I like to say that people are still on the 911 drug, but it's wearing off.

You cant debunk this video and it will not.

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
I like to say that people are still on the 911 drug, but it's wearing off.

You cant debunk this video and it will not.

I changed the youtube link to just a link instead of inbed. its good.

Whats most important is that the flight 93 crash site marking were already there pre-911.


THe official story said the black scar was caused by the vanishing wings but we learned it was there pre911.

This is all the evidence one needs to know 911 was fraud.

OMG.... The scar you speak of was covered in grass. And if a plane did hit it and caused the scar the grass would be gone or scorced. (Oh gee how did I miss that one.. kicks self.)

You mean to tell me that scar was already there?!?!?!?! The whole time? Pre 9-11..

So what happened to the people on flight 93?

So sick of the government brain washing us. It was told by a source that flight 93 landed in Ohio. But I heard it was shot down- was mixed up with flight 89. blah blah blah.

I also had a thread on the possiblity that Barbara Olsen was still alive. And my view on the towers. All were buried. My view will remain the same.

I remember seeing somewhere that the manifests for the planes were all screwed up and the members of two planes that were mis-numbered had been evacuated from their planes into a security bunker. anyone remember where that was?

I think one was a NASA hanger and a airport hanger. But I'm not 100% sure.

A security bunker? First time I heard that.

[edit on 9/5/2007 by Leyla]

i remember seeing this footage the first time on that day,and i said when i seen it..."where's the plane" and if i remember correct..when they talked about the pentacon being hit... they always showed this footage for the first few hours.

This had me pretty shocked at first glance.. but now as I look closer, I believe the 'scar' lines don't match up. It would be nice to see some deeper & more close-up analysis.

I think the orientation of the scar-line from 2001 is different than the 1994 line. It looks to me that the ditch in '94 is covered over & grass grown over it, & the 'new' scar is above where the old one used to be. So if they don't line up, I don't see how that pre-existing mark could be used to help create the look of a crashed plane. Then it would just be a coincidence? Pretty bizarr one I'll admit...

I just don't want us being taken in by something that looks like a smoking gun, but isn't.. they always seem to 'get' us by using that tactic. We must be vigilant & careful here. I could be totally wrong, so I'd like to see someone else take a closer look.

But yeah, if I'm wrong about that, & they do line up? Bang.

Not saying it didn't but need more pictures. Some are hard to tell because all of the digging and such as well as the angles of the pictures. But this wing scar is the straight one. I noticed there are two. One curved and one straight.

OutoftheSky- Please provide your sources and the links to the sites of where you found the pictures.

... though I should say, the lack of ANY debris in the area is as much a smoking gun as anything, at least as far as Flt 93 is concerned.

As posted above, the scars don't seem to line up, but I'm open to the remote possibility the land shifted that much in the 7 years prior to 9/11, but only if backed up by substantial geological evidence (i.e. a photo of the scar by the USGS in 1998).

Thanks for doing that Novus. This is why I love this board... No BS allowed

Not to say this was intentional, certainly an easy mistake to make. I just get concerned things like this are meant to get everyone aboard the 'new smoking gun' band-wagon, then it's shot down & we all look (& feel) bad.

But around here, they don't let that happen very often...

This is an amazing piece of video.Thanks to whoever took the time to piece it together.
One more vid for the collection.
Let's see Popular Mechanics debunk this one.

Originally posted by citizen truth
Let's see Popular Mechanics debunk this one.

They don't have to because I did.

So what's the conclusion here? I mean the 2001 photos don't look as if a commercial airliner crashed there. Shouldn't that be accepted as more then enough evidence to doubt the official fable. So where did flight 93 go is what I'm still pondering? I think it's pretty obvious by eye that a plane didn't crash there, but you can show the defunkers a pristine golf course and they will believe an airliner crashed there if the government tells them so.