• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Susan McElwein Interview

haha, that's what also gets me; any type of missile would be traveling faster than a plane would (at its top speed). seriously, no one would be able to "identify" a missile at a quick glance because by the time they "think" they saw it, its already gone; a person's mind can't even begin to understand what they saw because of the speed of the object


and the interview proves that she saw a plane, and that someone ELSE suggested that what she saw was actually a missile. dont understand how you truthers can mistake that statement as if she saw it herself.

again, chaotic situation, confusion and unfamiliarity of seeing something very strange, will affect someones perception at that time. as I have experienced first hand from a car accident (where I didn't even get the driver's shirt color and hair color right), eyewitness testimony is subjected to their own bias; and as seen here, through the bias of those around her (or who tells here what to say)
 
'Truthers' seem to be very prone to telling people what to see and what to believe.
 
Knowing she hadnt seen a 757, Susan came to the conclussion that what she saw that day had to be either a missile or some type of unmanned drone plane based on pictures of such vehicles sent to her by independent researchers. She has stated since 9/11/2001 what flew over her wasn't a 757 and that it was not much bigger than her van & all white. I clarified her descrpition in my interview. She called it a plane for lack of a better description. She really couldnt identify what it was, had never seen anything like, only knew that it was flying with some incredible manuevering.There's 2 minutes of music. If you cant get past that then you're full of **** and I have no interest in discussing this with you although I suspect you did watch and there is no way to dismiss her testimony so now the best thing to do is attack whether the film shakes or its quality.Tactic #426.... lame

I was going to post select quotes but you guys not watching this aint interested in anything but Bush's Fable........

And you think you're real researchers.

I am interested, So Rev 91 and Top Cat , What happened to flight 93? Who made the phone calls to the passengers families? Who shot this plane down ? Who faked the plane crash site ? Who planted all the plane parts ? Who, oh who thought it was such a great idea to to do all this ?

What on earth is the point of shooting down a plane during a national emergency and then NOT admitting it ?

What is the point of going to all this trouble when they could have just said " Yep we shot it down, we had no choice" ?

Why go to this massive act of deception , including lying to the familes, the public, every single person on the planet, when they could have just admitted it and got even more milage? Was that too simple ?
 
What is the point of going to all this trouble when they could have just said " Yep we shot it down, we had no choice" ?

Why go to this massive act of deception , including lying to the familes, the public, every single person on the planet, when they could have just admitted it and got even more milage? Was that too simple ?

Agreed. If the federal government admitted that the military shot down UA93 I think most Americans (with the exception of the victim's families, of course) would have believed this was the right course of action based on what had already happened so far that day.

I've flown about a dozen times since 9/11 and have always been of the belief that if the plane I'm on is hijacked there is a real possibility that it will be shot down by the American military. Yet I continue to fly. Am I alone in this belief?
 
Last edited:
What is the point of going to all this trouble when they could have just said " Yep we shot it down, we had no choice" ?

This of all the theory's makes the no sense (not that the others do either). They seem to think we should have shot it down but if we did we had to cover it up. :confused:
 
I'm going out on a limb here and making the prediction that the "skeptics" here will just accuse her of lying or being confused.

I'm going out on an equally precarious limb and predict that you accept this on its face, without empiricism. In other words, you're just accusing her of telling the truth or not being confused.

Personally, I am not accusing her of anything. I don't necessarily believe her; but that's only because she lacks empirical evidence. If you think that someone (anyone) is not capable of fabricating a story in an effort to curry fame and fortune, or that people are always accurate eywitnesses, I'm going to go out on a limb and call you naive.
 
Last edited:
She was also in her car, was she not (had turned down the radio she said, I believe). So in the instant that it takes a flying object travelling at at least 500mph to go over her head, even if it is 100 feet above her head (she says she was close enough to make out rivets if their were any, which really, should put it at about 8 feet above here head...lol), she was able to identify a tail, and the absence of rivets, all from her seat in her car.

yup...that is a crack witness.

TAM:)
 
"It was cylinder, it came back and this spoiler was across it"

Question from me : "And there were no wings or...?"

Susan "I did not see any wings."



Is there any kind of missile that has a "spoiler" but no wings? And if there is, is that missile about the same size as her van? Does it travel at the altitude she describes? Does it travel at a speed that she could make any kind of useful observations? Is it as silent as she describes?

You keep insisting that we have to say she's either lying or mistaken. Okay, I'll say it: she's mistaken. Her perceptions and memories are flawed. Unless you can demonstrate that a majority of her testimony corresponds in same way to a known missile, this evidence is worthless.


Happy now?
 
Is this another sad attempt to use a single eyewitness to refute numerous others?

I guess if that's all the truthers have, it's what they have to run with... :rolleyes:
 
So you are interviewing her, about what she saw, after she has been influenced by others, with pictures of other flying apparatus, and you feel her testimony is valid? When Police interview a suspect, or a witness, do they allow her to first go talk to other people about what she "Might" have seen before they get her testimony?

TAM:)


Do you know what a police lineup is and how it works?

Was it like this : 757 NO
Was it like this : Falcon20 NO
Was it like this : a10 Warthog NO
Was it like this : (missile/unmanned drone plane) YES

Imagine that. Being shown a picture of something used in a crime and the eyewitness saying "Yes, That is What/Who I Saw"..........

You're kidding me, right?
 
If you watch it, she shows where they told her that flight 93 was coming from, and the 'object' she saw was seemingly heading to it on an intercept.
(Like a missile tracking a target.)

I personally do not have a problem with people sending her pictures to try to figure out what she she had seen. No wings and cylindrical does not sound like a plane to me.
I do not see what the big deal is with that.
I was hoping the guys interviewing her would have done it.
 
Last edited:
Which one of the pictures sent to her did she identify as being what she saw?

I'm bringing her some for confirmation.

She is obviously an expert in judging height. Could it be that she didn't hear any noise because it was much higher than she estimated?

No, most likely it was traveling so fast that she saw the fireball by the time she was hearing it.



Nope I haven't watched it. Do you have a time stamp for the actual interview so I can avoid the crap?

3:00 On, smartass.


No, please do

Done



Nope. But you do. And you're wrong.

Oh, Ok. I guess after doing what the media has failed to do for this country I should just call it quits and join the rest of the Al CIADA sympathizers in Cuba. Thanks for saving a lot of crooked politicians and CEO's and shareholders a lot of trouble! The general public tends to frown upon treason.
 
You'll have to find better than that.

You know the official story is Susan McElwain had the "little white plane" aka the "corporate jet" fly over her in the printed media, right?

I showed her a picture of that "little white corporate jet". She said "NO, thats definitely not what it was."
 
The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=7

Here's a picture of a Dassault Falcon 20:

378469a9c8d802ef.jpg


Two rear engines- check.
A big fin in the back like a spoiler on a car- check (it's called a horizontal stabilizer, dear)
All white- as I've learned from spending quite a bit of time at Balboa Lake Park watching the waterfowl and the planes arriving and leaving Van Nuys Airport a couple of blocks away, white is a very popular color scheme for private jets- check.
The fences on the upper surfaces of the wings could correspond to the "two upright fins" in the description.

As for size and height, if you can't tell how far away an object is there's no sane way to estimate its absolute size, and if something is flying over you, away from any references on the ground that could help to estimate distance, you can't tell how high it is unless you either:

happen to be carrying an optical rangefinder and have the presence of mind to make immediate use of it, or

make a reasonably accurate estimate of its angular dimensions (this can be done using, for example, the width of your fingers held at arms length, in which case the subtended angle can be worked out with a tape measure and elementary trigonometry) and know what its linear dimensions are, in which case the distance can be worked out with a bit more elementary trigonometry.

So, the plane which the "official story" states examined the crash site corresponds reasonably well with the witness' description, well enough for a description given by a clearly inexpert witness who doesn't know enough not to draw conclusions about size, distance and speed which can't be justified by eyeball observation.

Okay, troofers- now show us either an air-to-air missile which fits that description, or a military plane which fits the description and is equipped to intercept planes and fire air-to-air missiles at them.

Or tell us which plane she picked out from the California guy's mugshots, and we'll see if it fits the description better than a Dassault Falcon.
 

Back
Top Bottom