Susan McElwein Interview

[Gravy]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.

Why? People who were closer were looking at the EXACT spot she describes, at the EXACT moment she describes, and none saw what she did. Things happened quickly. She was confused. It happens.

 

[gumboot]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.

Evidence it wasn't?

-Gumboot

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.

A couple of practical notes.

Ms McElwain says that the craft passed right overhead, so low that she was about to duck and that she could positively see that there were no rivets in it. She also remarks that it oddly didn't make any noise and that there was no air disturbance. She describes a white cigar shape, no wings, some tail arrangement, including tailmounted engine(s?). Oh, and based on her estimate of its distance she says its the size of a van.

Those are her observations.

Let's see how that fits the possible realities:

1) AAM (Air-to-Air Missile): Too small (unless it was Phoenix), VERY noisy, trails white smoke, and is supersonic (in fact they go over MACH2). What she would have seen and heard was nothing but a streak and a sonic boom. AAM is ruled out.

2) SAM (Surface-to-Air Missile): Apart from size (they are indeed van-sized), the same as for AAM. A SAM passing low overhead would have knocked her teeth loose. SAM is ruled out.

3) Cruise missile: Size fits. Shape fits, except for the fact that cruise missiles have wings, but they are so thin she might have overlooked them. Cruise missiles are just subsonic, but that would still leave her only a fraction of a second to view it, and they are quite noisy. She would still just see a streak and hear a roar. Cruise missile is extremely unlikely.

4) Unmanned plane: Size fits. Speed would give her a shance for fairly close look (they're generally rather slow). Shape does not fit; there is no way she could overlook its wings. Sound does not. Depending on type, they are jet powered or propeller powered, and they are noisy. Unmanned plane is ruled out.

5) Executive jet: Size does not fit. Speed does not fit. Shape does not fit. Noise does not fit. An executive jet passing low overhead is not an experience to forget. However, if she estimated the distance wrong, and the angle was somehow sugh that she didn't notice the wings, then maybe the shape can fit. The lack of noise could be due to it flying at low throttle. Executive jet circling the site to investigate is possible.

6) Flight 93: Size, distance, speed, and noise don't fit, of course. However, if the distance was throughly underestimated, and the plane was in an unusual attitude, like rolling inverted and diving for the ground, She might have seen it in way that made her unable to recognize it. If the plane had the side turned towards her, she would not see the wings. and if it was upside down, the tail arrangement could have looked confusing. Due to the distance, she would not hear the sound before it blended in with the sound of the crash. It is actually not implausible that she saw flight 93.

Hans

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Dear Lord! What was with the interviewers voice??

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . . I honestly don't understand why Conspiracy Theorists are so mentally inept.

-Gumboot

Perhaps those that are mentally inept are predisposed to conspiratorial thinking.

 

[lapman]

Their stipulation is the angle of crash is inconsistent with the ground evidence.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RczDTJPfJvI/AAAAAAAAAGI/5TTqDaJt2xo/s1600-h/Slide2.1.jpg

The problem that I have with that pic is that it ignores two aspects of flight. Lift and gravity. In space, the momentum would be the only factor. However, here on earth, both gravity and the negative lift would keep the plane from traveling straight along the path of momentum.

 

[beachnut]

Don't put words in my mouth Corsair. I never said McElwain's account took precedent over anything. I simply said it should be investigated by the authorities.

It was and it was found that a small plane was asked to look, and 93 crashed. What are you talking about? This was all done over 5 years ago and the only people who have a problem are dumb people with no ability to comprehend. What do you think?

 

[negativ]

So there were two missiles at Ground Zero, one missile at the Pentagon, and now a missile at Shanksville...

WTF is up with the twoofer fascination with missiles?

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but other times it's a great big phallus." -- Sigmund Freud after a few too many.

 

[leftysergeant]

Okay, the 911Blogger comment about the ground evidence's not being consistant with the angle of the crash is good evidence to support Arkan_Wolfshade's assertion that the mentally inept are prone to believe the whacky stuff.

The round portion of the crater is the right size. There is a distinct ridge on one side consistant with the angle at which the nose penetrated the ground. The two chevron-shaped trenches reflect the proper dihedral for the wings, but indicate that they entered the ground behind the fuselage, indicating that the fuselage was breaking up, as did the skewed tail print.

It is logical to expect that at least one of the egines might be torn loose from its pylon in this scenario. As for various bits of fuselage and cargo and personal effects being found away from the crater, one must bear in mind that stressing a closed tube to the point of collapsing it will most likely cause some over-pressurization inside that tube, so that when structural integrity is lost, some of its contents will be expelled in the rush of air. The brief fireball that resulted from the expulsion of fuel probably created a significant updraft of air. Torn aluminum is relatively light and offers a lot of resistance to air and so might be easily scattered around the site.

The engines would have had a tendancy to continue on in a straight line. The one that broke off SHOULD have been quite a distance from the crash site. In most cases, engines are found farther from the impact point than most other parts of similar weight. The one that remained attached would obviously dig in.

The strongest parts of an aircraft are the wing roots and the longitudinal spars of the flight deck. The passengers were strapped into seats attacjhed to those spars, or were tilted to the front of the plane, if they were taking part in the resistance. Obviously, they would then have been buried so deeply that no bodies would be visible until well into the recovery effort.

A lot of MIHOP and false-crash scene blather is based on the statement by the coroner that he could find no bodies to identify. That statement, as I recall, was made the day of the crash. Well DUH!

I think the major problem that MIHOPers and other CTs have is a tendancy to run their mouths with ensuring that their brains are fully engaged.

 

[Juustin]

Why is it if someone's testimony is favorable to the Truthers, it's "she said it was a plane, just because she didn't know what word to use"; but anyone who uses the word "pull" and later clarifies that they wanted firefighters to be "pulled" is part of a Zionist conspiracy?

 

[Stellafane]

...Ms McElwain says that the craft passed right overhead, so low that she was about to duck and that she could positively see that there were no rivets in it. She also remarks that it oddly didn't make any noise and that there was no air disturbance. She describes a white cigar shape, no wings, some tail arrangement, including tailmounted engine(s?). Oh, and based on her estimate of its distance she says its the size of a van...

Shucks, there's really no other way around it -- she saw a UFO from another planet!! It must have been, because nothing that exists here on Earth created by human technology can do all those things. Thus we now have the leading contender for the most sensible 9/11 CT (not that the competition is all that fierce): 9/11 was done by extraterrestrials! Damn aliens!!

 

[SpitfireIX]

You can't get a copy of the actual CVR recording, because it's against the law for the NTSB to release audio copies. You can, however, get transcripts of the CVR. In fact, there are web sites out there which have on them the transcripts of CVRs from air crashes; it can make for interesting, if sobering, reading. Here's one such site.

Just a clarification that I stumbled upon after I answered this question about a year ago--it's also illegal for any other agency that takes over an investigation (e.g., the FBI) to do so.

 

[TC329]

Thought she saw. She was mistaken. The plane was moving very fast. It was not 50 feet over her head and the size of her mini-van.

Other witnesses who were right there saw the airliner roll to its right, turn upside-down, and dive, followed by the explosion, all of which corresponds to the FDR data.

Please stop this nonsense. It is undignified.

Please present all the eyewitnesses on the south of the crater who saw a 757, prove their position and explain why UA93 turn away from DC and started flying North to get to that spot.

We'll be waiting for your "dignified" reply Mark.

 

[TC329]

I've reviewed the evidence at length. You haven't. Please do so and then you'll know.

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

 

[T.A.M.]

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

How original...a truther putting out a crockumentary.

TAM

 

[TC329]

The crater was exactly the right size and shape to have been made by a 757 or some such aircraft of comparable size. THe round hole is about 20 feet wide. That fits, considering that the fuselage of an aircraft crushes very easily. There are chevron-like trenches out to the side, suggesting that a pair of wings with a dihedral matching that of a 757 dug in there. There is a tail print slightly cocked to one side, suggesting that the fuselage had begun to tear apart shortly after impact. A lot of people take the word of a Colonel Nelson, an alleged aircraft accident investigator, that the crater was too small. He cites figures for the round hole only.

Is it your claim that the craters wingspan is 125' like Mark Roberts claims?

Bear in mind that the colonel is going a little outside hios AFSC when he addresses the crash scene. He was an aircraft maintenance officer. He was called in, by his own admission, on a rotational basis, to assist with various aircrafdt incidents. His role was to analyse the piles of pieces that people like me would pick up at the crash scene for transport to some site usually miles from the scene to see if he could find evidence of things like over-torque bolts and fitting, bearings that had no been lubricated, little birdy skeletons sucked into engines and that sort of thing.

I have not had time to sit through the google video. My computer takes something on the order of a day or two to download 40 minutes of google. I might not need to. I caught a reference to the alleged witness' describing a "spoiler" on the back of the missile.

The eyewitness says it had to be a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane. If it is a UAV which is looking more likely then it is also consistent with her description.

Someone tried to sell her the idea that it was a Global Hawk, apparently.

And there is no way a Global Hawk would dig the crater at Shanksville, any more thaan there is a possibility that a Global Hawk made the hole in the Pentagon.

Yes, she stated what she saw and independent researchers contacted her for clarification. After getting her description they set out to identify the type of craft it was.

Here is what has been 100% ruled out of the possibilities :

1) 757 or similar commercial type airliner
2) Falcon20
3) C130
3) A10 Thunderbolt

Sorry you don't have time for new evidence. The world is still flat, Mark Roberts believes so as well.

 

[332nd]

I've reviewed the evidence at length as well. Which is why I started my own investigation. Which is why I am putting together a documentary of the eyewitness accounts. Almost all of them conflict with the official story, but you and your handlers are already aware of that. You're a fraud Mark.

... You've done the research, you've found that almost all of the eyewitness accounts conflict with the official story, and instead of presenting them to some authority outside of the country you're making a documentary. Sure! Why bring these criminal to justice? Why not allow them to further screw up the country AND the world? It's far better to try to cash in and get a little fame out of the deal.

 

[TC329]

How original...a truther putting out a crockumentary.

TAM

So you're calling Shanksville eyewitness accounts a "crock of ****"?

Is that what you think about Susan's account?

 

[T.A.M.]

No, I was making a comment on the continued, almost comical, desire for almost every truther to feel the need to make for themselves a "doc"umentary about some angle or issue of 9/11 that proposes something besides "what we know" occured on 9/11.

The word crockumentary I have adopted from others as a label to place on any truthers 9/11 truth documentary, not yours, so don't feel it is any more special.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

... You've done the research, you've found that almost all of the eyewitness accounts conflict with the official story, and instead of presenting them to some authority outside of the country you're making a documentary. Sure! Why bring these criminal to justice? Why not allow them to further screw up the country AND the world? It's far better to try to cash in and get a little fame out of the deal.

I expect we will find his film to be eerily similar to Lytes, both in approach, and the pov.

TAM