Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


You say EVERY airplane crash in history should fit your preconceptions??

You aren't researching, apparently...take a look at airplane crashes that occure at HIGH VELOCITY!

PSA 1771 and ValuJet 592 come immediately to mind....United 585 even...though it was NOT at high speed, was almost straight down...

Think, man!! Compare nearly vertical with mostly horizontal, LOW SPEED accidents, and the energies involved, and the destruction patterns.....

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


I am more than willing to look at anything for "comparison". Please show me the same plane, at the same angle, at the same speed, at the same attitude hitting the same type of ground where there were whole bodies and large sections of the plane left intact. That challenge has been out there for anybody for years and everyone just runs away and hides.

reply to post by LaBTop


And once again you ignored my post that women usually have NO clue when it comes to military aircraft or vehicles. Or for that matter, most things vehicular. That is just basic psychology. So if some woman IDs a 767 as a 747, well then it just HAS to be a 747 even though others saw and positively IDed a 767?

I very much doubt Susan knows what an A-10 warthog is, or an F-16 Fighting Falcon, or an F-18 Super Hornet, or a Falcon jet. According to the ATC records, there WAS a Falcon aircraft flying in the area that is CONFIRMED by Susan's account. Again she would have NO clue as to what it is other than "It looks military." Yeah that is VERY descriptive and exact. :@@ and here you are hanging on her every word as if she is the key, when in fact she is the key to your idea being debunked. I can only imagine what she'd say if she saw THIS plane flying by:





The Falcon 20 is NOT a very big jet either. Here is a Falcon-20:


It would look even smaller higher up.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

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...

So how many plane crases tou been to?

Here is a description of a plane crash

A twin-engine airplane crashed into a hillside minutes after taking off today, erupting into flames and missing a large condominium project and several houses by a short distance.

Four people, two crew members and two passengers, were believed by Federal investigators and the police to have been aboard the Lear 35 jet. The police could not confirm the number, or identities, of the victims ''We're dealing with body parts, not bodies,'' Chief Joseph Ranney said. ''Identification will be very difficult.'' Airplane parts were scattered in small pieces throughout the site on Garrett Mountain

An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.

''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''

Get that Sherlock - dealing with BODY PARTS!

I know because walked the impact site marking their location for the coroner to recover .....

Also notice - aircraft parts scattered around. No seats no suitcases, just debris

Largest piece seen was 2 x 3 ft piece of tail fin

80 degree impact angle - not a lot left, just some some pieces of debris
and body parts

Also fire was fairly contained - by time arrived and stretched out hoses
was mostly out

Sorry..

A lear jet is just a mickey mouse small private jet, we are talking about 757 passenger jet...





some with eyes to see, see nothing .... but what they want to see

some with ears to hear, hear nothing .... but what they want to hear

and then there are some with brains who havent the slightest idea of how to use them ....


sound familiar! ....




[edit on 26-6-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


You aren't even speaking the same language as the rest of us.....

The Lear Jet video...So What?

The second video?? Come on...what, exactly, do you think that is, and how was it 'depicted'?

(Hint: Read the caption, at the beginnign again, to see if the maker of the video might be a few pieces of pasta short of a spaghetti meal).

I only put up the vids to show the comparison of the size of the Lear jet an the jet that was supposed to have made the two little holes in shanksville an the pentagon elementary dear Watson

The Lear Jet video...So What?
so what! it was your example of a jet hitting the ground at 80 degrees an leaving only small body parts an little debris, hitting rocks an bolders, were as the large passenger jet hit only a grass field,the other is just a vid showing how big the passanger jet is nothing else.........

Q are you one of those people who belive that your government wouldn't do such a thing


[edit on 26-6-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


"little holes"?

I only put up the vids to show the comparison of the size of the Lear jet an the jet that was supposed to have made the two little holes in shanksville an the pentagon...

The crater at Shanksville wasn't "little". Since you brought up Pentagon, neither was the damage and entry destruction there...but take it to a Pentagon thread.

I think you've been fooled by too many of those 'conspiracy' websites....they are full of disinformation, and misinformation.

In other words, they LIE!!

It's elementary, Watson.

Im over 21 man an dont patronize me man i got a cauliflower ear demonstrating against one of your other unlawful wars before you were born! the hole in the field was not made by a huge passenger jet period!
why dont you go and work for the cia! they could do with sheep like you

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Just wanted to say that I understood your purpose of posting the vids. Thanks!

reply to post by mikelee

Yea man thanks you have the eyes to see the obvious not like some blind people on here!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Quite the opposite...

why dont you go and work for the cia! they could do with sheep like you

The actual 'sheep', as you call them, are the ones who are being fooled by the various and sundry (and usually conflicting) 'conspiracy' websites out there. They are a rag-tag bunch of noodlers who are either A): Stark raving bonkers...or, B): In it for a profit.

Many fall into category 'B'. They are the 'unseen' bits who, once they set this nonsense rolling, rake in the spoils FROM the accolytes who run across their dreck, and fall for it...because it is usually packaged and sold is such a way as to be somewhat believable, to a mostly inexperienced eye and senses.

Oh, and the CIA?? Hardly!! They are so embarrassed by their intelligence failures that led up to 9/11, they're probably GLAD to have those 'conspiracy' sites, and folks like you to follow them, around to misdirect the attention...


In the case of Shanksville photos...there is NO COMPLETE and PRECISE photographic analysis, with accurate measurements and documentation available ONLINE to determine the true sizes!!! Everything put out by "conspiricists" is based on a compilation of a limited number of various photos, and usually selective CROPPING of the photos to make the damaged area appear smaller.

The latest trend, hereabouts, has been to take the out-of-context and completely off-the-cuff initial 'estimates' of certain first responders as the "PROOF" of the size...even though NONE of them agree, and as I said, these were merely first impressions...OPINIONS...of these people.

If I told you of this amazing 'canyon' in the Southwestern United States, and said it was hundreds of miles long, and over a mile deep, then showed you THIS picture:



...you'd call me bonkers, say I was lying...and would remain convinced it was all a "story", that the Grand Canyon didn't actually exist...it was a "Government Cover-Up"...IF that was the only picture, there would be nobody else who would comprehend its true size, unless they'd actually seen it.

BUT, after more time, and more photos, if I came back with THIS:



...then the original accounts would begin to make more sense.

In the case of Shanksville, the photos that are available are what they are. It is the case in many aspects of 9/11 --- not ALL of the photos are posted anywhere online.

What 'conspiracy' sites love to do is conveniently ignore ANY data that conflicts with the story they wish to sell....AND they disingenuously emphasize anything that helps their 'cause'...they are not providing a full accounting of events, only a portion --- the portion that suits them.






[edit on 26 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

As i said before dont patronize me ,, i know what im seeing an i know the difference between truth an an untruth an i dont need a cat like you to tell me the difference between the to!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


I am hardly being 'patronizing'....I merely state the facts.

The lying liars who lie, on the 'conspriacy' websites, like to use a picture like this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d959b5f2c76.jpg[/atsimg]

...to make it look like the crater was too "small".

That one is why I chose that Grand Canyon picture, linked above, as first example.


They even try to use one of the aerial photos, like this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f749b93c556.jpg[/atsimg]

...and then LIE again about its size and scale.

They are able to get away with it, sometimes and to clever advantage, due to the lack of reference objects for anyone to guage the size, just by eyeballing it.

It's a little like trying to estimate the size of a Lunar crater, just from an overhead photo. With nothing familar to judge the relative scale, you really can't.

Knowing the ALTITUDE above the ground, however...and the camera details (lens length, etc) is a good start...but that informaiton isn't that easy to find. Not sure if even I can find it...)

~~~~~~~

LISTEN to this. (I have been flying for over thrity years, and I KNOW real air traffic control communications, what sounds real...and this is real. I can ALSO tell when it's 'hollywood fake', for that's mostly what it's like in movies and TV...makes me cringe, it's so bad sometimes...):




Note the FIRST time the hijacker (thinking he is using the PA, talking to the cabin and the passengers) mentions to "stay seated", and "we have a bomb". Notice he's out of breath??

A few minutes later, he tries again..calmer this time. Of course, he is STILL using the hand mic, and broadcasting on the same ATC frequency that was tuned in, by the real pilots...you hear them at first.

These guys had ONE motive, and trained for ONE 'skill'...to control the airplanes to their 'targets' after taking them over....they did NOT need to know all the details of taking off or landing, nor did they bother to learn properly the complexities of the radios and PA and interphone systems.




[edit on 26 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Well im sorry but nether of the photos tell me that a 757 jet plane just disappeared in that little hole grow up man

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


?? Huh?

nether of the photos tell me that a 757 jet plane just disappeared in that little hole...

How "big" (or 'little') do you personally reckon the area of disturbance at the impact zone is in the second aerial picture? And how did you determine its size??

What is in the picture to guage the relative size? Any familiar, known-size objects for comparison?

Can you not see in the first photo, it doesn't tell the entire story?? It is NOT the entire area, but only a portion...(like in my Grand Canyon comparison photos).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's ValuJet 492...high speed (though not quite as fast as United 93, nearly) and almost vertical:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ce8baca2ec7.jpg[/atsimg]

This is American Eagle 4184. Example of a plowed field, so fairly soft (almost like Shanksville, except the area in question in Shanksville wasn't as tightly compacted dirt as seen in Roselawn). Eagle 4184 was NOT travelling at over 400 knots when it impacted, either....at most was half that speed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf756d1685f4.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 26 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Alright weres all the bits an pices youd expect to find after such a huge plane hit that field? an dont say they disapeared down that hole lol

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


In the aerial pic of United 93, we are too high to SEE the pieces!! It is that simple. ALSO, much debris was outside the area encompassed by that one photo.

There were pieces, and yes (tragically) body parts and human remains in the surrounding trees, and other areas on the perimeter.

Only a ghoul would demand to see every possible thing, and demand photographic evidence.

The entire concept of all these "theories" has grown up around a kernel of either misunderstanding (maybe even innocently) from the start, but has grown into this marketing cottage industry that we see today.

With all the duplicity and lying that goes with selling something --- because there was sensed a market for this kind of junk, this "conspiracy" stuff...above and beyond what were valid, testable conspiracies (on which ATS was orighinally founded, I believe).

The BUSINESS of "conspiracies" has found a niche marketing demographic, apparently. The advent of Internet, and especially (five years ago) YouTube has made this snowball effect, and it is gatheiring mass as it rolls downhill...(don't have to remind you what other iconic substance also is said to roll downhill, in common idiom....)

Twin engine turbo prop isnt anything like a 757 man, its like talking to a wall ill see yea around....

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Ah so just because one plane isnt exactly the same size as another, the crash itself doesnt count, even though the plane was obliterated? Like obliterated into tiny pieces? you have to get out more into the real world. A high speed nearly vertical impact into the ground will not leave behind large recognizable peices. Maybe the engines. And the landing gear.

First responders discovered plenty of debris. Tiny debris. And plenty of body parts. Tiny parts. Why is this SO HARD to understand or figure out? There was a plane crash. It WAS a 757. IT WAS FLIGHT 93. Confirmed by tons of evidence, first hand accounts, and first responders, INCLUDING the coroner. I mean how much more ignorant do you have to be????