It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEW 9/11 VIDEO - FLIGHT 93 Fraud - #1 Smoking Gun evidence

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Amelie,

The conclusion is what this video claims is false. The "scar" in 1994 has nothing to do with the crash implant in the ground. If you look at the photos, they're not the same size nor in the same location.

Does that mean Flight 93 actually did crash there? No. That's a separate debate.

But what this video claims as far as the "scar" goes is false.




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Could it have happened here:



Yet, it really doesnt matter...
The area seems secluded enough that anyone could have went in and dug a simple trench in a little bit of time.
That video and the other two were very interesting though. Especially the one with the news report that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EZ14U2C
 


That spot looks a little too far from the road. In some of the Flight 93 crash site pictures, you can see the road right there next to the crash site.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
The trade center was a decoy.

We'd all be tuned into that while they simulated the flight 77 and flight 93 crashes. They thought they could fool us. Yet there seems to be (at least to me) enough evidence that nothing of the sort happened the way they'd like us to believe.

Where's is the freakin wreckage?! The bodies?


How do you stop a government from going mad?

[edit on 5-9-2007 by WASTYT]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Does anyone have the exact latitude and longitude of the crater? I would like to look at it using Google Earth.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I spend most of my ATS time in other forums but occassionally peek into
this one to see if anything new has been uncovered. It's pretty obvious
from all the videos and photos since Sept 11th 2001 that the ground
damage in Pennsylvania was not caused by a large commercial jetliner.

That being said, has any website, blog, or person presented an overall
theory as to what exactly happened on that day, in the overall sense?
I see bits and pieces of speculation, but no coherent theories presenting
the WHO/WHY/HOW's of the overall operation. Anyone here have one
that covers all three aspects of 9-11? If someone takes the time to
build a watertight case explaining the big picture, (like a good lawyer
or Columbo detective) the major news media and the public at large
will take notice, don't ya think?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Could it be part of the mining operation that was in the area at the time? Research. 93 was shot down, look into Mineta and Cheney.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I just analyzed all of the images very closely. The key is in the "receding hairline" of the wooded area near the site. If you center yourself on this landmark, you will see that the crash site of Flight 93 and the ground crack from 1994 are one in the same.

This is unbelievable. Please look closely and you will see that all of this is true. Check for the receding harline, and measure the distances from it. I also used the little cylinder shaped pond that runs along side of the road as a geographical reference. Both the crash site and the 1994 hole are in the same place between the pond and the receding tree line.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by EZ14U2C
 


That spot looks a little too far from the road. In some of the Flight 93 crash site pictures, you can see the road right there next to the crash site.


I don't think so

That photo clearly shows a scar in the same area that you originally pointed out in your earlier post of where the crash happened. You also said that was your "aproximate location" of the crash area. Meaning you knew you could be a little off on your guess

IMHO it looks like you're trying to change around what you said because someone came in and debunked your post. You clearly marked that small scar area with a red circle in your 2004 color photo. THAT SAME AREA.

There's one large scar that looks much bigger than the 9/11 scar and is further from the road than the 9/11 scar. But there's that smaller scar to it's left that just happens to be in that 9/11 crash area that looks more like the size of the actual 9/11 scar.

In other words. You didn't debunk anything. There's clearly two scars that were there pre-9/11 with one matching the 9/11 one except in 1994 it didn't have the hole in the center caused by the bomb/missle of 9/11.

You shouldn't be soo quick to debunk things and then brag that you debunked it. People tend to mess up when they do that


I was ready to post the same exact thing EZ14U2C posted until I saw they beat me to it.

--------

It's posts like that by the debunkers on here that get me upset sometimes. You guys are soo quick to debunk something and say that there's nothing more to talk about because you debunked it already and most of the time you people are clearly very wrong.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
It crashed into a reclaimed strip mine!!! Research, google, I dont care what the video says. Look up strip mining and what it does to the earth.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
There was an aerial flyby from a news helicopter I found, it shows the site much more clearly and according to that local tv station, it really does appear to show the smoke and crash at the old crater supporting this video, actually there are some other pictures out that from the next day that show the crater nowhere to be found and in others sort of obscured, so its hard to say what photos are doctored and which ones not....but I would more than likely say that if people did more digging they can come to the same conclusion whether or not the original depression was there before and whether the statement that the wings caused the feature later were true.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
So to the "debunkers" the fact that there is a scar that looks almost IDENTICAL to the "crash site" and is only feet away means nothing. The fact that if you look at the pic there is also a very distinct scar (although not dark) in the EXACT same position as the crash... its all coincidence. Oh lord.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Hate to crash the party, but 911 i sold news. www.zeitgeistmovie.com ultimately proves the 9/11 is a false flag operation. Also gets on religion and bankers too. I have no sympathy for the rich.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Maybe a tad off topic as far as the pictures are concerned...

youtube.com...

Listen to donald, BUT watch the 2 people in the background...

Back on topic.. I just cant see how anyone can tell us with a straight face that a plane crashed there..



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by xout1
Maybe a tad off topic as far as the pictures are concerned...

youtube.com...

Listen to donald, BUT watch the 2 people in the background...

Back on topic.. I just cant see how anyone can tell us with a straight face that a plane crashed there..
I cant see how anyone would believe it... Thats the sad part.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Claiming an oval is a match to a circle is ridiculous but that's what people are doing here. The shapes are "close" but the angles and sizes are slightly different as pointed out.

I understand the desire for a "smoking gun" and the need to not feel like "sheeple" and also anger with "the man", but to the people who use things like this as "proof" then you fall into the sheeple category whether you like it or not. You're just in a different pasture.

b



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy

Claiming an oval is a match to a circle is ridiculous but that's what people are doing here. The shapes are "close" but the angles and sizes are slightly different as pointed out.

I understand the desire for a "smoking gun" and the need to not feel like "sheeple" and also anger with "the man", but to the people who use things like this as "proof" then you fall into the sheeple category whether you like it or not. You're just in a different pasture.

b
And almost a decade had passed. So is it just another in a long line of coincidences? Not to mention the fires at the WTC that could melt steel couldnt burn the grass growing on the edge of the "crash crater".

[edit on 6-9-2007 by shug7272]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
That photo clearly shows a scar in the same area that you originally pointed out in your earlier post of where the crash happened. You also said that was your "aproximate location" of the crash area. Meaning you knew you could be a little off on your guess






It's not in the same area. Neither of the "scars" are a part of the area where Flight 93 allegedly crashed.

Look at the top photo. See how close it is to the road?

Then look at the black and white photo. Look at the trees and how small they are.

You're not taking into account how high up that photo is. So something that is far away will seem closer on that image. Flight 93, or what ever else, crashed right by that road. That lighter colored "scar" is not even close enough to the road to even be considered.

And I said approximate because I know I can be off, but I'm not so far off that either of those "scars" could have anything to do with the impact crater.


Originally posted by nightmare_david
IMHO it looks like you're trying to change around what you said because someone came in and debunked your post.


No one debunked my post. That image is much higher up, therefore shows that second "scar area" is further away from the road than the impact crater of "Flight 93".


Originally posted by nightmare_david
But there's that smaller scar to it's left that just happens to be in that 9/11 crash area


I realize that lighter colored one is closer than the darker one being promoted by the video, but it's still not close enough to be considered the impact crater.

And please explain to me how you determined the lighter colored area is dug into the ground like the dark area or the Flight 93 crash site?


Originally posted by nightmare_david
You shouldn't be soo quick to debunk things and then brag that you debunked it.


It's not necessarily bragging. It's more of trying to spread the fact that it is debunked. And I shouldn't be so quick to debunk things? Is there some rule that I have to give it a certain waiting period?


Originally posted by nightmare_david
It's posts like that by the debunkers on here that get me upset sometimes. You guys are soo quick to debunk something and say that there's nothing more to talk about because you debunked it already and most of the time you people are clearly very wrong.


I believe 9/11 was an inside job. As I said before, I don't even fully believe Flight 93 crashed there. But it hurts our "cause" to accept a bunch of BS as truth. If it needs to be debunked, it's better that WE debunk it, rather than having the other side do it and knock one more chunk off of our unstable movement.

Isn't the motto of this site 'deny ignorance'? I wasn't wrong about what I said. It is very clearly in two separate locations. Yes, they're close. But they're not in the exact same locations.

If you want to promote the "is it just coincidence that they were that close" thing, fine. Do it. But don't just assume they're in the exact same location just because that's what you want to believe.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I don't mean to disregard anyone's hard work here but it seems like the Flight 93 crash site was located in an area abundant with man made scars in the land.

What is the sense in arguing over the location of a mark from a 1994 photo when all that needs to be true is a scar was made in preparation for 9-11? The photos have already proved it's been done on more than one occasion.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I find it absolutely amazing that people still debunk "911 inside job" concept. This same evidence came out with Loose Change 2nd edition(years ago), then it was "debunked". Then countless others have shown us the same evidence(David Icke, Alex Jones, Aaron Russo, and a variety of ATS members constantly bringing us "proof", etc.) It's so plain to see how they benefit from this.
War on Terror= population control(smaller numbers are easier to control)
Profit from weapons productions
The pretense for war in other (uninvolved) Countries.(Iraq had nothing to do with these attacks, the mainstream media has confirmed this.)
Ultimately the removal of our Rights(I'm sure we all know where this is going, we have heard it before)
But still I'm no expert, just foolish young man with delusions of grandeur. How much evidence will it take for everyone to be fed up with this charade?

Sorry for the annoying rant but I'm fed up with this Bullsh*t, and I hope that I'm not the only one.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join