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

[alienentity]

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...



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_331274a5368a480628.jpg[/qimg]

First, you should be careful not to use an example that isn't comparable. In the picture you offer, the fuselage of the jet is clearly visible, indicating a much different scenario.

It would make much more sense to find other high angle, high speed crashes to compare to. That is if you want something useful.

Also, your picture shows a jet on fire. No such scenario existed at Shanksville, and nobody has implied that. Gravy provided nothing which indicated large pools of burning jet fuel.

Where is your critical thinking? So far I'm not seeing much.

 

[alienentity]

. That is NOT the burning of the 'puddles of jet fuel' which people allegedly saw when they arrived at the scene.

Can you please find the reports of burning puddles of jet fuel you refer to (presumably in Gravy's post).
I can't find them. I see reports of the smell of jet fuel, references to spot fires and smoke.
No burning puddles of jet fuel.

Where'd you come up with that? Please don't make things up. That's not nice.


Oh, and please answer Gravy's four questions, or you're being disrespectful to one person who was respectful to you.

 

[Justin39640]

hes coming up with a lot
from those questions in post #1 it seems that
a: he thinks the plane was in pieces before it hit
b: that the fuel should have stayed with in the confines of the plane

 

[triforcharity]

Leftysargent is correct. You CAN put a fire out with Kerosene. Kerosene is simmilar to diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is FLAMEABLE but not EXPLOSIVE. Gasoline, on the other hand, is VERY explosive. Reason?? Gasolines "flash" point is very low and very fast, lots and lots of fumes. Diesel, on the other hand, has a very high flash point, (meaning just a small spark will not light it-hence GLOWPLUGS on a diesel truck) and very slow. You could pour a gallon of both fuels in a line, light them both at the same time, and the gas one will reach the other end of it's line WELL before the diesel.

But, I digress.....

 

[TexasJack]

Here's a trained professional as well:



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

Wow, the irony of your response is very telling, and proves my point at the same time. You cherry-picked one part of my post, which was a side-note and missed the crux of my question. Again, your picking one piece of evidence and dismissing the mountain of other evidence--the DNA, the FDR, the phone calls, etc. At the same time, you can't explain what happened to Flight 93 or the passengers, if not Shanksville, then where? Why are there plane parts and DNA of the passengers there? Is all this evidence "utter nonsense" as you put it? You have to weigh all the evidence, not just cherry-pick one piece.

Let me give you analogy of what you are attempting to do. You have client who is accused of murdering someone. Here is the evidence: your client hated the victim, there are witnesses who saw him stab him, his DNA is found on the victim, your client initially denies killing him, but later confesses, an expert says he was stabbed by a 5-inch blade. And your defense: you have one expert who says it can't be 5-inch blade, but a 4-inch blade, so he's innocent. In fact your claiming it isn't even the same victim.

 

[Justin39640]

Leftysargent is correct. You CAN put a fire out with Kerosene. Kerosene is simmilar to diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is FLAMEABLE but not EXPLOSIVE. Gasoline, on the other hand, is VERY explosive. Reason?? Gasolines "flash" point is very low and very fast, lots and lots of fumes. Diesel, on the other hand, has a very high flash point, (meaning just a small spark will not light it-hence GLOWPLUGS on a diesel truck) and very slow. You could pour a gallon of both fuels in a line, light them both at the same time, and the gas one will reach the other end of it's line WELL before the diesel.

But, I digress.....

glow plugs dont actually light the fuel
the compression in a diesel engine is very high (typically 20 something to 1 verses a gas engine which is about 10 or so to 1)
when you combine that compression with heat
the atomized fuel/ air mix ignites (its unstable at high compression)
the glow plugs are just a starting aid for a cold engine
it preheats the combustion chamber for maximum burn efficiency
some diesels have an inline fuel heater
some have neither

when a cold diesel starts up you get an incomplete burn and the result is heavy white smoke

this is how the Ok city bomb worked as well
the dynamite creates the compression that blows the fuel
fertilizer adds the heat to the mix
VERY POWERFUL

 

[Rewey]

The ground was not sand. It was glacial till. It contains clay.

'Clay' and 'contains clay' are very different.

glacial till
accumulations of unsorted, unstratified mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders

There's plenty in there that would absorb jet fuel...

 

[leftysergeant]

There's plenty in there that would absorb jet fuel...

Yeah, when it's dry.

 

[Rewey]

Again, your picking one piece of evidence and dismissing the mountain of other evidence--the DNA, the FDR, the phone calls, etc. At the same time, you can't explain what happened to Flight 93 or the passengers, if not Shanksville, then where? Why are there plane parts and DNA of the passengers there?

Please note carefully - I have never said that it's not the wreckage of Flight 93 there. I'm not saying it just disappeared, and I'm not one of the fruitloops who thinks the Government hid the plane and shot/gassed the passengers (which I've heard some people claim, one of which was even in a 'doco').

I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?

 

[Justin39640]

Please note carefully - I have never said that it's not the wreckage of Flight 93 there. I'm not saying it just disappeared, and I'm not one of the fruitloops who thinks the Government hid the plane and shot/gassed the passengers (which I've heard some people claim, one of which was even in a 'doco').

well theres hope for you yet then lol
i personally lean slightly LIHOP cause that could be as simple as someone standing at a fax machine, grabbin a printout, crumpling it up, and shooting a 3 pointer into the waste paper basket

i do 99% believe it was just a complete FUBARing of intel

I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?

nope
how could it?
why would a plane break up right before it hit? it didnt
since many ppl saw an intact aircraft seconds before impact
the ground broke it up
nothin else
if it broke up prior i think the debris would have been more spread out and you might even have large pieces left (like flight 103's cockpit)

it went through the ground like it was a piece of beef through a meat grinder

 

[Rewey]

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.

Of course, but look at what happens when liquids evaporate. Think about salt lakes, which there are lots of in the US. It occurs when there is salt water on the surface. Different elements evaporate at different temps. When the water evaporates, it leaves behind the 'contaminant' (salt, in this case). So even if the jet fuel evaporates, it's not like its entire presence disappears - there are contaminants left behind. These would appear in the soil testing, just as salt would appear in testing salt lake soil.

This is another clue as to why the ppm in soil were not as high as you think they should've been.

But the quotes that Gravy put in did not say they were 'fairly diffused'. They specified puddles, implying quite large areas of fuel sitting on the ground.

First, you should be careful not to use an example that isn't comparable

Yes, I get that. What I was showing was that jet fuel (in large quantity) doesn't simply explode - that's why the photo I put in shows a long, dense plume of smoke. Leftysergeant also confirms this property of jet fuel, I believe.

Can you please find the reports of burning puddles of jet fuel you refer to (presumably in Gravy's post).

Please re-read that post, because that's the opposite of what I'm saying.

The point I was trying to make is that Val McClatchy's photo shows the smoke from the initial explosion when the plane crashed. The witnesses who got there apparently saw big puddles of jet fuel which were NOT burning. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that THESE puddles burned away, as there would be long plumes of smoke, and the people would have said they saw 'burning puddles', not 'puddles of jet fuel'...

Rewey

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm just very curious as to whether there's another way the plane could have come down in the field. Is it AT LEAST POSSIBLE that parts of the plane had broken up before impact? Even if at a very low altitude before impact (not suggesting the 'shoot-down' idea here)?

Too remote a chance to be considered, given the way it buried itself and the data on the FDR showing all systems nominal at time of impact. Without structural integrity near 100% it would have spattered like any other aircraft in a high-speed controled flight into terrain.

 

[Rewey]

i personally lean slightly LIHOP

So we're in the same boat then? What I don't get is why people keep saying I'm insulting New York firefighters because I believe the plane may not have crashed in one piece? Using stupid emotional nonsense like that does nothing for the cause, does it? Just like No Plane retards and Rocket Pod idiots do nothing for the other side of the fence.

So let's look at something here. Would there be ANY reason for the Government to even slightly alter the events as they unfolded in Flight 93? I believe there could be.

There's a terrific quote from a book which has always stuck with me (I can't remember the book but I think it may have been 'the art of war') which talks about the psychological effect on the population after such events.

What the country needs at that time (and the politicians benefit from) is a completely unified emotion in the people. In other words, even if the government were completely justified in shooting down F93 (and I'm not saying that's what happened) there will always be those in society who will feel great anger and derision at the government. Look at the response to US servicemen during and following the Vietnam War. This was because A FEW horrifying incidents were given precedence in the public eye over all the other efforts that were being made during the war.

What those in power would benefit from in such a case, particularly IF they were going to use changing public sentiment to begin a push into Iraq, is completely unified public sentiment. What better way than to champion the 'let's roll' hero story of F93. It's a fantastic story of heroism that the population can rally behind.

But is there actually any evidence that those people were able to make it inside the cockpit? My understanding is that there is none, particularly as the last moments of the CVR were never made public. Maybe the truth is far less 'romantic'?

Look, let's face it. Everyone's seen dozens of different camera angles of the WTC's being hit. All the government would have to do to shut down all the nutjobs is release the footage confiscated from the camera on the hotel roof opposite the Pentagon, instead of just the 5 or so ambiguous frames from the side-on camera. Would that be any more horrifying or disrespectful than the WTC images? This is what breeds conspiracy theories - the suppression of information. Look at what people still talk about with regards to the Zapruder film, and how it took something like a decade to release it. Now half of the population seem to think it was to give the feds time to fake/alter it. The longer the hotel footage is suppressed, the less likely it is to convince the nutjobs when it finally IS released... It just becomes one more source of ongoing conspiracy...

Rewey

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, they very well could have made it into the cockpit. Those doors (pre-9/11) were not THAT strong. (I have experience with firefighting in airplanes. Pre-9/11, you could hit it one or two good times with an axe and it would pop open. Also, the exterrior of an airplane is lightweight aluminum. You could take a pocket knife, and shove it almost compleately through the exterrior, but I digress)

Anyway, from what I understand, is that the passengers were trying to get into the cockpit, and the pilots would bank the plane to throw them off balance. Once they got back to their feet, they would try again. The pilots became concerned that the passengers would gain entry to the cockpit, restrain them or kill them, and retake the plane. This would have been DETRIMENTAL to their mission, which was simple. KILL AMERICANS.

So, as opposed to failure, they decided to just drive that plane into the ground. I BELIEVE this information is found in the 9/11 comission report.

Why would they need to alter Flt 93?? Would it not have been enough of a blow to America that NYC deaths were enormous?? Absolutely. This was just a drop in the bucket. I believe that if 93 HADN'T crashed, we STILL would have demanded revenge.

 

[LashL]

The progression of this thread leads me to believe that the 'paper' in the opening post of this thread is ridiculous, and that its author is a "soil specialist" like I'm a neuro-surgeon. In other words, not at all.

It strikes me as beyond ludicrous to purport to opine on the contamination or non-contamination of the soil at the site of the crash of Flight 93 at Shanksville without ever having bothered to obtain and study the environmental studies that were conducted at the site and without having bothered to seek the opinions of qualified people to explain the results of those studies. And yet, the author of the 'paper' (which looks to me like nothing more than an incoherent conspiracy fantasist rant, lacking any basis in science, fact or evidence) claims that 9/11 'was an inside job' because his personal incredulity tells him so, without this self-described "soil specialist" ever having sought or reviewed the actual studies conducted or the results obtained.

This strikes me as woefully incompetent, and beyond disingenuous.

Rewey, why have you not sought or obtained copies of the environmental assessment reports that were conducted at the site, and why have you not done any analysis of the results of those assessment reports? Do you not agree that doing so should be the very FIRST step required if you wish to present yourself as some kind of expert who seeks to criticize the results of bona fide experts? Do you not agree that doing so should be the very FIRST step required in order for you to draw any accurate conclusions about the assessments, the testing methods, and the results? Do you not agree that obtaining, studying, and understanding the assessments carried out by legitimate experts, and the results at which they arrived, should be the very FIRST step you undertake before going off half-cocked and criticizing that which you have not even seen, let alone understood?

 

[Gravy]

Hello, Rewey.

I'm perplexed. Normally I would thank anyone who said they found my website valuable, but in your writings I don't see that you've learned anything at all from the simple evidence I set out – evidence that is a small fraction of the mountain that's available to the public.

Rewey, can you show that any of this evidence is wrong? If so, you will be the first to do so, and your evidence will be valued by news agencies and governments around the world.

You do understand that, don't you?

I note that several people have asked you to answer the four questions I asked of you. No one can compel you to do that, but in the interest of clarity I will refer you again to this post of mine, with these questions:

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?

I believe that you've indirectly answered questions 1 and 2 by stating that in general you discount first-person accounts, so perhaps you can answer questions 3 and 4, clearly and directly.

Surely someone like yourself who makes claims about the work that was done at the Flight 93 site, knows what work was done there, right?

Question 4 is self-explanatory.

Thanks.


Edit: Also (and as usual!), what LashL said.

 

[Rewey]

The progression of this thread leads me to believe that the 'paper' in the opening post of this thread is ridiculous, and that its author is a "soil specialist" like I'm a neuro-surgeon. In other words, not at all.

I still don't get this! It was you guys on this forum that called me a 'soil specialist', not me. And I've explained this before. So clearly, yes - it is like you being a neuro-surgeon.

without this self-described "soil specialist"

And yet again...

Rewey, why have you not sought or obtained copies of the environmental assessment reports that were conducted at the site, and why have you not done any analysis of the results of those assessment reports?

The entire point of that report (well... where it started, before it digressed) was to point out that I didn't buy the view that the soil sround the site was 'loosely packed' or 'soft' because of the fact that there was a strip mine previously. What I believe I've pointed out is that the photos of the site tell a different story, as does the later finding of the Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act 1977, which outlines the strict requirements for the decommissioning of a strip mine.

Would any of you guys like to concede at least that there were a number of legal requirements that had been met in decommissioning the strip mine, and that it had not simply been left in a 'loosely packed' state. It WOULD actually help your cause somewhat, by explaining why the plane fragmented into such tiny pieces...

Also, I doubt anyone here has downloaded the much-revised report for a second read? Just to demosntrate that when certain facts ARE pointed out, I'm more than happy to revise my thoughts...

 

[Justin39640]

So we're in the same boat then? (snip)

Rewey

please dont take me out of context or quote mine me

when i say LIHOP
i mean that once the doors closed on those planes (or even well before)
the govts job was over
the hijackers took over 4 planes and one of them crashed in that field

i also state that in my mind there is a 1% probability of this being the case (i guess the term "slightly" is an overstatement)

you imply that there was a MASSIVE COVER UP AFTER THE FACT WHICH WOULD IMPLICATE FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE CRIME

no sir we are definitely not in the same boat

 

[triforcharity]

If by same boat you mean he is in a dighy and you (Justin) are in a destroyer, than yes, you are.

I'll tell you what......some people's kids.

 

[Justin39640]

If by same boat you mean he is in a dighy and you (Justin) are in a destroyer, than yes, you are.

I'll tell you what......some people's kids.

JREF is definitely a 16" barrel of truth and it softens up TMers pretty nicely (by their reactions here and other places)
im just an AA gunner here lol (maybe even a cook lol)