Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

Do any non-troll skeptics have an intelligent answer?

Any?

Originally posted by ATH911
So skeptics,

What was that wingless "military-looking" rivet-less aircraft doing coming from the opposite direction that skimmed over Susan's van seconds before the alleged UA93 crash?

It could only be one of three things...

a) something that defied the laws of physics, since anything that flies has to either have wings, or, be flying so fast that it couldn't have performed the aerobatical maneuvers McElwain claims she had seen, OR

b) a slow flying pilotless control craft which had nothing to do with the events at Shanksville, since it was NOT the craft any of the other witnesses saw, nor did it have the power to have been any threat to UA93, nor was it large enough to create that famous impact in the ground, OR

c) McElwain misjudged the altitude of the craft, meaning she very well may have made misgudged any number of other things I.E. a large craft flying high and fast is indistinguishable from a small craft low and slow without anythign else to compare it to.

Since C necessarily means you're barking up the wrong tree with these conspiracy stories, I'll presume you're going to recoil from it in horror like it was radioactive, so I'll leave it to you to pick between A and B.

Originally posted by ATH911
Do any non-troll skeptics have an intelligent answer?

Any?

OK, how's this?

It was a super secret military "skunkworks" stealth remote control plane armed with an explosive device that zipped into the site just in time to drop a piece of ordinance that would replicate a crashing and exploding commercial jetliner so that when first repsonders arrived on scene minutes later they would see the smoking hole (an obvious direct result of the ordinance) but just long enough before the locals got there so that the stealth operators on the site could pepper the hole with aircraft debris and human remains.

There, that sounds much more intelligent then something stupid like, she was mistaken or misdirected by the obviously bias interviewers.

Much less sarcastic, but nevertheless more probable, they just wanted to record the event.
You have no idea what sick minds were and are at work on that day.
And every damn day of our life.
I experienced some sinister moments when crossing these kind of people's paths.

UAV's main purpose were as reconnaissance drones.
They knew the outcome of UAL93, and since they are sick minded collectors, they were collecting.
Be it money, be it information.

He who has the best information, will win.

And by the way, if you still do not understand, that an army is not there to protect you, the poor civilian; but to protect its paymasters, then there's no sense in educating you.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Much less sarcastic, but nevertheless more probable, they just wanted to record the event.

...and of course, this "they" is always some unidentified sinister shadowy force that noone can identify. Whoever the "they" are, apparently they're pretty retarded as this imagined drone of yours wouldn't have reported anything a guy on the ground would have reported better, or that a plane like the Falcon jet would have seen from the air. They didn't even have the brains to use a professional drone like a global hawk, and instead used some cheezy fiberglass model large enough to only carry a Radio Shack video camera.

Just how whackadoodle convoluted do your conspiracy stories have to get before you finally abandon that sinking ship of yours? McElwain misjudged the size and altitude of the craft she saw. People under duress make mistakes. Deal with it.

You have no idea what sick minds were and are at work on that day.
And every damn day of our life.
I experienced some sinister moments when crossing these kind of people's paths.

This is circular logic, in that you're adding more unsubstanciated accusations to the same unsubstanciated accusations in an attempt to explain itself. I shouldn't have to tell you this is intellectually dishonest.

And by the way, if you still do not understand, that an army is not there to protect you, the poor civilian; but to protect its paymasters, then there's no sense in educating you.

A thoroughly uninformed and ignorant statement with no credibility. The army doesn't come from breeding farms or laboratory cloning tubes. It comes from the civilian society and it goes back to civilian society when they retire. Armies can't exist without the civilians backing it up and not even Hitler could get his army to fulfill his sick desire to leave all of Germany a funeral pyre.

You're certainly free to make up any cynical position you desire, but just keep in mind that my position is that you're inherently antiestablishment and you're coming up with all this sick horse [censored] off the top of your head on your own, so of course you're going to be imagining sinister plots everywhere you look. You'll excuse me when I say comments like, "no sense in educating me" not only does nothing to sway me, it only reinforces the opinion.

You really should re-view Susan's 6 part video.

When, after that, people like you still hang on to your rigid trust in the Fatherland, and all of its natural offspring in the form of an unhealthy HUGE money-grabbing army, air force and navy; which on the moment are the only entities holding up your countries sick to the bone economy, in the form of blood-money spend on keeping up this next, Fourth Reich's 1000 years planning; then we better stop interacting with you, and this kind of people.

I see 30 minutes long a very concerned honest lady telling us her experience, and clearly describing an extremely low flying vehicle, or whatever name you want to give it, and in the end explaining to the FBI that she is concerned whether that thingy was one of your official ones, or, from any other country or entity.

And you keep coming up with an officially explained Falcon jet (not a Lear jet) which was flying miles high according to the NTSB and FAA.
Nobody does mix up an extremely low flying UAV which nearly clips the power-lines along the road, with a miles high TINY (about 1 inch to the viewer) looking Falcon jet.
Especially not from inside a van, looking through the front window.
You are offering ridiculous arguments to the audience, do you realize that?

You also know that the majority of the viewers of Susan's video evidence will scratch their heads and start getting interested in the rest of all these 911 anomalies.

And that's what you, government and military trustees, want to stop at all costs.

Ridicule, smear and twist as much as you can, the only positive thing you will accomplish is the fact that more and more people reading your twisted mindless attacks on honest witnesses, will start to awake to the chilling consequences of an uninformed populace.

I will return to the intention of this thread, and leave you alone with your propaganda driven agenda. Personal attacks do not help anybody.

[edit on 10/7/10 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by LaBTop
When, after that, people like you still hang on to your rigid trust in the Fatherland, and all of its natural offspring in the form of an unhealthy HUGE money-grabbing army, air force and navy; which on the moment are the only entities holding up your countries sick to the bone economy, in the form of blood-money spend on keeping up this next, Fourth Reich's 1000 years planning; then we better stop interacting with you, and this kind of people.

(Sigh) I really don't understand why I have to keep repeating this over and over and over. It's as if you're so enslaved to your particular antiestablishment angst that you don't care to listen to anythign else. It isn't the case that I slavishly believe as you call it the "official story". IMy position is that if you don't agree with the 9/11 commission report, it becomes your obligation to provide a scenario which better fits the facts, and I mean ALL the facts, not just one or two specially cherry picked tidbit. So far, all I've gotten from you is a conspiracy theory that only a stoned high school kid would have come up with, with whole air armadas flying upside down crashing into the exact same spot, and specially built drones too small to do anything worthwhile, all to accomplish a faked crash site in the middle of nowhere that accomplished nothing whatsoever.

I'm goign to ask you one more time, and please don't poison it with your own abject paranoia- you know there were hordes of eyewitnesses who saw both UA93 fall out of the sky and into the ground. Explain that to me.

And you keep coming up with an officially explained Falcon jet (not a Lear jet) which was flying miles high according to the NTSB and FAA.
Nobody does mix up an extremely low flying UAV which nearly clips the power-lines along the road, with a miles high TINY (about 1 inch to the viewer) looking Falcon jet. Especially not from inside a van, looking through the front window. You are offering ridiculous arguments to the audience, do you realize that?

I am atempting to coordinate what McElwain saw with what everyone else saw. Shanksville isn't out in the middle of the desert or on the bottom of the ocean. It's a populated area and there were hordes of eyewitnesses, so whatever McElwain saw, many other people would have seen, and it's more likely she mistook a high flying, large craft as a low flying, slow small craft. You're dishonestly attempting to interpret everything in a vacuum, and it's easy to see why- the more you try to expand it and include what other people saw, the more you're forced to dance to keep your conspiracy stories alive. This is exactly why you keep harping over McElwain but happily sweep Terry Butler's account under the rug hoping that noone else notices. Sorry but I've noticed.

Ridicule, smear and twist as much as you can, the only positive thing you will accomplish is the fact that more and more people reading your twisted mindless attacks on honest witnesses, will start to awake to the chilling consequences of an uninformed populace.

You lie like a rug. Not once have I ever made "twisted mindless attacks on honest witnesses". Not once. I challange you to go back through my posts and provide even one example of this. I'm trying to figure out how her statement jives with everyone else's statement, becuase unlike you I don't have an agenda to push out a specific account of things.

Sheesh, it's as if you're living in a whole other world than the rest of us. I shouldn't have to tell you that if your conspiracy stories need to rely of flasehoods and misrepresentations like this to survive then you're all but admitting they're wrong.

reply to post by LaBTop


Please explain why the producers of this video describe her location as Stoystown even though she was only a few thousand feet from Shanksville and miles from Stoystown. This took about 60 seconds of research to figure out. It's a basic. Didn't the interviewers know where they were at?

Also, please explain why this person, fearing for her life, would duck and then shut off her radio? Also explain why the unidentified flying object made no noise and more amazingly was capable of flying at great speed and manuvere around poles and trees without any wings and also without disturbing the air.

Originally posted by hooper
Also, please explain why this person, fearing for her life, would duck and then shut off her radio? Also explain why the unidentified flying object made no noise and more amazingly was capable of flying at great speed and manuvere around poles and trees without any wings and also without disturbing the air.

This part I can accept as legitimate. Someone who sees something they perceive as life threatening would immediately have the instinct to shut off (or more likely, turn the volume down to zero, same difference) so they can hear whatever ugly thing is threatening them...but therein lies the problem. If she had the radio on when the craft went by, she's not going to hear the engines, and by the time she turns it off, the craft is already gone so of course it's going to be silent- the craft already left the area. It's blatantly obvious McElwain is misjudging a few things in her testimony, which is entirely excusable seeing she was out of her mind in panic.

It's blatantly obvious LabTop is seeing some sinister conspiracy here specifically becuase he wants to see some sinister conspiracy here. It's only in his own mind that what McElwain saw was related to the reason why UA93 crashed.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
b) a slow flying pilotless control craft which had nothing to do with the events at Shanksville, since it was NOT the craft any of the other witnesses saw, nor did it have the power to have been any threat to UA93, nor was it large enough to create that famous impact in the ground, OR

c) McElwain misjudged the altitude of the craft, meaning she very well may have made misgudged any number of other things I.E. a large craft flying high and fast is indistinguishable from a small craft low and slow without anythign else to compare it to.

b) Others DID see it circling around tree-top level before and after the "crash," an altitude your alleged Falcon jet never came close to flying that low at the scene and that's with giving the benefit of the doubt it was even at the scene.

a&c) So this normal plane flying high in the air in the OPPOSITE direction as UA93 alleged did looked to her that it almost flew into her car, was wingless & rivetless, had that "military look" that she couldn't find on the net, and flew like it swooped down in a non-straight trajectory even though this plane flying high would have been flying it a normal straight directory that high up in the air? Really?? Seriously???

[edit on 12-7-2010 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911
b) Others DID see it circling around tree-top level before and after the "crash," an altitude your alleged Falcon jet never came close to flying that low at the scene and that's with giving the benefit of the doubt it was even at the scene.

All right, then, so there was additional craft in the area. Ground controllers asked the pilot of the Falcon jet to look for a crash site so they certainly could have asked other craft in the area to look for a crash site. I shouldn't need to point out that there actually are more than just two planes up in the air at any given time and they rarely have anythign to do with any secret gov't plot going on.

You're grasping at straws here.

So this normal plane flying high in the air in the OPPOSITE direction as UA93 alleged did looked to her that it almost flew into her car, was wingless & rivetless, had that "military look" that she couldn't find on the net, and flew like it swooped down in a non-straight trajectory even though this plane flying high would have been flying it a normal straight directory that high up in the air?

I am going by McElwain's own testimony that she only saw the belly of the craft. There's no way she would be able to recognize it from any other angle. FYI laws of aerodynamics dictate that there's no such thing as a wingless, silent aircraft. Cruise missiles and pilotless drones have wings, and hovercraft all make the devil's own noise. So, unless these supposed conspirators were able to develop antigravity technology the craft she saw irrefutably had wings. She simply didn't notice them, meaning that she's misjudging some of the things she saw.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right, then, so there was additional craft in the area. Ground controllers asked the pilot of the Falcon jet to look for a crash site so they certainly could have asked other craft in the area to look for a crash site.

So now you are saying the mystery aircraft Susan saw BEFORE the "crash" that almost flew into her car, coming from the opposite trajectory than the official UA93 trajectory was that alleged Falcon jet that supposedly arrived many minutes after the "crash" and never flew below 1,500 ft?!? Really?? Seriously???

Originally posted by ATH911
So now you are saying the mystery aircraft Susan saw BEFORE the "crash" that almost flew into her car, coming from the opposite trajectory than the official UA93 trajectory was that alleged Falcon jet that supposedly arrived many minutes after the "crash" and never flew below 1,500 ft?!? Really?? Seriously???

I don't know becuase I wasn't there, and McElwain's description of a featureless, wingless slow moving silent craft no bigger than her van fits no description of any craft I'm aware of...or anyone else for that matter, including her. Whatever it was, it was NOT flight 93 as all the other witnesses specifically remarked that it was very loud and most certainly had wings.

Besides, it's only the conspiracy theorists who's claiming there was any sinister purpose behind this craft to begin with. If you want to say there was some joker nearby buzzing people with his remote controlled model airplane when UA93 came along, go right ahead.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
McElwain's description of a featureless, wingless slow moving silent craft no bigger than her van fits no description of any craft I'm aware of...or anyone else for that matter, including her.

Yes, she mentioned she tried to find what she saw on the internet and couldn't.

Whatever it was, it was NOT flight 93 as all the other witnesses specifically remarked that it was very loud and most certainly had wings.

Glad you concede that. A lot of your buddies at JREF say she mistaked it for UA93.

Besides, it's only the conspiracy theorists who's claiming there was any sinister purpose behind this craft to begin with.

Let's discuss this next, but first, do you also concede the mystery aircraft Susan and others saw before the "crash" was NOT the alleged Falcon jet that supposedly came to the scene many many minutes later?

To answer GoodolDave's curiosity regarding Terry Butler's, or an overly creative news reporter's words :

He or the reporter said or printed this :

"It dropped out of the clouds," too low for a commercial flight, Butler said. The plane rose slightly, trying to gain altitude, then "it just went flip to the right and then straight down."

Now look at this picture from the same Killtown blog :




Anybody see ANY clouds?
No.
Since there were no clouds on 911 at the crash site and for 20 miles around it.
The FAA air traffic controller guys at Johnstown airport reported a CLEAR SKY all the way down to the crash site. And all around them as far as they could see, at the highest point in the county. And on top of their 30 meters high tower.
They were skimming the skies to their south from the moment that they got alerted that UAL93 was approaching their tower and was 20 miles south of them at that moment, at a few seconds around 10:00 AM EST.
However, for the following full SIX MINUTES they couldn't pinpoint any plane to the south of them.
However, if we may believe the NTSB report, that plane was acting like a grasshopper on steroids.
Should stick out like a sore thumb in those clear skies.
But those two guys who stayed on the tower couldn't find a wing anywhere to the south of them, with their professional binoculars. At 8,000 feet high, as the FAA center indicated to them.
They later said that the ridges around them could have blocked their sight, however, its a hilly area, not really mountainous. At 8,000 feet, they would have immediately spotted that jumping beans act from UAL93.


Here is another, fresh after 911, news gathering from the New York Times :




Observe the various heights off the ground, indicated by the New York Times witnesses:
1. At Boswell : 2,000 feet (610 meters), 10 miles from the crash site.
2. At Stoystown : 500 feet (152 meters), 3 miles from the crash site.
3. North of Lambertsville : 100-200 feet (30-60 meters), 2,5 miles from the crash site.

That does NOT fit the heights over the last 10 miles from that UAL93 Flight Data Recorder from the NTSB at all, doesn't it?
However, it fits Viola Saylor's and her sister, and Mr Peterson's eyewitness accounts like a glove.
Especially nr 3, at 100 to 200 feet high (30 to 60 meters), just a half mile further to the north of Viola Saylor's house at 1318 Pompey Hill Road, Stoystown, PA15563, USA.

And Hooper, have a good look at my Google Earth photo of Viola's house again, and note how her address is depicted there. Lambertsville belongs to Stoystown, and that's why DiMaggio said that they came to Stoystown.


Btw, GoodolDave, where did you get that idea that Susan McElwain said she saw a wingless plane?
You yourself were the one that started talking about a red missile (nearly wingless), which was depicted in that Amalgam Virgo pamphlet I posted, after you introduced that red missile.
Which picture was placed under a real white UAV, the one I meant.

Then ATH911 sliced that word "wingless" in, still connecting that to a missile, in one of his short posts.
And Hooper and you then kept repeating it. But you connected it now not anymore to a red missile, but to a white smooth, rivet-less UAV.
But Susan never talked about a missile, she talked about a plane.

And then you used it to humiliate Susan since ""she could have never seen a small plane without wings (she never said that) making those acrobatic maneuvers"", as you said.

[edit on 13/7/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop

And Hooper, have a good look at my Google Earth photo of Viola's house again, and note how her address is depicted there. Lambertsville belongs to Stoystown, and that's why DiMaggio said that they came to Stoystown.

Sorry, you obviously didn't see the videos. The 's were interviewing Susan at "scene", the intersection of those two roads and they described the location (shown right on the video) as being in Stoystown even though the location was only a few thousand feet from Shanksville and miles from Stoystown. You should really watch the stuff you post.

Now, after all hand-waving, distorting, contorting, disguising and twisting of Susan McElwain's own words, listen again to the first 4 minutes of her own words, and not some infiltrated falsehoods of truth debunkers and their websites on the Internet, and view with your own eyes how she DEFINITELY does REJECT the picture of an A-10 Warthog shown to her by Dominick DiMaggio, as the one she could have seen. Just as she also rejects a Falcon 20 business jet shown to her.

How on earth you can hold on to either a Falcon 20 business jet or an A-10 (tank-killer) military attack plane as the one she probably saw, is beyond my level of understanding.
After her denying both pictures of such planes, and especially her attitude, acting as if she's flabbergasted how any reporter could ever ask her such a dumb question about such kind of planes with medium proportions, and then she goes on reinforcing her earlier words that she told already many times that she saw a very little airplane, not bigger as the van she drove that day, about the same size as she drives, in the other 6 part, 30 minutes long in total, video interview with Mr Ettaro.

www.youtube.com...



This video PROVES without doubt, that the US editor of The Mirror from England did LIE through his damn teeth when printing that piece of disinformation about Susan McElwain describing to the T, an A-10 Warthog as the plane she saw in her rear-mirror and then passing low over her van and hopping in front of her over the tree-line which wooded area blocked her sight to the official crash site at that junction she was halting.
She did never describe it as an A-10 to him.
So probably someone else did feed him those words, and as the tabloid slave he was, he fitted that big lie in to boost the sales records of his company.

Paul Thompson from History Commons should definitely change his piece about Susan McElwain and enter a new part where this video interview with Susan should be inserted as evidence that RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor of The Mirror.co.uk was spreading severe misinformation to discredit Susan's real observations. This video is clear evidence of mainstream news tampering!
www.historycommons.org...

And Hooper, it seems like you are too young, or never owned a car with air-conditioning and a radio. Usually you are advised to keep your air-con on all the time, summer and winter, to keep it's little compressor motor lubricated by the oil in the cooling liquid gas. And to keep the air inside as dry as can be to stop moisture condensation on the windows.
The wear down of long periods of switching off of an air-con system and then restarting it, is much higher than its constant use.

So people who got such wise advice from their professional car mechanic, will drive around with their windows up and closed, so the air-con can function properly at all times.

And cars nowadays are pretty air- and sound tight.
So after she saw the plane through her van's front window, she knew that immediate danger was over, and she wanted to hear what noise the plane made, since obviously, before that, she did not hear any motor noise from that little plane overcoming the sound of her radio, so of course she then shuts the radio off, out of pure curiosity to find out why she did not hear that plane's motor sound.

Do you have any spare time for some tiny constructive addition to this discussion, instead of immature playing around?
At 2:57/9:46 in the above video, you can READ this :
Intersection: North on Bridge St. @ Buckstown Rd, Stoystown, PA.

That is how I found her position I depicted in my Google Earth diagram.

You know perfectly well that your little rants have nothing to do with what we are discussing, so spent some time at real arguments please.

[edit on 14/7/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop

And Hooper, it seems like you are too young, or never owned a car with air-conditioning and a radio. Usually you are advised to keep your air-con on all the time, summer and winter, to keep it's little compressor motor lubricated by the oil in the cooling liquid gas. And to keep the air inside as dry as can be to stop moisture condensation on the windows.
The wear down of long periods of switching off of an air-con system and then restarting it, is much higher than its constant use.

So people who got such wise advice from their professional car mechanic, will drive around with their windows up and closed, so the air-con can function properly at all times.

And cars nowadays are pretty air- and sound tight.
So after she saw the plane through her van's front window, she knew that immediate danger was over, and she wanted to hear what noise the plane made, since obviously, before that, she did not hear any motor noise from that little plane overcoming the sound of her radio, so of course she then shuts the radio off, out of pure curiosity to find out why she did not hear that plane's motor sound.

Huh? Drive around with the AC on all the time? So that it works better? I've been driving for over 30 years, generally fix my own cars, and this is probably the silliest thing I ever heard. Now you may have gotten "wise advice" from your mechanic to always have the AC on, and that is very wise from the mechanics point of view, particularly if he has a boat payment due.

If she knew the immeadiate danger was over then why did shy duck? Why do you keep calling it a plane? Remember - it had no wings, made no noise and did not even distrurb the air through which it was travelling. This must be characterized as an unidentified flying object only.

reply to post by LaBTop

You know perfectly well that your little rants have nothing to do with what we are discussing, so spent some time at real arguments please.

Sorry, you want to live or die by these little youtube videos and but want to pick apart every little detail in other accounts but God forbid that anyone question anything you present.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Anybody see ANY clouds?
No.
Since there were no clouds on 911 at the crash site and for 20 miles around it.

You certainly are a piece of work, Labtop. Up until now you've been defending McElwain's eyewitness account as unimpeachable gospel entirely on the qualification that she was an eyewitness, and yet, when we have another eyewitness account you nitpick over the details and all but accuse him of lying. Why are you employing a double standard here? I certainly believe Susan McElwain saw something, but it's only in your own feverish paranoia that what she saw was part of some sinister secret plot to fake a crash site out in the middle of nowhere.

So are eyewitness accounts reliable or aren't they?

Btw, GoodolDave, where did you get that idea that Susan McElwain said she saw a wingless plane?
You yourself were the one that started talking about a red missile (nearly wingless), which was depicted in that Amalgam Virgo pamphlet I posted, after you introduced that red missile.
Which picture was placed under a real white UAV, the one I meant.

I got the idea from your partner in crome ATH11, earlier-

"So this normal plane flying high in the air in the OPPOSITE direction as UA93 alleged did looked to her that it almost flew into her car, was wingless & rivetless, had that "military look" that she couldn't find on the net, and flew like it swooped down in a non-straight trajectory even though this plane flying high would have been flying it a normal straight directory that high up in the air? Really?? Seriously???"

...and I wasn't saying it was red. Just becuase it was red in the photo it doesn't mean it would have been red in this imaged conspiracy story of yours. If you're going to bring fantasy land into the mix then why are you stopping with what color they would have painted the thing?

And then you used it to humiliate Susan since ""she could have never seen a small plane without wings (she never said that) making those acrobatic maneuvers"", as you said.

McElwain claimed it was flying below the power lines, which the interviewers said was under 25 feet. She then said it made a turn and flew up and over the tree line, quietly and without disturbing the trees in any way. I would certainly call this acrobatic. What would you call it?