History Channel Exposed - 9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
There`s another female eye witness video out there somewhere (not sure if it`s the same woman), in which she states the F.B.I. guy interviewing her was basically telling her what type of plane she saw, rather than what in her own words the plane she described.

Condescending is how she described the F.B.I. dude.

If you're going to be quoting your conspiracy stories then please quote them correctly. You're referring to April Gallop, an administrative specialist working at the Pentagon when the whole place suddenly went BOOM around her. She was brought to the hospital where she was later informed it was an aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Previously, she didn't know what happened, as she was too involved with looking for her newborn infant in the rubble. She is on record as being irate about being frequently being misquoted by people with ulterior motives.

April Gallop interview

Everything else is the product of your own corruption of the facts.

lol...YOUR the one who need to get the stories straight

The person being told by FBI what type of plane it was, was HER from an interview years ago, that is probably still on utube...when I find, I will post.



ohhh...guess it's ALREADY here.....my bad

[edit on 24-7-2009 by hgfbob]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
There`s another female eye witness video out there somewhere (not sure if it`s the same woman), in which she states the F.B.I. guy interviewing her was basically telling her what type of plane she saw, rather than what in her own words the plane she described.

If you're going to be quoting your conspiracy stories then please quote them correctly. You're referring to April Gallop, an administrative specialist working at the Pentagon when the whole place suddenly went BOOM around her.

In numerous threads, we have seen how Dave has destroyed Logic 101. He's often shown how inept he is with facts.

Here we have another perfect example.

Instead of asking Seventh about the female eyewitness, Dave presumed to know what Seventh was referring to.

It is blatantly clear that Dave's agenda to debunk, without knowing all of the facts, has left him looking a little silly on this occasion.

As dariousg has shown, it was Susan McElwain who spoke about the FBI trying to lead her with the plane description. It had nothing to do with April Gallop. Dave, again, you have shown yourself up for being uninformed, poorly researched and biased.

The hypocrisy is that Dave tells everyone how he has read the Commission Report and dares others to read it. Yet, he has not watched the Susan McElwain video, a first-hand, living eyewitness, with a name, who's testimony raises a lot of unanswered questions.

Hypocrisy indeed, here we have QweeQwa who obviously has not got the time nor inclination to discuss matters with *Twoofers*, yet can be clearly seen doing the complete opposite, what happened to the high grade debunkers such as Reheat etc we once had?

Aside from the flame exchange... Ms. McElwain gives a detailed description of what she saw fly over her van. Molded, white, shiny, spolier, etc. Has there been any concensus as to what she MAY have seen?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by QweeQwa
Like you, I aint got the time nor the inclination to spend my free time interacting with them self proclaimed "truthers".

You don't have the time to interact with truthers, hey?

Yet in the single day that you have been registered on ATS, you've made 12 posts, all spread across 7 threads in the 9/11 forum.

You don't fool anyone.

If you don't have the time, then don't clutter the threads with your off topic nonsense. Some people might appreciate seeing the video in this thread, as Susan's testimony is very interesting to watch.

When I make a post to this thread it is intended for everybody, not just self proclaimed "truthers".

I was being sarcastic.

The person I was replying basically stated how 911 is one of the most important issues of our time yet he/she felt it was somebodies else responsibility to investigate it, not his/hers.

it was that mindset that caused me to respond (I will admit I could of put it in a much better fashion.)

Hi, truth fans.

Nice find and very nice woman !

That quite confirms that all the "planes" that did fly, that 2001/09/11,
where all radio-controled. . .

At first, I could not wrap around the fact that all those murders
where an inside job. Then I remembered an old lie, about Kuwait:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

. . .and building 7 did it for me !

Blue skies.

posted by jtma508
Aside from the flame exchange... Ms. McElwain gives a detailed description of what she saw fly over her van. Molded, white, shiny, spolier, etc. Has there been any concensus as to what she MAY have seen?

Several of us thought it was something like the Israeli drone in posts 37 and 39. These drones were in service and were manufactured in 2001 and were sold to the US Military and to numerous police departments across the US.

Eyewitness : Susan McElwain page 2

I don't find this person to be a credible witness.

She stated that the day of the crash she did not hear an explosion, but then 2 days later realized she had heard the explosion.

It seems that maybe she isn't at all sure just what she heard or saw that day.

posted by craig732
I don't find this person to be a credible witness.

She stated that the day of the crash she did not hear an explosion, but then 2 days later realized she had heard the explosion.

It seems that maybe she isn't at all sure just what she heard or saw that day.

I disagree. Susan McElwain is a very consistent, very good eyewitness. Make sure you are not mixing her misquotes from the lying Mainstream News Media with her actual testimony. The link I gave two posts ago represents Susan very well and her interviews with Domenick DiMaggio.

Few of the government's "official" stories hold up. I'm sorry to all of you blind fools that have fallen into the folly that the government has put you in. The government always lies especially when it comes to things to advance their agenda. There are so many things that do not hold up that the "conspiracy" theorists can explain...and the conspiracy stories hold up a lot better than the official stories do. My father used to be in the Air Force and even he agrees with me about a conspiracy going on with this. It is merely propaganda to get you to give away your rights so they can advance their agenda's. I'm not calling for a revolution, but i do ask that you blind folk wake up to the facts.

reply to post by SPreston


I understand your point about her consistancy, but in the video she made the statement about not hearing the explosion, then 2 days later realizing she had heard it.

Most people who dont live near major airports dont realize how big planes can look smaller when they are a little further away than you think they are.

posted by craig732
reply to post by SPreston

 

I understand your point about her consistancy, but in the video she made the statement about not hearing the explosion, then 2 days later realizing she had heard it.

Most people who dont live near major airports dont realize how big planes can look smaller when they are a little further away than you think they are.

She saw the aircraft, which was no wider than her van, fly just above her van and under the wires ahead of her and then pull up over the forest ahead of her.

It was most likely a drone similar to the Israeli Orbiter (7 foot wingspan) photographing and/or observing whatever they needed to photograph and/or observe.

The Israeli Orbiter is completely capable of doing exactly what Susan claimed her aircraft did, including silent flight. Orbiters were already flying inside the US throughout 2001 and were sold to police agencies and the US Military.

If a reconnaissance mission was required by the 9-11 perps at any of the 9-11 crime scenes, for whatever reason, an Orbiter team could have easily carried it out.

I see no problem with her testimony. It was a traumatic day for her. Later when she had calmed down, she went back over her memories, as any one of us might have done, and realized she had heard the explosion in the distance. I think she is a very reliable, very believable eyewitness. Good witnesses are never perfect, but leave an impression of honesty and trying to be accurate. I came to the same conclusion with the ANC eyewitnesses and Edward Paik. They were honestly trying to be accurate with apparently no consideration of the potential consequences of their testimony. Just simple working men who happened to be at the right place at the right time.

I would take Susan McElwain any day over those phony MSM witnesses at the Pentagon who changed their stories to please their masters.

Originally posted by craig732
It seems that maybe she isn't at all sure just what she heard or saw that day.

OK Monday-morning witness to a harrowing event. She just thought a military-looking aircraft almost smashed down on her van and might of killed her. SHOW SOME F'N COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING.

Btw, the FBI thought she was credible enough to rush over there to try to convince her she saw a 757. Why would they try to convince her she saw a 757 if she was a nutcase/liar as you seem to suggest? That would make no logical sense.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by ATH911]

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by craig732
It seems that maybe she isn't at all sure just what she heard or saw that day.

OK Monday-morning witness to a harrowing event. She just thought a military-looking aircraft almost smashed down on her van and might of killed her. SHOW SOME F'N COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING.

Btw, the FBI thought she was credible enough to rush over there to try to convince her she saw a 757. Why would they try to convince her she saw a 757 if she was a nutcase/liar as you seem to suggest? That would make no logical sense.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by ATH911]

Wow, chill out dude.

I am not attacking anyone, why are you attacking me?

In no sense did I suggest she was a nutcase/liar. I pointed out an example of why my OPINION is she may not be credible.

If you disagree with my opinion that is fine; but try to be a gentleman about it please.

Originally posted by ATH911


Btw, the FBI thought she was credible enough to rush over there to try to convince her she saw a 757. Why would they try to convince her she saw a 757 if she was a nutcase/liar as you seem to suggest? That would make no logical sense.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by ATH911]

Sure it would make logical sense.

The plane was shot down.

For the self proclaimed "truthers" this is the fact that they hate to admit.

To admit that the Government shot down a passenger airliner is also to admit that the Government was not behind it.

Don't have enough posts to start my own thread but why fly an airplane into a building that is already rigged with explosives?

Originally posted by QweeQwa
The plane was shot down.
For the self proclaimed "truthers" this is the fact that they hate to admit.

To admit that the Government shot down a passenger airliner is also to admit that the Government was not behind it.

In his short time on ATS, QweeQwa has shown that he has not managed to understand anything about the 'truth'. Like many others who post in the 9/11 forum, QweeQwa has destroyed Logic 101 with his quote above.

If the truth is that the alleged Flight UA93 was shot down, then why is the government denying it?

By definition, a 9/11 truther is looking for the truth - whatever it is.

QweeQwa subscribes to the theory that the alleged Flight UA93 was shot down and is content that it is being denied by the government. QweeQwa ia content to be told lies by the government.

QweeQwa doesn't understand that to 'admit' that the alleged Flight UA93 was shot down, implicates the government in a cover-up. Lies, deciet and corruption. Covering up anything about 9/11 is what motivates truthers to continue their quest. Covering up a shoot-down of the alleged Flight UA93 means that all official reports dealing with the incident are fake. Which then means that radar tracks are fake, along with a whole host of other data that must have been faked to cover-up a shoot-down.

The hypocrisy in QweeQwa's logic is astounding.

QweeQwa, you might choose to live a life content that the alleged Flight UA93 was shot down... meaning that you're also choosing to live a life being lied to by the government. Others don't want to be lied to and they strive for the truth.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by QweeQwa
The plane was shot down.
For the self proclaimed "truthers" this is the fact that they hate to admit.

To admit that the Government shot down a passenger airliner is also to admit that the Government was not behind it.

In his short time on ATS, QweeQwa has shown that he has not managed to understand anything about the 'truth'. Like many others who post in the 9/11 forum, QweeQwa has destroyed Logic 101 with his quote above.

Give me a break o righteous one. You alone knows the truth?

I destroyed logic??? Check out the posts from your fellow self proclaimed "truthers" and you will find it is they, not I, who claim that flight never crashed. So why does my quote bother you so much?

You know why. If the plane was shot down by our Government it puts to rest any claims that the Government was behind these planes crashing into things to simulate a terrorist attack, and no, a field in Penn. does not count.

Originally posted by tezzajw


QweeQwa doesn't understand that to 'admit' that the alleged Flight UA93 was shot down, implicates the government in a cover-up.

Wrong!

What you and your fellow self proclaimed "truthers" do not understand, if we are to follow your theories; why would the Government shoot it down? Hell, if they were behind it they sure would want that plane to crash in to something besides a damn cornfield.

But they shot it down.

Why?

Because it was the right thing to do considering the circumstances.

Why would anyone not believe a country with an impeccable history?.

It`s not like they have skeletons in the cupboard, is it?.

The Maine - Obviously done by the Spanish who uhm placed a bomb inside rather than outside (as this was safer).

A U-boat new kind of torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania, that could explode on the inside.

Pearl Harbour - Simple over sight, after decoding encrypted messages telling of the impending attack, the President was so excited he forgot to pass over the information to those in Pearl harbour, easy mistake to make.

Korea - Good old USA, making sure the election goes to plan (at the cost of 55 thousand expendable U.S. troops).

Vietnam - The Tonkin Incident, an American vessel attacked by none existent enemies yet again, jeeez they really do have some bad luck with this sort of thing.

J.F.K. Magic bullets, and a scapegoat to be assassinated (what else do we expect from the home of Hollywood?).

Grenada Invasion - Quick remedy on the Governor in favour of a Pro American attitude.

War on Drugs - Overthrow the drug lords enforcing many South American Countries into bankruptcy and have to bail them out, plus lose a huge amount of revenue via arms deals and sales, and a large chunk from the sale of Cocaine, or carry on as we are with the D.E.A. having a once a year *clear up campaign* on show for the world, then back to business.

Panama Invasion - Quick solution for canal rights.

US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988 - All types of fun stuff going on here from Ayatollah`s to Shah`s. Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.

Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): America`s good buddy Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, eventually accusing Saddam of having WMD`s and the rest is history.

War on Terror: The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.

Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.

Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".

Originally posted by QweeQwa
Give me a break o righteous one. You alone knows the truth?

I don't know the truth. I've never claimed to know the truth.

Originally posted by QweeQwa
I destroyed logic???

Absolutely yes, you did destroy Logic 101.

Originally posted by QweeQwa
You know why. If the plane was shot down by our Government it puts to rest any claims that the Government was behind these planes crashing into things to simulate a terrorist attack, and no, a field in Penn. does not count.

Sure, it puts those claims to rest and then it opens up a whole host of other claims for why the shoot-down was covered up!

Why would the government cover it up, QweeQwa? Any cover-up is dishonest. Yet, you're content to allow a cover-up to happen, without wanting to poke around for the truth.

Originally posted by QweeQwa
But they shot it down.
Why?
Because it was the right thing to do considering the circumstances.

If the shoot-down is true, then they did the wrong thing by covering it up. Hence why the truth movement seeks to find the truth.

There is no justifiable reason for any government that is supposed to be 'by the people, for the people' to cover-up its actions from 'the people'.

Obviously, with your inability to comprehend Logic 101, it's something that you will never be able to understand.

You've admitted to us all that you would prefer to live with a comfortable lie, rather than to know the truth.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by tezzajw]