| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Why would the History Channel be deceptive?; with eyewitness accounts? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 15 2008, 01:09 AM (835 Views) | |
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 15 2008, 01:09 AM Post #1 |
|
If there is nothing to cover up regarding Flight 93 why would the History Channel track down eyewitness Susan McElwain, document her account, and then twist and distort and edit it to support the OCT? Or do you believe this is an accurate representation of Mrs. McElwain? :45-:55 |
 |
 
|
| x1975 | Jul 15 2008, 02:06 AM Post #2 |
|
closed mind
|
Accurate. No problem. Why? What do you have that says different? Do you believe the ATC that requested the private jet to recon the area where flight 93 was last tracked? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 15 2008, 02:22 AM Post #3 |
|
this : do you not think what Mrs. McElwains saw before the crash is of significance?
absolutely not because Yates Gladwell and his Falcon20 were nowhere near Shanksville on 9/11. |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 15 2008, 02:47 AM Post #4 |
|
closed mind
|
Very high up - white, silver, white - triangle shape - very high up. No - its not an A10 or Falcon. Huh???????????? The episode about being buzzed in her van is just confusing, "I ducked and turned off the radio"???? I don't know who the idiot in the black sweatshirt was but he was obviously leading her. Why just show her photos (top down views no less) of the A10 and the Falcon? Why not throw in photos of an F-14, Cessna, and maybe a 757? So the ATC in Cleveland is just plain lying, huh? That's pretty convenient. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 15 2008, 03:50 AM Post #5 |
|
No, it's not.
obviously it was a very low flying projectile of some sort prior to the crash of UA93. pretty big discrepancy.
haha funny. and what exactly is the proof that i am leading her?
because i didn't know i was going to be interviewing her. i brought those pics to show to lee purbaugh because he saw the little white plane and thats who i was originally supposed to meet with. im not trying to identify the 757, i'm trying to identify the white plane. susan, lee, & rick chaney all say it wasn't a corporate jet. there will be more too. |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 15 2008, 04:13 AM Post #6 |
|
closed mind
|
So more residents of the Shanksville area are that knowledgeable with regard to plane ID that they can distinguish between corporate and non-corporate jets at altitude? Pretty good. Sorry - I really did not realize that was you in the sweatshirt. |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 15 2008, 04:16 AM Post #7 |
|
closed mind
|
The reason I mentioned the 757 is just that to be intellectually honest the subject should be shown a variety of plane types to eliminate, it could jsut as easily be a DC-10. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 15 2008, 04:45 AM Post #8 |
|
the plane according to all eyewitnesses that i have spoken to was nowhere near the alleged altitude the falcon20 is said to be which would make sense considering it wasn't a falcon20. susan mcelwain says it wasn't. rick chaney says it wasn't. another witness i am in contact with who is willing to go public when they know there will be actual hearings says it wasn't a corporate plane as well. dale browning said "everybody has seen this thing and nobody can tell us what it is" and then i called dale and he said he didn't see anything and he didn't talk to any press. |
|
|
|
| look-up | Jul 15 2008, 08:08 AM Post #9 |
|
I think x1975 has never delved into this particular subject before. He/she seems like someone who has not read any of the other susan threads...starting from scratch. we've heard it all before... |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 15 2008, 09:02 PM Post #10 |
|
closed mind
|
Again, what is the basis for these people's expertise in plane ID? And not just identifying planes flying at altitude, but the ability to eliminate types of aircraft - that's just not credible, sorry. We have an ATC in Cleveland testifying that she contacted a private jet in the area and requested recon assistance, the pilot of the craft confirmed the request and yet you dismiss this all together because you have civilians on the ground with no particular experience in aviation who don't think they saw a Falcon20 in the area. Grasping at straws. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 16 2008, 12:08 AM Post #11 |
|
the corporate jet never got as low an altitude as these witnesses describe. they were there. some atc in cleveland wasn't. and besides why wasn't johnstown atc handling the situation if this corporate jet is at the crash site seconds before it happens [susan] and confirmed as being there seconds after it happens [purbaugh, chaney, + an undisclosed witness]. this is inconsistent with the official conspiracy theory of your corporate jet. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 16 2008, 12:09 AM Post #12 |
|
oh yeah and why did the history channel only show what mrs. mcelwain saw afterwards instead of showing her describe what she saw before the crash which is what she is quoted about in all of the printed media and is the main focus in my interview? |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 16 2008, 02:28 AM Post #13 |
|
closed mind
|
Please show me the exact flight path, speed and altitude of the Falcon20 and your source for this info. You must have it because you know its contradictory to the your interviewees stories. Johnstown ATC???? Johnstown is a small regional part time airfield, no ATC. Just tower operators. I understand, however, that he did assist, he saw flight 93 and conveyed the info to the Cleveland ATC. I still take it that you believe that the Cleveland ATC and the pilot of the private jet are just plain lying to cover up for some government run conspiracy. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 16 2008, 03:28 AM Post #14 |
|
pop mech says :
so when they were around 3000-4000 the FAA asked them if they could locate the spot. well that cant be the little thing flying over Mrs. McElwain van so scratch that out. then it had to descend down to 1500 feet. again at its lowest point not low enough for Mrs. McElwain. Rick Chaney said it was about a hundred feet or so off the ground. my anonymous witness says it was very very low and directly above the site. again 1500 feet is a substantial altitude and not something people are going to call "low" in this case. and while these witnesses don't say they saw a corporate jet i can't find one that does say they did. if you know some let me know who they are and i will contact them immediately. |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 16 2008, 07:41 PM Post #15 |
|
closed mind
|
Face it, its the white plane they saw. That's all. Unless your "witnesses" are trained avaition experts or avaition hobbiest I don't see how any of them can distinguish a class of aircraft as being privately owned or not. Unless you live very close to an airport a jet flying at 1500 feet looks very low, particularly if you are accustomed to planes (jet powered) flying at or above 10,000 feet. Do you believe the Cleveland ATC and the VF copilot? Or do you think that they are lying as part of a conspiracy cover-up? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 16 2008, 11:43 PM Post #16 |
|
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm no. You face it. You don't talk to people. You do as your told. You don't know nothing about anything that the government hasn't put their stamp of approval on.
does anyone here believe a plane 1500 feet [which is what it descended to after the crash] so really 3-4000 feet would make someone sitting in their vehicle duck their head in fear they were about to die? do you know shanksville is a military flight corridor and people are very familiar with differnet planes from living there for years? of course you don't because you get all your information from the government approved corporate media sources proven to have lied to you and say what they're told without criticizing anything as proven time and time again.
i absolutely do not believe for a single second yates gladwell was anywhere near shanksville on the morning of 9/11. do you understand that? as for the cleveland atc well whatever the above means for her it means. now you're free to call susan mcelwain and lee purbaugh and rick chaney and others liars if you have the balls. they didn't see a corporate jet. i know this. for a fact. |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 17 2008, 01:12 AM Post #17 |
|
closed mind
|
Are the people you mentioned somehow exempt from being able to lie? Or exaggerate, or be tricked into drawing conclusions that they may not agree with? What is so different, from a human standpoint, between the Cleveland ATC and the copilot that in your mind makes them more than capable of lying but the others are not? Again, you do not have the flight path, altitude or airspeed of the VF plane so to draw the absolute conclusion that it was at altitude X at time y is not logically valid. If you employed the same level of grammatic expression in your "interview" process as you do writing I could easily see why you get so many different and divergent answers. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 17 2008, 01:59 AM Post #18 |
|
no. i don't think they are lying. in fact, i know they are telling the truth. yates gladwell is a liar. see how i can say that? now go ahead lets see you give it a whirl.
nothing. but see independently i have corroborated susan's account with multiple other witnesses. therefor i believe them. you read popular mechanics instead.
the plane was asked to descend from 3000 or 4000 feet and attempt to locate the crash site. this means when it flight 93 crashed the corporate jet cannot be a mile away from it at 3000 or 4000 feet about to collide with it. that is not the story. the only thing you can do is claim that the jet fuel induced explosion took a very long time to rise in the air which is the exact opposite that we see in the wtc impacts and the 5 pentagon frames. susan places the plane there at that time. not at thousands of feet above her head but more like 50 feet. and human beings can tell if something is close to the ground or thousands of feet in the air. they don't need to have a bachelors in anything to determine that mr anonymous armchair propaganda regurgitator.
i don't get different or divergent answers. i get corroboration. thats a huge problem for you. there was a small white low flying projectile a mile away from the crash site 3-5 seconds before the explosion takes place. this is a smoking gun contradiction right here corroborated by rick chaney and a 3rd witness willing to go public should a real investigation go forth. |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 17 2008, 02:46 AM Post #19 |
|
closed mind
|
Yates Gladwell is a liar, the ATC is a liar, the staff of Popular Mechanics are all liars. Why? Because if they are not then all your effort is in vain. Wasted. Just one thing - if Susan M. was alone on that road when she was buzzed by the "projectile" (when did it become a projectile by the way?) how can anybody corroborate her story? You know there will not be another investigation so why not compile what you have and publish and let the chips fall where they may? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 17 2008, 04:09 AM Post #20 |
|
yep
wrong. do you think if i went to shanksville for the last 2 years and found someone who saw a corporate plane i would not say? if so, you're wrong. sorry but those people are liars because i spoke with the people who actually saw the plane.
people can corroborate her story because they were in different locations and after the explosion took place they went outside their houses. when they went outside their houses they saw this little white 'plane' [not a corporate jet] circling over the crash site. i called it a 'projectile' because i dont want to get into semantics with you. the original point of this thread was that susan mcelwain's story was about what she saw before the explosion and where she saw it. always has been always will be. but the history channel didn't think so. instead they took her whole story out of context and used it to prop up the bush lie. susan ackowledges the high fyling silver triangle(s) were not what flew over her at the intersection of stoystown and buckstown rd. [/s]
i don't know that. i don't know what will happen when i release my final presentation later this year. so im not outting any anonymous witnesses at this time. but don't you worry i have a lot of names to drop when this is all finished. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jul 17 2008, 04:10 AM.
|
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 17 2008, 08:26 PM Post #21 |
|
closed mind
|
Why not post the transcripts of the interviews (without names) so they can be evaluated? Again, projectile is a very funny word to use to describe something everyone is describing as a plane. I prefer UFO, it is technically correct - it was an object, it was flying and it is unidentified. What facts can you present that evidences the hypothesis that the ATC and the copilot are lying? "people can corroborate her story because they were in different locations and after the explosion took place they went outside their houses. when they went outside their houses they saw this little white 'plane' [not a corporate jet] circling over the crash site". I'm sorry but that does not corroborate her story. They were not there with her on that road, ergo her story remains anecdotal and uncorroborated. If her story confirmed the ATC and VF copilot's testimony then you would dismiss it out of hand for those same reasons. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 19 2008, 02:53 AM Post #22 |
|
i will not allow this drone plane to be labeled a ufo. it is not an alien craft and despite semantics when people hear ufo they associate it with little green men and i will not allow for you to attach this stigma to mrs. mcelwain. since you don't dispute it was a plane of some sort we can refer to it as an AV [aerial vehicle].
nearly two years of trips up and down the turnpike, phone calls, & emails and i still can't locate a single person who will agree to having seen a corporate jet on the morning of 9/11. but i find a whole bunch to a huge fighter plane and a small small drone plane. my work is wrapping up don't worry i will be making full disclosure of my findings in the not so distant future.
i'm sorry but someone seeing a small AV flying towards the crash site seconds before the explosion and people in different perspectives seeing a small AV flying above and around the crash site seconds after the explosion are corroboration that a small AV was there further making mrs. mcelwains testimony even more damning. the initial discussions with the one witness took place over the phone and i did not illegally record that conversation. i did not illegally record mr. chaney neither. ETA : chose not to disclose info at this time because 1975 asked for it. Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Jul 19 2008, 02:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 19 2008, 03:07 AM Post #23 |
|
closed mind
|
Will you post the interview transcripts of the UFO witnesses? I love the vagary of the descriptive language when the UFO is discussed, but then you present the absolute that it was not a corporate jet. Since nobody knows exactly what the UFO was why can't it be a corporate jet? I know you're just dying to promote the idea of a military armed drone shooting down Flight 93 as part and parcel of some elaborate government cover-up of 9/11, but unfortunately you have nothing. But you present the same handful of nothing as evidence that the Cleveland ATC and a documented pilot are absolute liars. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Jul 19 2008, 09:42 AM Post #24 |
|
i did not illegally record any phone calls.
"vagary"? witnesses describe a very small unmarked white drone plane. was it unmanned? rick chaney doesn't believe so, "anonymous" doesn't believe so, susan mcelwain believes it was. all the witnesses said it is very small, too small to accommodate passengers. all the witnesses said it was silent. none of the witnesses believe it was a corporate jet.
i'm not "dying to promote" anything except the accounts of the good honest people of shanksville. the same eyewitnesses used to create the official story. every eyewitness out there contradicts the official story in some way or another and every witness i speak to is well aware that their account contradicts the official story.
susan mcelwain & rick chaney are not "nothings". i have documented their accounts. their accounts corroborate each other. it is further confirmed by a 3rd eyewitness willing to testify to this under oath. show me the "documentation" that you believe corroborates liar yates gladwell. then please present a list of names of shanksville residents who witnessed the corporate jet and i will contact them and go film their accounts. or do you not think there are any witnesses to this corporate jet? |
|
|
|
| x1975 | Jul 21 2008, 09:52 AM Post #25 |
|
closed mind
|
Did your so-called UFO witnesses use the term "drone plane"? Or is that something you installed? Where are your notes from the conversations? Can you post those? Why are your UFO witnesses willing to be recorded - its only illegal if the other party doens't know about the recordation. They all "believe" this or that - some say it could be large enough to hold passengers - some say it isn't. Sounds very vague to me, if it was the other way around you would dismiss these undocumented anecdotal accounts out of hand. I've heard the recording of the conversation between the copilot and the ATC. Let me get this standard straight - unless there is an eyewitness on the ground then the VF flight is a lie. Pretty convenient. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
11:42 AM Nov 23