No Jet Fuel at the Flight 93 Crash Site

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

No Jet Fuel at the Flight 93 Crash Site
Topic Started: Mar 4 2009, 10:47 AM (1,613 Views)
Shoestring	Mar 4 2009, 10:47 AM Post #1
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #45 Joined: 01/15/08	Here is my new blog posting, with some little-known and important evidence about the supposed Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania. This evidence appears to completely disprove the official story. The original posting, with links to all the source articles, is here: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-was-there-no-jet-fuel-at-flight-93.html Why Was There No Jet Fuel at the Flight 93 Crash Site? The official account of United Airlines Flight 93 is a remarkable story of heroism and selfless bravery. On September 11, 2001, 46 minutes into its journey from Newark, New Jersey to San Francisco, California, Flight 93 was supposedly taken over by four fanatical Muslim hijackers, members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network. Their plan was to crash it into a target in Washington, DC, most likely the White House or the U.S. Capitol building. However, passengers and crew members on board made a series of phone calls to relatives and others on the ground, and were told of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They consequently made the courageous decision to try and retake control of the plane. Following passenger Todd Beamer's now-famous call to action, "Let's roll!" the attempt began. Though they failed to take back the plane, the passengers forced the hijackers to crash Flight 93 into the ground in a sparsely populated area of rural Pennsylvania. All on board the plane were killed, but countless lives in Washington were saved. Then-President Bush subsequently acknowledged the significance of the actions of these passengers. He said: "In those moments, and many times since, terrorists have learned that Americans are courageous and will not be intimidated. We will fight them with everything we have." [1] On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, he said the men and women on Flight 93 "gave America our first victory in the war on terror." [2] Addressing the nation two months after the attacks, Bush concluded a speech by referring to Todd Beamer's famous last words, saying: "We will, no doubt, face new challenges. But we have our marching orders: My fellow Americans, let's roll." [3] Extraordinary though the story of Flight 93 is, under closer scrutiny we find it is highly problematic. Many aspects are questionable, and this is perhaps most apparent when we examine the scene where Flight 93 supposedly crashed. Although the plane was reportedly "heavily laden with jet fuel" when it "slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land," examination of the soil and groundwater around the crash site found no evidence of contamination by jet fuel. [4] NO JET FUEL AT THE CRASH SITE Six days after 9/11, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began taking soil samples around the Flight 93 crash site, to test for jet fuel, hydraulic fluids, and other hazardous materials. At least three test wells were sunk to monitor groundwater for signs of contamination. [5] 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] FUEL SUPPOSEDLY BURNED UP, BUT FIRES WERE SMALL DEP Secretary David E. Hess suggested a possible explanation for this absence of jet fuel, which was that "most of the hazardous fluids were consumed by the crash's fire." [9] A particular problem with this explanation is that some of the first witnesses to arrive at the scene noticed only very small fires there. Faye Hahn was a local emergency medical technician whose company was quickly dispatched to the crash site. However, she has recalled, "Arriving on the scene" there was "no smoke, no fire." [10] Jeff Phillips, who worked at a nearby salvage yard, heard a colleague calling out, "Plane down, plane down!" and then headed out with another employee to locate the crash site. He has recalled, "We had to have been at least among the first 20 people" to have arrived there. Yet, he said, the crater where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground "was just a spot that had a little fire on it, which was the airplane fuel burning." [11] And Lee Purbaugh, who worked at a nearby scrap yard, was also one of the first to arrive. Reportedly, he "scrambled down the bluff from the scrap metal company and ran 300 yards to the place where the plane had crashed." He found "a smoking hole in the ground. But why wasn't there more fire?" [12] Are these tiny fires what we would expect if a large commercial aircraft had just crashed there? And could they really have burned up 37,500 pounds of jet fuel? PAPER SURVIVES THE FIRES Hess's theory that "most of the hazardous fluids were consumed by the crash's fire" is further complicated by the fact that, though evidence of a huge volume of jet fuel was not found, large amounts of paper (which is, of course, highly flammable) survived, and were discovered around the crash site. [13] Roger Bailey, a local volunteer firefighter, has said that as he walked through the crash's debris field, he found "mail. I guess there were 5,000 pounds of mail on board. Mail was scattered everywhere. ... It seemed like every piece of mail that I looked at was from Blue Cross and Blue Shield." [14] Faye Hahn confirmed that, after she arrived at the crash scene, she saw "papers everywhere," and she'd "bent over to check many papers on the ground and found that they were pieces of mail." [15] Journalist and author Jere Longman has claimed that Flight 93 "had been carrying thousands of pounds of mail," and added that "pieces had scattered about, envelopes with California addresses, magazines, paper on the ground and in the trees, some of the envelopes burned, some still in the same unharmed condition in which they were mailed." [16] Also found at the crash scene was a "Bible that, oddly, was unscorched," and the charred remains of the visa of alleged hijacker Ziad Jarrah. [17] If the fires had been able to consume 37,500 pounds of jet fuel, surely they would have also burned up all this paper? AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION How do we make sense of this evidence--the absence of jet fuel in the soil and groundwater, yet the mass of paper debris that survived? Was this site really where United Airlines Flight 93--a Boeing 757-200 weighing maybe over 100 tons--crashed into the ground? Another possible explanation to consider is that this scene was somehow fabricated to give the appearance that a large commercial jet plane had crashed there. Debris, including large amounts of paper, was planted. One witness in fact described the crater where Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground as appearing "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch, and dumped all this trash into it." [18] 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." [20] Yet, as we have seen, tests found no fuel in the soil. So, rather than being the result of a Boeing 757 having crashed, might this odor have been created by some other means? The purpose was to help create the impression that a plane had crashed, so as to convince the first responders of this, and get information supporting this possibility into initial news reports. By the time--weeks later--that contradictory evidence came to light, the idea that Flight 93 crashed at this site in rural Pennsylvania had become widely accepted, and was deeply entrenched in the public consciousness. New evidence that disproved this idea, such as the absence of jet fuel in the soil and groundwater, could then be ignored as if it were trivial. Yet evidence like this is of critical importance. If Flight 93 did not crash into that field, as was officially claimed, then we need to find out what happened to it, and what the fate was of its unfortunate passengers and crew. NOTES [1] "Bush Speaks to Air National Guard." CNN, October 9, 2003. [2] "Transcript: Bush's Sept. 11 Anniversary Address from the Oval Office." Associated Press, September 11, 2006. [3] "President Discusses War on Terrorism." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 8, 2001. [4] Tom Gibb, "Latest Somerset Crash Site Findings May Yield Added IDs." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 3, 2001; Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground." Washington Post, May 12, 2002. [5] Steve Levin and Tom Barnes, "Flight 93 Relatives Gathering for Service." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 17, 2001; Tom Gibb, "Latest Somerset Crash Site Findings May Yield Added IDs." [6] John O'Callaghan and Daniel Bower, "Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 Digital Flight Data Recorder Information." National Transportation Safety Board, February 13, 2002. [7] Tom Gibb, "Latest Somerset Crash Site Findings May Yield Added IDs." [8] "Environmental Restoration Begins at Somerset Site." Pittsburgh Channel, October 2, 2001. [9] Steve Levin and Tom Barnes, "Flight 93 Relatives Gathering for Service." [10] David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph. Johnstown, PA: Noah's Ark Publishing Company, 2002, p. 31. [11] Ibid. pp. 29-30. [12] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back. New York: HarperCollins, 2002, p. 213. [13] Gerard Wright, "On Hallowed Ground." The Age, September 9, 2002. [14] Glenn J. Kashurba, Courage After the Crash: Flight 93 Aftermath--An Oral and Pictorial Chronicle. Somerset, PA: SAJ Publishing, 2002, pp. 38-39. [15] David McCall, From Tragedy to Triumph, pp. 31-32. [16] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, pp. 213-214. [17] Phil Hirschkorn, "9/11 Panel Describes How Attackers Got Money." CNN, August 22, 2004; Mike Masterson, "Flight 93: A Hallowed Field." Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, June 13, 2006. [18] Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground." [19] Glenn J. Kashurba, Courage After the Crash, pp. 32, 40, 43, and 64. [20] Jere Longman, Among the Heroes, p. 261.
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #45 Joined: 01/15/08


BoneZ	Mar 4 2009, 08:33 PM Post #2
Posts: 716 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Excellent article that just adds another nail into the coffin of the official story.
Posts: 716 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


hamba	Mar 5 2009, 05:58 AM Post #3
Posts: 52 Group: Skeptics Member #387 Joined: 03/09/08	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.
Posts: 52 Group: Skeptics Member #387 Joined: 03/09/08


JFK	Mar 5 2009, 07:17 AM Post #4
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	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.
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


SPreston	Mar 6 2009, 07:59 PM Post #5
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	hamba Mar 5 2009, 05:58 AM 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. You sure cannot tell by the unburned unscorched grass and weeds around the alleged impact hole can you? It seems there is no sign of jet fuel above ground or below ground.



hamba	Mar 9 2009, 10:01 AM Post #6
Posts: 52 Group: Skeptics Member #387 Joined: 03/09/08	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. Fuel evaporation rates depend on ambient temperature, pressure, wind, surface area and on the concentration of the evaporating substance in the air. How do the above mentioned factors that would have affected the evaporation rate of fuel at the Sshanksville site, compare to the situation you witnessed? Post impact, surface area would certainly be a significant factor affecting the evaporation rate of jet fuel at the site. After the impact the jet feul that was not used up in the explosion would have been dispersed. At the time of the crash the prevailing wind was approximately 9 miles per hour. This would have certainly dispersed alot of the fuel over a wide area. Hence, larger surface area of the fuel exposed to the wind and sun, would have significantly increased the evaportation rates. I am not excluding your experience outright, I am asking is it a valid comparsion, that the conditions under which the fuel you observed, was exposed to are, comparable to the conditions that the jet fuel left over from a catastrophic plane crash would have been exposed to. If not is it then a logical fallacy to then say it would have taken a long time for the jet fuel to evaporate at Shanksville, based on this observation? Howevere, if the situation you observed is comparable in terms that the fuel was spread over a large area and was dispersed, with a finite volume (i.e. there was no spillage of fuel adding to the original volume), coupled with exposure to wind and comparable atmospheric pressure, then your observation can be considered.
Posts: 52 Group: Skeptics Member #387 Joined: 03/09/08


JFK	Mar 9 2009, 11:18 AM Post #7
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	hamba Mar 9 2009, 10:01 AM 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. Fuel evaporation rates depend on ambient temperature, pressure, wind, surface area and on the concentration of the evaporating substance in the air. True How do the above mentioned factors that would have affected the evaporation rate of fuel at the Sshanksville site, compare to the situation you witnessed? The best case scenerio was mid August spreading the fuel saturated speedi-dry on a concrete pad with a light wind and 100+ temperature. Post impact, surface area would certainly be a significant factor affecting the evaporation rate of jet fuel at the site. After the impact the jet feul that was not used up in the explosion would have been dispersed. Yes, at that speed the majority should have been injected ( dispersed ) into the soil At the time of the crash the prevailing wind was approximately 9 miles per hour. This would have certainly dispersed alot of the fuel over a wide area. Hence, larger surface area of the fuel exposed to the wind and sun, would have significantly increased the evaportation rates. I disagree, It is vapor which burns, not the liquid fuel which would have been injected into the soil before it would have a chance to encounter the 9 MPH winds I am not excluding your experience outright, I am asking is it a valid comparsion, that the conditions under which the fuel you observed, was exposed to are, comparable to the conditions that the jet fuel left over from a catastrophic plane crash would have been exposed to. If not is it then a logical fallacy to then say it would have taken a long time for the jet fuel to evaporate at Shanksville, based on this observation? You are correct, I was referring to optimal conditions for fuel evaporation, less than 2 inch thick fuel saturated speedi-dry baking on a concrete pad in the hot sun, not fuel injected into yards deep soil. Do you understand the difference ? Howevere, if the situation you observed is comparable in terms that the fuel was spread over a large area and was dispersed, with a finite volume (i.e. there was no spillage of fuel adding to the original volume), coupled with exposure to wind and comparable atmospheric pressure, then your observation can be considered. The fuel saturated Speedi-dry is what was used to capture the spills in the first place, there was no fuel added while was baking. I might add that the owner of that place kept that fuel saturated speedi dry in open topped 55 gallon drums indoors through the winter months as water would ruin it and very little evaporated until it was spread and sun baked... Speedi-dri is a clay based absorbant not all that unsimilar to the soil which that fuel would have been injected into upon that crash. Edited by JFK, Mar 9 2009, 11:19 AM.
Posts: 4,150 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


decider911	Mar 11 2009, 10:06 AM Post #8
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #971 Joined: 12/18/08	god can explain it
Posts: 55 Group: Members Member #971 Joined: 12/18/08


swingdangler	Mar 11 2009, 12:32 PM Post #9
Posts: 20 Group: Members Member #737 Joined: 07/14/08	1. Great article Shoe. 2. Hamba-how far,wide, and deep would you estimate dispersal with a near vertical impact with the ground? The fuel would have taken considerable time to burn up, not result in a mushroom cloud appearance. All evidence points to the mushroom cloud picture as being faked. This can not be taken as evidence. See pictures of historical crash scenes for the behavior of jet fuel upon ignition. The first people on the scene should have been viewing a large black asymmetrical cloud rising in the air as the fuel burned off overtime. Here is about 1000 gallons burning: FAA Example Another example from Russia From Russia Now add 4-5000 more gallons and you understand why people question the Shanksville evidence.
Posts: 20 Group: Members Member #737 Joined: 07/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Mar 12 2009, 05:06 PM Post #10
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	great article shoestring. there was no 757 crash in shanksville. shot down or otherwise. there was no jet fuel contamination at the scene and stories about peoples lips blistering is disinformation. bob blair and doug miller arrived at the scene just after purbaugh fled. they both told me they were the 2nd & 3rd person there. neither of them described the pungent stench of jet fuel, neither had their lips blister, and it was those 2 guys who extinguished the fires before the arrival of the stoystown fire truck. so based on my personal knowledge someone is embellishing at the bare minimum and straight up lying in reality.......
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


NK-44	Mar 12 2009, 09:29 PM Post #11
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: bob blair and doug miller arrived at the scene just after purbaugh fled. they both told me they were the 2nd & 3rd person there. neither of them described the pungent stench of jet fuel, neither had their lips blister, and it was those 2 guys who extinguished the fires before the arrival of the stoystown fire truck. So, Bob and Doug were able with the help of a fire drencher from their car to extinguish the jet-fuel induced fires at Shanksville, which did not even harm the nearby grass, but jet-fuel induced fires brought down the Twins. Finally, it all makes sense.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Mar 12 2009, 09:38 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	NK-44 Mar 12 2009, 09:29 PM So, Bob and Doug were able with the help of a fire drencher from their car to extinguish the jet-fuel induced fires at Shanksville, which did not even harm the nearby grass, but jet-fuel induced fires brought down the Twins. Finally, it all makes sense. that is what they both told me. in fact i can't even tell you how many times i confirmed that with bob blair during many phone calls over a 12 month period. i spoke with bob more than doug. i spoken to doug about 2 or 3 times very very brief though. i spoke to bob dozens of times for an hour + nearly everytime.
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


NK-44	Mar 12 2009, 10:08 PM Post #13
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Good work, Dom. This alone proves the official version to be a fraud. There is no way to spin this away. Every reasonable person knows that something stinks to heaven - and I don't mean jet-fuel . The debunkers are HC-deniers.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Mick	Mar 12 2009, 10:48 PM Post #14
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Quote: Although the plane was reportedly "heavily laden with jet fuel" when it "slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land," examination of the soil and groundwater around the crash site found no evidence of contamination by jet fuel. [4] This link; http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90857.html has slightly more detail than the one you provided. Neither link says no fuel was found in the soil or ground water, just that it was safe. More details are needed before we can say if there was fuel contamination there or not. Do you consider the statements by Miller in your link that he identified remains to be suitable evidence that Flight 93 crashed there? Quote: DEP Secretary David E. Hess suggested a possible explanation for this absence of jet fuel, which was that "most of the hazardous fluids were consumed by the crash's fire." [9] A particular problem with this explanation is that some of the first witnesses to arrive at the scene noticed only very small fires there. It is quite likely that most of the fuel was burned in the large fireball shown in Val McClatchey's photo. What did not burn may have evaporated before samples were taken leaving only trace amounts that were within levels deemed to be safe. I have not been able to find more specific data so far though. Quote: Are these tiny fires what we would expect if a large commercial aircraft had just crashed there? And could they really have burned up 37,500 pounds of jet fuel? I'm not surprised that a large amount of fuel can burn very quickly if it is subjected to the severe shock of a high speed crash. Quote: If the fires had been able to consume 37,500 pounds of jet fuel, surely they would have also burned up all this paper? I'm certain anything in the fireball or nest to the flames was consumed. It is not surprising that a high speed crash could eject flammable debris from the scene before it could be heated enough to burn.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


NK-44	Mar 12 2009, 11:24 PM Post #15
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: It is quite likely that most of the fuel was burned in the large fireball shown in Val McClatchey's photo. What did not burn may have evaporated before samples were taken leaving only trace amounts that were within levels deemed to be safe. I have not been able to find more specific data so far though. No, it's not. Compare with footage from other air plane crashes and explosions. Never ever had all the fuel burned within a single mushroom-shaped cloud, without being followed by smoke from the subsequent fires. When doing so, you will also notice that the smoke clouds have a darker, almost black, appearance. Either the picture is faked, or the it shows something different than officially stated. Flight 93: Edit by JFK - replaced copyrighted image with a public domain one before Zetaboards removes this thread for copyright infingement. Please do not post "The end of Serenity" here as this has caused problems in the past. Others: Watch this clip of a B-52 crash. Compare the Shanksville picture to one of an ordnance blast: Quote: Neither link says no fuel was found in the soil or ground water, just that it was safe Mike, please read the source carefully: Quote: By today, Environmental Resources Management Inc. of Pine, a contractor hired by United, expects to return 5,000 to 6,000 cubic yards of soil to the 50-foot hole dug around the crater left by the crash. The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said. So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said.(Source) No contamination means no contamination. There was none. It does not just state that it was safe. It says there was no contamination. And there's not much contamination of water with jet-fuel needed to make it unsafe. Edited by JFK, Mar 12 2009, 11:36 PM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Mar 13 2009, 12:58 AM Post #16
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	Mick Mar 12 2009, 10:48 PM Do you consider the statements by Miller in your link that he identified remains to be suitable evidence that Flight 93 crashed there? nope. because i've spoken with miller and documented it and released it. miller did not see any remains on the 11th. no one did. miller showed me pics of the few remains "discovered" on the 12th in plain view that could not have been missed the day before. he did not allow me to document it. and that was it for miller. couple remains at the scene he photographed and collected. the rest came from the fbi. they did not document it. they brought him a passenger manifest, human remains, & dna samples from "family" to cross compare.
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Mar 13 2009, 01:03 AM Post #17
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	NK-44 Mar 12 2009, 11:24 PM No, it's not. Compare with footage from other air plane crashes and explosions. Never ever had all the fuel burned within a single mushroom-shaped cloud, without being followed by smoke from the subsequent fires. When doing so, you will also notice that the smoke clouds have a darker, almost black, appearance. Either the picture is faked, or the it shows something different than officially stated. Flight 93: Edit by JFK - replaced copyrighted image with a public domain one before Zetaboards removes this thread for copyright infingement. Please do not post "The end of Serenity" here as this has caused problems in the past. i say faked. because i know that when that photo was allegedly taken there was a small white plane directly above it. i have corroborated it with 3 witnesses on top of susan mcelwain, one being rick chaney. who faked it? i suspect val turned over the real image she took to the fbi. they also took her camera, pc, & junk drive as i recall the original story going. then they returned her this one image. that and on top of kelly leverknight, i have spoken with other witnesses who describe the smoke plume as being quite different and one went as far as to tell me they too believed the photo was faked because the smoke didn't look like that. no one i have spoken to believes her account of dropping the camera and not being able to put batteries into it until the smoke was gone. the smoke lasted at least a good 5 minutes from what i've gathered. perhaps as much as 10 minutes.
Posts: 1,966 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


NK-44	Mar 13 2009, 10:56 AM Post #18
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: the rest came from the fbi. they did not document it. they brought him a passenger manifest, human remains, & dna samples from "family" to cross compare. And not to forget that the FBI denied the demands of forensic scientists: Quote: A report suggests the crash site of Flight 93 is being searched and recorded in 60 square-foot grids. [News Journal (Wilmington, DE), 9/16/2001] This approach is preferred by the two forensic scientists in charge of the crash, who say that doing so can help determine who was where when the plane crashed, and possibly how it crashed. However, almost a year later it comes out that this approach is not followed: “The FBI overruled them, instead dividing the site into five large sectors. It would be too time-consuming to mark tight grids, and would serve no real investigative purpose, the bureau decided. There was no mystery to solve about the crash. Everybody knew what happened to the plane.” [Longman, 2002, pp. 262-63 No need to examine the facts because we know the facts! Petitio Principii at work.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 06:58 PM Post #19
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Quote: No, it's not. Compare with footage from other air plane crashes and explosions. Never ever had all the fuel burned within a single mushroom-shaped cloud, without being followed by smoke from the subsequent fires. When doing so, you will also notice that the smoke clouds have a darker, almost black, appearance. Either the picture is faked, or the it shows something different than officially stated. Does any of your footage show the results of a large aircraft diving into the ground at over 400 mph? I think they do not. This can make a difference. Quote: Mike, please read the source carefully: So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said. I did read it carefully. How do you define contamination? I think the writer of the article may have defined it as, food or water made unfit for consumption because of the presence of chemicals, radioactive particles, bacteria or organisms, the byproduct of the growth of bacteria or waste in the food or water." There can be fuel detected in the area without it being considered contaminated.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 07:04 PM Post #20
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Domenick DiMaggio Mar 13 2009, 12:58 AM miller did not see any remains on the 11th. no one did. miller showed me pics of the few remains "discovered" on the 12th in plain view that could not have been missed the day before. he did not allow me to document it. and that was it for miller. couple remains at the scene he photographed and collected. I was not aware that he did a detailed excavation at the scene the day the aircraft crashed; hence his initial statement saying he did not see any bodies. Are you claiming that there were large pieces of human remains on the surface of the ground that were so obvious that people could not help but see them?
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 07:07 PM Post #21
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Domenick DiMaggio Mar 13 2009, 01:03 AM because i know that when that photo was allegedly taken there was a small white plane directly above it. i have corroborated it with 3 witnesses on top of susan mcelwain, one being rick chaney. The photo only shows a limited portion of the sky above the smoke. Why is there no reason to believe that the small white plane if it was there was not simply above the frame of the photo that was taken?
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 07:14 PM Post #22
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	Shoestring Mar 4 2009, 10:47 AM Here is my new blog posting, with some little-known and important evidence about the supposed Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania. This evidence appears to completely disprove the official story. The original posting, with links to all the source articles, is here: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-was-there-no-jet-fuel-at-flight-93.html It is an interesting read, but do you have anything to add that was published more recently? Most of the links have dates of 2001 and 2002. There may be more accurate information available.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


NK-44	Mar 13 2009, 09:57 PM Post #23
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Does any of your footage show the results of a large aircraft diving into the ground at over 400 mph? I think they do not. This can make a difference. How's over 500 mph into a massive steel strcuture? I know what will come: this is a building, not the ground. So, is there any chance that we could compare the Shanksville jet-fuel-explosion to any other plane crash and explosion? Or do we have to take a 757, flying it with over 400 mph into the ground at an 45° angle to show that you're wrong? And btw., Mick, everything can make a difference. Even you. Quote: I did read it carefully. How do you define contamination? I think the writer of the article may have defined it as, food or water made unfit for consumption because of the presence of chemicals, radioactive particles, bacteria or organisms, the byproduct of the growth of bacteria or waste in the food or water." There can be fuel detected in the area without it being considered contaminated. You're one of the most HC-denier I've ever meet. As I said, even you can make a difference! Have you any evidence to back up your statement that we're not talking about jet-fuel, but of jet-fuel in certain amounts? Please provide it. Until then, I will explain this very slowly and step by step, so that even you can't fail to understand. 1. "The soil is being tested for jet fuel." Read again, it's tested for jet-fuel. And again, it's tested for jet-fuel. No specific amount is given. Just jet-fuel. When you're driving a car and police stops you, because they think you're drunk. What do they do? Right, they test you for alcohol. Read again, they test you for alcohol. That means, the presence of any alcohol in your blood. When they're able to find some, because your blood is contaminated by it, THEN they could state how much of it circulates in your blood. THEN they could state if this contamination is a risk to your health. Which brings us a step further: 2. "No contamination has been discovered." That means: no contamination has been discovered. Please read again: NO contamination has been discovered. And they tested for jet-fuel, and not for certain amounts of it, but for jet-fuel, that means any jet-fuel, jet-fuel at all. But none was found. When you find no jet-fuel, then you have no jet-fuel which could be a risk to anyone or anything. But I see, this is not enough to prevent you from failing to understand simple logical deduction. So, let's go a step further. 3. When people arrived at the scene, they wondered "where's the plane?". Quote: It didn’t take long for throngs of law-enforcement officers, who had been tracking the plane’s path, and other people, including Jamie, to reach the location where they could tell the aircraft had gone down. But it took a while to identify the exact location of impact because there was no plane visible. Sally remembers Jamie phoning them from the site and saying, “There is no plane there, believe me.” (Source) Damn, these no-planers. But of course, there was a plane. 4. It's in the ground. It burried itself into the ground, as we can learn in the next sentence: Quote: The location was eventually determined because of some disturbed ground in front of a grove of charred evergreens, explained Jamie. The ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage. And this is the same explanation as being given for the absence of burned grass growing nearby, or the absence of smoke and soot, like we know from all other crashes: 5. The jet-fuel went underground, too. Quote: The plane “went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn,” says Jim. So, it went unburned into the ground. That means, it was in the ground. That means it had to contaminate the ground. That means when the ground is tested for jet-fuel, then it is tested for jet-fuel. When it is tested for jet-fuel, but no jet-fuel has been found, then no jet-fuel has been found. That means the ground was not contaminated by it. That means, there was no jet-fuel in the ground. To destroy all remaining doubts and possible motives to fail to understand this logical deduction, we're taking the last step: 6. What does contamination mean? Quote: con·tam·i·nate Listen to the pronunciation of contaminate Pronunciation: \kən-ˈta-mə-ˌnāt\ Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): con·tam·i·nat·ed; con·tam·i·nat·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin contaminatus, past participle of contaminare; akin to Latin contingere to have contact with — more at contingent Date: 15th century 1 a: to soil, stain, corrupt, or infect by contact or association <bacteria contaminated the wound> b: to make inferior or impure by admixture <iron contaminated with phosphorus> (Source) When the jet-fuel went into the ground, then it had to contact the ground, then it had to contaminate the ground, then it had to be found when the ground was tested for it. When no contamination was found, then no jet-fuel was in contact with the ground, then no jet-fuel was in the ground, then all jet-fuel had to be above the ground, then there would have been enough left of it to fuel fires lasting longer than the single mushroom-cloud would indicate. Is that really so hard to understand??? Edited by NK-44, Mar 13 2009, 10:03 PM.
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


Mick	Mar 13 2009, 10:58 PM Post #24
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09	NK-44 Mar 13 2009, 09:57 PM You're one of the most HC-denier I've ever meet. That is what I thought of most of the people on this forum. But you are the prince.
Posts: 83 Group: Skeptics Member #1,081 Joined: 03/06/09


French St	Mar 14 2009, 03:30 AM Post #25
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08	Crash of a small airplane, certainly with much less jet fuel on board than flight 93, at the time of the crash: http://www.spike.com/episode/24400/st/2911703
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #392 Joined: 03/10/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2