Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-11-2008, 11:36 PM   #21
darkovic
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 224
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjohn View Post
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.
It was 7 years of erosion later though...
darkovic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-11-2008, 02:21 AM   #22
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,678
Likes: 215 (116 Posts)
Default

earlier today i watched loose change, and there is a little on there about flight 93 - altho in my own opinion there is not enough.

They say that flight 93 was landed in cleveland and evac'd within half an hour - the calls from the people on the plane are very suspect, and that there was no feasable wreckage in shanksville - and the coroner said there were no bodies.

the smoking gun indeed.
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2008, 06:15 AM   #23
killtown
Senior Member
 
killtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
and the coroner said there were no bodies
And not only that, but not even a drop of blood.
__________________
killtown.blogspot.com

Last edited by killtown; 03-12-2008 at 06:18 AM.
killtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-01-2009, 11:12 PM   #24
darkovic
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 224
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default


You can see it in this RATHER interesting video...
darkovic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2009, 11:18 AM   #25
danoli3
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 60
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Flight 93:





Notice no fire in this photo:



So much more info @ http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/Shanksville

Last edited by danoli3; 03-02-2009 at 12:05 PM.
danoli3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-2009, 08:27 AM   #26
vladikaioan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I have been interested in 9/11 for several years now and I find this particular information some of the most interesting information I have seen in a while. I agree with others here: what better place to fake a plane crash than where you have ready-made "wing scars.

Also the video admitting the missile is quite interesting. No matter what these guys do to hide the truth, it will always come out.
vladikaioan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 11:24 PM   #27
jaggysnake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 152
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
earlier today i watched loose change, and there is a little on there about flight 93 - altho in my own opinion there is not enough.

They say that flight 93 was landed in cleveland and evac'd within half an hour - the calls from the people on the plane are very suspect, and that there was no feasable wreckage in shanksville - and the coroner said there were no bodies.

the smoking gun indeed.
watch this and see if it changes your mind about the coroner



that interview changed my mind on how reliable loose change is
jaggysnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2009, 06:32 AM   #28
bsmurph83
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: a foreign jurisdiction
Posts: 649
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Thumbs up

great posts from darkovic and killset and others also. the 'coincidences' continue to mount, eh?

can i just ask; the FBI photo of the 'crash' site that is there with the 1994 photo of the site - how long after the 'crash' was that FBI shot taken? 1 day? 1 week?

Just interested. Keep the good posts coming. I only drop by the 911 thread occasionally and when I do there's always some absolute gems waiting...

smurph
bsmurph83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 10:43 AM   #29
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seercirra View Post
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.
Ah - but Houston we have a problem.

The evidence of wing-scar ditches being readily formed so close to the 93 wing marks, in addition to a lack of debris at the site, points to a faked crash site - but not one prepared hastily to cover the shooting down of an airplane. A premediated hoax.

What did they do - remote fly the plane close to the crash site then shoot it down?

Q's

How sure are we that debris was scatted over 8 miles as opposed to evidence being planted?

Who owned the land of the crash site?

What is the family/career/religious background of the 'heroes' of 93?

Last edited by rodin; 25-07-2009 at 10:43 AM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 10:46 AM   #30
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
earlier today i watched loose change, and there is a little on there about flight 93 - altho in my own opinion there is not enough.

They say that flight 93 was landed in cleveland and evac'd within half an hour - the calls from the people on the plane are very suspect, and that there was no feasable wreckage in shanksville - and the coroner said there were no bodies.

the smoking gun indeed.
Jason Bermas, Alex Jones, gatekeepers for sure

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=413
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 12:51 PM   #31
manxboz
Senior Member
 
manxboz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Taking another break from the forum!
Posts: 6,841
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

This info has fascinated me since i found out a few weeks back. Why don't more people know about it i have no idea.
__________________
Finland = FUNland


Spellbounds promise to stop posting Webbot predictions
manxboz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 03:47 PM   #32
bigcadaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 124
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Hello....first post on the site. Great discussions here for sure!!

Not sure how this picture makes much sense with what we have been speculating for years...that flight 93 was shot down. Are we saying here that flight 93 was purposely shot down over this area to "use" the pre-existing "wing scars" to fake the crash? Isn't there evidence that Norad was not involved and stood down for most of the morning....but as the morning unfolded, they did in fact scramble fighters to intercept flight 93. If they did shoot it down conveniently over this pre-existing "wing scared sight" then either they were in on it or it was an amazing coincidence.

Thoughts?
bigcadaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 03:57 PM   #33
bsmurph83
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: a foreign jurisdiction
Posts: 649
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

hi cadaver. looks like the whole thing is a mess, ey? the short of it is that this is just another piece of the official story with massive holes in it.

too big of a coincidence that a plane that either didn't exist to start with, or was somewhat mysteriously shot down, happened to crash land in this exact spot where these faux wing marks are...

it looks like the outline a cartoon character leaves when they run through a wall... it's damning no matter what spin ya put on it... too many coincidences. stinky. very stinky.

EDIT: MY TOP LINE doesn't read quite right. it should say something like "...another piece of evidence that shows the official story (fairytale) has massive holes in it..." or... something like that. it's late. i'm tired.

Last edited by bsmurph83; 04-08-2009 at 04:41 PM.
bsmurph83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2009, 04:24 PM   #34
bigcadaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 124
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Yeah, I guess you're right. This isn't really evidence that allows us to know more about what actually happened. Its just more evidence to throw on top of the mountain that says the official story is crap.
bigcadaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2009, 03:20 PM   #35
dynamicwiseman
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 896
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Jason Bermas, Alex Jones, gatekeepers for sure

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=413
Interesting information, it is true the Zionist are the only group that could pull something like 9/11 and blame it on Muslims. Heck they could detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of London and blame Iran for it, and the whole world would invade Iran.

Sometimes i think the Zionist believe that gentile humans are just children, hence all decision have to be made for them for their own "good" and why they are illuminated.
dynamicwiseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2009, 09:11 PM   #36
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,150
Likes: 1,299 (841 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manxboz
This info has fascinated me since i found out a few weeks back. Why don't more people know about it i have no idea.
Because ppl are living IN DENIAL!! (They are robots and cant be easily reasoned with/make up thier own minds about something)
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2009, 11:57 PM   #37
nihil
Senior Member
 
nihil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: @ Tavistock Noetics
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamicwiseman View Post
Sometimes i think the Zionist believe that gentile humans are just children, hence all decision have to be made for them for their own "good" and why they are illuminated.
zionist thinking
__________________
Peace, Love, Unity and Respect .
nihil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2009, 03:17 PM   #38
liltroofer
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 257
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

I don't think the plane existed.

I also have many questions surrounding every story I hear or picture I see about an alleged "passenger" ...
liltroofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:13 AM   #39
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,150
Likes: 1,299 (841 Posts)
Default

Hey we all understand how you feel believe me!!

The whole thing just does not come anywhere near what they told us!!

Last edited by Dude111; 01-10-2009 at 03:13 AM.
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 03:10 AM   #40
camreeno
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: California
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

Interesting photograph but why is the scar on the ground in the 1994 picture noticeably further away from where the plain was claimed to have crashed in 2001? I might be looking at this wrong but just curious.
camreeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.