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.

 

Where were those 'puddles of jet fuel' at Shanksville?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Skeptics, maybe you can help me. I've seen on a popular debunking page you guys like to site frequently were it lists claims of puddles of fuel at the Shanksville scene as evidence that Flight 93 crashed there.


- 7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw... jet fuel

- Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field

- The smell of jet fuel was overpowering

- He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 ­ the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground


Can you please circle where this/these fuel puddle(s) were located? Thanks.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by ATH911]




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Skeptics, maybe you can help me. I've seen on a popular debunking page you guys like to site frequently were it lists claims of puddles of fuel at the Shanksville scene as evidence that Flight 93 crashed there.


- 7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw... jet fuel

- Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field

- The smell of jet fuel was overpowering

- He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 ­ the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground


Can you please circle where this/these fuel puddle(s) were located? Thanks.



[edit on 30-12-2009 by ATH911]


Why? And is this the only photo that you have? Really, this is an aerial photograph taken from about 1000' (my estimate) I think days after the event and you hope to prove some insane conspiracy because you can't see puddles of jet fuel?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
also why would someone take pictures of puddles? It wasn't germane to the investigation going on, which was at the time, a search and find.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Can you please circle where this/these fuel puddle(s) were located?


Please advise date/time and height that photo was taken at



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
ATH911, firstly, thanks for reminding me of this website. I've always wondered if Flight 93 was shot down. Still not sure, but the plethora of witnesses to the crash and/or aftermath make it seem less likely that it was, except for the two witnesses who reported a "bang" before the plane nosedived down.

I read the whole page you linked, as well as most of the links within that page. Many first responders and civilians reported the smell of jet fuel (and I know it is REALLY powerful after a crash), but I can't see anywhere where anyone mentions "pools" of jet fuel as you eluded to in the OP. Perhaps I missed it, and I'd like to follow up on that, because if people DID report pools of fuel, that is disturbing. Can you point out for me who/where that info is listed in the link in the OP?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
What... NO PICTURES!!!!!??? Then it was IMPOSSIBLE!! Why should we take the word of hundreds of civilians that were there? Why take the word of experienced crash scene investigators?

Everyone in TrutherWorld knows that if it is not on youtube or Prison Planet... it aint real!



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911


Can you please circle where this/these fuel puddle(s) were located? Thanks.



No, sorry, tough to make out jet fuel from an ariel photograph taken at least 24 hours post impact.

I tell you what... can YOU point out some pictures of Jet Fuel at the WTC? (assuming you are not also a no -planer at the WTC)



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Perfect example of "truther logic" at work....

Why would expect puddles of jet fuel?

Most of the jet fuel would have burned on impact - Flight 93 hit at 570 mph

The fuel tanks would have been ruptured and the forward momentum
propel the jet fuel into the air. The high speed would have atomized the
fuel and it burned in a large fireball.

Any that escaped the fires would have soaked into ground.

Saw same thing number of years back - Lear jet crashed in my
neighborhood - by time arrived on our fire trucks most of the fires were
out. Only few spot fires remaining, yet overpowering smell of jet fuel



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper


I tell you what... can YOU point out some pictures of Jet Fuel at the WTC? (assuming you are not also a no -planer at the WTC)



What puddles of jet fuel, IAP?

According to OS theories, the jet fuel was deposited down the B-level access elevator shaft. Where it fell down to the lobby, then decided to reignite(or maybe it was burning the whole time??? And just decided to exit at the lobby first??) and burst out of the closed elevator doors blowing them out, incinerating(to death) and severely burning multiple individuals...then continuing its destruction right through the lobby, blowing out every single giant piece of glass on the lobby floor. While also reserving enough power to also blow all the giant marble panels off the walls.

But it wasn't done there..

It continued on down to the b-levels and blew more doors off their hinges, incinerated and severely burned more people and destroyed giant mechanical equipment in the basement.

So OP, I wouldn't try to tackle that question IAP knows its a tricky one.

As far as the puddles of fuel at Shanksville, that is surprising to hear b/c if memory serves me I believe it has been talked about before. That is that the soil was tested and had no jet fuel present, or very low levels that did not warrant a clean up of the soil. Of course one would think that if 95% of the aircraft was buried into the earth, that a large amount of the fuel would also be buried into the earth. Although, I don't believe this was the case.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Oh, I don't doubt that some of the fuel may have survived and collected on the surface for a short period of time, but the absurd challenge in the OP is bordering on the irrational. The underlying logic (if you can call it that) understands that if you can't cirlcle the locations of the "puddles" on an aerial photograph taken days after the impact, then of course the whole thing was staged.

Not to mention that if the "stage" logic is true then everyone quoted in the OP is in on the conspiracy. All of them. Truly wonderous.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Flight 93 was, quite literally, blasted to bits on impact. The closest witness was less than a half-mile away from the impact — her property abutted the mining site — and she saw the fireball rising above the treeline. Trees less than 100 yards away from the impact were seen to be ablaze.

Estimate of the plane's velocity was between 300 and 500 mph at the time of impact. The plane was seen barrel-rolling into vertical descent, meaning it was totally out of control. Which probably accounts for witness descriptions of "pieces falling off the plane" as it descended — the extreme maneuvers at cruising speed were tearing the plane apart in-flight.

Although the plane was virtually blasted into confetti on impact, and although the largest piece of human anatomy recovered was an 8-inch section of somebody's spine, authorities claimed that all passengers were genetically identified from tissues recovered at the crash site.

Now, given the instantaneous explosion on impact, I seriously doubt anything as volatile as jet fuel was miraculously splashed aside, without igniting, and somehow left "puddles"... The entire site had earlier been reclaimed from a mining operation and was about 30-feet-deep in loose soil — which is why about 2/3 of the demolished wreckage was underground. It's highly unlikely that any leaked fuel would have puddled, rather than soaking straight into the loose earth.

— Doc Velocity









[edit on 12/30/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
So I'm confused skeptics, were there puddles of jet fuel at the site after the "crash," or not?

The alleged tour guide "Gravy" seems to believe there was since he put those quotes up on his debunking site as evidence Flight 93 crashed:


- 7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw... jet fuel

- Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field

- The smell of jet fuel was overpowering

- He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 ­ the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

which is why about 2/3 of the demolished wreckage was underground.

That's what I'm saying is the official story, but most of the skeptics on here seem to disagree with that. You guys can't have it both ways.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Um, no that is not what skeptics are saying at all



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Um, no that is not what skeptics are saying at all

Well what are skeptics saying, cause it's been 8 years since and I still don't know what you guys are saying about that.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
What... NO PICTURES!!!!!??? Then it was IMPOSSIBLE!! Why should we take the word of hundreds of civilians that were there? Why take the word of experienced crash scene investigators?

Everyone in TrutherWorld knows that if it is not on youtube or Prison Planet... it aint real!


Are you referring to the NTSB as the crash scene investigators?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Ah yes, so once again, the hundreds of first responders, investigators and eyewitnesses all must be lying then about what they saw at the Flight 93 crash site. And this is all based on what exactly? Your personal incredulity?

Just because YOU dont see the jet fuel there doesn't mean it wasn't there. Sorry but I'll take the word of the professionals that were on site right after the impact over your personal incredulity any day. This thread is nothing more than another lame attempt at trying to make something from absolutely nothing in a DESPERATE attempt to hide the actual facts of what happened at Shanksville. And now, by trying to discredit the first-responders that saw it with their own eyes and reported it, this is just disgusting.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


You mean --

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.


Still not seeing the reference to "pools of jet fuel."


Upon arrival, firefighters found small pieces of the plane, spot fires, and a large quantity of fuel scattered across a wide debris field.
nope, no puddle either.


Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."
Well, there's a pond, but not what I think we were looking for.

Okay, I finally found one.

A few weeks ago, Wallace Miller, coroner of Somerset County, walked around the perimeter of this area with a landowner, Tim Lambert.

Their rambling disturbed a flock of wild turkeys. Amid the racket of their departure, a thought occurred to Miller: nature had finally begun to reclaim this place.

He can remember his first time there, 10.45am, Tuesday, September 11 ­ the stench of jet fuel, still puddled on the ground, the smell of the burnt and smouldering trees and grass, the silence of nature and the men who had arrived to find they could do nothing, the overwhelming evidence that a Boeing 757, 55 metres long and weighing 110 tonnes, had somehow been obliterated, and with it, the 44 people on board.

...Miller was familiar with scenes of sudden and violent death, although none quite like this. Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached. 'I've seen a lot of highway fatalities where there's fragmentation,' Miller said. 'The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven't, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop. The only thing I can deduce is that the crash was over in half a second. There was a fireball 15-20 metres high, so all of that material just got vaporised.'"


I still think that's a bit of a stretch from what is implied in the OP title, however I must confess to being a tad surprised that anyone would testify to having seen any visible liquid fuel, even as "droplets". In that case, I have to say good find!

Now, I have to ask.... why would you expect an arial photo from at least several hundred feet up to show any small feature as liquid fuel? That particular photo doesn't seem to have much in the way of first-responders, nor pieces of metal/plastic/paper/people, nor is it smoking in the least. I might surmise that that photo of the alleged crash site was taken X amount of time after the initial event, agreed?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by RipCurl
Um, no that is not what skeptics are saying at all

Well what are skeptics saying, cause it's been 8 years since and I still don't know what you guys are saying about that.



uh, no. Skeptics have been saying that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, investigated by the NTSB and FBI and law enforcement officials for nearly a month following the crash. That Wally Miller helped to identify most of the victims via DNA.

that the FDR/CVR found on site, supports that Flight 93 was hijacked and that up until crash, that everything on the plane was working accordingly. (therefore no missle hit, no fire, no bomb).

Care to give us what YOU think Debunkers are saying. In your own words



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Sounds like someone who's hell-bent on supporting the official story just got a little nervous over my thread.

*wink*



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join