Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

KreeL said:
It makes perfect sense. The ability to edit the official version of 9/11 gives immense power to those in control.
Click to expand...

In control of whom? According to you, most of us are in on it. Why does anyone who so willing rolls over in the face of a conspiracy to commit mass murder need to have further control exerted upon them?

KreeL said:
You can show the masses what you want them to see. You can allow them to hear what you want them to hear. With voice over narration you tell them what to believe.

The Naudets were a powerful tool.
Click to expand...

To do what? According to you, "the masses" are nothing more than amoral cowards already willing to keep their mouths shut. Why do such people need the further manipulation that could be meagerly offered by a small documentary?

As you begin to include more and more people in your conspiracy, the need to even have a conspiracy disappears.
 
JimBenArm said:
Ah, yes. Documentary film makers making documentaries. How sinister. How suspicious.

How freaking stupid.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This hyperventilation about "agents" and the like is silly. I'd use stronger words, but forum rules prohibit such language, not to mention such disparaging commentary about the poster himself. I'll just say that every one of his allegations has zero proof behind it. They're nothing more than bald-faced statements made out of thin air, no support, no evidence, no anything.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Agreed. This hyperventilation about "agents" and the like is silly. I'd use stronger words, but forum rules prohibit such language, not to mention such disparaging commentary about the poster himself. I'll just say that every one of his allegations has zero proof behind it. They're nothing more than bald-faced statements made out of thin air, no support, no evidence, no anything.
Click to expand...

yes, his argument is,

"Well I find the whole thing peculiar, so they must be in on it. 9/11 was an inside job".

Kreel this issue is not a legitimate one, but anyone's standards but yours. I would ask you to drop it, and start up a thread of your own about it please.

Thanks

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
It's reasonable to ask about soil analyses. To prevent further sidetracking of this discussion, I'd like to repeat my question:

Was there a soil analysis done at Shanksville? And what were the results of those tests?

To which I found this answer:




Which brings me to another legitimate question:

How did a commercial airliner loaded with 5500 gallons of jet fuel crash into soil without any fuel contamination?

If there is any specific follow up information about the conclusions of the soil analyses, please post them.
Click to expand...

You are conflating a water analysis with a soil one. All that you've demonstrated was that any fuel that did happen to be in the area did not penetrate deep enough to contaminate the water table.

The water table in that area of the country is more than just a few feet below ground:

Over most of southwestern Pennsylvania sufficient water for domestic purposes can be obtained from bedrock wells drilled in the 75-250 foot (23 to 75 m) depth range.
Click to expand...
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bmr/act54/sec7.htm

Granted, that range is for normal use water wells, but given that the idea behind drilling test wells was to test groundwater contamination, it's reasonable to presume that test well depths would be at the same level as normal well depths. Given the depth of the groundwater, all such a test indicates is that any possible fuel contamination at the time of the testing had not yet reached the underground water table. That is all it indicates. It says nothing about contamination in the upper layers, not at the time the article was published (October 2001).

So no, we don't have precise levels of soil contamination from the accident. But, given 1. The first responders testimony of smell, and in one case fuel still puddled on the ground, and 2. the fact that the EPA ordered a cleanup of the site, we have evidence suggesting a fuel contamination. No, we don't have quantitative evidence, which is what you're asking, but we can deduce from the fact the jet crashed there, first responder testimony, and the EPA ordered cleanup that fuel could have indeed contaminated the soil. We just don't know to what degree it would have done so.

So no, you still have no legitimate question. You're asking for an irrelevant level of detail, and neither the possesion of the answer or the absence of one changes the narrative to any degree. It does not put any doubt as to the presence of FL93, nor does it rise to the level of forcing anyone to question the radar, FDR, CVR, first responder, cell and airphone, and witness testimony. That is established data; soil contamination figures would do nothing more than give us numbers to put to a single aspect stemming from the jet's impact. If you were worried about the environmental impact of the act, then a question of the levels of soil contamination would indeed be on topic. But it's not when the issue is the veracity of the FL93 narrative.
 
johnny karate said:
In what way is soil analysis at the Shanksville site relevant to understanding the events of 9/11, and therefore "reasonable" to question?
Click to expand...

There was no plane! Cruise missile!

OK, there was a plane, but it was shot down!

OK, it crashed, but it wasn't the right kind of crash!

Ummm...fuel! Yeah, that's it, fuel!

OK, how about soil analysis?

appstate-goalposts.jpg


Massive thread hijacking, BTW.
 
Last edited:
Well this thread quickly went right in to the STUPID questions about 9/11 . After the 2nd page, we already had our resident trolling troofers step in and repeat their long debunked tripe.

can we stop engaging these trolls, and stick the thread about LEGITIMATE questions about 9/11 and the events that lead up to it. Stop debating with the woo, about stuff that has been covered in OTHER and VERY current threads
 
RedIbis said:
How did a commercial airliner loaded with 5500 gallons of jet fuel crash into soil without any fuel contamination?
Click to expand...

Because there were no elevator shafts underground for any of the fuel to pour down. It burned off in the fireball.
 
cludgie said:
In fairness the security over here left alot to be desired too. I carried a Swiss Army knife with a 2 inch blade on more than a couple of occasions prior to 9/11 through British airport security. My brief experience of US airport screening suggests it was token to say the least though; it'd probably stop you carrying a gun on but thats about it.
Click to expand...

I imagine pre-9/11, this was one of those things that wasn't taken seriously in a practical sense by many airports. Throughout the 90's I carried a Swiss Army knife on airplanes on a regular basis. The only time it was ever an issue was on a return flight from Japan at Osaka/Kanasi airport. The security screener just made me promise not to take it out of my backpack during the flight!
 
KreeL said:
The agents planted inside the Duane St. fire department are the key to unraveling the entire event of 9/11 inside the WTC. To capture the entire event they had to know what was going to happen. Precisely where. Exactly when.
Click to expand...

What is your contention then? If the Naudet footage did not exist, the American public:

Wouldn't have believed that commercial jets hit the WTC towers?
Would have believed it anyway, but wouldn't have been upset about it?
 
RedIbis said:
How did a commercial airliner loaded with 5500 gallons of jet fuel crash into soil without any fuel contamination?
Click to expand...

How does the answer to this question lead to any significant understanding into the events of 9/11? Put another way: Suppose five minutes from now you had a report in your hand that answered to your satisfaction the above question - What would change about your understanding of 9/11 with respect to the accepted facts?
 
Mr.D said:
I imagine pre-9/11, this was one of those things that wasn't taken seriously in a practical sense by many airports. Throughout the 90's I carried a Swiss Army knife on airplanes on a regular basis. The only time it was ever an issue was on a return flight from Japan at Osaka/Kanasi airport. The security screener just made me promise not to take it out of my backpack during the flight!
Click to expand...
In 1975 or 76 I was flying out of Boston Logan airport and forgot to pack my knife in my checked luggage. It was a Buck knife with a 4" long lock-back blade that I used to carry in the back pocket of my jeans.

When I got to the security screening, I just threw it in the bin to be X-Ray'ed with all my other stuff. When I got through the magnetometer, there was a security guard standing there with the knife in one hand and my winter coat in the other hand. Once he had my attention, he dropped the knife in the outer pocket of the coat and said "Make sure it stays there." I said "Sure" and he handed me my coat.

Things seemed even more lax in the '70's, IMHO.
 
Mr.D said:
How does the answer to this question lead to any significant understanding into the events of 9/11? Put another way: Suppose five minutes from now you had a report in your hand that answered to your satisfaction the above question - What would change about your understanding of 9/11 with respect to the accepted facts?
Click to expand...

If there's no contamination of the soil, there was no fuel.
 
BigAl said:
At a local level, the accountability for the radios gets no press. Even before 9/11, I knew a retired FDNY communications engineer that said a well known mayor and occasional presidential candidate should be in prison for the selection of the contract for the radio system on his watch.
Click to expand...


The radios worked exactly as they were meant to. How do you think we have so much recorded audio from that day? The only problem with the radios was operator error.
 
gumboot said:
The radios worked exactly as they were meant to. How do you think we have so much recorded audio from that day? The only problem with the radios was operator error.
Click to expand...

The repeaters failed to give adequate coverage. Lots of firemen in the north tower failed to get the radio message to evacuate and many of them were among the dead.
 
RedIbis said:
If there's no contamination of the soil, there was no fuel.
Click to expand...
Can I kindly suggest that you start a new thread on this Red? I think Tricky could explain to you the difference between surface soil contamination and groundwater contamination. He's a geologist.
 
gumboot said:
The radios worked exactly as they were meant to. How do you think we have so much recorded audio from that day? The only problem with the radios was operator error.
Click to expand...

I don't know what radios you're talking about, but the repeater system installed after the 93 bombings was most definitely not operating, probably because it wasn't turned on.

This is one of the truly tragic mistakes made that day because it would have certainly saved many firefighters' lives.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Can I kindly suggest that you start a new thread on this Red? I think Tricky could explain to you the difference between surface soil contamination and groundwater contamination. He's a geologist.
Click to expand...

Do you think that my question is legitimate? Do you think Tricky will be able to explain why the EPA found no soil contamination at a site where a commercial airliner crashed with 5500 gallons of jet fuel?

I don't need a long winded debunking session, I just want to know if you think it's a legitimate question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom