Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.

This is fact and not an assumption.

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.

Its believed that this little white "drone" is what crashed. Considering that certain agencies were engaged in mock hijacking and cruise missile acquisitions that day using live fly, drones and surrogates the truth is coming together.

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.

This is not a theory anymore but factual. The 3 resident debunkers here by the name of hooper, weedwhacker, GoodoleDave, Genreddek, continually ignore this evidence and offer hearsay, regurgitated , overly debunked material as proof to support the official story which has been debunked some time ago but pretend that they are still pulling wool over peoples eyes.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


What is a "hydro line"?????

Is this the same witness when confronted with impending doom in her minivan she instinctively ducked down and TURNED OFF THE RADIO?

Let me ask this little tidbit - all these earth shattering youtube videos, yet I've never seen a transcript of any of the conversations - why is that? You would think having the "smoking gun" of the 9/11 conspiracy in your hands someone would have written this all down by now, but no, only youtube videos. Just wondering.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I see that my old link to Susan McElwain's video has been removed from YouTube because of copyright infringement.
Thus, here is a new one, and many more from the same series :
www.youtube.com...

9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness. Domenick interviews Susan McElwain.
by Terrorcell2 (9:45 min) www.youtube.com...
This uncut interview footage with Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain debunks the Official Story and exposes The History Channel's heavy editing.
Terrorcell2 is Domenick DiMaggio who interviewed so many eyewitnesses

You can find the whole "911 The Shanksville Files" series with all the personal interviews by Samuel Anthony Ettaro and Domenick V. DiMaggio, with Susan McElwain, Coroner Wally Miller and Viola Saylor in the above first YouTube search-link page :

Great videos. Thanks for the links and I also recommend people to go back to page 2 and read what LaBTop has put forth.

reply to post by Domenick DiMaggio

witnesses to the little white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet.

Uh, how exactly does a witness do this? Are the ownership papers stamped on the side of the plane in big letters so you can read them as they go by? Do you have any clue how silly this sounds?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Let me ask this little tidbit - all these earth shattering youtube videos, yet I've never seen a transcript of any of the conversations - why is that? You would think having the "smoking gun" of the 9/11 conspiracy in your hands someone would have written this all down by now, but no, only youtube videos. Just wondering.

Sigh. Your posts are getting old. Pointless and ignorant and I am realizing why everyone has you on ignore.

Susan Mcelwain: 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] 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] Susan Mcelwain: 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] 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]"http://web.archive.org/web/20030219235650/www.mirror.co.uk..."
www.historycommons.org...

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by Domenick DiMaggio
LaBTop - great stuff!!!! sorry i haven't had time to respond i've been quite busy the past few days. i will dedicate time to give you the proper reply in the near future i promise. although i see without having any interaction you are coming to some of the same conclusions as i have. i actually think this may be better as it proves that i am not influencing your beliefs or thought process any and we are coming to similar conclusions.

thedman = there was no corporate jet in shanksville. i've spoken to susan, viola, rick chaney, bob blair, doug miller, and several other eyewitnesses.

witnesses to the little white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet.

witnesses to the big white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet.

both groups of witnesses also corroborate the claims that both white planes had a 'military' appearance.

i have made this offer to duh-bunkers on every forum even randi's sewer and not to you :

name 1 eyewitness who will confirm a corporate jet was either of these planes and i will make every attempt possible to contact them and document their account.

i've been doing this since the 5th anniversary.

to date i still have not met a single person.

Great work. It is very special for us ATS users to actually have someone who has interviewed the witnesses and investigated this fraud outside the confines of their basement.

Hats off and God Bless.

These are the key phrases "Thedman = there was no corporate jet in shanksville. i've spoken to susan, viola, rick chaney, bob blair, doug miller, and several other eyewitnesses.

witnesses to the little white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet.

witnesses to the big white plane confirm it was not a corporate jet. "

Dom. Dam.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Well....you found a dead thread, one that is already full of mistakes, mostly from LaBToP (sorry LaBToP, but your over-analytical skills simply lead you down the primrose path into non-comprehension, and you end up seeing things that aren't there). Sometimes, not always


Now....thanks to LaBToP, I have finally been able to see that UAL 93 NTSB animation. Didn't know where to find it, before. It never showed up when I searched using obvious search terms on YouTube....

Alright...now I've seen it, and am digesting. SO FAR it completely matches EVERYTHING ELSE, including the CVR transcript information...although THAT video is first time for the "sound of air noise" comment, haven't seen that in other transcript copies, but then, on the Internet, can't be sure what's been altered.

However, it makes PERFECT sense for the air noise sound, at that point, because I was watching the airspeed indicator. (The video quality is very poor, so it was hard to be sure I could see it accurately. I found my way to the Italian website, offers a download, will try that tomorrow, hopefully get a better picture).


~~~
NOW...Shadow Herder...I'm getting pretty sick of you, and your arrogant discourtesy, at every turn. I'm not sure if I'm the only one who feels that way. Trying to remain civil, in the rest below......but your:

---Repeated trolling and misrepresentation of certain photographic images from the Shanksville crash site, and a shotgun approach, and very poor reporting of the alleged "dimensions" of the impact area, has grown wearisome....

...let's put it another way. RATHER THAN actually doing good research, instead what I see is the RELIANCE on hearsay, and disjointed, off-the-cuff comments and outright GUESSES made by those that day, who saw the event, or PORTIONS of it.

To use those people's initial comments, in that way, is dishonest. They were in NO POSITION to accurately estimate anything. Eyewitness reports are notoriously inaccurate, as can be seen just AFTER AAL 11 hit the North Tower. MANY, MANY early reports surmised it was a "small plane", even though the gash in the side was OBVIOUS....people could look up, way up from the ground, or a building a mile away, and not be able to accurately judge size!!! How many even knew the actual wdth of the WTC Towers?


The situation at Shanksville was likely similar.

AS TO 'Susan', as an "eyewitness", it is astonishing that those who are so permanently and vociferously wedded to this "NO PLANE AT SHANKSVILLE" fantasy will cling to this person's claims, or even a scant few others, and competely IGNORE the reams and reams of other evidence that point to the existence of UAL 93, without a doubt.

This woman (Susan) sounds to me as less than reliable, as I keep hearing conflictions in what she says. More later, on that.

What is important is that there were HUNDREDS of OTHER people on scene, for investigation and recovery and clean up...WHY IS IT that the 'eyewitness testimony' of one, or several, people is somehow accepted, and seen as "gospel", yet the experiences and stories of HUNDREDS of responders on scene, are not??

Now, regardless of the human factor, there are the DFDR and CVR!!!

They match perfectly. This is not "falsified"!! There is no way to go to some 'lab' somewhere and "fake" the noises, the words, the voices form the CAM (heard on the CVR). For CHRISSAKES, people, the families heard the actual recordings!! I've seen references online to the wife of Capt. Jason Dahl, SHE heard what she thought was him, on the tape...wounded, but trying to regain control. OTHERS heard the various loved ones, too.

The FDR? There has NEVER, not once, been a verifiable method presented by any of the "truth" people to show how the FDR was "falsified". It is only from a starting point of ignorance that such a claim would be made...ignorance of the immense amount of data points that are gathered by the DFDR..over two hundred, total. SOMEONE would have noticed, by now!! Many technicians have access to this, plus it's out from FOIA access demands. Look at how the AAL 77 DFDR has been studied extensively.

I watched that NTSB animation, and could see, in mind's eye, WHAT the terrorist pilot was doing, just by watching the instruments, the ADI, altimeter and airspeed indicator. The control wheel movements, too...those were recorded, and shown. IT ALL was in sycnh with the CVR text, at the top.

Enough for now, I'll be back I suppose, later.

But, what SET ME OFF ----

This is not a theory anymore but factual. The 3 resident debunkers here by the name of hooper, weedwhacker, GoodoleDave, Genreddek, continually ignore this evidence and offer hearsay, regurgitated , overly debunked material as proof to support the official story which has been debunked some time ago but pretend that they are still pulling wool over peoples eyes.

YOU don't know me. I don't offer "hearsay"...you wallow in it, and can't even recognize that fact. Wallowing in your false smugness, and self-satisfied ego stroke, with every post. I offer up a level of knowledge here, based on personal lifetime of experience.

Others try to grasp all the compexities of this event, but mostly fail, because (through no fault of their own) their experience base is simply inadequate. Some struggle valiantly, but become so narrow-minded with tunnel vision that it's become a religion, of sorts...such a core belief, and nothing can shake it.

It IS like a religion....in the sense that, with religion, there is no evidence of a 'god' up in the sky, and there is plenty of scientific evidence to discount a lot of other "claims" of varios religious texts that have been written by men for millenia...YET, those who "believe" often willingly discount science, and fact, in favor of a "belief" that they will simply not relinquish.

I remain, as mentioned above, astonished.

IT has been proven that the crater in Shanksville was not caused by a Boeing 757. This is confirmed by scholars, scientists, emergency responders, pilots and eye witnesses.

This thread also proved that the official conspiracy theory is full of holes and people on the ground (witnesses) proved the Flight Data Recorder falsified.

You have been schooled by people who actually interviewed the eyewitnesses and have been in Shanksville. Proving anything to you 3 is redundant and akin to trying to convince a child that santa does not really exist.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Good job of presenting the information Lab & Dom. Don't mind the amateur debunkers, who are obsessed with analyzing the psyche of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, instead of responding to the information which is being presented and bringing something of value to the table. Obviously, this is a little above their heads and they have to stick to their schoolyard bully tactics which expose them for the frauds that they are.

I loved the part about the Airphones surviving the impact and the line staying on well after the alleged crash. But hey, if a passport can survive unscathed at the WTC, who is to say that an Airphone could not do the same? I still believe this is possible even though one amateur dubunker, who has allegedly worked at airplane crashes, insists that everything was turned to confetti sized pieces at the Shanksville site.

Instead of applauding you and Dom's efforts to get some independent investigation completed on this matter, the amateur debunkers continue to berate and degrade those who are doing real work to try and get to the bottom of this matter. And, of course, only the witnesses who spout their rubbish version about 9/11 are reliable and credible. Talk about making it obvious that they're trying to discourage any real investigation from happening. Really, what do you expect when you're scraping the bottom of the barrel and catering to the lowest common denominator?

"There is no way to go to some 'lab' somewhere and "fake" the noises, the words, the voices form the CAM (heard on the CVR). For CHRISSAKES, people, the families heard the actual recordings!"

I guess the above statement proves without a doubt that the recording they were listening to was from Flight 93 and that the object which allegedly crashed in Shanksville was Flight 93 and that Flight 93 was hijacked by a few cave dwellers who could not fly a Cessna, but could fly a 757 upside down. You go!

So in that case, during the next airplane crash why even bother doing an investigation? Just have the families listen to the recordings, as this will verify all the details of the crash.

It's all good; but hey, I don't know you.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

"AS TO 'Susan', as an "eyewitness", it is astonishing that those who are so permanently and vociferously wedded to this "NO PLANE AT SHANKSVILLE" fantasy will cling to this person's claims, or even a scant few others, and competely IGNORE the reams and reams of other evidence that point to the existence of UAL 93, without a doubt."

So basically, you are comparing witnesses who allege to have seen the plane(s) fly overhead to witnesses who were first responders and did not see the plane(s) fly overhead? You see, a real investigator would never group the accounts of these two types of witnesses together. One witness saw the alleged plane(s) prior to the occurrence and the other witness arrived on the scene after the occurrence.

Let's provide a little analogy. You have one witness who is on scene and sees a bank robbery in progress and you have another witness who arrives on the scene half an hour after the bank robbery took place. Which witness would you consider more important? And one wonders why the FBI did not want to listen to the witness' version of the events.

"What is important is that there were HUNDREDS of OTHER people on scene, for investigation and recovery and clean up...WHY IS IT that the 'eyewitness testimony' of one, or several, people is somehow accepted, and seen as "gospel", yet the experiences and stories of HUNDREDS of responders on scene, are not?"

Can you please direct me to the official signed witness statements of these hundreds of other people on the scene? Judging from what you say, you've obviously read their complete statements and should know where to locate them.

And just to clarify, I am not looking from one or two sentence sound bites from these first responders, I am looking for their full statements which were secured by the official investigators. Since this was a full scale professional leave no stone unturned investigation, they did secure these important statements from these individuals, didn't they? If so, where are they?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Mikelee/Hooper/GoodoleDave - Since when do "Business jets" swoop down at the height of hydro lines and are they they "size of a van, silent, molded, no rivets or windows, looks like it may seat 1 person" ?

That is from what one of the last witnesses to see what crashed in Shanksville.

Would you mind terribly pointing out where you got THAT tidbit from? I am quoting the OP video of Viola Saylor who said a giant plane flying upside down flew over her so loudly that she needed to cover her ears, followed shortly by a muffled boom. Afterwards, she saw a white plane with "two eyeballs on top" which the interviewer confirmed with her were engines. A white plane with two engines on top is a Falcon jet, dude, and her description matches the description of the white two engined plane Susan whats-her-name almost to a T, which in turn fits the 9/11 commission report's account of things to a T. It was clearly the Falcon jet that everyone saw and the only people attempting to obfuscate this and muddy the waters to make it all sinister sounding are you conspiracy people.

They were there, and you weren't. So, you'll forgive me when I say I'm going to take their eyewitness account of things over your blatantly biased guesses and speculations, which we both know aren't even yours, but from one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites you frequent.

Dble Post.

[edit on 23-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"AS TO 'Susan', as an "eyewitness", it is astonishing that those who are so permanently and vociferously wedded to this "NO PLANE AT SHANKSVILLE" fantasy will cling to this person's claims, or even a scant few others, and competely IGNORE the reams and reams of other evidence that point to the existence of UAL 93, without a doubt."

So basically, you are comparing witnesses who allege to have seen the plane(s) fly overhead to witnesses who were first responders and did not see the plane(s) fly overhead? You see, a real investigator would never group the accounts of these two types of witnesses together. One witness saw the alleged plane(s) prior to the occurrence and the other witness arrived on the scene after the occurrence.

I too would take the testimony of eyewitnesses who actually saw the craft before impact over people being told what happened.

All of the evidence points to the fact that Flight 93 the Boeing 757 Did not Crash in Shanksville. There is an abundant amount of evidence that proves this.

"In fact, one of the planes, a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, was directed to the crash site to help rescuers. "The request for the jet to fly low and obtain the coordinates for the crash explains reports by people in the vicinity who said a white or silver jet flew by moments after the crash."

If the Falcon was directed to the crash site, why would it need to obtain the coordinates for the crash site? How can you direct an aircraft to a crash site without knowing the coordinates? Who comes up with this garbage?

"A white plane with two engines on top is a Falcon jet, dude, and her description matches the description of the white two engined plane Susan whats-her-name almost to a T, which in turn fits the 9/11 commission report's account of things to a T. It was clearly the Falcon jet that everyone saw and the only people attempting to obfuscate this and muddy the waters to make it all sinister sounding are you conspiracy people."

Do air traffic control officials routinely put private pilots, their passengers and their aircraft in harms way by instructing them to fly low, obtain coordinates of an alleged crash location and help rescuers? The absurdity of asking a private corporate jet pilot to complete this type of task is beyond comprehensible.

Such a dangerous request would expose the air traffic control officials to such a huge liability potential, that no official in their right mind would make such a request from an untrained unauthorized non-affiliated non-rescue individual. What is this, fun and games? You have a very serious situation here which requires the assistance of professionally trained rescue individuals and officials are asking some pilot to provide vital rescue assistance and information. What hogwash!

Besides, I thought all aircraft were ordered to land at the nearest airport well before the Shanksville incident. This Falcon pilot allegedly disregarded these landing orders, cruised around a bit and decided to play hero because he was asked to by officials?

And who the hell was this pilot? Why should the officials trust him with such an important task? How could they be so sure that he too wasn't one of the perps? C'mon debunkers, you can fabricate something a little more believable than this truckload of nonsense.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Do air traffic control officials routinely put private pilots, their passengers and their aircraft in harms way by instructing them to fly low, obtain coordinates of an alleged crash location and help rescuers? The absurdity of asking a private corporate jet pilot to complete this type of task is beyond comprehensible.

Good grief, stop beating this dead horse already. A passenger jet had disappeared off ground controller's radar and they requested nearby aircraft (one of them being a two engined white Falcon jet) to look for signs of a plane crash. Everyone being quoted by the conspiracy mongers INCLUDING Viola Saylor and Susan what's-her-name described the white, two engined, Falcon jet down to the spoiler shaped tail of the plane. The plane the eyewitnesses saw had to have been the Falcon jet. There ain't any more to the story than that.

Really, dude, when it gets to the point where you love your conspiracy stories so much that you have to embellish and misrepresent the events of the day to make it more sinister sounding than it really is, that's going way, way past "conspiracy theories" and is heading directly toward "blind zealotry".

Besides, I thought all aircraft were ordered to land at the nearest airport well before the Shanksville incident. This Falcon pilot allegedly disregarded these landing orders, cruised around a bit and decided to play hero because he was asked to by officials?

Pilots are required to follow the instructions of ground controllers. It was ground controllers who gave the Falcon pilot instructions to land as soon as possible, and it was likewise ground controllers who requested that the pilot look for the crash site. It was requested to look for a possible crash site some only 15-20 minutes after the FAA's grounding order so the plane was still in the air, and the pilot was sure as shootin' not going to land immediately in some rural cow pasture solely to satisfy you conspiracy people.

Good grief, it's like this whole thing is a game to you, like some "Where's Waldo- Conspiracy edition" puzzle book.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
All of the evidence points to the fact that Flight 93 the Boeing 757 Did not Crash in Shanksville. There is an abundant amount of evidence that proves this.

Baloney. I'm quoting the OP video of eyewitness Viola Saylor who said a very large plane flew upside down over her property so loudly that she needed to cover her ears, shortly followed by a muffled BOOM. She was there, and you weren't, so I'm certainly going to believe her over you and your conspiracy daydreams.

So, go ahead and accuse Viola Saylor of being a secret gov't disinformation agent. I double dog dare you.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

If the Falcon was directed to the crash site, why would it need to obtain the coordinates for the crash site? How can you direct an aircraft to a crash site without knowing the coordinates? Who comes up with this garbage?

The FALCON jet was asked to locate the crash site - the quickest and
most obvious sign would have been the smoke cloud produced by the fuel
explosion on impact and the subsequenct fires.

911 Commission Staff report sept 2005 :
www.archives.gov...

Page 98 / 121 :

333. UAL response to Commission questions for the record, July 13, 2004.

334. ZOB-ARTCC-287, LOR-R, 5/10/02, Tr. at 13. At 9:31:21, ExccuJet 56 also called in, reporting that "we're just answering your call. We did hear that, uh, yelling too." The FAA responded, at 9:31:51: "Okay, thanks. We're just trying to figure out what's going on."

335. UAL record, Flight 93 ACARS message, Sept. 11, 2001; Ed Ballinger inteiview (Apr. 14, 2004)

336. In accordance with FAA regulations, United 93 had a cockpit voice recorder that recorded in 30 minute loops via microphones in the pilots' headsets, as well as in the overhead panel of the flight deck. This is the only cockpit voice recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire. It recorded the last 31 minutes of the flight. The CVRs and flight data recorders (FDRs) from American 11 and United 175 were not found, and the CVR from American Flight 77 was badly burned and not recoverable. The Flight 93 recording started at 9:32 AM. through the end of the flight. See FBI report, "Transcript of the Flight Voice Recorder for United Flight 93," Dec.4, 2003; See also 14 §§ CFR 25.1457,91.609,91.1045, and 121.359. Evidence derived from audio readout of CVR from Flight 93.
-snipped text-
3 59 UAL dispatch sent several ACARS messages to the cockpit of Flight 93 after the cockpit had been taken over by the hijackers. UAL record, Ed Ballinger's ACARS log, Sept 11, 2001.

Time now, to connect the dots and couple this thread to this other one :

"Whistleblower Reveals"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

where I lately posted quite some more facts that prove the flight 93 FDR (Flight Data Recorder, aka DFDR, digital-FDR) fraudulent, partly or total.
I suppose partly, for the last minutes. Why do all the work when a few minutes of it is all a crook needs, to try to convince the bulk of the not very intelligent or just too busy or uninterested civilians of his big lie.

Best guess : 31 minutes and 7 seconds of the full CVR, and the last 31:07 minutes of the FDR are false.
That's the duration of the false CVR the government released.
False, since it lacks 3 minutes of flight deck recording, it ends at 10:03, when we know now that the real crash time was 10:06, according to lots of official sources. (see References and the linked ATS threads)

That thread, "Whistleblower Reveals", 6 pages long now, of nitpicking about 3 MINUTES missing from the VCR (Voice Cockpit Recorder).
Weedwhacker thinks it's not missing, just a pilots mistake, caused by setting the Captains clock not to the real time.
I proved to him it's his mistaken idea, not the UA93 pilots fault, since they set the Captains clock perfectly to the real time.

As proved by the same timestamps for communications, from the CVR, which are coupled to that clock, thus from a plane's perspective; and compared them to timestamped sources outside the plane, namely the FAA flight controllers log books which are coupled to atomic clocks.
And also times from the ACARS system, used to communicate between the pilots and the airline offices.


Hooper, GoodOlDave, did you ever see a business jet as big as Susan's SUV van, which can be observed as low as flying under power lines on poles of 30 feet high?

With no rivets at all, one smooth white surface.
We posted a photo of such a military drone fitting Susan's description to the letter. Two rear-fuselage mounted little electric power-plants, a two sticked fuselage-connected tail fin as on a car's back, white, as big as a SUV van.
A military DRONE.

They still don't have any mini business-jets as far as I know, what they had were little white drones which hung under the wings of the C-130 E versions, and were used and meant to survey a battlefield situation. The E-versions were meant to disrupt communications on a battlefield, they can burst-out an EMP wave to wreck all telephone communication on the ground and all radio communications from enemy planes. And also wreck/fry all electronics on board, and thus the EMP-attacked plane(s) crash.

Guess what, there was a C-130 (H, they say) at the Pentagon and the same one was flying about 20 miles from Lambertsville and Shanksville, as you can read all over this board. Just search for pilot " O'Brien C-130 ".

BTW, I still do not have enough indisputable data to be able to deduct if UA93 really crashed in the official spot, or flew a few miles and 3 minutes further and was blown to pieces, which pieces rained down over Indian lake there. Be it by an on-board bomb or by a military attack.
The news links I provided tell us that the FBI secured several other debris sites : 3, 6 and 8 miles away from the official crash site.

References :

NTSB : Aviation Topics.Accident Database & Synopses
www.ntsb.gov...

National Transportation Safety Board -- Sep 2001 Aviation Accidents
www.ntsb.gov...
The four 9/11 planes are listed, and this one the next day, also probable cause released on the same day as the 911 planes, 3/7/2006 :
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 a Czech build, Mexican owned plane, 19 fatalities in Mexico, Chichen Itza. The pilot, first officer, one tour guide and 16 tourists dead.
The day before, 19 hijackers : 4 pilots and 15 muscle men. ( a Clancy plot for a book...)

www.ntsb.gov...
UA93 Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/2006
The National Transportation Safety Board
determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

NTSB : UAL93 FDR transcript.
www.ntsb.gov...

NTSB : ATC = air traffic controllers report UA93 transcript.
www.ntsb.gov...

NTSB : Flight path study UA93.
www.ntsb.gov...

Black Box From Flight 93 Proven Fraudulent.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

9/11 POLL : Do You Believe a Boeing 757 Crashed in Shanksville?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


1. Did Flight 93 Land in Cleveland Almost 2 Hours After Its Alleged Crash in PA?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. Pennsylvania crash site coincidence?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The last links are two of weedwhackers posts about his 3 min. faulty set Captain's clock theory, which is wrong since CVR and FDR and FAA-logs and ACARS timestamps combined, fit perfectly within human margin boundaries. There are no 3 minutes differences in those transcripts.
The reports were typed out by humans who listened them out, thus a few seconds discrepancies here and there. Not by far the 180 seconds from weedwhacker's theory. See the other thread, "Whistleblower Reveals".


This excerpt of weedwhacker :

WHAT "missing three minutes"??

The CVR and FDR stopped at exactly the same time, as I've pointed out, they both receive on-board time info from the Captain's clock, which is set by the pilots, and we can't assume it was EXACT. This ties in with the false assertion, mentioned in other threads, about the airborne time per ATC tapes, and their more accurate time lines.

is where he tried to convince us that he believes the full evidence I gave him (later, BTW, when I saw his posts the first time) about the real crash time of 10:06, is indeed correct, since he admits now in the other thread I linked to above, to believe in that 10:06 time stamp as the real crash time, but his idea is and was, that the pilots forgot to set the Captains clock to the correct real time, and thus they took off with a clock that was perhaps 3 minutes off, and that's why the CVR and FDR both show a crash time of 10:03:11 as he proposed.

His problem is now a logical one, since I gave him solid evidence by now, that the CVR and FDR transcriptions of identical communications and their timestamps are the same as in the FAA flight controller transcriptions, and the ACARS communications timestamps. Thus proving without possible doubt, that the UA93 pilots correctly set the Captain's clock before they took off.
He can't bring himself to admit his idea was wrong. No problem, I still enjoy his proven factual aviation posts.

Thus, after all these endless endeavors of obfuscating the matter, we are back at the crux of the matter :

There are clearly 3 minutes gone from the CVR.
And clearly intentionally.
Which makes that CVR clearly a falsification, partly or totally.

That's why the Trusters keep trying to confuse us with endless, link-less posts, hoping we get tired from all these, techno-babble overloaded opposition posts, and let the matter rest.

No, we don't, because this is another case of proving a false game was played on 911, proving that by using ALL of their own officially released data. Not just bits and pieces, ALL of it.

[edit on 24/6/10 by LaBTop]

dang, dudes what we got here is a witness for interdimensional reality switching...i mean the pressure the voice the sister had to go....wthail...and the description of the odd fins...the second aircraft was not of this earth possibly...no smokeball like was posted...what about that....more lots more

[edit on 24-6-2010 by GBP/JPY]