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

[triforcharity]

Rewey,

Please direct your attention to page two, last paragraph on the page. It states that because of your job, you test many different soil samples for compaction, blah, blah, blah. Right?? Right.

So, if you test soil, and you test MANY samples EVERY month, than that would make you an expert right?? Right.

So, then you claim to NOT be an expert. If your not an expert, than what are you doing tesing soil that someone's HOUSE is going to sit on?? If you weren't an expert in your field, than why are you doing it?? Fun???

I am a firefighter. I retired from one of the LARGEST fire departments in the USA. I now work for a much smaller department after a move. Now, I have been a firefighter for going on 15 years now. I also teach at the local fire college, and sometimes even at the state fire college. I am considered an expert right?? Right.

So, tell me, your NOT an expert, but you take the safety of someone's home into your hands?? I would HOPE that you are an expert. If I did your job, many people's houses would not be very safe.

Now do you understand what expert means??? Jeez.

 

[triforcharity]

Justin, don't seel yourself short. I think on a ship the cook is the most important man on board. Think about it.....Hungry people=ANGRY people!!

 

[Magenta]

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)?

Instead of beating round the bush, perhaps it would help if you said what you think is the "other way" UA93 crashed, and outline all the evidence you think is consistent with that scenario and inconsistent with an intact high speed impact?

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'?

When you say "the last moments of the CVR were never made public", are you saying there is more on the CVR than was revealed either in court or via transcript? If so, how do you know that?

Also, who is saying the passengers were in the cockpit?

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.

The Doubletree hotel? I'm pretty sure that footage has been available for awhile. In any case, from what I've observed of truthers on this forum any evidence that is inconsistent with their pet theory is generally hand-waved away or alleged to have been faked (which is what they do with all the other evidence from the Pentagon).

This is what breeds conspiracy theories - the suppression of information.

I think it's something else that breeds conspiracy theories, but that's for another thread. Actually, I'm amazed at how much information has been released under the USG's FOIA about 9/11. The problem for conspiracy theorists is that none of it supports their pet theories. From which they conclude that there must be a cover-up.

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...

No, I haven't read it because what I'm seeing with this soil discussion is what I've seen with many other CTists who show up here, and that is an obsession with minutiae which might point to an anomaly which might show a flaw in the "official story" which might point to an inside job, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that contradict the conspiracy theories.

 

[Stellafane]

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...

Remember way back near the beginning of this thread when new member Rewey claimed he was not really making any claims that anything malicious happened, he was just, you know, asking questions? It sure seems that in the intervening days his previously open, inquiring mind has clamped down on the hardest of hard-core Trutherism like a steel bear trap on raccoon feces.

Either that, or (as you suggest) member Rewey may have (to put this delicately) somewhat misrepresented himself and his true beliefs and intentions. I know, I know, hard to imagine a Truther actually doing something like that...

 

[Rewey]

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...

Anyone?

Rewey

 

[Crazytimes]

Anyone?

Rewey

Who cares about the soil. The plane broke up like it should when hitting the ground at that speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7h7Ll8Dl4

 

[Rewey]

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 love this scenario.

"I've just got word of an impending, large-scale, multiple-target terrorist attack inside the US which threatens the lives of thousands. I might just send someone a quick fax..."

Does ignoring or not acting on Intel really constitute LIHOP? I would have thought there would have to be more intent behind it to be considered LIHOP...

 

[Rewey]

Who cares about the soil.

You're right. Getting the story straight is so over-rated.

Look, like I've said before - getting these small details right actually HELPS you guys. Why?

I believe I've presented evidence (in the highlighting of the legislation surrounding the strip mining, and some further in demonstrating a few points about the constitution of the soil) which shows that there is basically no chance that the soil around the site was left 'loosely packed' after the decommissioning of the strip mine.

I feel that the more you guys continue to use that as part of your explanation, the more chance there is of the real tin-foil hat wearers to bring up debate around it. Remove that from your argument (which you all clearly feel is already overwhelmingly supported), and you remove one more element that people will jump on you for.

That's just my feeling anyway...

Rewey

 

[triforcharity]

When you have 3000 reports of terrorist intentions, how long would it take to confirm one of them??

Now, Rewey, would you like to respond to my post please. See first post of this page.


Now, I will concede that a decomissioned strip mine has alot of rules and such, which I am not framilliar with, and I will admit that very quickly. But, is it possible that someone (whomever owned/purchased the acerage) might have put something else on top of the approved compacted dirt and such?? Maybe i'm speculating.....

 

[leftysergeant]

Anyone?

Rewey

There is, as far as I can tell, no legal requirement to compact it as one would the fill over a garbage dump. It just had to be compact enough to support the weight of vehicles bringing in the additional fill. Were they planning to build on it, then it would have been compacted. BIG difference between reclaiming forest or pasture land and prepping a building site or airport.

The plane into the side of the terminal building is only useful in demonstrating how a plane can inflict structural damage to the target, even as the fuselage skin peels away.

The idiotic meme about the six concrete walls was introduced by a French criminal named Pierre-Henri Bunel, who has a total grudge against Americans for screwing up his military career.

Bunel not only claimed that there were concrete walls inside, he also called himself an expert on airfield fire fighting (then mis-identified the Oshkosh P-23 fire trucks) called himself an artillery officer and then claimed that a lobe in the fire ball was the shock wave from an HE blast. The boy is pretty much worthless to society, but Alan Miller has him listed on his "PQ911" site, which shows you how useful that jerk Miller is as a source.

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.

 

[Rewey]

The idiotic meme about the six concrete walls was introduced by a French criminal named Pierre-Henri Bunel, who has a total grudge against Americans for screwing up his military career.

Actually, you bring up another insteresting point here...

The book "Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel talks about the construction of the outer wall of the Pentagon. As it was done in such a rush, the bricklayers stacked bricks 2-3 high BEFORE placing mortar, meaning that there was no mortar between a lot of the bricks. Working for a home building company, I'm very aware of how structurally fatal this would be (as you could probably imagine), particularly given that the wall was 5-odd stories high.

What I find interesting is that the Pentagon Building Performance Report, found here:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

...fails to mention such an obvious fatal structural flaw in the outer walls. It also mentions that all remedial and renovation work that had been finished at the time of the crash did virtually nothing to improve the structural strength of the building.

Wouldn't you think that the official report into the structural failings of the building would at least mention that the wall was built with mortar only between every 2-3 bricks?

Rewey

All the Pentagon stuff has been removed in the first revision of my paper, by the way... I do edit things when I find evidence to the contrary...

 

[BigAl]

Actually, you bring up another insteresting point here...

The book "Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel talks about the construction of the outer wall of the Pentagon. As it was done in such a rush, the bricklayers stacked bricks 2-3 high BEFORE placing mortar, meaning that there was no mortar between a lot of the bricks.

Have you read Vogel's book in it's entirety? I suspect you haven't and have been handed a cherry-picked quote that leads you to an incorrect conclusion.

I haven't read Vogel but I have read other things about the construction of the Pentagon and construction might have been odd but not unsound.

You can search Vogel online via this URL and show us what page you are referring to.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dr0UIZJw58YC&pg=PP3&dq=Pentagon:+A+History"+by+Steve+Vogel
​

Given that the entire jet and occupants were recovered from inside the Pentagon, what is your point, anyway?

 

[Rewey]

So, if you test soil, and you test MANY samples EVERY month, than that would make you an expert right??

So, tell me, your NOT an expert, but you take the safety of someone's home into your hands?? I would HOPE that you are an expert. If I did your job, many people's houses would not be very safe.

I wouldn't think so, no. I think that being an expert would require skills that preclude other people from doing the job with the SAME equipment that is used to conduct the tests.

Think about it. Do you consider the guy who collects the garbage to be an expert, even if he's done it for 20 years? I wouldn't think so, because I don't think that anyone elese with a garbage truck would struggle to do the same job without special training.

I might certainly be more familiar with soil, because of my work-related experience, but I don't consider myself an expert.

As for the safety of other people's houses - this is why we perform full soil tests, a site inspection report and compaction tests, which then determines the level of cleanfill, compaction, footing details and such are required.

Rewey

 

[Rewey]

Have you read Vogel's book in it's entirety?

I openly admit I haven't read the book. The point was told to me by an ardent 'official story' supporter. I have not been able to find a copy in libraries over here (only found out about it about a fortnight ago). I've asked the guy who brought it up if he knows of a pdf version, or if he can scan the relevant pages from it. As soon as I get them, I'm more than happy to share.

Given that the entire jet and occupants were recovered from inside the Pentagon, what is your point, anyway?

Exactly that - that the official report into the structural failings of the Pentagon building failed to mention that the outer walls were built in such a way that gave them practically no structural rigidity (according to this passage an OS supporter told me). Some people feel that the construction of the outer walls in such a way make it seem even more odd that the wings would simply fold up and be dragged inside the fuselage hole, rather than simply pass through the wall themselves.

I'm surprised that doesn't strike you as odd that the official report deosn't mention it...

Rewey

 

[BigAl]

I openly admit I haven't read the book. The point was told to me by an ardent 'official story' supporter. I have not been able to find a copy in libraries over here (only found out about it about a fortnight ago). I've asked the guy who brought it up if he knows of a pdf version, or if he can scan the relevant pages from it. As soon as I get them, I'm more than happy to share.



Exactly that - that the official report into the structural failings of the Pentagon building failed to mention that the outer walls were built in such a way that gave them practically no structural rigidity (according to this passage an OS supporter told me).

I'm surprised that doesn't strike you as odd...

Rewey

It doesn't strike me as anything until I get to read Vogel.

The assertion is either true or false and either way it's irrelevant to the discussion of what happened on 9/11.

 

[triforcharity]

Um, Rewey, why would the Pentagon spend 20,000 bucks on blast resistant windows if there was mortor missing?? Come on dude, seriously??

Secondly, it someone untrained in the use of such test equipment (such as myself) tried to run these tests, would they fail?? Most likely yes. Would the results be nullified and/or incorrect?? I would bet.

To equate what you do to picking up garbage is like comparing a 767 to an orange. Its idiotic at best. People's homes don't lie on wether their garbage is picked up in a timely and effecient manner.

So, could I do these tests and come to the correct conclusions that is needed?? No. because I do not have the expertiese that you do.

I would consider anyone who does the same job over even 10 yeaars an expert, wether it is picking up garbage or designing sprinkler systems.

Now, would you consider this a correct assumption?? Why or why not???

 

[beachnut]

Actually, you bring up another insteresting point here...

The book "Pentagon: A History" by Steve Vogel talks about the construction of the outer wall of the Pentagon. As it was done in such a rush, the bricklayers stacked bricks 2-3 high BEFORE placing mortar, meaning that there was no mortar between a lot of the bricks. Working for a home building company, I'm very aware of how structurally fatal this would be (as you could probably imagine), particularly given that the wall was 5-odd stories high.

What I find interesting is that the Pentagon Building Performance Report, found here:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

...fails to mention such an obvious fatal structural flaw in the outer walls. It also mentions that all remedial and renovation work that had been finished at the time of the crash did virtually nothing to improve the structural strength of the building.

Wouldn't you think that the official report into the structural failings of the building would at least mention that the wall was built with mortar only between every 2-3 bricks?

Rewey

All the Pentagon stuff has been removed in the first revision of my paper, by the way... I do edit things when I find evidence to the contrary...

The bricks do not hold up the building! What do bricks, which are only a facade not part of the structural integrity of the building, have to do with soil junk delusions made up due to ignorance?

You have no clue on how an aircraft crashes into the ground at 600 mph. Parts do get buried very deep along with people. It is so sad to see people make up failed ideas based on their own failed perceptions of how things should be.

93 crashed into the ground at 600 mph and what you see is a classic 600 mph impact at 40 degrees, almost inverted. You see the wing impact and you have parts ejected for hundreds of feet. There is nothing strange about 93 is you have the knowledge to understand. You don't have the knowledge so you made up failed ideas.

If you understand 19 terrorist killed 8 pilots and crashed 4 planes then you are on the right track, but you are not an aircraft accident investigator. There is direction to the crash, and no the velocity of the plane is going the direction of the plane, it does not bend the way you want it to because you have it falling in miro-seconds onto it's back? What! 93 crashed at 40 degrees but the exact degree of the velocity vector would be derived if needed by the Boeing Engineers who do crash scene investigation, we know the terrorist cause this so there is zero need for further investigation to nail down the exact parameters to solve why. 40 degrees is on the edge of being steep and shallow; but the plane will still bury itself deep. You can thousands of parts ejected but the FDR and/or CVR were buried 20 to 40 feet deep with other things; I have to look it up again to be more precise.

I would read more of your tripe but it gets bad, and then worse... plus I am having too much fun drinking beer and driving real slow, real fast, and in a place where the high is 75, the low is 65, and it never rains. Who lives in San Diego?

At least you post what you have and get it out there! That is outstanding.

 

[LashL]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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."

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...

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.

 

[Rewey]

Now, I will concede that a decomissioned strip mine has alot of rules and such, which I am not framilliar with, and I will admit that very quickly. But, is it possible that someone (whomever owned/purchased the acerage) might have put something else on top of the approved compacted dirt and such??

Sorry this is such a long post, but here's some of the relevant sections of the legislation:

§ 780.18 Reclamation plan: General requirements.
(a) Each application shall contain a plan for reclamation of the lands within the proposed permit area, showing how the applicant will comply with section 515 of the Act, subchapter K of this chapter, and the environmental protection performance standards of the regulatory program. The plan shall include, at a minimum, all information required under 30 CFR 780.18 through 780.37.
(b) Each plan shall contain the following information for the proposed permit area—
(1) A detailed timetable for the completion of each major step in the reclamation plan;
(2) A detailed estimate of the cost of reclamation of the proposed operations required to be covered by a performance bond under subchapter J of this chapter, with supporting calculations for the estimates;
(3) A plan for backfilling, soil stabilization, compacting, and grading, with contour maps or cross sections that show the anticipated final surface configuration of the proposed permit area, in accordance with 30 CFR 816.102 through 816.107;
(4) A plan for removal, storage, and redistribution of topsoil, subsoil, and other material to meet the requirements of § 816.22 of this chapter. A demonstration of the suitability of topsoil substitutes or supplements under § 816.22(b) of this chapter shall be based upon analysis of the thickness of soil horizons, total depth, texture, percent coarse fragments, pH, and areal extent of the different kinds of soils. The regulatory authority may require other chemical and physical analyses, fieldsite trials, or greenhouse tests if determined to be necessary or desirable to demonstrate the suitability of the topsoil substitutes or supplements.(5) A plan for revegetation as required in 30 CFR 816.111 through 816.116, including, but not limited to, descriptions of the—
(i) Schedule of revegetation;
(ii) Species and amounts per acre of seeds and seedlings to be used;
(iii) Methods to be used in planting and seeding;
(iv) Mulching techniques;
(v) Irrigation, if appropriate, and pest and disease control measures, if any; and
(vi) Measures proposed to be used to determine the success of revegetation as required in 30 CFR 816.116.
(vii) A soil testing plan for evaluation of the results of topsoil handling and reclamation procedures related to revegetation.
(6) A description of the measures to be used to maximize the use and conservation of the coal resource as required in 30 CFR 816.59;
(7) A description of measures to be employed to ensure that all debris, acid-forming and toxic-forming materials, and materials constituting a fire hazard are disposed of in accordance with 30 CFR 816.89 and 816.102 and a description of the contingency plans which have been developed to preclude sustained combustion of such materials;
(8) A description, including appropriate cross sections and maps, of the measures to be used to seal or manage mine openings, and to plug, case, or manage exploration holes, other bore holes, wells, and other openings within the proposed permit area, in accordance with 30 CFR 816.13 through 816.15; and
(9) A description of steps to be taken to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other applicable air and water quality laws and regulations and health and safety standards.


There's plenty more, but that's the general crux of it...

Rewey

 

[Rewey]

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.

Please read post 173...