FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

Originally posted by DrZERO

Originally posted by MikeVet

Nope, the only grass inside the wing impact area is at 1 o'clock in your red rectangle. Click on Ivan's photo and open in a new window. Now zoom to 200% That clump is half burned up. All the other grass is outside the impact area.

Wow, that grass inside the wing impact area must be pretty strong as even the grass at the "1 o'clock" position is undamaged.

This happened in September. The ground was dry - no rains. Don't believe me? Then explain all the dry grass in zoomed out views. The dirt isn't weathered. It's dry and has been dug up by the wing.

Thanks for clearing that up, MikeVet, I wasn't sure what month 9/11 occured in.

You are proving my point here, there was dried grass and dirt in the "wing scar." There was dried grass and dirt every where else. If that "wing scar" was fresh there would be no grass there and the dirt would look fresh.

Nope, you're lying again. The grass at 1 o is partly burned. The other grass lies inside your rectangle, but outside the strike zone. Don't lie dude, it makes you look bad. Stick to facts and make your case.

Again, there was only 1 clump of grass inside the strike zone, but your rectangle includes a lot of area outside the strike zone. You're trying to say that grass outside the strike zone is actually inside the strike zone. That's a lie. The dirt inside the strike zone has no grass in it, other than that 1 clump. The dirt does look fresh. Fresh but dry. Quit lying....

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet

 

Is that area normally used for a landfill trash disposal? If so, that would explain carbon and other black looking residue in and around that hole, and nowhere else in the immediate vicinity of the hole. It is called composting by nature.

Whatever Mr "2 steel walls".

It's not a landfill trash disposal site, btw. The black is from the burnt fuel/plastics/whatever. The rest of the fuel got blown up and/or away from the photographer, in the direction of the fire dudes. So that isn't seen in this photo, but can be seen in others.

reply to post by DrZERO

And thanks for avoiding my original question, Boone and MikeVet. According to the USGS map, this scar was there in 1994. The photo above supports this claim as the dirt in the scar is weathered and there are blades of grass growing out of it.

Sorry for avoiding your question. I've been looking for an old thread that brought the subject up before.

A fellow member pointed out that the 94 scars aren't in alignment with the 2001 scars and that it is in a different location. I'm still trying to find the thread, but the search function is a pain in the neck.

reply to post by MikeVet


Unless you know for certain whether or not that is a trash landfill, you are completely out of line accusing anyone else of being a liar. What do you know for certain of the use of the land pre- and post-9/11? What exactly were they strip mining for? Trees? Ore of some kind? What?

What do you actually know of soil conditions in that area? Yes, it makes a difference when analyzing from nothing but photos. How do you know that wasn't a dump for tires, where they could be safely burned?

reply to post by MikeVet


You know the pre-9/11 use of that land exactly how?

Whether you like it or not, there were two steel wall frames on the twin towers, but then red herring and ad hominem appear to be your delight no matter what the discussion concerns.

So we have a new guy who has been called in to try to make more chaos out of what is evident. no plane crash in shanksville.



[edit on 31-12-2007 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet

 

Unless you know for certain whether or not that is a trash landfill, you are completely out of line accusing anyone else of being a liar. What do you know for certain of the use of the land pre- and post-9/11? What exactly were they strip mining for? Trees? Ore of some kind? What?

What do you actually know of soil conditions in that area? Yes, it makes a difference when analyzing from nothing but photos. How do you know that wasn't a dump for tires, where they could be safely burned?

Not accusing YOU of being a liar dude, cool your jets. My opinion of you is quite different.

Yeah, it was a strip mine. Does it matter for what? Although it definitely wasn't for trees, LOL.....



A dump for burning tires?????? You have just discredited the entire Truther movement, just for being a part of it. If I was one of "them", I'd want you to go away now......

Soil conditions? You mean all the dry grass isn't a clear sign that the soil is dry? Get real boss....

Originally posted by IvanZana
One question that should be answered is who are these people that come to conspiracy sites and regurgitate offical caca after 6 years?
[edit on 31-12-2007 by IvanZana]

The people that realize that after 6 years of hearing realistic explanations, that CTers still don't have a clue about how the world actually works.

We're still hoping that a few of you will wake up to the insanity of the whole CT movement.

reply to post by MikeVet


I was not referring to myself. I was referring to the poster you falsely called a liar. I made that completely clear when I wrote it.

Yes, it does matter as to for what purpose the land was used pre- and post-9/11. This discussion is proving that more and more. Just as it matters as to exactly when those photographs were taken, and what direction all objects and parts of objects are facing toward the photographer. If there was no sun, it would be extremely difficult to tell even what approximate time of the day the photographs were taken, much less the exact date taken.

reply to post by OrionStars

Unless you know for certain whether or not that is a trash landfill, you are completely out of line accusing anyone else of being a liar. What do you know for certain of the use of the land pre- and post-9/11? What exactly were they strip mining for? Trees? Ore of some kind? What?

Pre-9/11 it was a strip mine. Bitumen to be exact. The mine was owned by PBS Coal Inc. known locally as the Diamond T. mine. The complex had two surface mines and three deep well mines.

Post-9/11 it was a crime scene, private property, and soon to be a national memorial.

reply to post by MikeVet


Well, that was certainly a response case of this - It depends on whose ox is be gored, as to the perspective on events people form. My perspective, dating back to 9/11, is the "official" reports became disinformation deliberately designed to confuse people inclined to enjoy being confused.

Originally posted by MikeVet
Nope, you're lying again. The grass at 1 o is partly burned. The other grass lies inside your rectangle, but outside the strike zone. Don't lie dude, it makes you look bad. Stick to facts and make your case.

Look again at the red rectangle, lots of dry grass on the right, lost of dry grass on the left. In the center is an indentation with dirt and a few blades of grass. This indentation is what many here are calling a "wing scar." The video in the first post claims this indentation was there since 1994. Once again you are making my case for me, the indentation in question does seem to be outside of the "strike zone" which appears as a circular blast crater in the aerial shot posted by Boone.

I am simply giving my opinion of the pictures presented as are you. How does this make me a liar? Resorting to childish name calling makes you look bad . . . dude.

Again, there was only 1 clump of grass inside the strike zone, but your rectangle includes a lot of area outside the strike zone. You're trying to say that grass outside the strike zone is actually inside the strike zone. That's a lie. The dirt inside the strike zone has no grass in it, other than that 1 clump. The dirt does look fresh. Fresh but dry. Quit lying....

Once again how can my opinion of what's presented in the picture be a lie? The area in question is clearly indented. What we are trying to ascertain is was that indentation caused by the wing of an aircraft or something else prior to 9/11 as documented by the USGS map.

You know, the USGS map in the video linked to in the first post of this thread. The one you keep avoiding comment on.

reply to post by Boone 870


I know that. And when they stopped strip mining, was it used for any other use, such as a trash landfill? In order, to fill in all those holes, some very deep, instead having ponds and lakes that can flood near-by agricultural fields, and ruin the payload crops.

Because that is generally what happens, if farms are surrounding strip mine areas, which are exhausted. Strip mines causes erosion of soil, that cause other costly damage to land and life, particularly when done on hills and mountains.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Sorry for avoiding your question. I've been looking for an old thread that brought the subject up before.

A fellow member pointed out that the 94 scars aren't in alignment with the 2001 scars and that it is in a different location. I'm still trying to find the thread, but the search function is a pain in the neck.

No worries, I'm very curious to know if this is the same scar or not. It seems that it would clear up a lot of confusion.

that is a missile crater. Just like the one in shanksville.

Originally posted by DrZERO
Look again at the red rectangle, lots of dry grass on the right, lost of dry grass on the left. In the center is an indentation with dirt and a few blades of grass. This indentation is what many here are calling a "wing scar." The video in the first post claims this indentation was there since 1994. Once again you are making my case for me, the indentation in question does seem to be outside of the "strike zone" which appears as a circular blast crater in the aerial shot posted by Boone.

I am simply giving my opinion of the pictures presented as are you. How does this make me a liar? Resorting to childish name calling makes you look bad . . . dude.

Once again how can my opinion of what's presented in the picture be a lie? The area in question is clearly indented. What we are trying to ascertain is was that indentation caused by the wing of an aircraft or something else prior to 9/11 as documented by the USGS map.

You know, the USGS map in the video linked to in the first post of this thread. The one you keep avoiding comment on.

I have no information about your map. I do know for a fact, however, that you are confused as to the facts.

The wing scar area is devoid of grass because the wing strike obliterated it. When the lighter wing hit, it lifted the soil to either side. Not much and more on the left side since that was the direction of travel as indicated by the higher level of burnt trees in a wider view of the area, but it IS lifted. The area that the heavier fuselage hit is lifted a bunch, and again more on the left side. Consistent there eh? . This can be seen in the photo. Note that - it IS raised.

Any "scar" showing on your map would most likely be from soil erosion/sinking. It wouldn't be raised on either side like that. There also would be grass growing in that unless it was fresh, but if it's been there since '94 as you claim, this is a different site. Do you disagree?

You lying right here - I'm not saying that the strike zone is the round hole only. I'm not following Boone's responses that closely but I believe that the drawing of the wing marks he made indicates otherwise. Maybe Cterz are in an effort to discredit real reasearchers, but that's an issue you can discuss with them. The center hole AND the wing scars are the impact zone. To claim that anyone on this side of the aisle is saying otherwise is the lie.

You're also lying that the ground in the scar is undisturbed and or weathered and has grass growing in it. You're using a photo that has a crappy angle and creative cropping to try and make your point seem more valid. And while that's NOT a lie, it is definitely intellectually dishonest. You should be proud.

reply to post by johnlear


Why would a

Direct Energy Weapon spacecraft that destroyed the World Trade Center

be needed? What would be the point to take some of are most secret weapons out of the closet when conventional methods are more then sufficient for the job?
current evidence is pointing to demolitions in both buildings? And by this I mean eye witnesses to bombs in the buildings, Thermite evidence, seismograph evidence, and Video evidence, just to mention a few.
Though these are all theories do you not feel that perpetuating a most fantastical, none evidence based theory of the 9/11 atrocities is more hurtfull then helpfull to the movement?

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Osyris]

It is pointess to try to convince people that a plane crashed at Shanksville simply because we all know one didn't.


Remember all that fuel that melted the WTC? where is it here

Obviously a missile/bomb crater ontop an old depression from its strip scar mining days. Havent seen anything to change anyones mind.

reply to post by IvanZana


At least, that missile looks to have left readily identifiable parts of itself in the crater, which is more than any alleged 757 has been proved to have done.

Originally posted by IvanZana
that is a missile crater. Just like the one in shanksville.

Nope, they look NOTHING alike. 93's crater is offset in the direction of travel. A clearer photo of this is on pg 30, posted by jackinthebox. Your 2 examples here look more symmetrical, indicating a straight down trajectory. Maybe a bomb strike instead?

Also, note the plane debris in the Sville crater and the near total absence of debris in your bomb craters. That's because bombs/missles blow up and away, leaving clean dirt behind. 93's crater has some scraps of plane parts in it.

Your bomb/missle craters have just clean dirt on the sides. 93's is heavily blackened from the fuel fire.

No match...