The wing scars were there from flight 93 in 1994!

darkovic · 02-05-2008, 03:38 PM

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

shodan · 02-05-2008, 04:02 PM

Hi, this is a great find, I'm going to look into this when I've got more time after work. cheers.

darkovic · 02-05-2008, 05:17 PM

I emailed the USGS (US Geological Survey) to check the authenticity of the photograph and terraserver. They confim it is genuine.

Their reply:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for contacting USGS.

Ed, the aerial photography on terraserver are genuine. Some are flown at a higher altitude than others and some with higher resolution. Usually some of the urban areas are flown with sharper resolution. The same photography can also be viewed at the site below.

http://nationalmap.gov/

I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact the USGS again if you need additional assistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I chose not to mention 9/11 or flight 93 or Shanksville or any reason at all for asking the question and they just answered me.

Cheers USGS!

darkovic · 02-05-2008, 05:36 PM

I can't seem to save the email from hotmail. (Anyone know how?) I tried doing save page as but it failed.

Here's a screencap of the email though with my email blacked out:

psychick · 07-05-2008, 07:22 PM

Hi all,

This is my 1st post on this forum and l chose the 9/11 thread as it is a subject which is of great interest to me. I have researched that day in depth and l can honestly say, hand on heart that a missile hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 probably didn't even exist (or went down over the ocean).

I am also doubtful or passenger planes hitting the WTC's seeing as all the footage points to military planes with no windows and missiles strapped to their undercarriages.

Cool findings!

"Pass the remote control"

hagbard_celine · 08-05-2008, 05:28 PM

Good find, Darkovic!

That would explain a lot. If you wanted to fake a plane crash site, where would you fake it?... Somewhere that already looks like a plane hit the ground of course!

hagbard_celine · 08-05-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychick

Hi all,

This is my 1st post on this forum and l chose the 9/11 thread as it is a subject which is of great interest to me. I have researched that day in depth and l can honestly say, hand on heart that a missile hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 probably didn't even exist (or went down over the ocean).

I am also doubtful or passenger planes hitting the WTC's seeing as all the footage points to military planes with no windows and missiles strapped to their undercarriages.

Cool findings!

"Pass the remote control"

Welcome, Psychick.

dmessick · 08-05-2008, 05:45 PM

All I can say is WOW!

psychick · 09-05-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagbard_celine

Welcome, Psychick.

Thank you Hagbard_celine

killtown · 21-05-2008, 08:12 PM

(Saw there is another thread about this, so I'll repost.)

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." - post-gazette.com

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." - 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.

mynameis · 10-06-2008, 11:19 AM

Flight 93 Crashes into Camp David! (PART-1) - YouTube

Flight 93 Crashes into Camp David! (PART-1) - YouTube

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was "shot down." - YouTube

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was "shot down." - YouTube

Fabricated Plane #3 - YouTube

Fabricated Plane #3 - YouTube

ronisron · 17-06-2008, 04:02 PM

The video is on youtube, and you can link to it from the headlines page. It shows the obvious first, no bodies, no wreckage from 9/11, and ends off with that aerial shot from USGS, taken in '94. VERY effective. It's STILL not enough for some people. I think the best analogy is seeing a stage hypnotist who can only get certain members to respond to suggestion, while others are not affected. Those that are easily hypnotized.... well, they'll cluck like a chicken until they're told to do something else. Good luck to them.

pilgrim · 17-06-2008, 04:37 PM

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27911

phaid · 12-07-2008, 02:28 PM

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.

goldman · 03-08-2008, 03:54 AM

Good stuff.

goldman · 03-08-2008, 04:10 AM

But, why does ANSWERS.com say:

Aerial photo taken 27 April, 2004 of the area of the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA (USGS)

http://www.answers.com/topic/usgs-shanksville-jpg-1

Scroll way down:

http://www.answers.com/topic/september-11-attacks

What's up with that?

seercirra · 10-10-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkovic

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

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.

tjohn · 28-10-2008, 02:31 PM

Sorry, it's a red herring, the marks in those pictures do not match up at all. However, where on earth is there evidence of a plane crash without parts being strewn all over the 'crash' site?

Did the earth swallow up the entire plane somehow?

Seeing as there's no wreckage on the surface, perhaps they should go digging for a completely buried airliner! No of course they won't be doing that and they must think that we are all stupid!

tracker · 28-10-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkovic

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

whats this stuff then

tjohn · 29-10-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracker

whats this stuff then

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.

02-05-2008, 03:38 PM	#1
darkovic Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 224	The wing scars were there from flight 93 in 1994! 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 Last edited by darkovic; 02-05-2008 at 03:48 PM.

02-05-2008, 04:02 PM	#2
shodan Premier Subscribers Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Transparent Globalization Posts: 5,965	Hi, this is a great find, I'm going to look into this when I've got more time after work. cheers. __________________ The Internet is allergic to the truth I heard through the baseline

08-05-2008, 05:28 PM	#6
hagbard_celine Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Oxford Posts: 4,351	Good find, Darkovic! That would explain a lot. If you wanted to fake a plane crash site, where would you fake it?... Somewhere that already looks like a plane hit the ground of course! __________________ "Lynda, you're sweet. From what I've seen of your world, do you think anybody votes for sweet?" Doctor Who- Bad Wolf. "Because he refused to compete in games for domination he was indomitable." from The Dispossessed by Ursula le Guin

08-05-2008, 05:45 PM	#8
dmessick Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 251	All I can say is WOW! __________________ Helping To End The Illuminati Since 2008: www.EndTheIlluminatiConspiracy.Wordpress.com To Order David Icke Books Straight From The Source Visit: David Ickes Book Store

17-06-2008, 04:02 PM	#12
ronisron Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 6,189	The video is on youtube, and you can link to it from the headlines page. It shows the obvious first, no bodies, no wreckage from 9/11, and ends off with that aerial shot from USGS, taken in '94. VERY effective. It's STILL not enough for some people. I think the best analogy is seeing a stage hypnotist who can only get certain members to respond to suggestion, while others are not affected. Those that are easily hypnotized.... well, they'll cluck like a chicken until they're told to do something else. Good luck to them. __________________ It's only a matter of time....and the time is NOW

02-05-2008, 05:17 PM	#3
darkovic Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 224	I emailed the USGS (US Geological Survey) to check the authenticity of the photograph and terraserver. They confim it is genuine. Their reply: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for contacting USGS. Ed, the aerial photography on terraserver are genuine. Some are flown at a higher altitude than others and some with higher resolution. Usually some of the urban areas are flown with sharper resolution. The same photography can also be viewed at the site below. http://nationalmap.gov/ I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact the USGS again if you need additional assistance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I chose not to mention 9/11 or flight 93 or Shanksville or any reason at all for asking the question and they just answered me. Cheers USGS!

02-05-2008, 05:36 PM	#4
darkovic Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 224	I can't seem to save the email from hotmail. (Anyone know how?) I tried doing save page as but it failed. Here's a screencap of the email though with my email blacked out:

07-05-2008, 07:22 PM	#5
psychick Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing, there is a field. I will meet you there. Posts: 268	Hi all, This is my 1st post on this forum and l chose the 9/11 thread as it is a subject which is of great interest to me. I have researched that day in depth and l can honestly say, hand on heart that a missile hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 probably didn't even exist (or went down over the ocean). I am also doubtful or passenger planes hitting the WTC's seeing as all the footage points to military planes with no windows and missiles strapped to their undercarriages. Cool findings! "Pass the remote control"

12-07-2008, 02:28 PM	#14
phaid Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Multiverse Posts: 702	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. __________________ Events and networking on the Sussex coast http://freemindsbrighton.blogspot.com/

03-08-2008, 03:54 AM	#15
goldman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 479	Good stuff.

03-08-2008, 04:10 AM	#16
goldman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 479	But, why does ANSWERS.com say: Aerial photo taken 27 April, 2004 of the area of the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA (USGS) http://www.answers.com/topic/usgs-shanksville-jpg-1 Scroll way down: http://www.answers.com/topic/september-11-attacks What's up with that?

28-10-2008, 02:31 PM	#18
tjohn Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Somewhere on planet Earth (I think!) Posts: 3,297	Flight 93, where? Sorry, it's a red herring, the marks in those pictures do not match up at all. However, where on earth is there evidence of a plane crash without parts being strewn all over the 'crash' site? Did the earth swallow up the entire plane somehow? Seeing as there's no wreckage on the surface, perhaps they should go digging for a completely buried airliner! No of course they won't be doing that and they must think that we are all stupid! __________________ I don't believe in freedom of Religion - I believe in freedom of thought. Think about it ... If we don't remember the past, we can't fix the future. I know the truth but I also know that I'm merely a shadow of something far greater. The Universe is a conscious entity. Reality is and our own minds are just a tiny part of the whole but together, we can make more positive changes. Let's get together! Last edited by tjohn; 28-10-2008 at 03:08 PM.