Soil Specialist from Down Under- Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville? "Nonsense!"

[kookbreaker]

How about WWI and II. We were savagely attacked by the Japaneese on 7 Dec 1941 in Pearl Harbour. Sure, we had some suspicions, but by the time the intelligence figured it out, it was too late.

We had a very good indication that the Japanese were going to try something, but the strong suspect was that they would attack the Phillipines, not a base thousands of miles East of the Phillipines.

Sadly, many CTers seem to think that if we knew something was up, we had to know exactly what was going down. Somehow 'Japanese are planning something' = 'knowing exactly where the Japanese fleet is down to the smallest submarine'.

 

[Pinch]

We had a very good indication that the Japanese were going to try something, but the strong suspect was that they would attack the Phillipines, not a base thousands of miles East of the Phillipines.

Sadly, many CTers seem to think that if we knew something was up, we had to know exactly what was going down. Somehow 'Japanese are planning something' = 'knowing exactly where the Japanese fleet is down to the smallest submarine'.

Many of the Troothers of today seem to think that capabilities of intelligence and spycraft we have become used to now in the 21st century were available in the middle of the 20th.

An excellent article that outlines the extent and success the Japanese had with keeping their Pearl Harbor-bound fleet, Kido Butai, a mystery is an article by Robert J. Hanyok titled "Catching The Fox Unaware, Japanese Radio Denial and Deception and the Attack on Pearl Harbor", published in the Naval War College Review, Autumn 2008, linked to here..

It is pure folly and ignorance to believe that the US knew about the attack details previously and subsequently did not act to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor. In an age where radio was the primary means of communication and when you are estranged from a nation 5,500 miles away that wants to keep its military movements secret, it was actually very easy to stay hidden all the way up to 7 December.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.

I did and it was no where to be found. Busted again. Googling your own posts to see what other threads you can troll instead of just preaching to the choir on ATS.

Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says so... How can you ridicule 'twoofers' for using it, then use it reliably yourself? The ads placed by the German embassy in the US newspapers warning about u-boat attacks were a response to reports to the German embassy that armaments were being carried as cargo on a passenger ship. Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.

Logic seems to fail you. The point is the standard of proof for twoofers like yourself - beyond simply making up the physics as you go along - is wikipedia. When even Wikipedia doesn't agree with you, you really have got nothing.

Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo. FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading. He just didn't tell those in Hawaii. A diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan." Does this not equate to 'sacrificing' to you? It does to me...

As its already been pointed out: this is another failure of yours. The McCollum member proves 1 member of the government thought it was a good idea to attack Japan. Like Operation Northwoods, it never occurred nor was adopted. This is what you CTs cant seem to understand: just because an idea appears in government doesn't mean it gets implemented and followed.

Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?

No, this is the essential fallacy in CT thinking. "Because we talked about something, this must mean it happened." Please tell me how the secret government is capable of keeping secret that Operation Northwoods was carried out but yet leaves delicious morsels for CTs like you find about the original proposal.

I never said there weren't real attacks - but look further into the incident which sparked US involvement...

I have and you are wrong.

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?

The difference is its this thing called "proof". We have evidence that this occurred, where as we have 0 evidence any of your other claims occurred.

Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

And you from post one forgot the "a place to discuss CRITICAL THINKING." I have yet to see any post of yours that involves any critical thinking.

 

[dudalb]

[qimg]http://bike29.com/ride29er/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/wile-e-coyote460.jpg[/qimg]

And then a small cloud of dust goes upward...
Always loved that bit.

 

[Gaspode]

WW1&2 conspiracy theories would be better in another thread. Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Rewey]

Rewey can you do me a couple of favors.

First, can you admit you were wrong about the passenger manifests ?
Then when you admit you were wrong, can you promise to never make the claim that none of the hijackers were on the passenger manifests ever again ?

Already have - on the second page... feel free to have a browse... more than happy to make that promise.

Not sure what the other favours are...?

 

[alienentity]

Secondly, why do I think it’s ludicrous that tiny fragments of plane could bury themselves up to 50 feet deep in the sand?

etc...

]

You brought this ridicule on yourself by putting those points out there on the web, dude.
You can't call foul because someone dug them out of the sand and posted them here for entertainment. That's fair play. No need to soil yourself over it.

Perhaps you've simply overstated your case (I do that often) but the opening paragraph of the quoted material really begs for derision.

'In conclusion, given my experience with, and understanding of soil, through my work-related experiences, and my understanding of physics from previous study, the official story of the crash of Flight 93 at Shanksville could simply not be possible. When considering all aspects together the official story is utter nonsense'

Just goes to show why being an expert in soil isn't helping you. A better acquaintance with the facts of the story would help a lot more.

Exit Sandman.

 

[Gravy]

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.

You could have avoided this embarrassing situation by Googling before writing. The answers to your questions have been readily available for years. There is no excuse for not having found them.

OK - the jet fuel. This has been discussed before. (a) the EPA says that the soil at the site after clean up was 'within acceptable limits' for pollutants such as jetfuel (which is tiny - mere parts per million), (b) the soil that was used to fill the crater was the same soil that was excavated from the area, and (c) the only way to remove fuel contamination from soil is to replace it with cleanfill. Therefore, this would suggest to some that there was no spilt fuel in the area.

"Betsy Mallison, a DEP spokeswoman, said it cost United Airlines $850,000 for the environmental investigation and remediation at the site of the crash in an old strip mine."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/oneyearlater/s_90857.html

He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 * the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground, the smell of the burnt and smouldering trees and grass, the silence of nature and the men who had arrived to find they could do nothing, the overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757, 55 metres long and weighing 110 tonnes, had somehow been obliterated, and with it, the 44 people on board.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html

Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field.

http://www.nvfc.org/pdf/rolevolfiresvc911.pdf

Shanksville Fire Chief Terry Shaffer called the local 911 center and headed for the scene, where he recalled "a smell that you'll never forget — a smell of jet fuel, burned flesh."

http://enigma911.110mb.com/cache/abcnews/sept11_moments_3.html

Excerpts from "Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002.

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

"There was a spot at the end where the emergency crews were gathering. I could see that it was smoking and burning a little bit. So I ran as fast as I could towards that spot. I ran right up to the crater. I was standing a few feet away, looking down into it. I was overwhelmed by the crater's depth and size, but there was nothing that I could identify as having been an airplane, except that there was this incredibly strong smell of jet fuel."

Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."

"The blackened hemlock trees in the background of those pictures once marked our property line. Now they have been cut down as a result of fire damage and pollution from jet fuel...

My visit to the property is nearly a month after the crash, but there are ever-present reminders of the horrible event that destroyed the lives of 40 innocent people and the innocence of millions. The smell of jet fuel fills my nostrils. Everywhere I look, tiny pieces of debris cover the soft dirt. Coroner Miller tells me 98 percent of the plane has been recovered, but it is hard to believe that."

–Tim Lambert, whose family owned land at the crash site.

http://www.witf.org/lifestyle/centr...zero-voices-central-pa-magazine-november-2001

Bolding mine. There's much more at the flight 93 section of my site. But you knew that already.

A few questions for you, Rewey:

1) What do the above accounts suggest to you about the presence of jet fuel at the site?

2) Which people who were at the site shortly after the crash did you interview?

3) Where can we find the final environmental report issued by United Airlines?

4) Can you present (what is to you) a sensible scenario that fits the existing evidence and does not involve flight 93 crashing in that field?

Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

The JREF wishes the Forum to be a friendly and lively (if challenging) Forum for a mature audience and therefore will endeavor to ensure that civility will be the norm, however this does not mean that Members will be insulated from all insults and certainly not from challenges; the nature of the forum inevitably involves strong emotions and opinions which can result in heated exchanges.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

 

[Travis]

Gravy is dishing it out with Facts Artillery.


This new guy is going to be fun.

 

[Rewey]

I did and it was no where to be found. Busted again. Googling your own posts to see what other threads you can troll instead of just preaching to the choir on ATS.

I hate to be so petty to prove something so banal, but anyway...

 

[JimBenArm]

But you'll do it anyway, just to be consistent...

 

[GlennB]

I hate to be so petty to prove something so banal, but anyway...

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_331274a534d965744a.jpg[/URL]

It's an easy misunderstanding to happen.

you didn't Google "Shanksville physics" ,
you Googled Shanksville physics

The first would only return hits containing that exact 2-word phrase. The latter would get what you got. The moral is - don't put what you Googled into quotation marks unless you actually used the quotation marks.

Next - kindly address Gravy's post about the many reports of large amounts of aircraft fuel at the site. Ta.

 

[BigAl]

I hate to be so petty to prove something so banal, but anyway...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_331274a534d965744a.jpg[/qimg]

Please address Gravy's points.

 

[Rewey]

A few questions for you, Rewey:

1) What do the above accounts suggest to you about the presence of jet fuel at the site?

2) Which people who were at the site shortly after the crash did you interview?

3) Where can we find the final environmental report issued by United Airlines?

4) Can you present (what is to you) a sensible scenario that fits the existing evidence and does not involve flight 93 crashing in that field?

Finally - someone who can write back without the insults. Nice site of yours by the way - I just had a read through it today. Some great research in there.

If you really want to know, and you're happy to listen for a bit, I'm happy to explain what bothers me about the jet fuel in the soil.

I'm always sceptical about relying on interviews, as you guys probably would be as well. After all, how many people have claimed to see military planes, or all-grey planes with no windows flying into the WTC towers. Look at the discrepancies in the description of F77. There's even one guy who claims he saw Flight 93 hit the ground, and saw the cockpit break off and bounce into the woods...

There are a number of people who also claim that there was a large quantity of jet fuel spilled at the scene, which accounts for witnesses claiming a strong smell of jet fuel when they arrived at the site.


On 3 October 2001, an article made the following claims:

“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” .

One year after the event, on September 11, 2002, the Department of Environmental Protection made the following report:

“Site samples indicate that the site meets Pennsylvania's Act 2 statewide health standards for soil and groundwater for the fuel known as jet "A" fuel. We consider cleanup work at the site completed.

United Airlines' site investigation included tests on samples of soil, sediment and groundwater in the immediate crash impact area, and also in the areas lying in the south and southeast corners of the site. The areas tested included a sediment pond drained during the FBI site investigation.

Soil sampling areas included the excavated pit, the area surrounding the pit and the backfill material.

‘The backfill material was made up mostly of soil and dirt excavated from the pit during the criminal investigation,’ Duritsa said ”.

From my reading, and depending on time available, there are two recognised means of removing jet fuel contamination from soil. The first is a remediation system using a combination of ground water pumping, air injection, and soil vapour extraction. The entire process is lengthy, taking many months to complete.

The second, and easiest, is to remove the contaminated soil, and replace it with cleanfill.

On October 3, the contractor began filling in the Shanksville site. The DEP article notes that the backfill material used was the same that was excavated from the site. Given the inordinately lengthy remediation process, there is no chance that this would have been implemented by October 3, less than a month after the alleged crash. Therefore, as far as I'm aware (and please correct me if I'm wrong), for there to be no traces of jet A fuel in that backfill, which was not cleanfill and had not had time to have been cleaned by the remediation methods, there could not have been any there in the first place.

Further, the DEP saying that the site 'meets the requirements' doesn't necessarily mean that there was jet fuel there before, and now it's gone. It could also mean that there never was jet fuel in the ground. It is very easy to test for Kerosene based products like Jet A Fuel. Therefore TO ME, the article from October 3 saying that none had been found yet seems a little strange.

So that's where I'm coming from. That will obviously offend some people on this site, as I clearly haven't evolved to the same level of existence as them, but Gravy, as you asked - that's what I find strange about it... if you're happy to continue in your earlier civilised manner, I'd be happy to learn from you...

Rewey

 

[Rewey]

The moral is - don't put what you Googled into quotation marks unless you actually used the quotation marks.

Fine. Whatever. But don't you think LightinDarkness could have tried it without the quotation marks before he jumped in and called me a liar? Was that REALLY all it took to stump him?

Rewey

[edit] Seriously - if I'd done that, you guys would be jumping all over me... how about out of objectivity you guys take care of your own once in a while?

 

[Justin39640]

Rewey

the people who saw military planes or no windows were miles away
no one up close said that
my friend watched the 2nd plane hit from the observation deck of lincoln center
he saw it was clearly a passenger plane 100 blocks away

seeing they probably sifted through every grain of that 50 foot hole that was dug looking for evidence and remains
maybe half that job was already done making it easier just to use the same fill rather than binging in a few trucks

and you say there was fuel at the rate of just a few PPM of soil
how much cubic area can a million grains of sand fit into? (for everybody)

 

[TexasJack]

I'm always sceptical about relying on interviews, as you guys probably would be as well. After all, how many people have claimed to see military planes, or all-grey planes with no windows flying into the WTC towers. Look at the discrepancies in the description of F77. There's even one guy who claims he saw Flight 93 hit the ground, and saw the cockpit break off and bounce into the woods...

Eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, (but in Gravy's post, he does list trained professionals as witnesses) unless it can be corroborated with physical evidence. Here we have a ton, DNA from the passengers, FDR, telephone calls, plane parts found at the scene, etc. You call this utter nonsense, I call it solid evidence. Being skeptical about soil analysis will never trump this evidence, so the question is, how do you explain away all this evidence?

 

[dtugg]

Being skeptical about soil analysis will never trump this evidence, so the question is, how do you explain away all this evidence?

It was all faked/planted! It's easy being a twoofer.

 

[Rewey]

and you say there was fuel at the rate of just a few PPM of soil

No, no... I said that for the EPA to be satisfied that the contamination was fine, the levels of jet fuel left in the soil would have to be tiny - only mere parts per million. You can get the excel spreadsheet from the EPA website which lists accurately the tolerance levels for different contaminants.

Rewey

 

[Rewey]

Eyewitness accounts can be unreliable, (but in Gravy's post, he does list trained professionals as witnesses) unless it can be corroborated with physical evidence.

Here's a trained professional as well:

Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." 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."

But no-one arriving at the site immediately after the crash spoke of large fires burning off this surface fuel, which would have burnt with large black plumes of smoke, being kerosene based.

Rewey