Did you even bother to read
previous posts??
Groundwater tables in that part of Pennsylvania happen to be on the order of 75 to 250 feet below the surface. A test of groundwater to ensure its drinkability says nothing about contamination at the surface, it just means that whatever has the potential to be dangerous at the surface has not made it down to the water table yet.
Once again:
- We know the jet was in the air from the FDR and radar data. We can presume from that it was under its own power, thus meaning it was fueled (I am unaware of any medium bodied passenger gliders in existence, so others can correct me if I'm wrong about that
).
- We have first responder testimony of fuel smell, and in one case, fuel "puddling".
- We have witnesses to the smoke plume from the fire, one of whom took pictures (Val McClatchey), another of whom reported what he saw to the controlling ATC tower, Cleveland Center (Yates Gladwell).
- We have an EPA ordered cleanup.
What will a soil contamination test tell us that we don't already know? Whether a specific patch of ground ended up having fuel splashed on it or not? Tell me, then, if somehow the samples come up as showing little to no contamination, what does that tell us? What does that say about the first responder testimony? What does that say about the images, or the eyewitnesses to the plume? Did they all lie? Or could there be a degree of error in the test, say that it's susceptible to selection of samples? Say soil was tested in an area where fuel did indeed not land, someplace other than where the Somerset County Coroner reported fuel puddling? Would that soil show signs of contamination?
Here's the point: It doesn't matter what soil tests will show. It does not matter. The fate of Flight 93 has already been determined by the ATC radar, FDR, CVR, cell and airphone calls, and airline testimony that they lost a plane. It has been further confirmed by the coroner's identification of remains as well as the recovery of wreckage. The fact that it crashed has been determined from 1. The FDR and CVR data, 2. Witness testimony, and 3. Debris being present. What do soil sample tests tell us that we don't already know?? It might tell us the environmental impact a jet crash has, but it won't draw into question all the other multiple converging lines of evidence. It can't. They're already established and confirmed.
My apologies, T.A.M., for adding a stipulation to your thread, but in the face of others pursuing inane lines of inquiry, I believe it is necessary: A
legitimate question is one where the answer would actually shed light on a previously unknown aspect of the event. Unless you think there's merit in the study of environmental impacts, I ask you Red, and you Senemut, since you seem to be echoing Red's stance, what is to be discovered from such testing? Red mentioned earlier that if the contamination is not there, the fuel is not there, but you have to ignore the fact that the fuel's presence has already been established by the jet's presence, as well as the witness testimony to the smoke from the crash in order to have that stance. You also ignore the fact that such testing can be prone to sample selectivity (what if patches of ground are selected that were not covered in fuel? What then? Does a negative test from that really demonstrate that fuel was not present at all, or was simply not present on that area at the crash site?), as well as natural effects (it did
rain a small amount on September 14th in that area, so if no tests were conducted prior to that, what effect would the rain have had?). You allow for none of that. You merely ask for something to be handed to you that doesn't tell you anything more about the crash than what you already can find out with a little research. To what end is that line of questioning supposed to lead to? More irrelevant detail?
Again, the question of soil pollution from the jet's crash is most certainly
not a legitimate question in the context of T.A.M.'s OP. It is merely one meant to pick at nits and distract from the overall weight of the evidence placing United 93 at Shanksville on that date. Unless the line of inquiry is aimed at determining environmental safety - and if it is, a legitimate response would be to ask why it was brought up in
this thread - then such a question serves zero purpose. It is irrelevant to determining what happened to FL93.
