It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 93 - Soft Shanksville soil and other nonsense...

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
After reading a number of comments on Above Top Secret attributing the missing wreckage of Flight 93 to ‘soft’ or ‘loosely packed’ soil, I was compelled to prepare a report into an element of the alleged crash which I didn't believe had been covered before. The general theory suggested that a 90 ton Boeing could crash into the ground at Shanksville, and due to the soil being ‘soft’ or ‘loosely packed’, the plane was able to bury itself, leaving just the smoking crater behind.

Quite simply, I was agog at how ludicrous this theory was. Not just surprised, but completely flabbergasted that anyone could actually believe such nonsense. One such quote supporting the theory was:

“Again, it is apparent you are unfamiliar with the dynamics of a high-speed crash of an airliner. To state that the "tail section" should be expected to be "near the surface" of such a porous and loosely packed ground shows the lack of not only experience in these matters but common sense, as well. Angle of impact, trajectory, speed, consistency of the field of impact - all these contribute to a disintegration of the aircraft that makes this crash and impact site quite understandable and believable”.

Although not directed at me, this quote highlighted how absurd the 'official story' really was.

Please find at the link below a report I have prepared regarding this 'loosely packed' soil nonsense. I'd be interested in hearing people's responses to it...

www.4shared.com...

Rewey




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Indeed... there are differing theories regarding the soil at Shanksville.

Many government loyalists conflict with their opinion about what happened there. Some claim that virtually most of the plane was destroyed, others claim that virtually all of the plane was recovered.

Reheat claimed that the bulk of the plane was buried in the crater.

However, when pressed to put a numerical estimate to his 'bulk of' claim, he declined. He could not support the claim that he made.

I'm currently downloading your report. It's slow on dial-up. I'll get back to you when I have read it.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Rewey! What have you done!

You know that they're going to recall all the debunkers now and try to reschool them to combat your report! They won't be prepared for it and it's going to take them some time to start refuting your facts.

Expect a few of them to show up very shortly, trying to compare the alleged Flight 93 crash site to other off-topic plane crashes.

Expect a few of them to show up very shortly, trying to state that the black boxes were recovered X (insert differeing number) feet under the ground. Mind you, they won't have proof that the black boxes came from the alleged Flight 93.



The problem with the ‘wing imprints’ is that no-one from official government sources will call them wing imprints. They would rather let people come to this conclusion themselves. This permits a level of plausible deniability.

I liked this part of your report. It's underhanded deception, that the government want you to believe something, without trying to prove it's true. Very similar to the deceptive way in which they used Lloyde's Taxi and Light Pole story. No official report mentions it, but through deception, they'll let you reach the conclusion that the story was 'real'.

Nice work. I'd buy you a beer if I was any closer to you, but you're over there in WA!

Now, enjoy the debunker show coming right up...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Well done Rewey,

You have proved what complete and utter nonsense the ''official fairy tale'' regarding Flight 93 at Shanksville is. It only take one part of the incident to be proved wrong and you have proved that many of them are wrong and some just impossible.

When you look at it, the facts do not match the alleged incident. The families should insist for a new and thorough inquiry. I am still just astounded that anyone would believe the ''official story'' drivel.

There are planted bits of scrap aeroplane, a puff of smoke and hey-presto, the plane has disappeared. The whole thing is absolutely absurd but even more astoundingly they have got away with it. But only SO FAR. I feel that things are going to change.

Well done, now just wait for the ''official fairy tale'' trolls to arrive.....



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Thanks for the supportive comments, guys. I wasn't sure if this was heading in the right direction as far as research goes, but although a lot of people seemed to argue for 'loosely packed' soil, I hadn't seen anyone actually take a look at the physical evidence of the soil from all the photos.

I'll bet there are a hundred engineering companies around the Shanksville area who could go out and do a simple compaction test - probably take around 2 hours to do a thorough test around the entire site - and come back with the same conclusion I have about the density and compaction of the soil.

The other thing I should have mentioned in the report was a paragraph on all of these pieces allegedy found. Normally when they recover bits of planes they rebuild the entire plane on scaffolding. If somewhere between 60-90% of the wreckage has allegedy been found (as I've heard in many sources) why have they not put all the bits back together on scaffolding?

Some might argue that the government 'knows' what happened (ie. the 'official story'), but surely for an event as significant as 9/11, they'd recreate as much as possible, wouldn't they? Not doing it makes about as much sense as selling the WTC rubble off to China for melting within days. Surely the more they understand about events like this, the more clarification can be gained???

Rew



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I'm only pulling this off the top of my head, as I'm not familiar with all of the Shanksville minute details... you could also have included the soil sample testing that showed no (or little?) trace of jet fuel.

I might be wrong on that one. I don't want to spread urban myths. Check it out for yourself. If you know how to test soil, then you might see what tests were done and be able to understand the results.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I can't seem to get the PDF to open, or save?

In any case, it's obvious the soil can't be too loose because there are
humans walking around and heavy machinery driven across the immediate
crash site.

The soil would have to be less viscous than water (packed dirt and viscosity? hmmm...!
) to apply any of that unfounded theory and plane impacts
to be remotely applicable.

If anyone has an alternate link for the PDF, please post it!



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hi,

I haven't put it anywhere else other than 4shared - sorry! I wasn't sure how to link a pdf to ATS other than public file sharing.

Here's the link again. If it doesn't work, I'm happy to email you a copy...

Rew

www.4shared.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


And then we could have pointed out that the soil testing was done after cleanup. United Airlines spent 850,000 dollars cleaning up the crash site



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


But to 'clean up' spilled jet fuel from a site means completely removing contaminated soil and replacing it with 'cleanfill'. However, if Val McClatchey's photo does show a jet fuel explosion, how likely is it that there's jet fuel contaminating the ground as well?

Are you suggesting that half of the jet fuel exploded, disintegrating the plane into tiny pieces, and half of the jet fuel soaked into the soil? Does that make any sense if the fuel tanks on the jet are all connected?

Rewey



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Since you seem to be stuck, here is one of your witnesses....

John Fleegle, manager of the Indian Lake Marina. (three miles from the crash site)




All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom,” said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.





Like I said, probably within, within 45 seconds or a minute of impact, we were there. We were there before any fireman, any paramedics, or anybody; we were on site. When we got there, there was a plane flying up above and he was smart, he flew straight for the sun, so you couldn't, you couldn't look at it and see exactly what type of plane, or if it was a fighter or what it was. But we caught a glimpse of it and as he was swinging, he was basically traveling in the same direction as the plane.


So, he managed to travel three miles, in under a minute, and reached the crash site before the people that lived on the property? Oh wait, he could NOT have done that. So by his own words, he is either severly confused, or lying. I will let you decide.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Other posters are NOT the topic here..

Please stay On Topic

Semper



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Did anyone else notice that it said that the soil was within limits for contamination? Not that it was clean.

I dont believe I have ever said that the jet completely buried itself. There was far too much wreckage on the surface for that to have happened.



But back to Mr Marina manager...

He is also on record as saying this.....



So I was sitting there talking to another guy . . . retired from the Air Force and soon as he heard me say that he immediately stopped me . . . he said, "Well, I'm retired from the Air Force." He said that plane was shot down and I said, "Why?" and he said because whenever the flickered, they zap the radar frequency on everything before they shoot and he said, "That's why your lights flickered. Your lights didn't flicker from the impact, your lights flickered because they zapped the radar system before they shot it."


Umm....yeah.....

This is another statement full of hogwash. We dont "zap" anything before we launch an air to air missile. There is no need to. Especially if you are shooting at a civilian airliner.

So far, Mr Marina manager comes across as....a liar.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by tezzajw
 


And then we could have pointed out that the soil testing was done after cleanup. United Airlines spent 850,000 dollars cleaning up the crash site


Who did United Airlines contract to do the clean up?

Got any links?

Who did the "alleged "soil testing after the clean up was done?

Your not trying to pull our legs now just to defend your point of view are you?

Would you happen to be able to tell us if the soil tested dirty or clean?

Answer soon. We will all be waiting.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Press release from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection concerning the subject.

www.ahs2.dep.state.pa.us...



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Rewey
 



I dont believe I have ever said that the jet completely buried itself. There was far too much wreckage on the surface for that to have happened.



Another quote from this other flight 93 thread


Flight 93 impacted nose down into relatively soft ground at high speed. Or do you not realize that they ended up digging almost 50 feet into the ground to retrieve the wreckage?


bold emphasis mine.

SO then Swampfox46_1999 if they had to dig 50ft according to you how is that not to be considered completely buried?

We kinda have two conflicting opposing statements from you.

I mean in one thread you say one thing and in this one it is the oppisite so if we could just have your one definitive opinion on the subject so that we could be clear about what you think in regards to the buried or not plane in the soft soil that may not be so soft after all.







[edit on 22-6-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


No, I did not say it had completely buried itself, I said they had to dig 50 feet into the ground for some of the wreckage. The fuselage is over 150 feet long. Lets see 150 minus 50.......

There was wreckage of that airplane extending over 200 feet from the impact point. So, no, it did not completely bury itself.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Firstly, Swampfox - thanks for providing an opposing view here... I know you've been the subject of derogatory comments before - that's not the intention of this thread. Your opposing view is appreciated...

Secondly, I'm not sure why you mention Mr Marina? Have you read the pdf I linked the OP to? I specifically said I wanted to avoid interviews with 'witnesses' as they have been full of contradictions throught the entire 9/11 event...

Thirdly, after reading that link to the DEP you provided, it doesn't actually state the clean-up involved jet fuel. It mentions a clean-up, which would be the removal of debris, but mentions that a lot of the backfill used was the soil excavated, and that it was tested for jet fuel traces, which came back clean (or 'within acceptable limits'). This implies there was no spilt jet fuel on the site, right?

Fourth, there is no mention of the jet fuel in the pdf I posted. I would appreciate it if any discussion in this thread could remain within the boundaries of what was included in the report...

Rewey

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


That post was for one of my fan club who was asking why I hadnt addressed what he posted in another thread.

The statement does not say that the soil was clean, it says it is within the standards for those chemicals. If there is a detailed report from United, I have yet to find it. I will say that I believe the majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the explosion.

Yes, I did look at your presentation and noted several statements that, just arent true (in regards to Flight 77 for the most part). In addition, making assumptions about the soil composition based on relatively crappy photos, probably not the best course of action. Did Flight 93 hit quicksand/swamp like Valujet 593? No. But then again, the ground wasnt solid as a rock either.




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join