Susan Mcelwain: 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. [Bergen Record, 9/14/2001] She later adds, “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.” [Mirror, 9/12/2002]
Not based on the witness's description. An AWACS is a military version of the Boeing 707. I don't think she was describing a 707 flying beneath a power line.
If the line she is referring to is the one in the video; that doesn't look to be more than thirty feet off the ground, if that. Hell, man...that is LOW...unless she saw a drone or a missle.
The thing that really stands out here to me is the only proof provided that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon consists of eyewitness statements and flight data recorder data inconsistent with the flight path required to knock down five light poles.
Can you believe eyewitness testimony or not?
If you believe this lady, then you must also believe the government lied about United 93.
How can someone legitimately say we know a 757 crashed into the Pentagon because of the eyewitness accounts, and then dismiss this eyewitness?