Help with Shanksville question

[T.A.M.]

TC329
I don't no why you argue with these guys. It is obvious to anyone with sight that a plane didn't crash in the Pentagon or Shanksville.

You realize the size of the list of people you have just declared blind?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

TC:

Any timeline on producing your evidence that could turn the world upside down...how much longer will you make the world, the victims of 9/11 suffer?

You are Lytetrip with a different name.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

TC329
I don't no why you argue with these guys. It is obvious to anyone with sight that a plane didn't crash in the Pentagon or Shanksville.

Why did the conspirators make is so obvious?

You obviously don't consider yourself to have any special skills of perception since the evidence is so obvious, so obviously the conspirators weren't trying very hard.

Though somehow they did manage to convince every air crash investigator who visited the site or viewed the same pictures and videos as you have done. Strange that. Not a single air crash investigator from anywhere in the world has come forth to express doubts about the obviously poorly faked crash site. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why did the conspirators make is so obvious?

You obviously don't consider yourself to have any special skills of perception since the evidence is so obvious, so obviously the conspirators weren't trying very hard.

Though somehow they did manage to convince every air crash investigator who visited the site or viewed the same pictures and videos as you have done. Strange that. Not a single air crash investigator from anywhere in the world has come forth to express doubts about the obviously poorly faked crash site. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Oh wait, TC has one, i remember him mentioning it earlier, although when you get into the details of his credentials, he is not really a crash scene investigator...

TAM

 

[Oxigen]

TAM
Is it about 105 people? I would have expected 1,000's. Also apologies to you for a rude response to you about 2 months ago.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

1) Repeatedly "looks like the global hawk pic but the tail section is different."

so in other words, it looked like the global hawk, except for the most distictive feature of the global hawk

would you mind showing us the pictures you showed them?

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM
Is it about 105 people? I would have expected 1,000's. Also apologies to you for a rude response to you about 2 months ago.

Oxigen. Thank you for the apology, though I do not remember the occasion.

What I meant, was that the vast majority of people on planet earth, who saw the debris fields on TV, who saw the footage on tv, the vast majority of them 99% plus, still believe the official story. You said anyone with sight could see that no planes crashed in Shanksville or the Pentagon, so the inference, is that those who still believe planes crashed there, must not be able to see...ie blind.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

TAM
Is it about 105 people? I would have expected 1,000's. Also apologies to you for a rude response to you about 2 months ago.

No it is thousands!!

Here's how it works:

Let's say a commercial airliner crashes into a huge multistorey structure in the middle of a major metropolis. Thousands of people witness this event.

Now let's say that the official story is released claiming that no plane crashed into that structure but it was a huge flock of seaguls (please no one post pics of 80's band with weird hair ).

Now, those thousands of people are going to expect the report to say it was a plane. Are they not going to get a bit noisy if the official account has it being seaguls? Or don't you have faith in your fellow citizens? Would YOU stay silent in that situation?

Likewise, if the official account has a plane crashing in to the pentagon, corroborated by 105 witnesses, but the thousands who saw it fly over don't say anything to the contrary....... what are we to make of that? Perhaps they never saw a flyover and see no reason to say anything at all.

Right?

 

[uk_dave]

Please reproduce here the picture they identified

would you mind showing us the pictures you showed them?

It would be absolutely spiffing if you would show us the pictures you showed your witnesses.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

1) I am not a liar. I said "OVER" a thousand feet away.



Please explain the gag orders on Johnstown ATC & Westmoreland County 911.



You deny Indian Lake & New Baltimore debris fields and call me a liar???

And when you can positively identify the type of plane witnessed by Susan McElwain, Dale Browning, Susan Custer, Jim Brandt, Tom Spinelli, John Fleegle, plus some unpublished accounts who confirm a F20 Falcon was not the white plane and nowhere near then you can tell me what is capable of doing what to a plane.



Yes, it does.



It isn't blowing paper. Residents of Indian Lake weren't collecting 'paper' and turning it over to the FBI.



That explains why you can't see the truth about 9/11. You wouldn't know what a Nazi was if you were on the same side as the Nationalists, oh wait you are.



I can't explain it. I am not a coroner nor did I work the crash scene. That's the coroners words and the words of the eyewitnesses that were on the scene. Call the good people of Shanksville Liars, you have to live with it, not me. I believe they are good honest people who tell the truth about their experiences.

You do know there's a big difference between a mile and a 1000 feet do you not? Why didn't you simply say over a foot? That would give you more options to use any distance you care to make up. nice try there.

Which gag order? Show us the details of the gag order. Or were you just making assumptions and conjecture about the purpose of it?

Debris field? Please show us what the debris was. You claim it was more than light objects, so you must have some kind of source that proves this. Please provide this evidence.

Eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

Again, you claim residents weren't collecting paper. What were they collecting?

You can't explain it? It sure seems like you think you can explain everything else. But of course when your own claims have no merit or evidence to back up, suddenly you can't explain it. Yet not a shred of physical evidence, or even witness testimony to support it. Just like your claims that the only thing in the hole was an engine.

 

[TC329]

GET THIS STRAIGHT. I am DOUBTING YOU. I AM CALLING you MISINFORMED. I am not calling the residents of SHANKSVILLE Liars, as they have not come here to make their case. I would call you a liar with regards to what you are posting here before I would call them liars. Stop insinuating this just because we call into question your ALLEGED evidence.

TAM

I already disclosed Susan McElwain's unedited video testimonial. Are you saying she is misinformed about what she saw that day that has been collaborated by 6 other eyewitnesses(and growing)?

 

[TC329]

How do you think the residents of shanksville would feel if they knew that you were using their words to accuse innocent people of murder, accusing FBi agents of covering up this murder?

TAM

If you believe the "Bush Administration" to be innocent than there is no hope for you and I wonder why you would even waste your time with a 'kook' such as myself.

Yes, I do believe FBI covered up the shoot down.

Remember your theory about Ed Felt calling 911 from the back of the airplane and having enough time to report an explosion and white smoke in the plane while it was simultaneously slamming into the ground at 500MPH?

That was grand!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I already disclosed Susan McElwain's unedited video testimonial. Are you saying she is misinformed about what she saw that day that has been collaborated by 6 other eyewitnesses(and growing)?

her specific testimony is not collaborated. And are you saying that eyewitnesses have never and can never be mistaken? And did these witnesses see one of these planes/objects actually shoot down the plane, or are you just making assumptions about that part?

Still waiting on that the evidence of that debris that was found you claimed. Any kind of evidence to prove a shoot down would also be nice.

 

[lapman]

reference reply to post #33

Actually, I already know the answer. Do you?

 

[TC329]

Please reproduce here the picture they identified

Here is an email exchange from one eyewitness who will currently remain anonymous until a later time once my investigation is fully completed.

Hi Domenick,

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I was out of town for a couple of days. You know how it goes then - work to catch up on.

Of the pictures you sent me - if I remember correctly, the closest one is the hawk - but it still is not exactly it. The drone is also similar. Definately not the "corporate plane".

Hope this helps you. Have a good day.


Image 1 - Global Hawk

Image 2 - Predator Drone

Image 3 - F20 (aka 'corporate plane')

I did enclose images of a couple other drone type UAV's but since they are irrelevant to this discussion I am excluding them at this time.

Did you explore the possibility that the plane was higher and therefore could have been larger but with fewer features identifiable from their vantage point?

No, because when I asked them how high it was I got answers ranging from 20-40'.

Does the Global Hawk ID only work if the plane is at 40'?

No, The Global Hawk isn't the plane. It is only the most similar to the plane. All eyewitnesses agree that they have never seen a picture of this plane anywhere and some of them spent weeks/months searching the internet.

How expert are your witnesses at judging distance and height? Did you test them?

Wow, aren't you an apologist for this criminal regime? Give me a break. They don't even do that in a court of law. You're beyond ridiculous.

Anything other than the Falcon, huh?


uh huh.

According to the eyewitnesses, it most definitely wasn't a Falcon and there is no way a human being could have been inside of the plane.

 

[TC329]

Just like your claims that the only thing in the hole was an engine.

See the level of deception that takes place here? I said there was an 1 engine about 5' deep in the crater and some scrap metal. What twisted little webs these twisted little spiders weave.

Anyone able to estimate the depth of the crater shown in the following pic?

 

[TC329]

her specific testimony is not collaborated.

Yes it is, you just aint seen it yet.

And are you saying that eyewitnesses have never and can never be mistaken?

Nope. What I am saying is when a witness is collaborated by another witness they're story becomes more credible. When another witness collaborates those 2 accounts it becomes more credible. Repeat ad nauseum.

And did these witnesses see one of these planes/objects actually shoot down the plane, or are you just making assumptions about that part?

Not one of the witnesses claims to have witness a shoot down nor do I ask them what they believe in this regard. I am exposing a cover up. The F20 story is a cover up. Why? What is being covered up???

Still waiting on that the evidence of that debris that was found you claimed. Any kind of evidence to prove a shoot down would also be nice.

You'll see it. I talked to people who live 5 miles away and filled up garbage cans with debris. A lot of residents even took pictures of the debris in their yards miles away from the impact zone.

 

[uk_dave]

Wow, aren't you an apologist for this criminal regime? Give me a break. They don't even do that in a court of law. You're beyond ridiculous.

ummmmm no, I'm not an apologist for any regime.

You're presenting an extraordinary scenario whereby witnesses are claiming to have seen an aircraft which cannot be positively identified but based upon the pictures you showed them and their own estimation of the height of the craft and its distance from them they think might have been a drone. It just so happens that you chose to present pictures of drone aircraft to them (even though you expected it to be an A10, but not a Falcon) but apparently not a selection of photos of Falcons taken from a distance and at height above the viewer.

Excuse my skepticism but self styled investigators such as yourself who approach the subject with a bias toward proving the official account wrong do not obtain evidence in an impartial manner or attempt to falsify your preconceived beliefs.

According to the eyewitnesses, it most definitely wasn't a Falcon and there is no way a human being could have been inside of the plane.

I think it is extremely pertinent to question the witnesses ability to judge height, distance and scale when you make statements such as the above. If the plane was actually further away from the viewer then the question of whether a human could have been inside it may result in a different answer. Do you see this?

Unfortunately your witness recollection is tainted by the efforts of 'truthers' to convince them that it wasn't a private jet they saw. This is patently obvious from your own video of McElwain when she talks about some guy from California telling her that she did not see a commercial plane.

What if they are wrong about the height of the plane? It's an important element in your claim and is something which should be tested.

 

[TC329]

ummmmm no, I'm not an apologist for any regime.

You're presenting an extraordinary scenario whereby witnesses are claiming to have seen an aircraft which cannot be positively identified but based upon the pictures you showed them and their own estimation of the height of the craft and its distance from them they think might have been a drone. It just so happens that you chose to present pictures of drone aircraft to them (even though you expected it to be an A10, but not a Falcon) but apparently not a selection of photos of Falcons taken from a distance and at height above the viewer.

When I met Susan I did not have any pics of a drone plane. I wasn't even looking into the white plane at that time. Only after Susan did I decide to focus on the 'white plane' accounts to validate her claims further. Considering she said the plane was so low it had to be flying below the telephone wires which cross the street and are an est 20-25' in height, I think she got a rather good look at the underbelly and tail section of the plane. Having not seen it from any other angle led Susan to ponder that it might possibly have been a missile. Further eyewitness accounts prove that it wasn't in fact a missile but an UAV.

Excuse my skepticism but self styled investigators such as yourself who approach the subject with a bias toward proving the official account wrong do not obtain evidence in an impartial manner or attempt to falsify your preconceived beliefs.

I started my Shanksville investigation to prove Killtown wrong originally. Make what you will of that.

I think it is extremely pertinent to question the witnesses ability to judge height, distance and scale when you make statements such as the above. If the plane was actually further away from the viewer then the question of whether a human could have been inside it may result in a different answer. Do you see this?

Yes but when every eyewitness answers questions the same .......... nothing will be good enough for you except an admission of it being shot down by someone in the Bush Administration.

Unfortunately your witness recollection is tainted by the efforts of 'truthers' to convince them that it wasn't a private jet they saw. This is patently obvious from your own video of McElwain when she talks about some guy from California telling her that she did not see a commercial plane.

What the guy from CA did is no different than what I am doing. He contacted Susan after seeing that GNN clip on the internet and tried to verify what she saw. While doing so he would send her pictures of planes and ask "Did it look like this?"

Susan McElwain did not see a commercial plane. She was 1.2 miles Southwest of the impact. For her to have seen it means that a 'flyover' happened which I don't believe to be the case at all in Shanksville.

Either that or it would mean as Mark Roberts stated previously while discussing this with me (he insists she saw UA93 because the F20 can't be 20' off the ground 1 mile from the impact racing towards it before the explosion) that Susan saw UA93. He offered no explanation though and why the plane changed course and started flying northeast instead of towards DC.

What if they are wrong about the height of the plane? It's an important element in your claim and is something which should be tested.

If a private plane flys over your head at <50' or so are you telling me you wouldn't be able to identify what type of plane it was?

 

[maccy]

I'm not going to dignify TC329/Terrorcell's idiotic arguments by replying directly to them. Hopefully, any interested readers can see the absurdity of what he saying for themselves.

Nevertheless, anybody who is interested in the context of Wally Millers statement, here a couple of news articles:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8&notFound=true

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925sledzik0925p3.asp

Links from Gravy's Flight 93 evidence and links page.