Seriously - this is what I mean... How is this helpful discussion at all?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Soil Specialist from Down Under- Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville? "Nonsense!"
- Thread starter Mr.Herbert
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flight 93 kinetic energy
Seriously - this is what I mean... How is this helpful discussion at all?
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
great how much area can you fit a million grains of sand into?
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
thats the friendly and fun part here at JREF
no but seriously
when you make accusations of firemen, beat cops, etc etc etc being involved in mass murder and cover up
friendly tends to go out the window
sorry
but when you put yourself out there like that
dont expect a nice response or be shocked when you get a negative one
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
Like this?
Nope. No fire. No smoke that anyone ever saw or reported. Gee, if only someone had snapped a photo of it...
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Actually, dtug was just pointing out how little new any twoofer has managed to offer as evidence in these discussions.
We have heard most of what you have had to say before, but rarely in such an absurd format. You have not offered the first bit of new evidence to support those points at which we were laughing when you popped in here. Do not, therefore, be too surprised when we express a feeling of deja-moo about it all.
We have heard most of what you have had to say before, but rarely in such an absurd format. You have not offered the first bit of new evidence to support those points at which we were laughing when you popped in here. Do not, therefore, be too surprised when we express a feeling of deja-moo about it all.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
deja-WOO? lol
I never said it was supposed to be. But then again, that is pretty much your answer, correct, twoofer? Everything was faked, because well, your fantasy requires everything to be faked. And we all know you won't abandon your fantasy.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Didn't she say 'burned or evaporated?'
What happened to evaporated?
Anyway, I note that while you've praised Gravy, you haven't ha the courtesy to answer the 4 questions, even though you quoted them.
I hope you're not trying to suggest that, due to some inconsistencies in the reports of jet fuel, fly 93 didn't crash there. That would be very foolish.
Come on JimBenArm... you know as well as I do that Val McClatchy's photo is showing the initial fireball from the impact. That is NOT the burning of the 'puddles of jet fuel' which people allegedly saw when they arrived at the scene.
That looks more like this...
Does that mean it's all been addressed and answered? Because that's what I'm actually looking for. Or has it all been heard before, and summarily dismissed before?
If you've got the answers help me out, or point me to the thread where it's solved. I couldn't find it actually answered anywhere here...
Rewey
WHAT THE? How much clearer can I make it? The quotes from Gravy said people found lots of puddles of jet THAT WEREN'T BURNING when they arrived. This is the jet fuel that should have shown up in soil testing.
In other words, you don't know where it is either...
Given that you guys keep saying the sand was 'loosely packed', these puddles would soak into the soil very quickly. This means that the fuel contamination would be still within the soil...
Hmmm... not sure exactly what you're after here, but here's a photo of 3,281,579 grains of sand:
Make of that what you will.
Please also note that 'Parts', as in 'Parts Per Million' does not equate to grains. It does not relate to the size of the medium. Otherwise a few PPM in bricks would be a lot smaller ratio than a few PPM in sand. But anyway...
Rewey
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
It has been addressed, discussed by persons both with and without fire fighting experience. Those of us with fire fighting experience dismiss the absurd assumption that there should have been massive fuel fires still burning at the site with ease as absurd.
Most of the fuel did not puddle in the crater. It landed on the road and in the woods and in some grass down-range. There would have been too little oxygen left in the area to support ignition immediately after the deflagration of the fuel aerosolized in the crash. That which landed in an area with an ignition source would have been subject to ignition.
This is jet fuel we are talking about, okay? It is not gasoline. You can throuw jet fuel on a small fire and extinguish it.
DO NOT try that with gasoline.
Val's photo is good. Killtown's assessment of it is well-rotted bullflops.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
The ground was not sand. It was glacial till. It contains clay. It was probably a little damp, as such normally is in that part of the country.
That is not going to be very absorbent of an oil of any sort. Your knowledge of soils is looking far shakier than your self-reported curiculum vitae would suggest.
I have poured a lot of jet fuel onto soil and lit it, then extinguished the fires, just for drill. Even in the sandy soil of North Africa, the least bit of moisture in the soill retarded the absorbtion of JP-4.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Deja-moo(noun) The impression that we have heard this bull before.
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
he had a question in his paper too (in the OP)
why did the tail hit the ground, why wasnt it vaporized in the "explosion" (paraphrased)
the plane hit at 550 mph or so? (maybe more i forget off hand)
but at that speed it was moving at 808 feet per second
at 155 feet of plane that means from the nose first touching to the entire plane being down was about 1/4 of a second
the atomized fuel would have taken longer to ignite completely (fireball)
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Rewey - burned or evaporated. Your own quote contained those ideas. Yet they seem to have evaporated before you comprehended them.
Can you at least allow that the fuel might have evaporated? Why bother using expert opinion if you're going to ignore it? I don't follow the logic.
It also does not seem to have occurred to you that the reports of jet fuel 'smell' indicate that it was evaporating. It was clearly spread out over a large area, fairly diffused. This is another clue as to why the ppm in soil were not as high as you think they should've been.
There are a number of reasonable explanations for these phenomena that do not require 'conspiracy','inside job' or 'false flag' alarms. Try those first, not last.
Can you at least allow that the fuel might have evaporated? Why bother using expert opinion if you're going to ignore it? I don't follow the logic.
It also does not seem to have occurred to you that the reports of jet fuel 'smell' indicate that it was evaporating. It was clearly spread out over a large area, fairly diffused. This is another clue as to why the ppm in soil were not as high as you think they should've been.
There are a number of reasonable explanations for these phenomena that do not require 'conspiracy','inside job' or 'false flag' alarms. Try those first, not last.