Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

RedIbis said:
Wrong. It's not as simple as throwing some jet fuel around. It's what makes a crash scene consistent with other crash scenes, namely, the thousands of gallons of fuel that leak into the soil. Even the exploded jet fuel will leave considerable contamination at ground level.

Throwing "some jet fuel around" would allow people to smell it, but it would not contaminate the soil to the extent that occurs after a crash. See my point?
Click to expand...

The 100+ tons of aircraft wreckage and the eyewitnesses might be a clue.
 
chillzero said:
Your comment makes even less sense then. I have no concerns about bitching. When I was a mod I had concerns only about members breaching the MA.

What I said to you was that it is very poor form (see.... I'm not accusing you of breaking any rules) to pose a question and then bitch at someone who tells you how to get your answer. If you're now saying you already had the answer, then you can add disingenuous to the charge.
Click to expand...

I know this won't go over too well, but if I could ask you the most direct question and ask you for your most sincere answer.

Do you find it strange that the EPA found no soil contamination at the Flight 93 crash site?
 
RedIbis said:
What 100+ tons of wreckage would that be?
Click to expand...

And the eyewitnesses. Don't forget the eyewitnesses.

See [3]. Sorry for the ugly formatting. There is so much evidence for the standard story and so little time to make it pretty.

[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
[2] The hole
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
[7] 1960 Air-to-air collision NYC
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders,.
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
[12] Pictures
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
[14] Coroner Statement
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
[17] VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash
[18] Phone calls from Flight 93
[19] Flight 93 Radar track
[20] Crash debris found 8 miles away
[21] Olsen Phone calls discussed
[1] --------------------------------------------------------------
DNA http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp http://preview.tinyurl.com/2fhpe8 Links to forensics and hijacker identification http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linksto911forensicsaqndvictimidentificat The hijacker's license http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg

[2] --------------------------------------------------------------
The Hole: The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h), at a 40 degree angle.[26] The impact left a crater about 115 feet (35 m) wide and 10 to 12 feet (about 3.5 m) deep. There were no survivors among the 44 passengers, crew and terrorists (all were killed by the impact or had been previously killed during flight). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tvkk
[3] --------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the in the news on 9/24/2001, CNN reports 95% or the aircraft was recovered form that hole including both black boxes. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/inv.pennsylvania.site.index.html CNN.com FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania (CNN) --The FBI announced Monday that its investigation of the site where a hijacked jet slammed into a field here is complete and that 95 percent of the plane was recovered. The federal investigation into the September 11 terrorist attacks continues. Evidence-gathering was halted Saturday afternoon and the pieces of United Airlines Flight 93 that had been recovered were turned over Sunday to the airline, with the exception of the flight data recorder and the voice recorder, which are being held and analyzed by the FBI, according to FBI agent Bill Crowley. Crowley said the biggest piece of the plane that was recovered was a 6-by-7-foot piece of the fuselage skin, including about four windows. The heaviest piece, Crowley said, was part of an engine fan, weighing about 1,000 pounds. Flight 93 was one of four jets hijacked Sept. 11. Authorities believe the flight, which originated in Newark, New Jersey, and had been destined for San Francisco, was headed for the nation's capital, where the hijackers may have intended to slam it into the White House or the Capitol. Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have praised the passengers of that flight, saying it appears their actions in trying to regain control of the aircraft averted a greater tragedy. People who spoke by phone with passengers after the plane was hijacked say that after the passengers found out about the earlier World Trade Center attack, they decided to try to overpower the hijackers. And officials familiar with the flight's cockpit voice recorder say it shows there was a "definite struggle," which they described as desperate and wild, between hijackers and some of the passengers. All 44 people on board the flight were killed when it slammed into the ground.
[4] --------------------------------------------------------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf Black boxes recovered and analyzed http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf Of the airliner parts, the pieces that investigators judged most significant were the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, both unearthed within 3 1/2 days of the crash. The voice recording that remained is being analyzed for clues to confirm the identities of the four hijackers who seized the Newark-to-San Francisco flight before it crashed. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
[5] --------------------------------------------------------------
Video of Phanton hitting wall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8
[6] --------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of Flight 93 links
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence,man
[7] --------------------------------------------------------------
Example Air-to-air collision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_New_York_air_disaster
[8] --------------------------------------------------------------
Black boxes recovered and analyzed http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf Discussed : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102924
[9] --------------------------------------------------------------
1,200 investigators and first responders,. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence,man
[10] --------------------------------------------------------------
Remains of aircraft in storage. Since it had no more use for it, the FBI turned the airliner debris -- but not the data and voice recorders -- over to United Airlines yesterday. Asked what United will do with the debris, airline spokeswoman Whitney Staley said, "I don't think a decision has been made ... but we're not commenting." http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp "With the recovery Friday night of the cockpit voice recorder from United Flight 93, workers at the crash site have shifted their focus to a long, arduous search for what remains of the jet and its victims. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[11] --------------------------------------------------------------
Debris from the crash has been found up to 8 miles from the crash site, but searchers are concentrating on the crater where most of the remains are located. Papers and other light objects were carried aloft by the explosion after impact of the plane and they were transported by a nine-knot wind. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp
[12] --------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200061.html http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200062.html Live news coverage showing debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWi0JpI__M The hijacker's license http://bp0.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/RzjIqhqANiI/AAAAAAAAAuw/8Ve-LbpabIs/s1600-h/PA00101A.jpg
[13] --------------------------------------------------------------
FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece
of plane recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that
covered four windows -- a piece seven feet long
from a jetliner that was 155 feet long. The
heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section
of engine fan.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8&notFound=true
[14] --------------------------------------------------------------
Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes. He saw dust, not bodies.
[15] --------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93 http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
[16] --------------------------------------------------------------
THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 Compiled by Andrew Burfield http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2164577#post2164577
[17] --------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash (0:1:15) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxsmhnZeM6w
[18] --------------------------------------------------------------
Phone calls from Flight 93 9/11 Commission folder entitled "Flight 93 Calls - General". http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_Box12_93Calls_General.2.pdf
[19] --------------------------------------------------------------
Flight 93 Radar track http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/93RadarTrack.jpg
[20] --------------------------------------------------------------
Crash debris found 8 miles away
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12967.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_47536.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12942.html
[21] --------------------------------------------------------------
Olsen Phone calls discussed
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4687535#post4687535
 
Last edited:
Can someone help me. I'm looking for the Loose Change poster that shows the pictures of over 50 or so conspirators.
Thanks
 
RedIbis said:
What 100+ tons of wreckage would that be?
Click to expand...

The twisted unrecognizable debris that was rendered such by a high angle impact into a dense surface at almost 600 mph. Are you expecting large remnants characteristic of a mid-air break up or a low-angle crash?

RedIbis said:
There's nothing wrong with the advice. Is there anything wrong with saying, "you know that's a pretty good question. Why wasn't there any soil contamination?"
Click to expand...
It's interesting actually but I'm also speaking on this issue from the position of someone who has not been made aware of this previously. Hearing this claim for the first time however it doesn't seem like it's quite enough to raise both eyebrows given that DNA identification and the debris you enjoy denying was there both still point to a genuine crash site and of course the identity of the plane.
 
Last edited:
chillzero said:
:rolleyes:


I have no expertise to make any judgement in that area.
Click to expand...

That's a cop out. I asked you what you thought, for your opinion. You're not an expert witness expected to give testimony in a court of law. If all the posters had that attitude, discussion would cease to exist. We could only discuss what we're professionally trained at, and who would want to do that all the time?

What you can do is research the question. The EPA said there was no soil contamination. Researching any other plane crash site reveals extensive contamination, so much so that the military and commercial airlines have very advanced remediation capabilities.

I'm about done on this one and will quickly come up with another question. I can see this struck a nerve with some of the most civil and friendly posters here. I think it's a bit funny that you, TAM, and Mr. Skinny have responded with accusations of bitching, starting a pissing match, etc, but if you read back on those posts, there's nothing pissy about any of it. I'm not writing in caps or masking curse words, although I wouldn't mind ****ing doing so.
 
RedIbis said:
Researching any other plane crash site reveals extensive contamination, so much so that the military and commercial airlines have very advanced remediation capabilities.
Click to expand...

Cite?

(And what about the 100+ tons or wreckage and all the other evidence that documents the flight and the crash of flight 93?)
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
That's a cop out. I asked you what you thought, for your opinion.
Click to expand...
I don't have an opinion, because I don't have enough information, or valid expertise upon which to base one.

RedIbis said:
You're not an expert witness expected to give testimony in a court of law. If all the posters had that attitude, discussion would cease to exist. We could only discuss what we're professionally trained at, and who would want to do that all the time?
Click to expand...
It entirely depends on the question. Sometimes more people ought to recognise when their opinion does not hold merit.

RedIbis said:
What you can do is research the question.
Click to expand...
I might do if I was so inclined. Which I'm not at the moment.
That should probably have been evident from the fact that I never raised any questions about it either.

RedIbis said:
The EPA said there was no soil contamination. Researching any other plane crash site reveals extensive contamination, so much so that the military and commercial airlines have very advanced remediation capabilities.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so?
I believe you were given good advice on how to go about getting some additional information that might help you in your honest and sincere quest for truth.

RedIbis said:
I'm about done on this one and will quickly come up with another question. I can see this struck a nerve with some of the most civil and friendly posters here.
Click to expand...
Sure. :rolleyes:

RedIbis said:
I think it's a bit funny that you, TAM, and Mr. Skinny have responded with accusations of bitching, starting a pissing match, etc, but if you read back on those posts, there's nothing pissy about any of it. I'm not writing in caps or masking curse words, although I wouldn't mind ****ing doing so.
Click to expand...
I think I quoted the post that I found to be at fault, and I still hold that opinion. Your responses tome, including the irrelevancies regarding moderation only serve to weaken your position.
 
Mr.D said:
It's simply Red Ibis being Red Ibis and finding some minutiae where the folks at JREF don't have the answer for him instantly.
Click to expand...

Upon re-reading this thread, I found this gem and might consider adding it to my sig.
 
RedIbis said:
That's a cop out. I asked you what you thought, for your opinion. You're not an expert witness expected to give testimony in a court of law. If all the posters had that attitude, discussion would cease to exist. We could only discuss what we're professionally trained at, and who would want to do that all the time?

What you can do is research the question. The EPA said there was no soil contamination. Researching any other plane crash site reveals extensive contamination, so much so that the military and commercial airlines have very advanced remediation capabilities.

I'm about done on this one and will quickly come up with another question. I can see this struck a nerve with some of the most civil and friendly posters here. I think it's a bit funny that you, TAM, and Mr. Skinny have responded with accusations of bitching, starting a pissing match, etc, but if you read back on those posts, there's nothing pissy about any of it. I'm not writing in caps or masking curse words, although I wouldn't mind ****ing doing so.
Click to expand...
Red,

I admit that I do find it strange that no soil contamination was detected. However, without seeing the actual reports with details on what was sampled, where it was sampled, and when it was sampled, it's impossible for me to leap to the conclusion that no plane crashed in Shanksville, which is what you seem to be implying.

I think there is sufficient evidence that the aircraft did crash there. So, while I admit that the soil tests are puzzling, I'm really not interested enough to spend the time filing FOIA requests, etc.

If you can point me to the report online somewhere, I'd be glad to read it.

You seem to want to argue a report that (to use a lawyer term) "is not in evidence". How are we to discuss it properly until you show it to us?

That's why I accused you of starting a pissing match.
 
chillzero said:
It entirely depends on the question. Sometimes more people ought to recognise when their opinion does not hold merit.
Click to expand...


Amen. Just because I'm not entirely sure RedIbis could figure it out for himself, it's the difference between, "Was Mr. Doe holding the gun when you saw him," and "Do you think a single bullet was enough to kill the victim?"
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Red,

I admit that I do find it strange that no soil contamination was detected.
Click to expand...

The gas is in the wings and enclosed in sheet metal. When the plane hit the ground at 500+MPH, IMO, the wing tanks opened up and made a big fireball. Little of it had a chance to soak into the ground.
 
BigAl said:
The gas is in the wings and enclosed in sheet metal. When the plane hit the ground at 500+MPH, IMO, the wing tanks opened up and made a big fireball. Little of it had a chance to soak into the ground.
Click to expand...
I understand that line of reasoning.

I still find it curious that NO soil contamination was found. Unless, of course, you believe that the fireball perfectly consumed every last bit of fuel.
 
T.A.M. said:
Well because he made Condi, and many others look bad. He provided proof, in his testimony, that the higher ups had been warned, many times, but seemed disinterested, to say the least.
Click to expand...

And made himself look prescient; if only they had listened to me!

The problem with Clarke is that his testimony is riddled with errors. He describes a video conference on 9-11 that included Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers, neither of whom were present. He describes talking to Condoleezza Rice in early 2001 about al Qaeda and seeing from the expression on her face that she had never heard of them before. One problem: Tapes surfaced of Rice discussing al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in some detail a year before that meeting. He claims that the administration was disinterested in al Qaeda, but that was not what he said in 2003:

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
Click to expand...

The media swooned over this guy because he was saying bad things about Bush in an election year. But there are definite problems with relying on his testimony.
 
MikeW said:
It looks to me like the "no contamination" quote from earlier referred to wells, not the soil.
Click to expand...
That's how I read it at first, but RedIbis corrected me. It said they tested soil and groundwater and no contamination was found.

My guess is that they were refering to groundwater (cause that's what's most important). However, that's not what they said.
 
RedIbis said:
What you can do is research the question. The EPA said there was no soil contamination.
Click to expand...

They did indeed say that. They also noted that it was the sign of a successful cleanup.

"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."
Click to expand...

Source: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Crash site cleanup cost $850,000

But I thought your question was about soil contamination prior to cleanup efforts. If you're talking about soil conditions post cleanup, well then you're right. There's no more contamination. But there's a quite obvious reason for it.

Do you really think this line of inquiry is a serious one? Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom