David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   9/11 & 7/7 (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The wing scars were there from flight 93 in 1994! (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=25589)

darkovic 02-05-2008 02:38 PM

The wing scars were there from flight 93 in 1994!
 
A USGS photograph from 1994 showing the flight 93 crash site, with the wing marks in the ground already! In 1994!

http://www.trust-us.ch/cryptome/01-C...nk-eyeball.htm

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/783...light93wu1.jpg

You've all been waiting for something like this, so do something about it. Tell the fucking WORLD! Email every single news outlet on EARTH! And if nothing happens STILL then that is proof of a huge effort to bury it among the establishment media and will be useable to wake people to the reality they face.

I'm doing it now. You should too.

This is the original:

http://terraserver-usa.com/image.asp...94&Y=22177&W=2

shodan 02-05-2008 03:02 PM

Hi, this is a great find, I'm going to look into this when I've got more time after work. cheers.

darkovic 02-05-2008 04:17 PM

I emailed the USGS (US Geological Survey) to check the authenticity of the photograph and terraserver. They confim it is genuine.

Their reply:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for contacting USGS.

Ed, the aerial photography on terraserver are genuine. Some are flown at a higher altitude than others and some with higher resolution. Usually some of the urban areas are flown with sharper resolution. The same photography can also be viewed at the site below.

http://nationalmap.gov/

I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact the USGS again if you need additional assistance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I chose not to mention 9/11 or flight 93 or Shanksville or any reason at all for asking the question and they just answered me.

Cheers USGS! :p

darkovic 02-05-2008 04:36 PM

I can't seem to save the email from hotmail. (Anyone know how?) I tried doing save page as but it failed.

Here's a screencap of the email though with my email blacked out:

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9...ilreplydn0.jpg

psychick 07-05-2008 06:22 PM

Hi all,

This is my 1st post on this forum and l chose the 9/11 thread as it is a subject which is of great interest to me. I have researched that day in depth and l can honestly say, hand on heart that a missile hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 probably didn't even exist (or went down over the ocean).

I am also doubtful or passenger planes hitting the WTC's seeing as all the footage points to military planes with no windows and missiles strapped to their undercarriages.

Cool findings!

"Pass the remote control" ;)

hagbard_celine 08-05-2008 04:28 PM

Good find, Darkovic!:)

That would explain a lot. If you wanted to fake a plane crash site, where would you fake it?... Somewhere that already looks like a plane hit the ground of course!:cool::cool:

hagbard_celine 08-05-2008 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychick (Post 353248)
Hi all,

This is my 1st post on this forum and l chose the 9/11 thread as it is a subject which is of great interest to me. I have researched that day in depth and l can honestly say, hand on heart that a missile hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 probably didn't even exist (or went down over the ocean).

I am also doubtful or passenger planes hitting the WTC's seeing as all the footage points to military planes with no windows and missiles strapped to their undercarriages.

Cool findings!

"Pass the remote control" ;)

Welcome, Psychick.:)

dmessick 08-05-2008 04:45 PM

All I can say is WOW!

psychick 08-05-2008 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagbard_celine (Post 353911)
Welcome, Psychick.:)


Thank you Hagbard_celine :)

killtown 21-05-2008 07:12 PM

(Saw there is another thread about this, so I'll repost.)


The '94 scar is not the same, however I do believe represents part of how the 9/11 crater was made. The 9/11 crater sat at the base of a slop where a drainage ditch could have easily formed:

Quote:

"The apparent point of impact was a dark gash, not more than 30 feet wide, at the base of a gentle slope just before a line of trees." - post-gazette.com
And this quote describes the "wing scars" as a drainage ditch:

Quote:

"Other photos taken at the scene by Miller show a small furrow, like a hand-dug drainage ditch, running back from the crater. This was the mark left by a wing." - theage.com.au
If a "wing scar shaped" drainage ditch formed back before '94, why not 7 years later before 9/11 a few yards away?

So the 9/11 was a drainage ditch where they just had to drop a bomb in the middle of it and viola'! A "plane crash" crater.

mynameis 10-06-2008 10:19 AM




ronisron 17-06-2008 03:02 PM

The video is on youtube, and you can link to it from the headlines page. It shows the obvious first, no bodies, no wreckage from 9/11, and ends off with that aerial shot from USGS, taken in '94. VERY effective. It's STILL not enough for some people. I think the best analogy is seeing a stage hypnotist who can only get certain members to respond to suggestion, while others are not affected. Those that are easily hypnotized.... well, they'll cluck like a chicken until they're told to do something else. Good luck to them.

pilgrim 17-06-2008 03:37 PM

Flight 93 Fraud (Video)
 

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27911

phaid 12-07-2008 01:28 PM

I find it quite amazing that more attention is not given to Flight 93 and the 'crash' site that never was.

It seems that people are far happier arguing about the details of the WTC collapse and to a lesser extent what hit the Pentagon, when Flight 93 seems to be the real 'smoking gun' of 911.

To promote the official version, we've had two feature films 'Flight 93' and 'United 93' to bolster the unlikely heroic 'fight back' passenger story and the Beamer, Bingham, Glick phone call myths - the WTC has never had similar direct fictional coverage of the alleged happenings on board the planes.

So why has Holly Wood devoted much time to erecting a smokescreen about 93? Almost certainly the human interest 'fightback' scenario, so easy to get the emotions going in uneducated 911 BS believers and to promote some loathsome flag-waving response, a new 'Alamo'. Once you've seen 'United 93' on the widescreen, you can file it away and never have to think about it seriously again or how you might have been fooled.

I'd like to see the BBC do a 'Conspiracy Files' special on Flight 93 now, but I suspect that they'll go nowhere near it, too dangerous, too tenuous to defend now with all the contrary evidence that keeps emerging.

Good luck to those researchers who haven't given up on this - keep plugging away, folks.

goldman 03-08-2008 02:54 AM

Good stuff.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ght93Crash.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/783...light93wu1.jpg

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8904/crater01xq9.gif

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1...rashingmk2.gif

goldman 03-08-2008 03:10 AM

But, why does ANSWERS.com say:

Aerial photo taken 27 April, 2004 of the area of the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA (USGS)

http://www.answers.com/topic/usgs-shanksville-jpg-1

Scroll way down:

http://www.answers.com/topic/september-11-attacks

What's up with that?

seercirra 10-10-2008 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkovic (Post 349263)
A USGS photograph from 1994 showing the flight 93 crash site, with the wing marks in the ground already! In 1994!

http://www.trust-us.ch/cryptome/01-C...nk-eyeball.htm

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/783...light93wu1.jpg

You've all been waiting for something like this, so do something about it. Tell the fucking WORLD! Email every single news outlet on EARTH! And if nothing happens STILL then that is proof of a huge effort to bury it among the establishment media and will be useable to wake people to the reality they face.

I'm doing it now. You should too.

This is the original:

http://terraserver-usa.com/image.asp...94&Y=22177&W=2

good evidence but totally unneccessary.
all the evidence that you need is in the fact that flight 93 was found in peices over something like 8 squared miles.
that doesnt happen when something crash lands.
it does happen when something is blown up in mid air though.

tjohn 28-10-2008 02:31 PM

Flight 93, where?
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ght93Crash.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/783...light93wu1.jpg

Sorry, it's a red herring, the marks in those pictures do not match up at all. However, where on earth is there evidence of a plane crash without parts being strewn all over the 'crash' site?

Did the earth swallow up the entire plane somehow?

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1...rashingmk2.gif

Seeing as there's no wreckage on the surface, perhaps they should go digging for a completely buried airliner! No of course they won't be doing that and they must think that we are all stupid!

tracker 28-10-2008 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkovic (Post 349263)
A USGS photograph from 1994 showing the flight 93 crash site, with the wing marks in the ground already! In 1994!

http://www.trust-us.ch/cryptome/01-C...nk-eyeball.htm

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/783...light93wu1.jpg

You've all been waiting for something like this, so do something about it. Tell the fucking WORLD! Email every single news outlet on EARTH! And if nothing happens STILL then that is proof of a huge effort to bury it among the establishment media and will be useable to wake people to the reality they face.

I'm doing it now. You should too.

This is the original:

http://terraserver-usa.com/image.asp...94&Y=22177&W=2

whats this stuff then

tjohn 29-10-2008 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracker (Post 587580)
whats this stuff then

If you are referring to the mark on that B&W satellite picture, I don't know caused it (possibly was caused by spring water) but it does not match the mark in the top picture which is dry and has a somewhat triangle shape.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 AM.