... :

Honeywell's black boxes want to be found, but people need to realize that the French are in charge of the search. They have to make it look good, but finding the black boxes is the last thing they want to do. Of course, Airbus is owned by more than one country, but they are assembled in France. As long as there's no black boxes, then the French government, who is closely involved with Airbus (one of the conflicts of interests created by socialism), can blame the crash on something relatively inexpensive to fix, like pitot tubes or software. The problem is the infamous standard Airbus vertical stabilizer connection to the fuselage. They rely on a software based limiter to protect the fragile connection. There have been many instances of the tail fin snapping off. Late last year, an Air New Zealand Airbus crashed in the Mediterranean, and it's vertical stabilizer was found floating in the Mediterranean, away from the other wreckage. It didn't make big news, as only the flight crew was on board. Once the vertical stabilizer snaps off, you'll get messed up speed readings, because the plane will go into a flat spin or a Dutch roll, so I think, with Flight 447, the tail fin snapping off was the beginning of the problem. Remember the French cover-up of Flight 296, where they switched the black boxes in order to blame the pilot instead of the Airbus. The switch wasn't discovered until 10 years later. Don't let the French get away with it for so long again!

This is a video of the low fly-by of the then new Airbus and then the computer systems did not allow the plane to rise from this stunt, over the trees, because its software thought the plane was in a landing procedure and could not be interrupted for safety reasons. They just forgot to implement such an event procedure in the software.

And The French were not very pleased to have to admit at the time, that the Airbus still had some intrinsic failures in it, so they falsified parts of the FDR and CVR, and then copied the "real original" FDR and CVR to two new boxes with a different outside hull pattern, easily to be analyzed from the pictures taken on the day of the crash when the original boxes were leaning against the legs of the air crash investigator.
Of course this air-show stunt was, as always, monitored from the ground, and the Airbus technicians immediately saw that the plane's software did not allow the pilots joy-stick inputs to lift the plane.
So they knew immediately that it was a plane's fault, and not the pilot's fault.

But they accused him immediately of making a faulty move, to cover up the companies fault, so they still could sell airplanes to the curious but still interested airlines all over the world.

www.youtube.com...



Now, so many years later, you still have to read between the lines in those last words at the www.planecrashinfo.com site page.
""Unfamiliarity of the crew with the landing field and lack of planning for the flyby.""

Lack of planning, my butt. Of course they planned it meticulously, the selling of more planes was connected to these air-try flights.
It was the software's lack of solutions for this problematic situation.

This is Killtowns page about the black boxes (red) of UAL93 found in the crater.
Especially the Allied Systems to Honeywell switch is worth noticing, and Killtowns last sentence about that :

hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com...

"" So how much you wanna bet officials will now say that Flight 93 had its CVR replaced in the 2 years before the attacks?! ""

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.

I just love it. You conspiracy people are just so much in love with the idea there's some conspiracy afoot that you're resorting to slicing and dicing McElwain's testimony for hidden microscopic meanings and now you're getting into fistfights over what the hidden microscopic meanings are.

What say you two get together and decide whether the craft did or did not have wings and then get back to us? For me, I know full flipping well the craft had wings.

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.

Dude, grow up. Despite what you think you're doing, the only thing you're actually doing is wallowing in a nonstop runaway train of make believe and unsupported conjecture to suit your own purposes. If you can invent a scenario that involves the secret use of remote control observation drones then you can likewise invent a scenario where they painted a red missile white and installed a different tail configuration. Heck, you're the one who's making up the claim the craft had some secret sinister purpose to begin with.

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"

Oh, so now you're attributing the "no wings" claim to me?!? That was ATH's claim, not mine, and I'M the one trying to convince HIM there had to be wings on the craft regardless of what McElwain says. Did you even bother to READ the thread?

I said it before and I'll say it again- you conspiracy people only see what you want to see. ATH *did* interpret it as a wingless craft and even repeated it in his response to you, but becuase you have such a hard on for blasting me you couldn't even see it posted there in black and white...and you say I'm the one who has no reading comprehension. Incredible.

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.

All right, mr. comprehension, it's time to put up or shut up- so how do you explain Terry Butler specifically seeing flight 93 falling out of the sky and heading directly toward the ground? If eyewitness accounts are so unimpeachable as you've been insisting then it really was flight 93 that crashed and all these side issues you're harping about are pointless, or, his account cannot be taken at face value which means you're a complete fraud for defending McElwain's account verbatim so zealously.

Let's see you weasel your way out of that one.

Here's proof that the Jet was taking care off by F16s from the National Guard! as the White House says

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Here's proof that the Jet was taking care off by F16s from the National Guard! as the White House says

Kind of suggests the government wasn't involved...

Unless they like spoiling their own conspiracies.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Well the F16s got orders from somewhere! you heard the lady?

I think you've misunderstood.

I meant it suggests the government weren't involved in planning the 9/11 attacks. Otherwise why would they shoot down their own plane?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Dont be so naive! it woulden be the first! or i hasten to say the last


[edit on 20-8-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Okay. I think you're still missing the point.

Why would the government shoot the plane down if the government wanted it to crash into a building?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

Okay. I think you're still missing the point.

Why would the government shoot the plane down if the government wanted it to crash into a building?

Its not the Government per say, its TPTB pulling the strings, to them we are but cattle in a very large herd! we mean nothing to them!

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE


Its not the Government per say, its TPTB pulling the strings, to them we are but cattle in a very large herd! we mean nothing to them!

Okay. I think you're still missing the point.

Why would TPTB shoot the plane down if TPTB wanted it to crash into a building?

That's an easy one, and why did you not think of that yourself?

Because the passengers took back the cockpit controls of the plane, and no one could be let alive to survive, to tell the real story of UAL93 !

Why do you think there was such a long piece inserted in the cockpit voice recorder with only wind noise?
Did you ever try to shatter a cockpit window?
Or do you think there were guns on board? And that wind noise came from bullet holes?

And do you really think that America is still ruled by democratic leaders?
You obviously are ruled for many decades already by the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned for in his farewell speech.

And all these power hungry creatures on Capitol Hill are stooges, inserted to fool the overwhelmingly dumbed down populace of the USA.
They don't need the obvious clever part of the populace to be afraid of, since the dumb part still outnumbers them.

LIST continuation-2 :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

GoodolDave : The only one shifting to a different subject here is you. I am quoting Susan McElwain who said in a previous interview with the Bergan Record (which every 9/11 conspiracy web site accepts as legitimate) that the craft 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." Predators don't have two rear engines and according to your own links they stall and fall like a meteor below 60mph, so none of the fanciful suggestions you have made comes close to resembling what she had seen.
If you are going to quote her verbatim then you need to take ALL her quotes into account verbatim, not just cherry pick those one or two sexy sounding ones that you find expedient to your agenda. Otherwise, you're only agreeing with me that she may have misjudged some of the events she's reporting.

GoodolDave was NOT quoting Susan, and he was NOT quoting "the Bergen Record", he was quoting the US editor of the British tabloid "The Mirror", Richard Wallace, who added this possible description of an A-10 Warthog into the rest of the interview. Anyone who can READ, can see what "the Bergen Record" really wrote on 14 Sept 2001 :

www.historycommons.org...

Bergen Record ; interview with Susan McElwain excerpt :

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. [Bergen Record, 9/14/2001]

And this article excerpt is what Richard Wallace from "The Mirror" wrote one year later, which put many of its readers on the wrong path to a possible description of an A-10, much bigger as an UAV drone, when interpreting Susan's eyewitness report by changing the reader's impression from a small UAV to a big fat military jet plane.

The Mirror ; one year later, came up with a small (bolded by me) but confusing addition to her story :

She later adds, “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. I haven’t found one like it on the Internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.… But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40 feet above my head. They did not want my story—nobody here did.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002]

That bolded, italic part of Richard Wallace's text, about the two upright fins, she didn't mention again in her videotaped interviews, and she even pertinently denied in her video interview with Ettaro and DiMaggio that the UAV sweeping over her car roof could have ever been an A-10, when she was shown a photo of an A-10.
See this screenshot of her interview, when she points at all the rivets on the wings of an A-10, repeating meanwhile that the UAV she saw, was totally rivet-less and smooth :

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


Neither was it a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet she said, when she was shown a photo of one too.

I would not be surprised if Richard Wallace has copied that, bolded by me, particular piece of text from one of the many agency-fronts "911 conspiracy-debunker" websites spreading around on the web like a wild fire, after the abundance of 911-conspiracy theories based on too many discrepancies in the official stories, got around on the Web.
This is one of their main techniques, altering witness statements slowly over the years, inserting pieces of dis-info one by one, until that final text becomes the supposed (but false) "source text".

GoodolDave then picks one example from the long lists of UAV's from several sources I linked to, and triumphantly declares that that one would fall as a stone at a stall speed of 65 miles per hour.
Well, I provided other UAV's, which have a cruising speed of 50 to 65 kilometer per hour.
And even a speed of 70 Miles per hour is slow for an airplane, any airplane.
But 65 kilometer per hour is really slow for any airplane, be it a fiberglass UAV, or a model airplane.
I also showed them one white model-airplane with a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car with a rear motor, in that grouped photo of model-planes on a runway.
No problem at all for any UAV construction company to duplicate such a model as a three times bigger UAV with reconnaissance capabilities build in.

But as we know by now, the US military and Agencies stole the following design from mr Burnelli in the nineteen-fifties already, and used its basic design for "their" F-15. They only left the "spoiler" out, since in the seventies, new, improved, strong enough tail-section connections to the fuselage were developed. The Russians quickly followed with their own designs based on that 1947 Burnelli Fighter and its offspring, the F-15.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7bba24eb92c3.jpg[/atsimg]


The 1947 Burnelli fighter 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."", and was smooth and white.
At the "side", in this case, means the sides of the spoiler.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6bd3628aa737.jpg[/atsimg]


And thus perhaps "the Mirror" interview was still genuine, and in that case I have to apologize to its US-editor Richard Wallace, since such a "spoiler" as seen by Susan McElwain has to have been attached to some part of the fuselage, and in the above pictures of the 1947 Burnelli Fighter it is attached to "two upright fins at the side".

A scaled down version could have been what Susan McElwain described as sweeping over the roof of her van. These Burnelli types of planes were famous for their very slow and also very fast airspeed capabilities, caused by the extra lifting properties of their convex, wing-like bodies.
When you would see a scaled down Burnelli-type, UAV-plane sweeping over your van, you would remember its underbelly as a smooth, white molded body 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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1fe11f914a79.jpg[/atsimg]


And the following UAV is an interesting example of a smoothly molded white fiberglass UAV which definitely would rise some eyebrows when spotted by unsuspecting citizens in a rural surrounding at low and slow pace, with a body (wings exempted) not bigger as the white van to the left of it, and with two rear engines (or exhaust pipes) at the bottom of its back :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8111f4a7e77c.jpg[/atsimg]

[More]

GoodolDave : If you are going to quote her verbatim then you need to take ALL her quotes into account verbatim, not just cherry pick those one or two sexy sounding ones that you find expedient to your agenda. Otherwise, you're only agreeing with me that she may have misjudged some of the events she's reporting.

Again, the same argument is going to be repeated in the next posts, that she "may have misjudged some of the events she's reporting".
Trouble is, she never mentions in her online video interviews what GoD "quoted" and what he from now on uses as the basis for his arguments.

It could be that he lacks experience in really reading and thus comprehending truthfully, the texts from HistoryCommons.org.
Quotes from HistoryCommons end always with the light printed link to the news source. Then, if they start a new quote, the source of that new one is again linked to at the end of that new quote.
He took the quote from the 2002 confusing piece from "The Mirror" and used that as if it came from the 2001 original piece from "The Bergen Record".

While she always and consistently explained that "plane" herself as an UAV by using quite some explanatory sentences, the introduction of these 8 extra words by this Mirror reporter does trigger immediately a great deal of recognition by the more educated reader, since anyone with a small knowledge of aerial vehicles, now immediately recognized in that confusing extra piece of description an A-10 Warthog, a MUCH bigger plane than what Susan herself did and does describe in her own words.

And we all know now, from the first minutes of Susan's own words and gestures in the video, that she definitely rejects any comparison with an A-10 when asked if it was that, what swooped over her van. She explicitly repeats that what she really saw, was no bigger or wider than her van.
An A-10 is 10 times bigger, and very, very loud. While she could not even hear the motor noise from that UAV over the sound of her car-radio.

So, this is what we have extracted at last from Susan's own to hear words and have as her real truthful own words :

It was an UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) that flew low, slow and nearly silent, formed of white fiberglass, smoothly molded, with two rear engines (LT: or exhaust pipes?) and a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car.

Minutes later she saw two very high flying other planes, to her eyes, shaped like a triangle, since they flew so high, and they had a military look over them, because of the swept far-back wings.

That UAV's "fin" could have been a movable vertical rudder, since she saw it from behind positioned under a steep angle in comparison to its fuselage. Then she saw it lift up a little and then bank to the right, to pass over the tree line on the other side of the crossing she stopped in front of, and then she lost sight of it because of the trees.
One would expect that she saw a bit of the upper part of the fuselage also, when it lifted up and banked to the right, some 50 meters further in front of her car.

Perhaps she would now, after nine years, recognize one of the now many posted pictures of military or agency used UAV's. In 2001, there were very little photos to be found on the web of such UAV's.
And still in 2005, when Ettaro and DiMaggio video-interviewed her.

The existence of such a small, slow UAV one minute before the alleged crash of UAL93 in that field just half a mile northwards of the crossing where Susan saw it, is a sign with a very high possibility of a military or agency intervention of the already KNOWN and thus planned in advance, crash spot of UAL93.

That's a possible reason why the government-story Trusters are so hooked on any possibility, be it exaggeration or straight out lies and/dis-info, to weaken Susan McElwain's eyewitness report of that UAV.

So, GoodolDave, Hooper and some others try to convince you, the readers, that :
Susan is delusional, can't make a comparison between civilian and military jets, and saw a much bigger plane higher up in the sky.
Their bad luck is, that the Falcon 20 did only appear north of the crash site several minutes after the moment of the crash.
Susan saw her UAV one minute before the crash.
When Susan was shown photos of two of the planes, offered by Debunkers of her story in online posts, as possible candidates of what she saw, she strongly denies both the Falcon 20 and the A-10 Warthog as even a faint possible candidate for the UAV she saw.

You know what's really funny in all this is that despite all the work you put into editing, research, scraping photos off the Internet, etc, at the end of the day you're STILL haven't gotten any further with these conspiracy stories of yours than you were before. At best, all you've shown is that she saw some craft other than flight 93 or the Falcon 20. All right, fine, she saw a third aircraft. Big whoop.

There are enough other eyewitnesses to show that the 9/11 commission report recorded what flight 93 and the Falcon jet did to satisfaction, so this whole "mysterious craft" bit is nothing but dishonest innuendo dropping on your part to imply there was something sinister and suspicious about the craft she saw. This paranoia is coming entirely from you, nor McElwain, so it's blatantly obvious why her testimony means so much to you- it's the only eyewitness account vague enough whre you can inject your evil gov't bogeyman stories back into the mix.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


www.abovetopsecret.com...
My calculations based on the official data how high UAL 93 flew above Viola Saylor's house on 911.
That's 1.4 km, and not 100 feet like Viola witnessed with her own eyes, just like her sister and Mr Peterson, and the 4 eyewitnesses of the New York Times.
Address that first, and no dodging away with usual mis-info and sidesteps.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/789334c6250a.gif[/atsimg]


www.abovetopsecret.com...
Tell me what's wrong with my reasoning in that post.
Especially the only CRASH witnesses at the scrap yard, who saw UAL 93 as low as 12 meter above their heads, before diving into the ground. That yard was 300 meter from the crash site.
Impossible to make that crash mark without a long slide mark in the soil, if their observation of the 12 meter height above them, was rightfully, and especially truthfully made.
Address that as your second rebuttal.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
The "911 The Shanksville Files" series of videos.

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Lots of links and a link to the other thread about the falsification of the NTSB provided CVR transcripts :
"Whistleblower Reveals"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...
Have a good look again on the New York Times map with Flight 93 heights-remarks in it.
I have shown you the official flight height of UAL 93 above Viola Saylor's house, which they say was about 1.4 kilometer high.
That does not AT ALL fit with what Viola, her sister, Mr Peterson and these four NY Times witnesses ALL saw and said.


At page 4 GoodOldDave proposed a Global Hawk as what Susan could have seen (116 feet wide, by far not so small as her minivan) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

By the way, tell me again what kind of freaky mind knitting caused you on page 6 to introduce that secondly depicted red missile, after I posted in clear English that I meant the only WHITE painted UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) depicted just above the red missile in the operation Amalgam Virgo pamphlet I did not even showed yet, in this post of mine :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

And THAT totally white plastic molded MILITARY DRONE is comparable to the size of a SUV, a.k.a. a minivan, of circa 4.5 to 5 meters long and 2.2 meters wide.
And could have been what she saw. And I can show you a whole list of other DRONES which were operable around that time.
I told you already that these things hung off the wings of C-130E electronic countermeasures military planes, are you trying to obfuscate matters, or can't or won't you read?

Be a man, address the quintessence of the matter in my linked-to post above.
You can't? Thus you avoid it as the plague?
Too well known tactics by now.
It's getting damn annoying, to have to see all of you use the same old tactic of stretching a thread with good info, out over tenths of pages with unrelated drivel, so any interest of the bulk of the readers will be trampled to death.

It was your totally illogical conclusion, while acting as if in unbelief, as if you thought that I meant that much longer, nearly wingless, RED target practice MISSILE, not at all even looking as a normal plane, that have wide wings compared to their fuselage length. That was suspicious.
While I gave you the exact description in that post already what white UAV was meant by me.
And definitely not any kind of missile.
No one can be so illogical.



That's why I suspect your true intentions on this board are to derail important threads, Dave.
You do not address the quintessence of the evidence laid forth by the posters.
You act as an Archie Bunker styled old grumpy, but you are not.
You're much cleverer than that character. I'll have to give you that.

So show that intelligence champ, and prove me wrong on my comparison between the official NTSB FDR provided height of UAL 93 flying above Viola's house of 1.4 km, and her and all the other persons observations of about 100 feet high.


To the other readers, all the posts on page 7 are worth re-reading.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I posted there also all the photos of the UAV's that Dave and Weedwhacker first said I had not researched, and they also thought did not existed around 911. Wrongly so.

I have the impression that I over-valued your intelligence, or perhaps not?
Did you at last understood what this :

""So show that intelligence champ, and prove me wrong on my comparison between the official NTSB FDR provided height of UAL 93 flying above Viola's house of 1.4 km, and her and all the other persons observations of about 100 feet high.""

in reality means? And do you not want to alert this board or anyone about the ramifications that the NTSB FDR last part is clearly falsified, overlapping 3 minutes of wind noise over the real 3 minutes CVR cockpit's sound recording.

That if you add my proven lost 3 minutes to that damn falsified NTSB provided FDR data expressed in the Italian video, that suddenly the height of 1.4 kilometer (then shown to be over Viola's house, while she and her sister saw it at tree-top level.!) moves back 3 minutes (180 seconds), and fits the observation of the NY Times witness who saw the plane at that spot flying about that high.
And then suddenly also ALL the other witness heights of 200 to 100 feet high also fit that video's data, and the upright-down position as seen by Viola and her sister.

This is that Italian video again :
Volo 93 - Animazione NTSB (sintesi) 4a parte by antibufala:
www.youtube.com...



Play around with it, while watching the speed, height and movements. And calculate the distances from the crash point BACK, based on speed-meter and altitude-meter readings.

The only eyewitnesses which do not fit ANY official or falsified NTSB data, is the account of the Purbaugh brothers at the scrapyard.
Or they must have misjudged the factual height of the plane roaring over their heads.
Impossible to make that official crash mark in the soil, from starting 12 m (35 feet) high over a last trajectory of 300 m (+/- 300 yards).
A very long skid-mark would have resulted. With a lot of plane debris at the end of that skid-mark.
So, the Purbaughs are mis-presented, lying or just shortsighted. But surely unreliable witnesses.

So that leaves us with no real crash endpoint witnesses.
Only people who saw a plane flying low and disappearing, or people seeing a plane diving down, but no real sight on the "crash site". They all however saw a smoke column rising.

Viola's house is between the "o" and the "f" from the text "Site of Crash" on this New York Times map :



It's the eighth house to the western left of that junction, on the north side of Pompey Road.
Now you can visualize for yourself how everyone was positioned when they saw that plane, and at which heights as reported by all.
Viola's reported height fits exactly with the NY Times interviewed witness just north of her house, who saw it fly 100 to 200 feet high (34 to 68 m). She saw it just above the top of her oak tree in her backyard.

Btw, Lee Purbaugh was a former Marine, and worked for his second day at the scrapyard.
A plane flying at 1.4 km high looks as if it is an inch wide, between your fingers.
A plane flying at treetop level looks as big as it really is. No misinterpretation possible between both heights.

I have come to the conclusion that a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III flew over Viola Saylor and the crater field and dumped fake crash debris over Indian Lake and New Baltimore. It is already suspected that the plane above Viola was not really UA93 and could be a painted military plane. But only a cargo plane could have dumped the fake crash debris. The C-17 is a high-wing and Viola was expecting to see a low-wing is why she thought it was upside down. If it really was upside-down and almost touching the tree, the tail would have to be grinding into the ground, right? But it wasn't, and that means Viola knew it wasn't upside down but it seemed that way because she was expecting to see a low-wing. The C-17 has four jet engines with vortex generators and can suck objects off of the ground at low speed and low altitude. Another possibility is the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter and the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy high-wing four-engined jet cargo planes. 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. The C-17 could have been painted to resemble a commercial airliner for use in a drill about NORAD intercepting a highjacked airliner. The military may have even gotten the C-17’s crew to do the job by following orders without them knowing what they were really doing at the time.

I don't believe in the Shanksville flyover theory any more. There is too much evidence that a plane did crash.

dle post