IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Shanksville Eyewitness Susan Mcelwain, official story debunked!!

Domenick DiMaggi...
post Aug 28 2007, 01:24 AM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



This uncut interview footage with Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain debunks the Official Story and exposes The Histroy Channel's heavy editing of her eyewitness account.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post Aug 28 2007, 05:38 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



Thanks Domenick cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Terrorcell
post Aug 28 2007, 12:34 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: 19-January 07
Member No.: 477



cheers.gif

Bigger and better things to come!

Trust me on that! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woofer
post Aug 28 2007, 01:35 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 8-August 07
Member No.: 1,647



Great find! I sent this to the History Channel yesterday or the day before.....
Hello there,

I am going to make this short and sweet. I've done research on the subject of 9/11 for 6 years now and I was appalled by your hit piece. I will never again trust anything I watch on your program. I am resigned to the fact that for now on I will have to do additional research to verify anything that is purported as fact on any of your shows.

I am going to give you only one example of how bad your 'experts' were. I could spend all day debunking your 'experts' but I'm not going to waste my time.

According to the 'experts,' the debris field of downed Flight 93 didn't go beyond a mile and a half (implying that it couldn't have been shot down). The 'experts' said that the conspiracy theorists used mapquest and used driving miles to come up with a debris field that was farther away.

Well, well..........
"-- Investigators leading the probe of the Pennsylvania jetliner crash said they found debris six miles away from the crash site."

And then later on in the same article:
"Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site. But Crowley said the debris was "very light material such as paper and thin nylon -- things that in the air with the wind would easily blow.""
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/inve...rism/index.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
georgie101
post Aug 28 2007, 01:45 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 20-October 06
From: south london, uk
Member No.: 114



Good on you woofer cheers.gif
And welcome to the forums welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Aug 28 2007, 02:19 PM
Post #6


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Good one woofer. Welcome to the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 1 2007, 02:19 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



So the debris field 6 miles away is a fake one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Sep 1 2007, 05:20 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



In my current investigation - not complete - but tentative - as of right now I believe there were 3 debris fields and the most significant one is in New Baltimore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Sep 1 2007, 08:09 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Sep 2 2007, 06:20 AM)
In my current investigation - not complete - but tentative - as of right now I believe there were 3 debris fields and the most significant one is in New Baltimore.

Interesting



& Welcome, woofer welcome.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 25 2008, 06:15 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi Dom,

I just watched your Susan McElwain video- nice concise work. cheers.gif

It sounded to me like she was describing one of these 2 "usual suspects" that can be programmed with hundreds of miles worth of [likely GPS] waypoints, for a very twisty, turny flight path.

Boeing AGM86C/D CALCM (air launched cruise missile)
[has a grainy photo of whitish CALCM in flight with USAF badges]
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm

light gray/whitish CALCM with wings & tail folded:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/a...op101141200.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/c...F-3588H-002.jpg

Hughes BGM-109 Tomahawk (generally sea-launched, but not exclusively)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

There is a good photo of this BGM-109 missile in plain white trim:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/tom-3.jpg

It might be worth sending these to her for comparison if you have contact info and permission. They are both roughly 20 feet long and 2 feet in diameter. The big difference is in the wing, tail, and turbofan jet engine intakes.

The F-107-WR cruise missile jet engine in each only looks to be around 600 lbs. thrust, so it would be much quieter than the other 3 alleged airplanes. Speed is generally around 550 mph to "high subsonic"/classified (in the CALCM version).

I posted some more CALCM info over on the UA175 thread in our gleaning of wheat from the chaff there. I can try to find better CALCM photos if you would like.

d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 25 2008, 11:37 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,886
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



dMole

Yes, it seems most likely that Susan saw some sort of cruise missle, and its explosion is on the photo the other woman is holding. Another planted witness, but Susan is not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Jan 28 2008, 12:28 PM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 25 2008, 05:15 PM)
Hi Dom,

I just watched your Susan McElwain video- nice concise work. cheers.gif

It sounded to me like she was describing one of these 2 "usual suspects" that can be programmed with hundreds of miles worth of [likely GPS] waypoints, for a very twisty, turny flight path.

Boeing AGM86C/D CALCM (air launched cruise missile)
[has a grainy photo of whitish CALCM in flight with USAF badges]
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-86c.htm

light gray/whitish CALCM with wings & tail folded:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/a...op101141200.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/c...F-3588H-002.jpg

Hughes BGM-109 Tomahawk (generally sea-launched, but not exclusively)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

There is a good photo of this BGM-109 missile in plain white trim:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/tom-3.jpg

It might be worth sending these to her for comparison if you have contact info and permission. They are both roughly 20 feet long and 2 feet in diameter. The big difference is in the wing, tail, and turbofan jet engine intakes.

The F-107-WR cruise missile jet engine in each only looks to be around 600 lbs. thrust, so it would be much quieter than the other 3 alleged airplanes. Speed is generally around 550 mph to "high subsonic"/classified (in the CALCM version).

I posted some more CALCM info over on the UA175 thread in our gleaning of wheat from the chaff there. I can try to find better CALCM photos if you would like.

d

You can rule out the cruise missile. I've spoken to other eyewitnesses who have seen it, some willing to speak publicly and some not.

What we're dealing with is more along the lines of this :



Now that isn't the plane, but this drone plane pictured above has a 10' wingspan (i.e. not much wider than a van) and explains why Susan didn't think it had wings while other eyewitnesses say it did although match the rest of description in regards to size, color, & sound.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Feb 23 2008, 12:13 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



Source

QUOTE
Clydeickes said...

Hi from Somerset County Pennsylvania, The last letter I wrote to Representative John Murtha asked him how a C-130 airplane could be close to flight 77 AND flight 93, as reported in media. Before that, I sent him photos of the Pentagon lawn, and pictures of the plane that hit the South Tower/WTC-2. I asked him, Where are the wing marks, engine holes, tail mark, fuselage hole on the Pentagon? And I printed out a chart comparing the South Tower plane and another, military version, of the same model (767-200 & 767-300).
Here in Somerset, we saw Jon Meyer, first reporter on scene for WJAC-TV channel 6 Johnstown, interview eyewitnesses. They said a "small white plane" was flying alongside the big plane. One man said he "heard a bang and looked up" to see the airliner.
Jon Meyer later interviewed Jim Will of nearby Berlin who flew his small private plane over the area 45 minutes after the crash/shootdown. Meyer commented that "Jim's plane is Red and white" while the "plane the eyewitnesses saw was All White". There's more 'little or UN-reported' info from Somerset.
[Ask wjactv.com where's Jon Meyer; ask wwcp Fox tv channel 8 where's Renae Kluk (reported the ghosts of flt 93); check Alec Rawls errortheory blogspot for info on the 93 Memorial's Islamic features.]



Note - Jim Will was originally the explanation for the UAV. It was after he was contacted and found that his plane wasn't all white (and physically didn't match the description either) that he was ruled out and the corporate jet theory came into play.

I'm trying to find a way to contact Jon and perhaps get names or even video copies of those he interviewed that morning.

He now works at WNEP in Scranton but there is no contact info listed on their site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Mar 19 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



I'm cross posting these from the LC Forum.

SPreston brought these to Susan's thread there and I think the info is amazing.

Source

QUOTE (SPreston)
Orbiter Mini UAV System

It seems very much like a glider with a minimum power super quiet brushless electric motor pusher prop to gain altitude. - Orbiter

QUOTE (Orbiter Miniature Aerial vehicle)
Wingspan 7.2 feet


Orbiter Micro UAV is under development at Aeronautics Defense Systems in Israel. With a maximum takeoff weight of 6.5 kg the flying-wing shaped Orbiter can carry a payload of 1.2kg weight at an altitude of up to 10,000 feet, flying a mission of up to 90 minutes at 500 2,000 feet above ground level. Orbiter is designed for simple and easy operation by a single operator. It is autonomous (existing or capable of existing independently) throughout its mission including during launch and recovery, and therefore requires minimal training for operation or support.

Orbiter is equipped with an electro-optical color payload, fitted with CCD sensor with x10 optical zoom for daylight operations. An optional night sensor uses low-light level camera. The weight of the D-STAMP daylight payload is 650 gr. A night capable payload is also in development - it will weigh 0.98 kg.


With a low acoustic signature, Orbiter is optimized for silent operation even at very low level. Equipped with an advanced avionic package, GPS and inertial navigation system (INS) and datalink system, Orbiter provides real-time transmission of imagery from up to 15 km. The Orbiter length is 1 meter (3.28 ft) and its span is 2.2 meters (7.2 ft)
http://www.defense-update.com/products/o/Orbiter.htm



Source

QUOTE (SPreston)
Silent operation at very low level.
7 foot wingspan. (i.e. not "much" (if at all) wider than a van.)
Real time transmission of imagery.
In this photo, the Orbiter is gliding with the motor stopped and the propeller folded back.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 09:46 AM