The wing scars were there from flight 93 in 1994! - Page 2

darkovic · 19-11-2008, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjohn

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...

merlincove · 19-11-2008, 03:21 AM

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.

killtown · 03-12-2008, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlincove

and the coroner said there were no bodies

And not only that, but not even a drop of blood.

darkovic · 17-01-2009, 12:12 AM

You can see it in this RATHER interesting video...

danoli3 · 03-02-2009, 12:18 PM

Flight 93:

Notice no fire in this photo:

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

vladikaioan · 17-03-2009, 09:27 AM

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.

jaggysnake · 08-05-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlincove

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

bsmurph83 · 19-07-2009, 06:32 AM

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

rodin · 25-07-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seercirra

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?

rodin · 25-07-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merlincove

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

manxboz · 25-07-2009, 12:51 PM

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.

bigcadaver · 04-08-2009, 03:47 PM

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?

bsmurph83 · 04-08-2009, 03:57 PM

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.

bigcadaver · 04-08-2009, 04:24 PM

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.

dynamicwiseman · 23-08-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodin

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.

Dude111 · 23-08-2009, 09:11 PM

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)

nihil · 23-08-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamicwiseman

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

liltroofer · 30-09-2009, 03:17 PM

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" ...

Dude111 · 01-10-2009, 03:13 AM

Hey we all understand how you feel believe me!!

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

camreeno · 09-01-2010, 04:10 AM

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.

03-02-2009, 12:18 PM	#25
danoli3 Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 60 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	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 01:05 PM.

25-07-2009, 12:51 PM	#31
manxboz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Taking another break from the forum! Posts: 6,841 Likes: 3 (3 Posts)	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

04-08-2009, 03:57 PM	#33
bsmurph83 Inactive Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: a foreign jurisdiction Posts: 649 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	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.

01-10-2009, 03:13 AM	#39
Dude111 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 20,407 Likes: 1,436 (935 Posts)	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.

19-11-2008, 03:21 AM	#22
merlincove Premier Subscribers Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 28,909 Likes: 425 (247 Posts)	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.

17-01-2009, 12:12 AM	#24
darkovic Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 224 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	You can see it in this RATHER interesting video...

17-03-2009, 09:27 AM	#26
vladikaioan Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	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.

19-07-2009, 06:32 AM	#28
bsmurph83 Inactive Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: a foreign jurisdiction Posts: 649 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	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

04-08-2009, 03:47 PM	#32
bigcadaver Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 124 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	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?

04-08-2009, 04:24 PM	#34
bigcadaver Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 124 Likes: 0 (0 Posts)	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.

30-09-2009, 03:17 PM	#38
liltroofer Inactive Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 257 Likes: 4 (4 Posts)	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" ...

09-01-2010, 04:10 AM	#40
camreeno Inactive Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: California Posts: 3,130 Likes: 6 (6 Posts)	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.