Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
No Jet Fuel at the Flight 93 Crash Site
Topic Started: Mar 4 2009, 10:47 AM (1,615 Views)
NK-44
Member Avatar

Mick
Mar 13 2009, 10:58 PM
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.
Ok, but I missed the part where you presented an explanation based on evidence to the question where all the jet-fuel had disappeared to.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Mick
Mar 13 2009, 10:58 PM
That is what I thought of most of the people on this forum. But you are the prince.
Mick you can be confined to the skeptic's section.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Lin Kuei
Mar 14 2009, 12:14 PM
Mick
Mar 13 2009, 10:58 PM
That is what I thought of most of the people on this forum. But you are the prince.
Mick you can be confined to the skeptic's section.
Sorry, LK, I could not find anything skeptical in his posts ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

NK-44
Mar 14 2009, 02:54 PM
Sorry, LK, I could not find anything skeptical in his posts ;)
yeah.. more like the 'systematic, professionally unreasoned denier's section' ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

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." [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.


In this regard, it should be noted that "Most people can smell fuel oil at levels as low as 0.1 parts per million (ppm) in air."

For that, it would not be too hard to create effects which people would feel and describe as "really strong" or "overpowering". 9/11 itself delivered the best example to demonstrate that:

Posted Image

This picture was taken by Dom Foulsham from his hotel. Though the towers were hundreds of meters away, he made this statement:

Quote:
 
"The only thing that made me perhaps think subconsciously it may have been an aircraft was the over-powering smell of kerosene everywhere."(Source)

Edited by NK-44, Mar 14 2009, 10:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
French St

See: "Crews Begin Investigation Into Somerset County 757 Crash":

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/956356/detail.html

Quote:

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."

Italian video"11 settembre 2001 - Inganno Globale vers 3.0" (34 minutes 50 seconds after its beginning):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8097952875248011643
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
decider911

jet fuel works in mysterious ways,,

sometimes it ignites in fireballs and then waterfalls down 100 floor elevator shafts..

sometimes it evaporates without burning dead grass inches away from staged impact craters..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
swingdangler

Mick
Mar 13 2009, 07:07 PM
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?
For the skeptic- video of airplane crash high speed into ground.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/913349/show_plane_crash/

A slower speed but you get the point:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1952312/amazing_plane_crash/

Keep in mind the speed of the plane is really inconsequential compared to the depth of ground penetration with regards to the fuel burn. Seriously, the wings are not going to wait until they penetrate several feet into the ground before exploding, they are going to explode on impact with the ground not impact and then penetration into the ground.

Not only does Dom research serve as proof, Jeff Shure from pumpitout.com talked to surrounding residents on the phone and they even claim the photo is fake.

Dom and others , have you considered the possibility that the drone or white airplane seen flying around was purposely crashed at Shanksville to serve the cover story?
Edited by swingdangler, Mar 31 2009, 02:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SPreston
Member Avatar
Patriotic American
Domenick DiMaggio
Mar 12 2009, 05:06 PM
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.......
There is no sign of jet fuel saturating the soil around this rusty old boneyard engine piece they used for this photo op is there? They expect us to believe that alleged 6 ton RB-211 turbofan engine only buried about a foot underground in soft soil at 563 mph? That rusty old engine gives the appearance or has been staged to look like it is still partially buried just where they found it. Those guys are standing at ground level and there is about a foot of soil above the alleged engine. Of course they could have dug it up from way deeper and then partially buried it again. But why would they have to do that? It looks like it would fit in that backhoe bucket perfectly, doesn't it? Drop it down, nudge it over sideways into the soft soil, dig a little earth out below it, and presto instant photo op for the bad guys.

And of course the dry grass and weeds around the alleged hole were untouched by flame or jet fuel. How would the jet fuel allegedly exploding out of the ruptured wing tanks not be expected to splash all over the surrounding vegatation?

Perhaps using 20/20 hindsight, the FBI agents should have rented a flame thrower and cleaned up the crime scene.

Posted Image

Official original file photo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic »
Add Reply