Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

susans.witness story....it was no bigger than her van....get that in your head...don't say f-16 nuthin, suckers...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

and is heading directly toward "blind zealotry".

Oh, they're zealots alright. Religious zealots. And "truth" is their religion.

I've been getting U2U's from a member that appears to be post banned. Here's some highlights:

"Someone as stupid and whiny as you "
"you need an ass beating"
"needs its ass beaten severely."
" are why your ass needs to be beaten immediately"
"after one of us knocks your goddamned teeth in"
"still want your teeth kicked in "
"you piece of # "
"So what state do you live in again chicken#"


THIS, from a 5 year member with over 10,000 posts.

Yep, it's a religion.

No wonder they are apologists for terrorists.

Radical Muslims are their idols when it concerns how to believe in their religion.....

"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".

Thanks for the PSYCHOanalysis. Should I expect a bill from you, or is this one on you? Unlike you, I will not waste my time (and bandwith) going off topic and attempt to analyze your peculiar fetish of hanging around conspiracy sites, when you should be worshipping your favorite MSM TV news program.

"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."

Yeah, sure...this makes a helluva lot of sense. Everybody is ordered to land their planes, except this cowboy (who the ground controllers do not know from a hole in the wall), who was allegedly requested to go on a fishing expedition on one of the most devasting aeronautical days in American history. And we're also supposed to believe that Captain John Wayne was also flying at tree top level, as stated by the witness.

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

Get with the program buddy, life IS one big game. I thought somebody with your learned expertise would have figured that out by now.

"No wonder they are apologists for terrorists."

Speak for yourself.

When has anyone of you obvious JREF trusters the guts or the decency to address the crux of the matter?

Begin by trying to prove me wrong on my posts about the Maple tree height seen by Viola Saylor, her sister and others, compared to the thus clearly false 1.387 meter height above Viola's garden, if we should ever believe the officially released FDR.

Then try to prove me wrong on the matter of 3 minutes discrepancy between the FDR / CVR and f.ex. FAA flight controllers logbooks by weedwhacker, and my evidence that there is no such discrepancy with all the other official sources I sited.

Then stop belittling the lengthy interview with Susan McElwain, and stop to childishly pretend to not remember her family name. Not a good sign of basic intelligence. You just have to read her name in my list of links post.
Try to type your posts in a Wordpad window, that way you still have access to the whole thread. Or open another window with the same thread, before you click the Post Reply button.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Speak for yourself.

Ok.

Truthers idolize radical Muslims for their devotion to their religion to such a degree that they are willing to threaten physical violence when someone debunks their own "truth" religion.

And sometimes, it doesn't stop at just threats.

reply to post 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" ?

Never said it did.


Or are you asking me that?

My answer would be that the fact is that the ATCC on 911 requested the assiatnce of a corporate type aircraft flying near on of the Flight 93 debris sites and confirmed they saw smoke from the ground. Many other aspects and variances of storys exist. The latter is the exact fact of the subject.

As for any witnesses who state they something "swoop low", I really don't believe they know precisely what they actually did see. These were people going on with their day not expecting anything of this extraordinary type befall upon them. Nothing more and nothing less.

But I do know that many versions of the "witnesses" have been shopped around for the purpose of many things. Most of which are over the top.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Thanks for the PSYCHOanalysis. Should I expect a bill from you, or is this one on you? Unlike you, I will not waste my time (and bandwith) going off topic and attempt to analyze your peculiar fetish of hanging around conspiracy sites, when you should be worshipping your favorite MSM TV news program.

How is this going off topic? We have TWO witnesses who described the Falcon jet down to the two engines and spoiler shaped tail it had and even down to the color, and yet you STILL can't seem to accept that was what they saw. The eyewitnesses Viola Saylor the OP linked to even said she saw a large very loud plane flying upside down that crashed shortly afterwards. What she saw was flight 93. How much more blatant can blatant get?

According to you, by some incredible coincidence in the mechanism in the universe, there happened to be two jet aircraft each of them white with two engines and tails shaped like spoilers in the vicinity of Shanksville at the exact same location at the exact moment of time which the conspirators used to pull some secret swicheroo with, all to trick you into thinking that flight 93 crashed in a plot so convoluted that not even you can explain it. It's obvious that for whatever reason you simply will not let these ridiculous "faked crash site at Shanksville" conspiracy stories of yours go, and it's not off-topic to be pointing this out.

"Yeah, sure...this makes a helluva lot of sense. Everybody is ordered to land their planes, except this cowboy (who the ground controllers do not know from a hole in the wall), who was allegedly requested to go on a fishing expedition on one of the most devasting aeronautical days in American history. And we're also supposed to believe that Captain John Wayne was also flying at tree top level, as stated by the witness."

If all you have left to defend your conspiracy stories is sarcasm then you might as well throw them into the trash now. The pilot was flying home and he was requested to divert and look for signs of a plane crash becuase the radar signal of the plane dropped off. That's all there is to it. There ain't anything sinister or mysterious about it. Any attempt to inflate this to the point of obfuscated absurdity is entirely your own.

Get with the program buddy, life IS one big game. I thought somebody with your learned expertise would have figured that out by now.

All right, NOW it's time for psychoanalysis- no, life is not one big game. Life is whatever you want to make of it. I've scuba dived on sunken German U-boats, I've skiied the Italian Alps, and I literally just got back from a motorcycle tour of Pennsylvania. I was even approved for a silencer permit from the government. To me, life is very, very real, becuase the moment I start treating it like a game, I'm going to get killed. It's these conspiracy stories of yours and your looking under every rock and bush hoping to find the evidence of this secret plot you're "so sure" is there that's play-pretend time.

At what point will you realize that after running around in circles chasing shadows and ghosts, that maybe the reason you can't find any evidence of a conspiracy is becuase there isn't any conspiracy there to begin with...?

One thing I do find a problem with is the witness herself.

Why? Now, no offense to the female sex, but, a little ol lady would know JACK SQUAT about military equipment. Why? Because most women are woefully lacking in military knowledge. Thats number one. How many times I have seen a girl refer to an armored car as a tank, or a cargo plane as a bomber, or a fighter jet as a bomber, is well........ ok ok, you get the idea. Females are generally uneducated in military equipment.

Here we have a little ol lady that saw a plane, a white plane that looked like a military plane. Swept back wings, higher tail, two jet engines on the end. What she described is a Falcon jet. I just had one fly right over me kinda low, as O'Hare Intl is not too far away from my house. And from below, by God, it does look "military". And also, very white too! hence why i had to come here and tell you folks too.



Hell if I was uneducated in military aviation, I'd probably describe it the same way. "It looks military." Well it wasnt. And it aint. And its getting pretty ridiculous that these dead threads are popping up again, even though they have been proven wrong wrong wrong, again and again.

[edit on 6/25/2010 by GenRadek]

Ok.
I'll call you by name.
GoodolDave, GenRadek, you just showed your real colors to us.

When I clear as hell point to you two what the crux of the matter is, you duck and cover and start to side rail the real important issues I laid on the table before you. You ignore me and fall over other participants who did not do the investigation this thread is based on.

If you had read the Staff report from the 911 Commission I linked to, you would have found the flight controller who asked the business jet to change course to investigate on a expected UA93 crash site.
Not a point of discussion at all with me.

Answer us all, on the subjects I just reminded you of, in my last post above.

And where do you get the crazy idea from that you have two individuals who saw a Falcon jet plane?
Susan McElwain clear as hell talks about a very small military or agency owned drone in 2001.
She even angrily denied to have seen anything as big as a business jet when Domenick shows her a photo of one.
"It was no bigger than my van" she reacts when she saw that photo.
And it flew just over the top of her van! No room for mistakes there.
By far not possible to have been mistaken for a business jet by her.


That is your tactics, do never address the real hard evidence, start derailing the hard proven subject with a complete disregard of the facts you can't address, since that evidence is too clear an indication of a falsified officially released FDR and CVR.

That's right Labtop, they won't address these witnesses properly, just like all the Noc witnesses at the Pentagon.

I once believed CIT's theory, but after going everything again, I believe the witnesses do in fact prove a Noc impact, thus the Soc official flight path a lie as well.

reply to post by LaBTop

Susan McElwain clear as hell talks about a very small military or agency owned drone in 2001.
She even angrily denied to have seen anything as big as a business jet when Domenick shows her a photo of one.
"It was no bigger than my van" she reacts when she saw that photo.
And it flew just over the top of her van! No room for mistakes there.
By far not possible to have been mistaken for a business jet by her.

Do you believe her and why?

And why would she be "angry"? If I had been a witness to , say a crime involving a car, and the police were showing me photos of possible car models, why would I become "angry" just because the photo I was shown didn't match what I think I saw?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Susan McElwain clear as hell talks about a very small military or agency owned drone in 2001.
She even angrily denied to have seen anything as big as a business jet when Domenick shows her a photo of one.
"It was no bigger than my van" she reacts when she saw that photo.
And it flew just over the top of her van! No room for mistakes there.
By far not possible to have been mistaken for a business jet by her.

Do you believe her and why?

And why would she be "angry"? If I had been a witness to , say a crime involving a car, and the police were showing me photos of possible car models, why would I become "angry" just because the photo I was shown didn't match what I think I saw?

Why believe her? because she was there and you werent.

Why should she be angry?

If you saw a corvette crash and the police kept on saying it was a mini-van anyone would be irritated by the condescending attitude. Her and he husband searched the net for what the craft was and it has been proven that it was not a business jet or a Boeing 757. But you know this already. Stop playing dumb.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Why believe her? because she was there and you werent.

Why do you believe she was there? There is no corroboration to her story, no one else was there, so again - why do you believe this testimony?

Why should she be angry?

Yes, why? There is no evidence that anyone but the "interviewer" ever told her anyone doubted her story, so why the anger?

If you saw a corvette crash....

But that's the problem - she didn't say anything as definitive as "corvette", she basically described an unidentified flying object. She allegedly did not have any idea what the alleged flying object was so why would she be angry just because someone made a suggestion that involved known aircraft types?

"All right, NOW it's time for psychoanalysis- no, life is not one big game. Life is whatever you want to make of it."

Yeah, I've hard that song and it's great. This one is dedicated to you big guy.





"I've scuba dived on sunken German U-boats, I've skiied the Italian Alps, and I literally just got back from a motorcycle tour of Pennsylvania. I was even approved for a silencer permit from the government."

So...you want a biscuit for your accomplishments? How does this relate to your alleged flawed viewpoints of 9/11?

"To me, life is very, very real, becuase the moment I start treating it like a game, I'm going to get killed."

Ask me if I care how you decide to treat life.

"It's these conspiracy stories of yours and your looking under every rock and bush hoping to find the evidence of this secret plot you're "so sure" is there that's play-pretend time."

To me, grammar and proper sentence structure are 'very, very real'. Come back to me with a sentence that makes sense and I will be kind enough to provide you with a response.

"At what point will you realize that after running around in circles chasing shadows and ghosts, that maybe the reason you can't find any evidence of a conspiracy is becuase there isn't any conspiracy there to begin with...?"

Again, to me, proper spelling is 'very, very real', because it's the difference between being an eloquent communicator and a run of the mill drone, like the one the witness alleges to have seen.

Quick, look out your window, before you miss Captian Cowboy flying that Falcon corporate jet at an elevation of 50 feet looking for a staged accident location.

I don't blame you for getting frustrated and resorting to PSYCHOanalysis (defined as analysis from a psycho). It must be tough keeping all those lies straight. I guess you also need a diversion and an excuse from not addressing the substantive information which has been presented in this thread.

For someone who does not consider life to be a game, you sure as heck like to play a lot of off topic games. Carry on.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by LaBTop
And where do you get the crazy idea from that you have two individuals who saw a Falcon jet plane?
Susan McElwain clear as hell talks about a very small military or agency owned drone in 2001.
She even angrily denied to have seen anything as big as a business jet when Domenick shows her a photo of one.
"It was no bigger than my van" she reacts when she saw that photo.
And it flew just over the top of her van! No room for mistakes there.
By far not possible to have been mistaken for a business jet by her.

Well then, if you're going to continue using this in the support of your conspiracy claims then you've got a problem. All the military drones being cited as the ones Susan McElwain had seen do NOT match her description of "a small white jet with multiple rear engines" which are "the same size as her van". The closest her description comes is to a Global Hawk. Here's what the Global hawk looks like, and you can see it is decidedly NOT van sized. It is in fact closer in size to a full sized plane than a van.

Photo of global hawk drone

So, the very MOMENT you admit she may have been mistaken as to the actual size of the craft she had seen, you're necessarily admitting she may have been mistaken about other details of she actually had seen. I trust you're not going to waste my time and yours using the "the conspirators invented secret James Bond devices noone has ever seen before or since" excuse your compatriots here use becuase it's a thinly veiled admission you're just making stuff up off the top of your head to suit your purpose.

You conspiracy people always complain that we never listen to you. Be careful of what you ask for.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I think these Shanksville doubters need to step up...research the history of UAVs, those that were operational in 2001. Study the various sizes, functions, capabilities, etc.

Example: Look up the Global Hawk just mentioned. It is 'suggested' that the impact site at Shanksville was too small to represent a Boeing 757, since the B-757 wingspan is 124 feet, 10 inches.

The GH wingspan, though...is 116 feet.

A smaller UAV, the 'Predator', has a wingspan of only 48.7 feet. HOWEVER, its propulsion is....[drumroll please]....a 115 hp Rotax 914F turbocharged Four-cylinder engine.

Read that very carefully, would you? A ROTAX, 4-cylinder engine. That means, it's a PISTON engine!

Oh, and BTW....the Predator's max speed is 135 MPH.

SOURCE.


That was just a little bit of help, for the Shanksville deniers, to get you started.

I see a LOT of band-width here, given to all sorts of claims --- claims that are unsubstantiated with any sourcing, citations or facts.

Now's your chance!


[edit on 25 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

I still cant for the life of me belive how anyone could belive for i second that a passenger Jet that size could of crashed an left a little Hole in a field that size ...its a joke a Plane that big would leave debris on fire everywhere plus the big Engines would be screaming and there would be litter from the hold an suitcases scattered all around, an then there comes the Seats an Bodies! i dont remember seen any Bodies do any of you!? an what about the fuel there Otha have been a huge fire, sounds all wrong to me from this side of the pond...

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

....an then there comes the Seats an Bodies! i dont remember seen any Bodies do any of you!?

Now really, think about that. You've got a jet going about 60% of the speed of sound, upside down and at a 40 degree angle hits the earth and explodes and you really expect to find whole bodies? And big pieces of the plane just sitting around?

Yes i do expect to see a lot more than a little hole an a few bits an Pisces ,have a look at all plane crashes in history an make a comparison! man you must be blind i suppose you belive a plane hit the pentagon as well, it was a missile in both cases......