| 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! |
| Pandora's Black Box Ch. 3 - Flight Of United 93; Full Film - 39 min | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 12:29 AM (1,519 Views) | |
| Gideon524 | Jan 16 2008, 12:29 AM Post #1 |
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Edited by Gideon524, Jan 16 2008, 12:29 AM.
|
 |
 
|
| Hetware | Feb 2 2008, 10:26 AM Post #2 |
|
Why did you omit so much of Susan McElwan's account? http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-channel-conspiracy-of-911.html |
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 2 2008, 05:31 PM Post #3 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
I omitted nothing. It's not my movie. Ask pilotsfor911truth.org |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 3 2008, 11:42 AM Post #4 |
|
My bad. Sorry for any misunderstanding. It still remains a curious omission. The conversation I had with Bob Leverknight was interesting, to be generous. The refutation of the suggestion that an A-10 had vaporized UAL 93 at point blank range was not that such an action was technically impossible. Leverknight, who claims to be well informed on the matter of weapon's capabilities and their deployment in his region, merely argued that no A-10 deployed in the region had the necessary munitions. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Feb 4 2008, 10:50 AM Post #5 |
|
Name 1 Shanksville area resident who witnessed an A10. Susan McElwain and Viola Saylor both deny ever identifying or seeing an A10 on 9/11 or any other day for that matter. What is the source for your claims that there was an A10 in Shanksville or are you just making this up? Will you quickly bail from this thread now too that someone has called you out for posting blatant misinformation which is not supported by any facts or eyewitnesses? |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 4 2008, 09:19 PM Post #6 |
|
Stop insulting me. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Feb 4 2008, 10:00 PM Post #7 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 4 2008, 11:38 PM Post #8 |
|
What would be the implication of an A-10 loitering near Shanksville waiting for UAL 93 to show up? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Feb 4 2008, 11:40 PM Post #9 |
|
It doesn't matter because there wasn't one. What was there was a 'commercial' plane, a drone plane, and 2 F15's. Now please : Name 1 Shanksville area resident who witnessed an A10. Susan McElwain and Viola Saylor both deny ever identifying or seeing an A10 on 9/11 or any other day for that matter. What is the source for your claims that there was an A10 in Shanksville or are you just making this up? |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 5 2008, 12:34 AM Post #10 |
|
I've made my statements, and I don't need to add anything to them. They stand as they are. Now, a few people here have suggested that forwarding the idea that an A-10 was in the areas somehow sustains the OCT. I ask them again: what would be the implication of an A-10 loitering near Shanksville waiting for UAL 93 to show up? |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Feb 5 2008, 12:54 AM Post #11 |
|
Translation = I have no proof whatsoever that an A10 Thunderbolt was anywhere near Shanksville on 9/11. In fact, I can't even name you 1 single person there who saw one.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm NO. A few people have suggested that this totally unsubstantiated uncorroborated total fabricated claims somehow reinforces the official lie that al qaeda piloted a 757 into the ground? Who are these "people"? Can you directly name and quote them for us?
If I am "them" then I already addressed this in the previous post and asked you for evidence that such a plane was anywhere near the area that day. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm................ |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 5 2008, 09:37 AM Post #12 |
|
I have yet to see a coherent alternative explanation. What made the crater? What caused the explosion? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 9 2008, 10:23 AM Post #13 |
|
Oh I see, WE need to explain that. Susan and others saw a white drone and no 757 diving out of the sky. But WE need to explain how the crater was made. Yeah that make sense. People wonder why the "truth" never comes out. It's because of lazy apathy like this. It was made with an underground explosion and planted debris. Is that a good enough explanation? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 11 2008, 02:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Killtown | Feb 9 2008, 05:34 PM Post #14 |
Childish Hypocrite
|
Not a 757 or A-10. What do YOU think made that crater with the funky wing impressions? |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 10 2008, 07:56 PM Post #15 |
|
I believe Susan was manipulated into making an inaccurate statement about what she saw. The accounts she gave years earlier when the memory was still fresh in her mind are consistent with there having been an A-10 in the area. I did not get that from Christopher Bollyn. I came to the conclusion on my own by reading and listening to her account and the accounts of others. There is good reason to believe that people have been leaned on to "forget" what they saw. The fact that Leverknight hung up the phone when I suggested there had been an A-10 present indicates very strongly that I am correct, and that he knows it. As for what made the crater, I believe it was an existing scar in the earth. It may have simply been a warhead fired into the ground to "simulate" an aircraft impact, but the rest of the evidence, such as the concentration of small pieces of debris in the immediate area suggest that UAL 93 was disintegrated by a warhead fired from an A-10 at pointblank range. That explains much of the witness testimony and physical evidence, but not all of it. The idea that some kind of a small drone made the crater is not consistent with the witness testimony. |
|
|
|
| Killtown | Feb 10 2008, 08:13 PM Post #16 |
|
Childish Hypocrite
|
1) You mean that the pro-shoot down crowd assumed that she was referring to an A-10 to help distract from no 757 crashing. Go back and look at her original account, SHE NEVER MENTIONS that the aircraft she saw HAD WINGS. The description she gave of the tail just happened to be a similar description of an A-10 and you guys took that and ran with it as you just showed:
In person, Terrorcell showed her a photo of an A-10 and asked her if that's what she saw. She emphatically said "NO". 2) Wow, I've never heard of missile that would fit on an A-10 being able to virtually obliterate a 100-ton 757. What kind do you think could have done that? And where are the witnesses who saw the MASSIVE explosion that MUST have happened if a warhead obliterated Flight 93? 3) I don't think a drone caused it either. I showed how that engine scrap in the crater was planted here. |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 10 2008, 11:21 PM Post #17 |
|
The problem with what she said to Terrorcell is that she pointed to the WINGS and said that they had rivets. Her reason for saying it wasn't an A-10 (in a photo as seen from above) was wholly unconvincing. The human nervous system simply cannot process data fast enough for her to have reliably determined that the plane had no rivets. She saw it unexpectedly and only for a second or so with it traveling at what was certainly more than 100 mph. So what would be the implication of an A-10 loitering near Shanksville waiting for UAL 93 to show up? |
|
|
|
| Killtown | Feb 11 2008, 01:26 AM Post #18 |
|
Childish Hypocrite
|
Even if the aircraft she saw had rivets, that doesn't mean it's an A-10. If an A-10 flew over her that low, she would know and it would have been so loud that she would have mentioned how loud it was. And an A-10 flying over her at the time the UAV did, the A-10 wouldn't have enough time to obliterate the 757 as you suggest it would have had to have done that. So where is your iron-clad evidence an A-10 was "loitering" near Shanksville? Btw, do you think flight93crash.com is a legit site? |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 11 2008, 02:58 AM Post #19 |
|
Not at all. An A-10 can be very quiet. AAMOF, she specifically mentioned how quite it was. I've been on field maneuvers when A-10s appeared virtually on top of us before we knew they were there. "The bypass ratio is 6:1 and so the engines are very quiet which reduces the risk of detection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II
I don't follow that at all. "The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look."
I never claimed to have "iron-clad" evidence of an A-10 loitering near Shanksville. All I've said is that it fits the various witness accounts I've seen.
The information I've used from their site has always checked out when I looked for the original source. I don't know what part you might have a question about. I have no reason to doubt their legitimacy, but always try to cross check my sources. |
|
|
|
| Killtown | Feb 11 2008, 03:40 AM Post #20 |
|
Childish Hypocrite
|
1) Where they still quiet when they past? Remember that Susan's aircraft was super low and going in a dip before raising up, so an A-10 would have had to use it's thrusters to make that kind of move. 2) Where do you think UA93 was before your alleged A-10 obliterated it? 3) Go back through all of Susan's testimony and show me where she mentioned she saw wings on the aircraft that flew over her. 4) The main thing this site (that started days after 9/11) wants to put in your head is: How Did United Flight 93 Crash? When's the last time that site was updated? "(Online Sept 20 /2001 - latest update August 1, 2003)" Why haven't they updated their site at least once in almost 5 years? Does anybody ever corresponded to the person who built that site? Who are they? Why no photos of the crash site itself? I'll tell you why, because the perps fucked up the crash site at Shanks so bad that they immediately had to start a disinformation campaign to try to convince CTs that Flight 93 was shot down which in turn would still make those CTs believe that it crashed, hence "Flight93crash.com". |
|
|
|
| Hetware | Feb 11 2008, 04:26 AM Post #21 |
|
It would be more conspicuous if it did not have wings and she failed to mention that fact. If someone says they saw an airplane would you typically ask them "did it have wings"? It was not just Susan's account which made me think it was an A-10. It was also Tom Spinelli: "I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash." That's textbook A-10 behavior. Nevin Lambert told me that the explosion was so intense that he could feel its heat from his property on the adjacent hill. That was on the order of half a click or more away, IIRC. As for an A-10 armed with a warhead capable of disintegrating a 757, starting with the possibility of a tactical nuke and working backwards, it is certainly possible. I will assume the details of the most advanced weapons will be classified, so none of us are in a position to speak with absolute authority as to what exists. I am just looking for the scenario which makes the most sense with the fewest moving parts and the fewest number of conspirators. So what would be the implication of an A-10 loitering near Shanksville waiting for UAL 93 to show up? Edited by Hetware, Feb 11 2008, 04:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Feb 11 2008, 09:12 AM Post #22 |
|
Oh so you are accussing me of "manipulating" Susan into telling me the same thing she told GNN? Please note that GNN & CIT have released video interviews with Susan McElwain. If you did not get your invented A10 theory from Christopher Bollyn then please link us to your source. There isn't an interview anywhere where Susan states seeing engines on the plane that flew over her. That is disinformation pushed by Bollyn. He did the same with Viola Saylor who also saw a small white UAV and not an A10 Thunderbolt. The fact that you claim "people have been leaned on to forget" an ancient A10 Thunderbolt and replace that memory with some state of the art highly classified drone plane is hilarious. That's why so many of the eyewitnesses spent months on the internet after 9/11 trying to find an image of the plane they saw on 9/11. Apparently there must not be any A10 photographs on the internet anywhere or they were highly classified in 2001........yeah ok. LMAO!!!! Leverknight hung up on you so that proves your invented A10 theory to be true????? LMAO!!!!! I've spoken with Susan McElwain, Viola Saylor, Robin Duppstadt, and Susan Custer and none of them saw an A10 but they all saw the small white drone plane. Your A10 isn't consistent with the witness testimony. And nowhere did I claim that the drone plane made the crater. I have found no such witnesses to corroborate that statement. But I know it was there when the crater was made. If Lee Purbaugh saw a plane crash as described, do you think he would have been able to get a good look at an A10? Because he saw a small white plane and it wasn't an A10 or a corporate jet........... Now please show us how you come to this A10 Thunderbolt conclusion or stop wasting our time. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Feb 11 2008, 09:26 AM Post #23 |
|
Tom Spinelli did not see an A10. He saw a drone plane fly over Indian Lake on its way towards the crash and then saw it afterwards as did just about every resident of Stoystown. The fact that he saw it before and after does not under any circumstances make it an A10. So please explain to the rest of the class how all of these eyewitnesses missed the armament of missiles on the wings of an A10 and not one of them described a plane armed to the teeth flying over head?  Your post is so full of misinformation and baseless speculation that I don't wish to engage you any further until you provide some real evidence than an A10 was on the scene. |
|
|
|
| BlindTheAllSeeingEye | Mar 20 2009, 02:16 PM Post #24 |
|
I don't know how I missed this !!!!!!!! thanks for posting 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · 9/11 Video Research Archive · Next Topic » |
12:57 AM Dec 3
