Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Flight 93 Fraud- Smoking Gun Evidence
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Flight Number > United 93
LizzyTish
THE FLIGHT 93 FRAUD- Smoking Gun Evidence
Posted Sep 9, 2007 08:41 AM PST
Category: 911


This video make a convincing case that the supposed Flight 93 impact point is a bomb crater sitting over a pre-existing strip-mining scar. The absence of actual plane wreckage supports the conclusion that Flight 93 was actually destroyed in mid air, with the resulting wreckage coming down over an 8 mile area.



How come this won't embed itself? Below is the url at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s


Source: [URL=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/]
rob balsamo
Looks fine to me Liz.. wink.gif


By the way.. Terrorcell has a few things to add regardig this video.. hopefully he'll chime in.

Personally, i cant really see what they are talking about. Hard to tell anything from the original photos.

However, PBB3 will cover 'impact'.
LizzyTish
How strange! When I originally posted it, all I could see was the embed text.
Cary
Nice short video Lizzy. Some moderator might have "fixed" some error in your code without saying anything, OR your page needed refreshing to make the video appear instead of the embed text.
p.w.rapp
QUOTE (LizzyTish @ Sep 10 2007, 01:29 AM)
THE FLIGHT 93 FRAUD- Smoking Gun Evidence
Posted Sep 9, 2007 08:41 AM PST
Category: 911


This video make a convincing case that the supposed Flight 93 impact point is a bomb crater sitting over a pre-existing strip-mining scar. The absence of actual plane wreckage supports the conclusion that Flight 93 was actually destroyed in mid air, with the resulting wreckage coming down over an 8 mile area.



How come this won't embed itself? Below is the url at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s


Source: [URL=http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/]

The text says:

THATS WHY DISINFORMATIONALISTS LIKE TO PUSH THE "NO PLANE AT THE PENTAGON" AND "MISSILES AT WTC".
blink.gif


I had to use the YouTube search to see the video. The embeded vid doesn't work, although your code is OK.
dunno.gif Zap
Domenick DiMaggio CIT
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 9 2007, 07:01 PM)
By the way.. Terrorcell has a few things to add regardig this video.. hopefully he'll chime in.

My pleasure Rob.

The problem here is the person who made the video seems to lead you on to believe that the 2001 wings is the 1994 scar.

While they do appear to be very similar he has rotated the image in order to make the claim more credible. But the 1994 scar is a tad bit north(east slightly) and runs north to south and the 2001 wings run east to west.

The crater does appear to be a seperate event from the wings if you study the photos close enough which I do find to be extremely odd. It does look as if the wings were there before hand and then the fuselage print was created. If you look at where the wings meet the fuselage the crater rises up but as this is the strongest part of the wings this should not occur. It would be way more realistic for the wings outside the engine to not damage the ground then the inside of the engine part.

I have to admit when I look at the crater photos at times its really hard to believe that crater is anything other than manmade. Naturally I am still open to any and all possibilities although I have totally ruled the OCT out....
tumetuestumefaisdubien
Here you can see the first four blips of the "UA93" after its reappearance at the radar PLA: (it should be visible to the PLA much earlier - and the statistical analysis of the PLA radar performance confirms - it above any doubt should be visible for the PLA radar at least 15 minutes!! earlier)


The first brown two blips are ommited in the all USAF 84RADES "UA93" flightpath studies - they include only the orange ones blips.

Let's have a closer look at these four blips:



The first brown 1. and 2. are aproximately 2 miles from each other as also the other orange 3. and 4. Because all blips are from one radar PLA - the trajectory would realy look like 1 - 2 -3 - 4 (quite zig-zag for a jetliner...)

But OOouuups... blink.gif
Look back at the timestamp of the blips 3 and 4. Just 0.015s timestamp difference!!, the plane should travel at the speed of 480,000 mph (four hundred eighty thousand mph) - to accomplish that 2 miles in 0.015s. No manmade object ever was able to travel at such a speed and no known material would survive the needed acceleration derived Gs.

So how to explain it?
The answer is simple: The two orange blips vere in fact made during one radar sweep.

So there were two separate objects in the air , distant two miles. Additional evidence for it are the brown "ommited" blips (that's why most probably they ommited them - to conceal the two separate fliyng objects in the air).

There are two possibilities:
- either the "UA93" was shot down by another plane (less likely - because the B757 couldn't be stealth for the radar before the "appearance")
- or there was a plane launched missile - fired from a (stealth?) plane - to stage the "UA93" crash .

Given the principle the radars work on, there are most probably no other possibilities.
Because the 84Rades data were obtained from the official source using FOIA and before were provided for federal law enforcement, the evidence is utilizable in the court.
stuarthwyman
it is not a smocking gun...

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/ne...d=4111&start=20
georgie101
stuarthwyman,
I deleted your second post, it was the same.

Do you have this in English?
Maybe I am missing the obvious.
painter
QUOTE (georgie101 @ Jan 23 2008, 05:39 AM)
stuarthwyman,
I deleted your second post, it was the same.

Do you have this in English?
Maybe I am missing the obvious.

I don't speak Italian, Georgie, but if you go to page 1 of the thread (currently linked to page 2 -- so it may be you deleted the link to page 1 by mistake), entitled "Dr. Strangelove or: How the Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Disinformation" and then go to http://babelfish.altavista.com/, copy and paste the URL into the correct field and select the Italian to English translation, you can at least get an idea of what is being discussed. 9/11 Truth discussions are international.
georgie101
Ta painter. wink.gif
stuarthwyman
off course painter!

Sorry if i had link rhe only second page!

The photo in the first page can rappresent a lot the idea of whitch is the mistake into retein the video a smoking gun...

It's important to say that the man that post the photo he's an expert in photo-study. I can show you an other 3d where he is explaning why 9/11 was an inside job in the fakery video-camera at the pentagon...
with preaziosus FAQ:
http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/ne...id=4097&forum=3

Translate: FAQ, video at Pentagono

My english it is not very well but i hope you know somebody can do that...
cheers.gif
tumetuestumefaisdubien
QUOTE (stuarthwyman @ Jan 23 2008, 07:28 AM)

stuartwhyman probaly means that C130 encounter - NO stuartwhyman, what shows the radar above IS NOT the C130 encounter - it is also recorded in the radar data - but completely somewhere else.
if stuartwhyman means the video is not a smoking gun it is not the right place to look, it is better to look at that USGS map directly: http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?...393&Y=22177&W=3
and you'll find there were heavy groundworks made at the place where the plane allegedly crashed. It is true, that it is not the black scar in the video, but there is also another hole freshly filled on that USGS map - on the place of the later crater - there are even the tracks of an heavy thing, most probably an digger. Also mind the terrain in 1994 looked in the whole area much differently than at the current google map - so there must be another realy heavy groundworks made since.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=cs&geoc...1&t=h&z=16&om=0
stuarthwyman
tume...!
you are correct...
i show you the wrong page (but somebody have understend my mistake wink.gif )...

now i link the correct page...

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/ne...der=ASC&start=0
WetBlanket
If those marks are from the wings then where are the wings?

Despite popularly held theory there is very little metal in a plane that will vaporize.

Besides wasn't there grass or weeds growing in those "fresh" marks?
tnemelckram
The weird thing would be that the plane hit in the same place as the scar that I believe was filled in in between 1994 and 2001.

I am sure that the scar was filled in by 2001 but what a coincidence that Flight 93 crashed into the same place and left roughly the same shaped scar! That, if anything, is hard to accept and almost rises to the level of a smoking gun.
Killtown
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.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...scenenat4p3.asp



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.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/...1115990570.html


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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.