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

[BigAl]

Really? Do you have it? Because I couldn't find a copy of it anywhere.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE GUY TO PROVIDE IT. Because it seemed to go against what the NIST report on the Pentagon performance stated. I just brought it up because of something leftysergeant mentioned...

Rewey

What is your point? The nature of the wall is irrelevant to the fact that Flight 93, a 757, crashed into the Pentagon.

You admit you haven't read the entire Vogel book from which you cherry-picked a "fact". Maybe reading it would clarify your understanding.

The other good book on the Pentagon is Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 - 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses by Patrick Creed.

 

[Magenta]

Please note that on Friday morning (Western Australian time) I'm flying out to the Philippines.

OK, enjoy your break.

Would you agree that the colour of the soil (reddy-orange) is due to the iron oxides, and this is what makes some people think it's dirt, some people think it's rusted plane parts (and therefore staged)?

Rust? Aren't jet engines made out of titanium, aluminium and fancy alloys?

 

[Justin39640]

Nah - all genuine there. You should try something like that at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do... Look at some of the kids in those photos - they've got nothing on Earth.

Fly out in 6 hours. Can't wait...

Rewey

i gotta respect him for that

 

[Gravy]

OH MY GOD - do you people not read? I was using the witness quotes provided by Gravy...

What - are you saying they were wrong now?

Oh? The same people you refuse to interview because you don't believe that interviews of witnesses and first responders and professional investigators would be worthwhile? The same people who make you Flight 93 truthers quake in your shoes whenever their names are mentioned?

What - are you saying that they were right now? Here's a suggestion. I believe I've made it already. Why don't you ask them, Rewey?

As if.

So, Rewey, you have this strong belief. What are you going to DO with it? Where are you going to present your evidence?

Nowhere but internet forums. Because you care that much. Because you have that much confidence in your evidence.

Go ahead: prove me wrong.

As if. Your posts reek of intellectual cowardice, equivocation, and backpedaling. Your inability to answer simple, essential questions about your own claims is once again noted. How sad.

Goodbye, "Rewey," and good luck with your delusions. You'll need it.

 

[triforcharity]

So by that definition, you would say that the garbage collector is an expert? I'm sure there's a button or something that requires pushing to make the bins go up, but I'd have to look for it. Is that enough 'special knowledge' to make him an expert?

I can also tie my own shoes, but it's not something I've been able to do for my whole life. I had to learn it and practice when I was a kid. But now, heck, I can even tie my shoes in the dark. But I don't call myself a shoe tying expert!

Rewey

Just about anyone can tie thier shoes. This is not a SPECIAL SKILL!!

Just about anyone can make toast. This is NOT a special skill.

Testing soil, fighting fire, etc.etc. etc. are in fact special skills.

Someone who has extensive training in said fields are usually refered to as experts.

Case closed. Look foreward to when you get back.

 

[LashL]

Silliness. Rewey, in your "paper", you put yourself forward as someone with particular knowledge and expertise in the properties of soil; you cite your knowledge of "previous studies" and your work experience; you discuss your experience with "soil testing and classification" and you play up the size and extent of the company for which you work; and you insinuate that you have expertise sufficient to "provide an analysis of the soil conditions present to assess whether it is at all realistic that a 90 ton Boeing could crash into the ground with enough force to bury itself completely."

You do all of that at the very outset of your paper, and it is quite apparent that you did so in order that those reading it would come to the conclusion that you have some particular expertise in the properties of soil and, therefore, would give your "analysis" more weight or consideration than they would otherwise do.

That is, indeed, YOU presenting yourself as a soil specialist. But you are not. Nor am I a neuro-surgeon.



Your paper starts and ends with suggesting that Flight 93 could not have actually crashed in that location, so that seems to be its real "entire point". Your photo analysis is not only superficial but also grossly unprofessional and terribly flawed. You draw conclusions from a select few photographs that you have no business drawing such conclusions from, and you wholly ignore the existence of a wealth of actual study, analysis and assessment by true professionals in coming to weak and unsupported conclusions. Your paper would be a complete embarrassment to anyone who actually has any expertise in the properties of soil, or in soil contamination, or in environmental assessment. (The latter point is mentioned because of your posts in this thread in which you make various assertions about the environmental assessment conducted at the site with respect to soil contamination, without ever having made any effort to obtain the studies or do any analysis of them. As I said previously, that should be the FIRST step you take if you are going to purport to opine on such matters.)



There are, indeed, legal requirements for reclaiming land upon which mining has previously been carried out. However, I see nothing in the relevant legislation that leads me to conclude that the site at Shanksville could not have "loosely packed" soil. Can you please provide me with more detail as to how you come to this conclusion? Please bear in mind that you cannot cherry pick a certain section from a lengthy piece of legislation and just assume that it means what you think it means, or assume that it applies to a particular location, event, etc. So, please be specific and detailed as to the sections that you are relying upon, what you think those sections mean, and how you arrive at your conclusions.

Also, since you are opining on the reclamation of the Shanksville mining site, I guess I should ask you specifically whether you have ever bothered to ask for the reclamation plan for the site, or ever bothered to ask for documentation about the reclamation that was carried out, or ever bothered to find out what was actually done, or ever bothered to analyze the results of the reclamation plan after its implementation? I am going to go out a limb and predict that the answer to each of these questions will be a resounding, "No."



The version that I have read is a revised version. I do not believe I had the pleasure of reading the unrevised version, so I do not know what it is that you revised.

Once again, "Ahem."

Either address my post in its entirety, "Rewey", or admit that you will not. It is not sufficient for you to pick and choose portions to purport to respond to in the ridiculous fashion that you have done. If you want a serious discussion (despite the fact that nothing you have posted so far merits one), then you will address the issues appropriately. If you refuse to do so, then you are just wasting my time.

 

[Arus808]

PLEASE keep the pentagon and WTC stuff out of this thread (rewey start another one if you want to address you concerns about them, otherwise, POST into a thread that is alrady about them)

And rewey, you haven't answered any of Lashl's points. PLease do so

 

[Foolmewunz]

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.

In Bizarro Troof World was Lend Lease (an FDR program) a part of WWI? Someone Stundie this before he dies under the crush of his own ignorance.

ETA: Sorry, gang. How was I to know this had gone on for another four pages? You expect me to know everything?

 

[Magenta]

Once again, "Ahem."

Either address my post in its entirety, "Rewey", or admit that you will not. It is not sufficient for you to pick and choose portions to purport to respond to in the ridiculous fashion that you have done. If you want a serious discussion (despite the fact that nothing you have posted so far merits one), then you will address the issues appropriately. If you refuse to do so, then you are just wasting my time.

And rewey, you haven't answered any of Lashl's points. PLease do so

Don't hold your breath:

FOR THE RECORD...
Please note that on Friday morning (Western Australian time) I'm flying out to the Philippines.

I'm only bringing that up because if I suddenly disappear for a few weeks, there'll no doubt be a big bunch of you cheering and giving each other high-fives at the thought that you've scared off another 'tin-foil hat wearer'... That's not the case...

Also, he's been studiously ignoring Gravy's post from earlier in the week:

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.

 

[tsig]

i gotta respect him for that

If you believe a word of it.

 

[tsig]

If you read the report, and all of my posts, you'd know I keep telling people I'm not a 'soil specialist', and yes, I do work for a building company.



Nah - all genuine there. You should try something like that at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do... Look at some of the kids in those photos - they've got nothing on Earth.

Fly out in 6 hours. Can't wait...

Rewey

Why not take the money for your flight ticket and hire local men to do the construction?

You should tell the truth at least once in your life. It's the most rewarding thing you'll ever do...

 

[Justin39640]

If you believe a word of it.

just cause hes got nutty ideas (which i dont respect)
doesnt mean that no truthers do anything of actual value

seeing we cant prove it one way or another i give the benefit of the doubt

his head needs some checking
but the heart is there (or so it seems)

 

[Magenta]

I read Rewey's paper over the weekend. While soil analysis via photograph and without reference to site-specific data is a novel way to approach a crash site investigation, what struck me is how the analysis is tainted by a conspiratorial mindset. For example:

"One question is raised. If there are countless recreations and computer simulations of the two planes hitting the WTC towers, and of the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon, why is there not one official source which has produced a recreation or computer simulation of the plane hitting the ground in Shanksville, as per the official story? The answer, quite simply, is because as soon as people took one look at it, they would realise how absurd the official story really is." [emphasis in original] p26-27

So, on the one hand, if information is available it is deemed to be fabricated, but on the other hand if it is believed (erroneously, because of sloppy research) to have been withheld, then that is also evidence of nefarious activity.

The flight 93 recorder data and animation are of course available directly from the NTSB via FOI request, or from various sites that have uploaded it. I will be interested to see if Rewey hand-waves it aside.

 

[CORed]

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

You all carry on like 8 years is an eternity... Believe it or not, it's still within the statute of limitations for crimes such as murder, so the courts don't agree with you that it's too long for the truth to come out. For all of the examples above, the truth took decades to come out. The same will happen here... You blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

One out of six ain't bad for a truther.

 

[CORed]

The truth about the warnings before the sinking of the Lusitania, whilst the US claimed they had no knowledge about German uboats. No-one could believe that the US would send a passenger ship deliberately into uboat infested waters, but it's now known that they did. The truth about the knowledge of the impending Pearl Harbour attack, and the response of the US government to just let it happen, which we now know that they did. The truth about the USS Liberty attack by Israel. The truth about US operations in Loas and Cambodia during Vietnam, which is now admitted to. The truth about the US involvement with Afghanistan against the Soviets, which is now widely known. The truth about the US involvement with weapons during the Iran contra scandal, which is now admited to.

So let me get this straight: You think the US government had something to do with the RMS Lusitania, a privately-owned ocean liner of British registry, making it's regularly scheduled run?

 

[Rhotel1]

Douglas Lind Rokke - In Fact Has Padded His CV

Further backup of the six wall meme came from a retired Army major, Doug Rokke, who, if you watch him, clearly suffers from some sort of neuralogical disorder and probably PTSD. He also has a political aggenda and may be padding his curiculumn vitae a bit

Lefty Sergeant,

I would like to shake your hand for recognizing that Douglas Lind Rokke is basically a fraud. Rokke claims to have been stationed in the Pentagon and to have friends who were near the point of attack. Rokke never was stationed in the Pentagon. Rokke served on active duty as an Army Reserve officer twice; in Desert Shield/Storm 1990-91 and at Fort McClellan, Alabama in 1994-95. The rest of Rokke's military career was spent in the corn fields of Illinois. Rokke's doctoral degree is in Vocational Education (in the US, that is high school for kids who do not intend to go to college); Rokke's masters degree is also in Vocational Education. Rokke never treated any wounded soldiers; he did use Betadine to clean cuts and BandAids and SteriStrips to treat them when he responded to a tank fire in April 1991. The War had been over for two months. Rokke spent the actual war safe and sound in Riyadh. Rokke was a First Lieutenant in the Gulf War. He was promoted to Major in about 2001. He was retired from the Army Reserve as a Major in 2003.

I need to go to bed - it is very late and I need to go to work in a few hours.

[email protected]

 

[Travis]

Funny how this line of discussion just died. Did we ever determine if Skanksville had proper remediation compaction or not?

 

[beachnut]

Funny how this line of discussion just died. Did we ever determine if Skanksville had proper remediation compaction or not?

The soil expert was talking about bullets being stopped by sand bags but never offered up why a plane with nearly 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, traveling at 600 mph can't bury parts 30 to 40 feet deep. There was no energy comparison. The fact is aircraft going 600 mph can bury parts 20 to 50 feet deep in the ground. He presented a failed opinion without backup evidence. And the ground did stop flight 93 just as if it was a bullet in a sand bag; but different.

 

[Travis]

I just noticed I wrote Skanksville. Oops. Didn't mean to cast any aspersions.

 

[twinstead]

What a coincidence; my first wife was from Skansville.