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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-05-2011, 08:49 PM   #81
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,095
Likes: 120 (69 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skanny View Post
all i seen is the red / orangey glow from the nose just before it enters the building always thought it was the guidance system since the planes were under remote.
It was most likely a small explosion from inside the building to show the video compositors where and when the nose of the cgi plane had to hit the wall.
__________________
"You are nice people." - Unidentified Bulgarian girl to President Puigdemont in Brussels
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2011, 12:05 AM   #82
skanny
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: G.C.H.Q Cheltenham
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
It was most likely a small explosion from inside the building to show the video compositors where and when the nose of the cgi plane had to hit the wall.
lmao! ...

we have been through this already and none of the photos or other videos of that plane leading up to the south tower show cgi planes as they would if it was a fake plane and the wreckage is all planted.

so its pointless cos even when proved contrary to the npt belief you cant or wont accept what in fact is.
skanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2011, 09:20 PM   #83
wispy
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,968
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
It was most likely a small explosion from inside the building to show the video compositors where and when the nose of the cgi plane had to hit the wall.
So there's a small explosion to let the CGI operators show where the CGI plane had to hit he building.

And this is just a few moments beofre there's a big explosion which starts the destruction o fthe building.

So why would they need a small explosion when there's a big explosion afterwards?

Couldn't they get the CGI to line up with where the big explosion is?
wispy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2011, 03:09 PM   #84
302bluefog
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Thumbs down

Lmao @ cgi
302bluefog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2011, 06:35 PM   #85
ruddd
Senior Member
 
ruddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 912
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Flight 93 was always odd to me, in that it could have come down anywhere. Yet chose to do it right at the end of a nicely paved farm path in the middle of nowhere.

Dig a hole, fill it with a bomb or explosives. Set of a big bang that would get the locals roused up and looking out their window, cordon off the roads and then plant some aircraft debris before anyone gets there.

Oldest trick in the book.
ruddd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 01:50 AM   #86
bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I saw this a couple of years ago and I had the sane trouble then as now. I can't see any 'wing' Mark in the colour photo. Can someone point it out to me. I found it easier seeing something hidden in a magic eye picture someone posted the other week!
bobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 04:31 AM   #87
stannrodd
Senior Member
 
stannrodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,301
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobster View Post
I saw this a couple of years ago and I had the sane trouble then as now. I can't see any 'wing' Mark in the colour photo. Can someone point it out to me. I found it easier seeing something hidden in a magic eye picture someone posted the other week!

I would like to see that which "bobster" cannot see too .. I have that sane problem too
stannrodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 12:45 PM   #88
bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Hahaha I never noticed that, I meant same but I suppose sane works too
bobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2011, 08:56 AM   #89
stannrodd
Senior Member
 
stannrodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,301
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Agreed ..

Last edited by stannrodd; 13-11-2011 at 08:57 AM.
stannrodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2011, 03:53 PM   #90
kesm27
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ministry of Love
Posts: 927
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddd View Post
Flight 93 was always odd to me, in that it could have come down anywhere. Yet chose to do it right at the end of a nicely paved farm path in the middle of nowhere.

Dig a hole, fill it with a bomb or explosives. Set of a big bang that would get the locals roused up and looking out their window, cordon off the roads and then plant some aircraft debris before anyone gets there.

Oldest trick in the book.
"Oldest trick in the book"?

I take it "the book" was written after the invention of aircraft, then?

Maybe I'm being pedantic, but it just seems a strange thing to say. Can you provide examples of when this "oldest trick" has been used before?

Last edited by kesm27; 24-11-2011 at 04:01 PM.
kesm27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 06:35 PM   #91
killtown
Senior Member
 
killtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killtown View Post
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:

"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:

"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.
Just wanted to add to this that, according to Dominick DiMaggio, who's been to Shanksville many times researching, told me that those "wing scars" where actually man-made by the land owners for drain-off.
__________________
killtown.blogspot.com

Last edited by killtown; 11-04-2012 at 06:36 PM.
killtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 09:53 PM   #92
silverspoon
Senior Member
 
silverspoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: West London
Posts: 448
Likes: 20 (9 Posts)
Default

a slimy nation indeed
silverspoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2012, 10:12 PM   #93
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default Missiles Caused the Gash at Shanksville

yankee451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2012, 02:30 PM   #94
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 642
Likes: 34 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkovic View Post
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



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
Clearly the ground in Shanksville has precog abilities and just knew seven years before that a plane would some day hit it and prepared accordingly. Nothing to see here folks, move along!
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2012, 02:56 PM   #95
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 642
Likes: 34 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phaid View Post
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.
I sort of agree with this from a strictly forensic point of view. But to me the weakness of Shanksville is that it doesn`t really prove inside job as far as I can see, but rather a coverup of a probable shoot down of whatever plane was really out there, or that nothing really crashed at all since the plane disappeared. Because shooting down a hijacked plane is protocol this could possibly be covered by the unbelievably flimsy official version, since it`s what the air force should have done with all four planes if the official version is true.
When it comes to the Pentagon the evidence that a drone or a missile hit it, which is pretty conclusive, proves an inside job because Al Qaida doesn`t have any craft capable of this even in the narrative of the US government, and because no hijacked plane should have been able to fly around in this particular airspace for as much as a minute before being shot down.
As for WTC there is overwhelming evidence there that suggests or proves inside job, from WTC 7, collapse speeds, smoldering ruins, pyrokcastic flows, premature reporting of WTC 7`s collapse, audible explosions heard in news footage, news people and eye witnesses reporting bombs going off and so on ad infinitum.
I agree that 93 is suspicious but I just can`t see how you can claim that it is a more important topic than the Pentagon and WTC. Perhaps I`ve been slacking though.

Last edited by skulb; 01-12-2012 at 03:02 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2012, 03:17 PM   #96
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 642
Likes: 34 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danrush View Post
I suppose the families of those who were murdered will love you.

Btw Flight 93 and Flight 175 weren`t deregistered until 2005. Not making any specific claims but given the vagueness of the explanations given by the US government how can we even be sure if any of the alleged planes were hijacked at all?
If two of the planes were really in service for four years after 9/11 and at least five of the alleged hijackers were still alive years later, as has been reported by multiple MSM sources, why are we even trusting any of the official version?
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2012, 03:32 PM   #97
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 642
Likes: 34 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Yes, nearly 600 pounds of body parts were found. See bolded part of the quote in my previous post.



Yes, he said that, and then he explained why:



Source.

I emphasize that there is no doubt that the bodies of the passengers, as well as the plane, were at the Shanksville crash site. They were all positively identified via DNA. Mr. Miller was merely pointing out an anomaly when he mentioned the absence of blood; he wasn't trying to call into question whether Flight 93 actually crashed there.



If you really mean that, then good for you. Keep investigating. Keep asking questions. Don't blindly put trust in the leaders of the truth movement: examine their claims and see if they really stand up to scrutiny, and are factual. Be very careful not to let your own personal biases cloud your judgement. Don't believe something is true simply because you want it to be true.

Finally, find out what the "official story" really says. It's been my experience that skeptics can usually explain the 9/11 conspiracy theories accurately, but truthers can't explain the so-called "official story" without making hash out of it.

Be honest. Do you think you could explain the "official story" behind the 9/11 attacks to me to my satisfaction? Or do you think I'd have to stop you a bunch of times and correct your mistakes?

Good look trying to find your answers. I do mean that sincerely.
The problem with this is mainly that the official version has changed multiple times over the years, at least when it comes to the WTC collapses. At first I can remember at least two specific explanations of the towers`collapses; the accordion and the pancake. The pancake was particularly popular and several TV channels made "documentaries" advocating this explanation. Then it was disproved and the piledriver explanation was launched to replace it, which was disproved in a matter of weeks by several physicists, architects and engineers. It was around this time that AE9/11 Truth was formed, presumably because more and more structural professionals realized that official sources were not interested in the truth but in covering up what had taken place.
From experience I know that talking to defenders of the official version usually ends up in meaningless debates about hyper technicalities instead of proper deductive dialogues. For example; it is of enormous irrelevance what fire does or does not do to floor trusses when explosions are going off all over the WTC towers, and especially when the basement is blown up in a prior detonation of great force. Fire in the top half of the buildings don`t generally cause basements to blow up. Nevertheless I keep running into people like you, heroically defending the terror mythology, who insist that I speak about floor trusses.
And above all it is not my place to formulate a full and comprehensive explanation of what happened, but to point out the elements of the official story that are impossible, improbable, vague or that have been changing inexplicably for more than a decade. This is what science is supposed to be about man, not maniacally trying to shore up a defect hypothesis.

Last edited by skulb; 01-12-2012 at 03:34 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2012, 03:42 PM   #98
skulb
Senior Member
 
skulb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 642
Likes: 34 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wthree View Post
Ok, im supprised nobody noticed this...but....

That photograph isnt even the same place!

The photo was confirmed to be real, but it wasnt confirmed to be take in 94, now was it confirmed to be a photo of the same area.

Lets just go some major differences between the two.

First of all, the road is a has a larger curve and extends before moving to the top of the picture for longer.

The 'hillish' lines around the crash site are absent.

As mentioned the 'crash site' is slightly in the wrong place.

There are far more trees in the newer photo, and large amounts of trees dont just grow over a few years.

Simply put: Its not the same area.
Sorry but no. The red square represents the inserted 9/11 photo and they`re virtually identical when it comes to the road, woods and the shape of the field. You`re comparing the small insert with the full 1994 image, sort of like comparing your house to your window. Of course they`re gonna be different. Nice try though.

Last edited by skulb; 01-12-2012 at 03:43 PM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2012, 02:51 AM   #99
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,298
Likes: 1,368 (894 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb
Btw Flight 93 and Flight 175 weren`t deregistered until 2005. Not making any specific claims but given the vagueness of the explanations given by the US government how can we even be sure if any of the alleged planes were hijacked at all?
If two of the planes were really in service for four years after 9/11 and at least five of the alleged hijackers were still alive years later, as has been reported by multiple MSM sources, why are we even trusting any of the official version?
Only puppets believe the official BS (Those they have in thier control)

Last edited by Dude111; 02-12-2012 at 02:51 AM.
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 06:13 AM   #100
yankee451
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White Salmon, Washington, USA
Posts: 590
Likes: 32 (24 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skulb View Post
Clearly the ground in Shanksville has precog abilities and just knew seven years before that a plane would some day hit it and prepared accordingly. Nothing to see here folks, move along!
This claim needs to be put to rest once and for all.

The earlier gash was likely caused by the strip mining that once occurred there, while the later one was likely cause by two cruise missiles striking in crossfire formation at trajectories of less than 10-degrees.



Last edited by yankee451; 03-12-2012 at 06:14 AM.
yankee451 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 12:19 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.