JFK

Mar 5 2009, 07:17 AM

hamba

Mar 5 2009, 05:58 AM

Shoestring

Mar 4 2009, 10:47 AM

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Flight 93 had about 37,500 pounds of fuel remaining when it crashed, which was around 77 percent of its fuel load on takeoff. [6] Yet the DEP tests found no evidence of this huge volume of jet fuel at the crash site. Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." [7] She said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated," much of the jet fuel assumed to have spilled at the site "seems to have dissipated." [8]

Note how in your quote she uses the word, much. She did not say all. So did she find some fuel, but not enough to declare outright contamination of groundwater? i.e. within permissable allowances? Or did she find not one single drop of fuel? This is not made clear.

You want to know what happened to the jet fuel? Your quotes as follows are a very good indication:

Quote:

 

"If this is what happened, it would explain why early witnesses at the scene noticed a particularly strong smell of jet fuel in the air. They later recalled this smell being "overpowering," "incredibly strong," "really strong," or "just horrendous." [19] According to Jere Longman, "The pungency of unburned jet fuel was so strong that it blistered the lips of investigators."

These quotes give a good indication that the fuel was evaporating, as one would expect jet fuel to do.


So if the jet fuel was either burned up or evaporated, why would it be in the ground?

The fuel on a 757 is carried in its wings (http://members.cox.net/firestation51/757.htm). What do you propose happend to the fuel tanks in the wings when the plane struck the ground? Would they have remained intact? No they would have exploded, hence the large mushroom cloud that was observed. The mushroom cloud is a result of the burned up fuel.

Do you know that people recovered unburned artifacts (Cd's etc) from the Colombia Shuttle disaster? How did that survive re-entry, if a big spaceship couldn't? So implying that if paper was found on site means that the fires were not enough is poor logic. Paper survived the WTC collpase.

A large majority of the feul would have been burned off in the explosion that resulted upon impact, that left the mushroom cloud. Remainding feul would have evaporated or burned off. This is corroborated by first responder testimonies, which you have linked. It is highly unlikely you would find much fuel deep enough to contaminate ground water.
It would have evaporated or burned off, long before it seeps down.

RE: the bolded red portions - Because a substancial portion of the jet fuel would have buried itself in the ground on impact, Or did you forget about the speed that that fuel was moving ?


Just a question, Do you have any clue as to how slowly jet fuel evaporates ?

I do because at one of my previous jobs the owner spent dollars to save pennies by laying the speedi-dry, which we used to catch spills, on concrete in the hot sun specifically for the purpose of evaporating the Jet-A, diesel, Gasoline, and Kerosine out of it so it could be reused. That was an inch or so thick layer of speedi dry turned by hand every half hour.

And then sometimes depending on the saturation that took several days, I can't imagine how long it would take to evaporate some 3000+ gallons, assuming that half was involved in the alleged fireball, which was buried on impact... Especially on September 11th 2001 as it was not really a "hot" day.