A-10 Warthog/Thunderbolt ground attack plane flew very low over the crash site at exactly the moment the explosion, fireball occured.


Susan Mcelwain - who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head. "It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound. "Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialed 911 and told them what happened. "I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realized it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93. I didn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. 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. "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."

"The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around. Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up. But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAL403A.html

A10 Thunderbolt/Warthog Ground Attack plane: "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side." (Did this attack the ground and make the crater?)


Imagine the odds of her describing an A-10 when she doesn't know what one is - Zero!

I found photos of a white A-10: On this site:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/summer_gallery.html





Many Eye witnesses see same rear-engined white plane

Tom Spinelli, 28 - was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said. "It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash." -Daily Mirror (9/13/02)

Dale Browning "It's the damndest darn thing," said Dale Browning, a farmer. "Everybody's seen this thing in the sky, but no one can tell us what it is." -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Rick Chaney Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Dennis Decker "As soon as we looked up, we saw a midsized jet flying low and fast," Decker said. "It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out." Decker and Chaney described the plane as a Lear-jet type, with engines mounted near the tail and painted white with no identifying markings. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Decker/Chaney confusion: Learjet and A10 Thunderbolt/Warthog side-by-side:
(Susan Mcelwain saw the plane LOW)
http://i11.tinypic.com/62eewzp.jpg

Susan Custer said she saw a small white jet streaking overhead. -The Bergen Record (9/14/01)

Robin Doppstadt was working inside her family food-and-supply store when she heard the crash. When she went outside, she said, she saw a small white jet that looked like it was making a single circle over the crash site. "Then it climbed very quickly and took off. "

The A10 doing what it was designed to do - ground attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnyHQXDhvjI

That's weird because when I interviewed her and showed her a picture of the A10 she laughed and said that definitely wasn't the plane she saw.

Why would she laugh? "Ha ha ha, not that one."

It's odd, but it's always the witnesses who change their stories who's original statements seem to tie in best with the available evidence, and the laws of physics. Ask any detective - someone changes their story - that's a big deal.

what plane was it? F15?

It was the plane she described, a white A-10:

"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. "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."



Consider, what are the odds of her describing an A-10 without knowing what one is?

so why isn't it an f15?
and why is terrorcell lying?
btw, there were 2 planes reported in the area around the crash time.
and what did she say to terrorcell when he asked her whether it was a falcon-20 corporate jet?

9/11 Truth is about the TRUTH, as in facts, witnesses, evidence and the rest. Where in those eye witness statements does anybody mention anything remotely resembling an F-15? The witnesses say it was a rear engined jet. A woman whose car it passed over at 50ft described perfectly an A-10:

"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. "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."



Hence we consider an A-10 at the Shanksville crash scene. Do you get it now? Not 9/11 UFO's, space beams and unsubstantiated shill BS, but 9/11 TRUTH, and we get to the truth by way of evidence, and evidently the plane the witnesses saw flying around before the crash was not an F-15.

Ask him to post the source for his information.

Click here and go to 4:42 for my source.

There is going to be a huge campaign to discredit the information I am going to be bringing to light over the next couple months. It began with the History Channel Documentary who specifically included Susan McElwain and edited her story together into something completely incoherent.

Since I started talking about this information in late March/early April, Susan's story and several interpetations started popping up. What you won't see is an unedited version of the interview the History Channel did with her, nor one from anyone else but me.

Susan McElwain, Robbin Duppstadt, Susan Custer, and at least 20 other people (some documented, most not) saw a HIGHLY CLASSIFIED UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE on the morning of 9/11.

It is similar in appearance to a Global Hawk except for the tail section. All eyewitnesses to date have agreed more like a GH and a Predator Drone and definitely not a Warthog or Falcon20. Susan is the first interview to be release but she is far from the last.

We are about the TRUTH.

A10 is DISINFORMATION from Christopher Bollyn and AFP.

Why don't you source your quotes?

Did Bollyn make an audio/video recording of this interview?

A 'HIGHLY CLASSIFIED UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE'? Look terrorcell, I know you're a bullshit merchant here to spread disinfo, Raven said it and now I'm saying it, so don't put your Unidentified Flying Object crap in my thread, OK? Put it in your own bullshit UFO thread that you have started in this section.

The witnesses statement:
"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. "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side."

pi3, do you wish the plane was an A10 Thunderbolt? You have no proof, thats just your interpretation. We have Susan Mcelwains account on video:
Mcelwain

She clearly denies the A10 Thunderbolt.
If you neither have a proof nor a positive identification, you are not serious.

If you or anyone else wants to post disinfo about UAV Unidentified Flying Objects at Shanksville on this thread, zaphod36, forget about it, do it on terrorcell's bullshit UAV thread, not this one, OK? Simple. Comprende?

Who's your source?

POST IT.


Christopher "DISINFORMATION" Bollyn?


I POSTED SUSAN'S INTERVIEW. YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMEONE'S DISINFORMATION AND CLAIM IT TO BE HER WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FACT : You and Raven are 2 anonymous individuals.
FACT : I am not anonymous
FACT : I actually interview eyewitnesses.
FACT : You and Raven don't.
FACT : Zaphod has also communicated with eyewitnesses.
FACT : You two haven't.
FACT : I Interviewed Susan McElwain
FACT : You quote Christopher Bollyn and are afraid to admit.
FACT : You are spreading DISINFORMATION
FACT : You accusing me of spreading DISINFO is accusing Susan McElwain of spreading disinfo.
FACT : You have zero credibility here NEWB while I have been in the truth movement and well known for years.

Am I supposed to be impressed? It is what comes out of your mouth that matters. I have just watched your video, 'Reichstag 9/11', it is a piss take.

By continuing to trash this thread you are just giving yourself away, terrorcell. I'll ask you again, post your UFO crap on your bullshit UAV thread, not on my thread, OK?

pi3 - why could it not have been an F15 fighter jet that Susan Mcelwain saw?
an F15 has 2 rear engines and 2 upright fins at the side.

No.
You are ignoring Susan Mcelwains account and trying to suggest the A-10 without any proof or eyewitness accounts. So you are acting like a disinfo agent.

Its very simple: A-10 Thunderbolts don`t have white colours. A Predator for example has a white colour.
Susan Mcelwain denied an A-10. No eyewitness has denied an UAV. So its more likely that the plane was an UAV.

Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information, or in your case Zaphod36 talking absolute shit on a forum in order to discredit it by association.

A-10 Thunderbolts don`t have white colours.
I posted two BIG pictures of a white A-10 Warthog/Thunderbolt II above, as you can see. You are just sabotaging the thread by posting garbage and drowning out the good stuff. By continuing to trash this thread after my continual requests for you to stop you are just giving yourself away, Zaphod 36. I'll ask you again, post your UFO crap on terrorcell's bullshit UFO thread, not on my thread, OK?

I can see only a white nose of an Warthog. Can you post a picture of a whole white Warthog? As I know, the ordinary colour of a Warthog is grey or silver.

You are talking about discredit.
Who was talking about Bullshit merchant, Bullshit Thread and UFO`s which were not mentioned before?

Why do you still ignore Susan Mcelwain?

After my original serious post about Susan Mcelwain's original statements this thread has been spammed by 11 posts worth of diversionary nonsense from the likes of you, terrorcell and headspin. I'm just waiting for SPreston from the ridiculous UFO thread you have been eagerly expanding on to make a showing.

Post your UFO crap on terrorcell's bullshit UAV threadUAV thread and stop sabotaging this thread with your time wasting spam.

How does that cloud compare, in scale, color, form and behaviour, to any munition that could be carried by an A-10 Wartog? For example would an air crash give off black smoke not grey as shown. Is gray smoke indicative of munitions? I am looking for pictures of munitions clouds to compare.

The picture of the cloud is inconsistent with the location of the crater. I don't know what caused the cloud, but I very seriously doubt it was near the sight of the crater. Killtown seems wrong about some things, but his analysis of that photo persuaded me.

As for an A-10, I would really like to know what picture Susan McElwain said was not what she saw. Her description is exactly what I would expect her to say about an A-10. I have not talked to her in person, but I have seen her interview, and I am going by here own words.

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-...acy-of-911.html

As for what color an A-10 might be, it really depends on what color you paint it. Susan said something rather significant when she suggest that it might be "somebody else's". One day I was driving along and came fact to face with a helicopter gunship, looking right down the barrel. When I finally found a photo of it, it turned out to be something that was allegedly never put into production. Interestingly, I could not identify it until I found photos approximating the angle from which I saw it. Aircraft recognition used to be part of my MOS. I was in ADA. Of course, it's hard to identify what you have never seen before. It has been years since she saw the plane for a few seconds. The thing that makes me think it had to have been an A-10 is the fact that she described it as "so smooth". If, for example, it had been an F-16 or similar, smooth is not the adjective I would expect. More like LOUD!

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/flight_93.html
"Shown a photograph of a Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II, a low-flying combat
aircraft commonly referred to as a 'Warthog,' Saylor identified it as the
military plane she had seen. She said she recognized the two engines on the
rear and the distinctive shape of the cockpit and nose of the plane."
[Eyewitness identified the plane as an A-10]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...op#a1006treetop

"flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level , over
the crash site within minutes of the United flight crashing."
 
* "I didn't get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about
twice and then it flew off over the horizon." [At 5,000+ feet, we don't
usually don't say the plane "flew off over the horizon".]

* "Less than a minute before the Flight 93 crash rocked the countryside,
she sees a small white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings
swoop low over her minivan near an intersection and disappear over a
hilltop, nearly clipping the tops of trees lining the ridge. ...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. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like
a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I
haven't found one like it on the Internet. It definitely wasn't one of
those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no
plane around. But I saw it and it was there before the crash
and it was 40 feet above my head . They did not want my story -
nobody here did." [That's exactly how a country school-teacher who'd never
seen an A-10 would be expected to describe one.]

[Accounts of what may have been/probably was something other than an A-10,
eg. an F-16, or the corporate jet - if that ever existed.]

* "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." [Signature
A-10 loitering behavior.]

* "The FBI later says this was a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, directed
after the crash to fly from 37,000 feet to 5,000 feet and obtain the
coordinates for the crash site to help rescuers." 5,000 feet verses 40
feet?  The scientific term for that is BULLSHIT!

Other than one unfortunate incident in which Christopher took the bait on a bad witness, I don't know of any report he has made that was signally incorrect. Please provide exact citations. A sufficient number so as to show a willful pattern of deception. If you do not provide said evidence, guess what...

Christopher often does record his interviews. I'd say you should ask him, but he seems to have been disappeared.

Strange thing about Susan's interview is that when you showed her the top view picture of the Warthog, you were explicitly asking about the two triangle shaped planes "way high up". Those would have been the F-16s that are well attested to. So, by your claiming that she did not identify the plane that few directly over her as an A-10, if your interview is your evidence, you are wrong.

Have you got a link to evidence of that?

'Fake' picture story:
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/statenews/..._251131209.html

'Conspiracy theorists, specifically the blog Killtown, contend the photo is an elaborate fraud that starts with McClatchey and serpentines up to the highest levels of the federal government.
Killtown suggests the photograph is a fake, claiming the gray smoke looks more like a plume from an ordnance blast than the black cloud from a jet crash.
“If it really was an ordnance blast not too far beyond the white barn and white farm house, then this would be a true smoking gun and one of the clearest examples of complicity in the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. government because what else could have caused such a large explosion and who else would have been behind it?” Killtown wrote.'

It is an ordenance blast, but it is not fake, the photo is genuine IMHO.



I am currently searching looking for pictures of munitions clouds to compare. How does that cloud compare, in scale, color, form and behaviour, to any munition that could be carried by an A-10 Wartog? For example would an air crash give off black smoke not grey as shown. Is gray smoke indicative of munitions?

It may well have been carried by photoshop. I don't like to accuse the lady of that, but it has to be considered. One problem is that Nevin Lambert was out in his field when the explosion occurred. He only talks about the one explosion over the crater. He said nothing about another explosion, and he was very close to where the could would have to have been.

http://flight93photo.blogspot.com/2006/07/...oking-guns.html

This is what makes the most sense to me:

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/history-...acy-of-911.html

Someone may have fired a missile into the dirt to make it appear that a plane crashed, but there are lots of other pieces of evidence which suggest that some significant portion of UAL 93 was disintegrated by an explosion right about there and then.

I don't believe it is fake, I believe it is an incriminating photograph taken by an honest citizen which shows the Shanksville crash site was a munitions blast, not the huge black cloud that an airliner crash would have involved. I think the talk of this being fake is disinfo as there is no motive to fake this photo, not money as she gave the photo to a tiny local newspaper. I am a photoshop expert and I can tell you no 50 year old layperson could possibly have put that together in photoshop, no way, not ever. And there is definitely no motive for her to fake it.

It has been suggested she faked the photo for the money. Why are people diving on this honest citizen with a compact camera in her kitchen drawer? Why, because If you are taking flak you must be above the target.

It is an inconvenient photo, and a smoking gun.

Also found were hijacker ID's and a letter from a hijacker. Planted evidence in other words. the debris could have been dumped anytime. Maybe previously or when the Warthog was circling on the day.

One thing is for sure they should have crashed a 757 and dumped the wreckage at Shanksville, so it at least gave the illusion of an airliner crash.

The geometry of the photo is wrong. The cloud would have been incredibly huge to fill that much of the camera angle. Furthermore, it was in the wrong direction. I trust you have not looked at Killton's analysis. I don't care about motive when the math isn't there.

How wide would the cloud have to have been?

The hijacker passports were planted. Multiple debris fields spread over 8 to 12 miles with people calling the police saying that pars of an airplane are falling on their houses is hard to plant by back a truk up in the middle of the night. I really don't know what hit the ground between Shanksville and Lambertsville. I am very confident that it was not an intact 757. My speculation as to what happened has already been offered. It's the conclusion I have drawn by examining all the available evidence. I will add that I believe UAL 93 was flown by automated guidance to a predetermined location where it was blasted by a waiting A-10. It was probably winged by an F-16 at altitude, and the perpetrators ditched it. I suspect they lost the window of opportunity for completing the attacks. I need to review Bush's movements from the time he left the school to the time UAL 93 was shot down.

Yes the cloud would have been huge if a plane crashed there but there is no evidence of a plane crashing there.

I do not trust that Killtown blog. Look which photo of a munitions blast he has chosen to compare with the Shanksville cloud:



Notice how the brightness on the munitions blast has been turned up to make it appear lighter (it has taken all the contrast out of the picture), and the original Shanksville cloud photo has been darkened:



The photo is a real photo of a munitions blast, not an airliner crash. Very incriminating. Expect a 'new' explanation for it coming down the pipeline soon from the powers-that-be.

And everyone of you who says it wasnt flight 93 should be ashamed of yourselves. RADAR shows it was flight 93, you know, the one the people fought back on AND GAVE THIER LIVES FOR. The one you are basicly saying didnt happen, which means your pissing on thier sacrifice. Such true Americans here... pfft

Ask your mommy if you can watch this video. It has bad words in it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=275113059872848770

I already said, I agree with you that there was almost certainly an A-10 there. I do believe ordinance was discharged, and may have been the primary cause of the carter. There are several witness accounts that support the idea that a large plane like a 757 came in very low near Shanksville. There are also reports of airplane debris landing over an 8 to 12 mile stretch of PA. I got the 12 mile figure from Nevin Lambert in person. The biggest problem I have with the debris field is that it runs in the wrong direction. I don't know if momentum could account for that or not.

The cloud in the Val's picture is in the wrong location. The geometry simply isn't there to support it. The cloud is too big, ordinance or not.

It is my belief that a missile was fired into Shanksville. 'End Of Serenity' cannot be taken as evidence as anything, because it is clearly fake.

Susan Mcelwain has no reason to lie, and she never mentioned seeing wings in her original testimony, and told the same story she originally told to Terrorcell, except she made it clear that the aircraft had no wings. She had seen a missile. She is also a crucial eyewitness because it flew right over her head.

A fighter jet was in the area after the crash, it was probably the aircraft that fired the missile she saw.

Physical evidence also says that no plane could have crashed there. The WTC fireball was huge. The field in Shanksville is only lightly burnt, and grass and dirt inside the crater, is unburnt.





Even if a military plane crashed there, there would be some more damage to the crater, and it would leave some debris. There's the other thing, there is no plane debris. Flight 93 allegedly crashed on soft dirt, and a strip mine that had recently been backfilled. If this was the case, there should be huge parts of the plane lying on the field, but we can see no wing sections, tail section, or anything bun unidentifiable scraps of metal.



One might argue "Didn't most of it bury underground?". Let's take a look at this photo, and see what's wrong with that explanation..



So, what? Did the crater just seal itself?

1) No debris

2) Fire damage inconsistent with a plane

3) Eyewitness to a missile, Fighter jet in the area

That is why I think that a missile must have hit Shanksville. So, one may ask why they chose Shanksville to fake the plane crash. Raytheon and Northop are involved with Shanksville, Kuchera Defense Systems is in the same county, Shanksville is a military flight corridor, months before they were conducting a huge anti-terrorism drill in the neighboring county, and the neighboring county had a meeting on September 10th regarding equipment purchases regarding Anti-Terrorism and HAZMAT response.

It would appear that Shanksville is an area involved with the military, which would make it easy for them to plant evidence and cover up the site. The site was also right by a service road, which made for easy access to the site.

I'm in agreement with about 97% confidence.

No she didn't. Terrorcell's interview with her is utter schlock. I have lost all respect for him because of it. He talked to her about the triangle planes seen way up in the sky and very briefly showed her a picture of an A-10 taken from above asking if any of them looked like it. He then turns around and says that she claimed the plane that few directly over her was not an A-10.

As far as her not mentioning wings, your conclusion makes no sense at all. If I say I saw an airplane, I would probably not mention the wings unless there was something significant about the wings. If I saw an airplane fly over me at a distance of 40 feet, and it had no wings, I would certainly have mentioned that feature. Of course, if something flew over me which had no wings, I would not have called it an airplane.

I have no reason to believe she saw a missile. A-10s are relatively quiet, especially when they want to be. Fighter jets such as F-16s are damn loud. Missiles are even louder.

That is 100% inconsistent with her account.

I agree about the fuel. If the plane had hit the ground intact, fuel would have either been buried with the plane (assuming the highly implausible 'the ground ate the plane' scenario), or it would have caused a massive fire. The evidence supports the use of an extremely hot warhead of some kind. If the plane were hit at altitude and significantly damaged, that may have caused it to lose most of its fuel before it was finally destroyed. It is also possible that the fuel was consumed in a single extremely intense explosion created by a warhead.

When I spoke with Bob Leverknight of the Daily American he told me that there are no A-10s in the region which are armed with munitions capable of doing what I described. He claims to be knowledgeable of the nature and capabilities of military weaponry both through his civilian experience, and through his military service. Assuming he knows what he is talking about, he pretty much confirmed that such munitions do exists, and A-10s can carry them.

Yes, I am talking about a missile. The crater may well have been produced by the momentum of a missile fired at the plane at point-blank range.

When I countered Leverknight's assertion that it could not have been an A-10 because none in the region carry such weaponry, by saying that this was a crime of immense proportions..., he interrupted and said "Yes it was! Arab terrorists hijacked the plane and murdered 40 innocent Americans, good bye!" and hung the phone up.

Point 3 has no basis in fact as far as I know.

No she didn't.

She didn't just not mention the wings, here is an excerpt from the interview:

And, there were anti-terrorism drills and meetings going on near Shanksville months before 9/11. It is a military flight corridor. The crash did happen right by a service road. Kuchera Defense Systems is in the same county. The military involvement makes it the perfect place to stage a plane crash and plant evidence.

REALLY?

Watch the entire uncut version.

It is a smoking gun and your characterization is way off base.

I'm still of the same opinion. I don't know what she said to the question about wings. It is in audible. I note that her reason for saying the A-10 she saw a picture of from the top was that she could see the rivets in the A-10 picture while she is pointing at the wings. You would think she would be saying there "were no wings". I do know that she saw the thing for probably less than a second. The human mind does not process information fast enough and with enough detail for her observation about the rivets to be reliable.

I also seriously doubt what she said about it flying under the power lines. My guess is she underestimated the distance, and thus the size. Notice she didn't say she saw it go under the power lines. She said "it must have gone under the power lines". What she described in the GNN interview is fully consistent with an A-10. That seems more reliable because it was much sooner after the event, and before people started tying to convince her of what she saw.

Terrorcell also claims that Christopher Bollyn quoted her as saying it was an A-10. Terrorcell needs to produce the exact citation where Christopher Bollyn quoted Susan McElwain saying that she identified the plane as an A-10 or retract the misinformation. Terrorcell accused Christopher of spreading disinformation. He needs to demonstrate that Christopher Bollyn has systemmatically reported misinformation in such a way as to intentionally mislead people. That is, he needs to back up his baseless claim that Christopher Bollyn's work is "disinformation" or retract that accusation.

Notice that I was told that I wouldn't see a selectively edited interview from Terrorcell like I saw from the History Channel. Now I am told to watch the video with the whole interview in it because the first one omitted the part where she was asked specifically about the A-10 picture and the plane that flew directly over her head. Strange that, eh?

What is the nearest base at which A-10's were based at that time?

Was it in range of Shanksville?

I was told there are A-10s stationed close enough to Shanksville to have been there. There are some stationed near Baltimore. I ask how long it takes to put the wings on an A-10 if you take them off and load it on the back of a truck? If you had a trillion dollars, do you think you could hide an A-10 from the law - especially if you had the head of the FBI on your side?

Does Camp David have an airstrip?