Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

Look this is the last time im on this......i could except it if it was just one crash, but because the plane (missile) that hit the pentagon supposedly disappeared no seats no body's no huge engines no undercarriage no litter all over the place no tail fin,, well thats enough to make a thinking man suspicious end of story an im not even American

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


I think everyone who has been thoroughly educated about the Pentagon attack can understand why someone with only the knowledge of looking at photos of the scene could think that there was no way in heck a 757 jet crashed there, and it had to be a missile. Especially, when you look at the video evidence, it's a joke.

There may be a chance that the DOD or the FBI or who ever is in a position to control the flow of evidence to the public has made it appear this way on the surface...for whatever reason, that or they just don't care b/c they know. But once you take a closer look it is very apparent that like the WTC attacks, a large jetliner, f77, crashed into the Pentagon.

I see your in Ireland, I was living in DC during the attacks, drove past the Pentagon almost everyday, imagine the biggest highways in all of Ireland. I'm talking big the DC/VA highways are second to only LA in the entire country, they're big. Now imagine the Pentagon (another giant of America) sitting right next to this 15-20 lane highway.

Now the important part, imagine that this entire highway is a traffic jam, bumper to bumper, barely moving at all. This was the situation that day at the time it decided to come through. Not only that, it flew right over the highways in a way that everyone would be able to see the jet perfectly.

There were/are many more witnesses than the ones that have decided to come forward, most people in the DC rat race could care less.

Btw for what it's worth, I drove by the Pentagon (on that very highway) several days after 9/11 and I can tell you personally that the hole in the building was gigantic. The pictures just don't do it justice, just like seeing pictures of the WTC don't compare to having seen it with your own eyes.

After years of reading into all things 9/11, I can tell you without question that f77 crashed there. All evidence points any logical person to this assumption. Until some new evidence shows up to the contrary I have to believe that.

Why then do we only have i shot of the missile hitting? weres all the other cctv shots of the hole thing from every angel? surely if they had nothing to hide they would have them released an put an end to all the speculation...

reply to post by PersonalChoice

you're wacky...so do you or don't you.....cant tell from the first paragraph vs. the last one.....dude!
mind control, i guess!

[edit on 27-6-2010 by GBP/JPY]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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.

That's the problem, right there, in a nutshell- these Shanksville doubters don't research the history on anything, much less UAVs. They're so much in love with the idea that there's some secret conspiracy afoot that they'll grab one or two unrelated bits of information and stick them together on their own to form the picture they specifically want to create. When we point out all the things they're overlooking like how big these drones actually are, these "I defy you believers to prove me wrong" people all disappear quietly back into the woodwork. You'll notice that Labtop isn't responding now that he got an answer to his question, namely becuase it was an answer he didn't want to hear and can't resolve with his conspiracy claims.

I can't relly blame them, though. All you need to do is read the BS those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out to see just how seductive they make their conspiracy claims to people who get all their information from such web sites. I have a counterchallange for Labtop and all the "gov't is plotting to murder us all" crowd- did any of these conspiracy web sites you get your information from ever explain to you how BIG those drones were? Why do you think that is, hmmm?

reply to post by pinch


pinch, baby....who loves ya, man...what's that term....inbred what...it rhymes with debate

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
reply to post by pinch

 

pinch, baby....who loves ya, man...what's that term....inbred what...it rhymes with debate

Thanks for taking over man iv got a pain in my arse with this lol

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Look this is the last time im on this......i could except it if it was just one crash, but because the plane (missile) that hit the pentagon supposedly disappeared no seats no body's no huge engines no undercarriage no litter all over the place no tail fin,, well thats enough to make a thinking man suspicious end of story an im not even American

You have your conspiracies confused between the Pentagon and Shanksville. They most decidedly did find wreckage of engines, landing gear, fuselage, black box, etc etc etc, at the Pentagon, as well as hordes of eyewitnesses who specifically saw the passenger jet hit it. Photos and eyewitness accounts have been posted here time and time so I know you've seen them. The problem isn't that there's no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, becuase there is. The problem is that you conspiracy people routinely brush it all off as "gov't disinformation" like you do everything that disproves your beloved conspiracy claims so you don't accept the evidence as legitimate.

Therein lies the problem- if you conspiracy people are conditioning yourselves to disbelieve all evidence showing it was in fact a terrorist attack (Pentagon, Shanksville, or whatever), then there isn't anything on the face of the planet that will ever convince you to abandon your conspiracy stories becuase you don't want to abandon your conspiracy stories. Coming here and asking questions when you don't really care to hear any answers is therefore being intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by LaBTop


right on man...you have your head screwed on right...glad to know ya!

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

I don't particularly care whether you give me a biscuit, jump up and down, or bark at the moon, as my life will be exactly the same as it was before. I need to remind you, sir, that it was you who introduced your game playing outlook on life here, not me. I expounded on it becuase I see it as a major factor for why you willingly crawl deeper and deeper into those Rube Goldberg-esque conspiracy rat holes of yours. To me, I look to evidence and common sense. To you, it's a "hidden objects- conspiracy edition" game. You're "so sure" there has to be a conspiracy there, somewhere, so you'll keep sniffing deeper and deeper until you find it. The possibility that there may not actually be any conspiracy there is not only out of the question, it's heresy.

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.

Ow, wel, than en thatt caze eye well strife two maik shure may speling ant grammur ar alwayz purfeck fore yew beecuze yew hav thuh rite tew nevr bee incunveniensed buy anywon elze inn thu wurld, ant yew ar inn now obligashun tew tolurate anywon elzes flawz, mistaiks, oar inpurfekshuns.

Dude, I'm not here to argue with spelling nazis. I'm here to show how badly these conspiracy web sites are raping people with these ridiulous "the gov't is out to murder us all" claims. Claiming there that a bunch of conspirators dug a hole out in the middle of nowhere in broad daylight, planted faked wreckage and a doctored black box, and staged all sorts of elaborate "planes flying upside down" and "mysterious white planes" stunts, all to trick peple into thinking a plane crashed there, is just plain idiotic, regardless of how well the words are spelled.

Besides, I shouldn't need to tell you that picking over other people's misspellings and incorrect grammer is not only adolescent, but impotent. It's the entire reason why I don't nitpick over other people's misspellings and incorrect grammer, including yours-

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

Sheesh, grow up.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Why then do we only have i shot of the missile hitting? weres all the other cctv shots of the hole thing from every angel? surely if they had nothing to hide they would have them released an put an end to all the speculation...

That would depend on there being CCTV footage in the first place, which wasn't the case. The infamous videos that were collected by the FBI, were from known CCTV systems in the immediate area, which was collected in case it held any visual clues. And since CCTV is primarily aimed at protecting your inventory, rather than showing a static image of the side of the Pentagon, none of it showed anything of use (apart from a shadow here and/or there).

Also, the videos aren't FBI's to release anyway, since they're coming from private property.

As for the Pentagon, it is my understanding that they rely on security personnel. There's no reason for them to have CCTV at every corner of the building, since they're far mor likely to detain any possible intruder, than having to rely on CCTV footage to identify the person.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by roboe]

reply to post by GBP/JPY



I thought for second maybe I should edit a bit to clarify, until I realized your reading comprehension is either poor or your just mad I believe f77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Mind control- This coming from someone who I'll assume believes a cruise missile was launched into the Pentagon.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by PersonalChoice]

Do us all a favor and address the first of the questions I asked you Trusters in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then, when you have filled another 2 or 3 pages with "dreck", as weedwhacker so gallantly does express at times, we can perhaps try to get you so far to address the second question I asked in that post and see what that leads us to.

GoodolDave, why do you start to beat an 8 year old horse, that idiot Global Hawk reconnaissance plane, what we have explained away already all these years ago?
It's used to fly at very high altitudes, with as silent as possible motor noise, to make sharp photo's of a battlefield. That's why it has these huge long thin wings. And a big photo pod under his nose.

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 van, 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.
I have unfolded all of my calculations and reasoning in just two pages, and see where we are now, with another four pages filled with "dreck".

BTW, thanks in advance for any solid reasoning regarding my above link.

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.

Are you genuinely trying to say she saw a MQM streaker?!? Dude, those things fly at around 500 MPH. There's no flipping way an object flying 500 MPH is going to fly some 25 feet below the nearby powerlines (her own testimony) dip down so low that it filled her windshield (her own testimony) and then bank up and clear the tree line thirty yards away (her own testimony). Anythign flying 500MPH below the power lines and dipping down over her windshield is going to crash into the ground right in front of her. Sheesh, physics has to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they do the rest of us.

Not that it matters, as she specifically said the object "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.". This is NOT what a streaker looks like. Here's what a streaker looks like-

MQM-107 Streaker

Do YOU see a spoiler on this craft? I will say this one more time, just so that it sinks into that conspiracy addled head of yours- if Susan McElwain is mistaken about a 500 MPH craft flying a few feet over her van and then clearing a tree line 50 yards away, then she can be mistaken about other things. In that Youtube video you're almost certainly referencing the interviewers say the power lines this craft supposedly flew underneath were only 25 feet tall. She likewise grudgingly admits she didn't hear the plane crash- she just heard about it on the news a few days later.

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?

I am quite literate, thank you very much. My reading comprehension isn't the problem. The problem is that your conspiracy story is so whackadoodle convoluted nutball ridiculous that it doesn't make a lick of sense. We have an eyewitness Viola Saylor specifically saying she saw a large plane roar over her head while flying upside down which crashed shortly therafter, and yet the conspirators had this unmanned drone, and of all things a target towing drone ,flying around for no reason that apparently crashed in the exact same spot, all to trick us into thinking a passenger jet crashed in the middle of nowhere...and then they turned around and covered up the fake crash site they made to trick us. The conspirators staging these secret plots sound like they're a bunch of stoned high school kids.

Just how impossibly convoluted do your conspiracy stories have to become before you finally realize you're seeing things that aren't there entirely becuase you want them to be there?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Just how impossibly convoluted do your conspiracy stories have to become before you finally realize you're seeing things that aren't there entirely becuase you want them to be there?

Well, since everything he writes is word salad, you'd assume that it would require the same word salad response to reach him.

This is why he is unreachable, from what I've seen.

reply to post by LaBTop

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?

Since you're such a stickler for details, please go back and check that quote. She said it was no WIDER than her van. Exactly what does that mean? Since she was being interviewed by a couple of 's its not to suprising that they didn't ask her to clarify her statement.

What can fly that isn't as wide as a van? A missile, I guess

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What can fly that isn't as wide as a van? A missile, I guess

Yeah, but what missile roughly equal to the size of her van travels so slowly that it can fly beneath a 25 foot power line, dip down to fill her windshield, and bank up to avoid a treeline some thirty yards away? The way she describes it verbatim, the only thing that fits is one of those giant sized remote control model airplanes, but we know that can't be it. Not sinister sounding enough.

It's blatantly obvious to anyone who can think critically that this craft really didn't fly beneath a 25 foot powerline and Susan McElwain was mistaken as to exactly how low it was flying, but these conspiracy people know that necessarily means she could be mistaken about a number of other things, so to stay loyal to their conspiracy mongoring agenda they'd rather prefer to believe the conspirators invented a machine that could violate the laws of physics. This blind fanaticism of theirs is incredible.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


My thoughts exactly...

Another 6 posts wasted on my 3 main subjects.

You showed the same tactic again by shifting repeatedly to a totally different subject, and act as if you don't understand that Susan McElwain is clearly describing a slow flying drone, also known as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) also known as a remotely piloted vehicle or RPV, or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).
In the UAL scenario, it is not impossible that they even used a more aggressive type, an armed UAV which is known as an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV).



That flying object Susan described was used as a small reconnaissance plane, perhaps even to record what unfolded there, for some chilling kind of military or CIA records and their historical reasons.

UAV's :
en.wikipedia.org...

Predator MQ-1 :
en.wikipedia.org...

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon had each been experimenting with reconnaissance drones since the early 1980s.
-snip-
But by 2000 improvements in communications systems (perhaps by use of the USAF's JSTARS system) made it possible, at least in theory, to fly the drone remotely from great distances. It was no longer necessary to use close-up radio signals during the Predator's takeoff and ascent. The entire flight could be controlled by satellite from any command center with the right equipment. The CIA proposed to attempt over Afghanistan the first fully remote Predator flight operations, piloted from the agency's headquarters at Langley.[11]
-snip-
All Predators are equipped with a laser designator that allows the pilot to identify targets for other aircraft and even provide the laser-guidance for manned aircraft. This laser is also the designator for the AGM-114 Hellfire that are carried on the MQ-1.

So let us forget for the moment that constant sidestepping of you all, and try something different, for once.
Come on, don't you have anything intelligent to dig up to counter Viola Saylor's and her sister tree-top remark, while the NTSB animation definitely put their UAL93 at 1487 meters above her?

And where's your support for weedwhacker's theory, that the missing 3 minutes from the NTSB reports are caused by a pilots error, caused by them forgetting to set the Captain's clock?

While I showed him that the NTSB reports are in sync with all the other reports, thus, Q.E.D., no pilots error at all, and thus we miss the very essential last 3 minutes from the CVR, cockpit voice recorder.