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

Originally posted by argentus
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?

I was just asking where the fuel was, not where the fuel currently is in that specific photo.

It was just a nice aerial shot for you skeptics to circle where the claimed fuel puddles/soaked ground areas were.

reply to post by ATH911

Ah yes I am getting nervous because an armchair crash scene investigator on his PC has managed to cast doubt on reports of jet fuel being found at the site, by first responders, firefighters, etc etc etc, with some photos he has found of the crash site that were taken nearly a day or two later. sure pal.... whatever helps to stroke that ego.

The fact that you even started this thread is disgusting on the simple fact that you are trying to discredit those that were there, had to see it and helped in recovery of the aircraft + passenger remains.

no sorry, but you are just grasping at straws with this non-starter thread. Certain first responders reported seeing and smelling jet fuel at the crash site. What is the big deal? To a rational person that is no big deal. But here you are just trying desperately to make this non-issue an issue because YOU cannot find or see the jet fuel yourself.

Why didn't you ask instead, why you cannot see any of the body parts? The first responders reported seeing them, how about asking, no DEMANDING they show you the body parts as well? I'm sure your incredulity will find fault if they every did show you them too.


[edit on 12/30/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by ATH911


I have to ask you something ATH. Simple question. Do you believe that slapping a label on someone promotes your arguement?

I don't mind being called a skeptic, as I consider that to be a healthy and critically-minded attitude when viewing, reading, discussing evidence; it just seems like you want to use the term as an invective.

So, if your answer to the above is yes, then I'd be curious as to why you believe it to advance or further your theory.

If your answer is no, then why do you do it? I think such tactics degade an otherwise informative debate/discussion.

Originally posted by GenRadek
with some photos he has found of the crash site that were taken nearly a day or two later.

Source?

reply to post by argentus

Me labeling, or not labeling people doesn't alter the facts of the OP. If you're offending by being called a skeptic, perhaps this forum is not for you.

I was just asking where the fuel was, not where the fuel currently is in that specific photo.

It was just a nice aerial shot for you skeptics to circle where the claimed fuel puddles/soaked ground areas were.

Remember this..... from your OP?

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

Ah. I see. So you weren't using that photo as a way of asking where in the photo the puddled fuel was? Riiiight.

Possibly a better question might be: How long after the clean-up could hydrocarbons still be detected in the soil? Now, somebody knows the answer to that, as it was indicated in the link that you provided that the soil [I'm paraphrasing] was deemed by some authority to not require remediation. That's indicative of testing, and a random sampling strategy, and a subsequent meeting of a permissable exposure level, or in the case of air samples, a time-weighted average.

That's the kind of information I wish we could lay our hands on, because it's measurable. The inability for us to have access to lab data like that is one of the core problems in sorting out all this stuff -- people like to imply that the absence of acessible data implies that the data doesn't exist.

Believe me, as a former first responder, I share your pain. Much as wallowing in mass casuality and other people's pain and suffering is a tough row to hoe, I still would like to be able to work through it all; I think it'd put a lot of issues to rest.

[edit on 30/12/09 by argentus]

Originally posted by ATH911

Source?

ATH... the photo was used by the Prosecution as an exhibit in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui. Do you know if his defense attorney objected to this evidence.

Anyway.... care to tell us "skeptics" why jet fuel was seen and or smelled at the crash scene if there wasn't a plane crash?

reply to post by ATH911

Me labeling, or not labeling people doesn't alter the facts of the OP. If you're offending by being called a skeptic, perhaps this forum is not for you.

As I already told you, I don't mind being called a skeptic. That means I'm not offended. I was just curious why you use such a tactic. Maybe you don't know, and that's fine. I thought I might inspire you to look at yourself and in the process, perhaps foster a more productive discussion of your Shanksville thread. Same applies to the term "debunker".

Originally posted by argentus
Ah. I see. So you weren't using that photo as a way of asking where in the photo the puddled fuel was?

Yes, you can use any photo you want. I was just curious where those fuel puddles were. They were there, right?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by argentus
Ah. I see. So you weren't using that photo as a way of asking where in the photo the puddled fuel was?

Yes, you can use any photo you want. I was just curious where those fuel puddles were. They were there, right?

nice, because a photo taken days after the crash would show the "puddles" right?

Originally posted by ImAPepper
ATH... the photo was used by the Prosecution as an exhibit in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui. Do you know if his defense attorney objected to this evidence.

No, do you?

Anyway.... care to tell us "skeptics" why jet fuel was seen and or smelled at the crash scene if there wasn't a plane crash?

Well I haven't seen any photographic evidence to support the fuel puddle claim and this reporter, who arrived shortly on the scene, seems to says there wasn't any fuel around:

POSTED: 10:27 am EDT September 11, 2001

WTAE-TV reporter Jim Parsons and a cameraman hiked more than two miles along old coal-mining roads through the woods leading up to the point where a Boeing 757 passenger jet crashed in Somerset County, Pa., Tuesday morning.

"We (were) literally surrounded by debris, and there's a very strong odor of scorched earth," Parsons reported. "It doesn't smell like jet fuel, it smells like ... How do you describe it? Burned earth. It smells like burned earth."

www.thepittsburghchannel.com...

So if there was fuel still on the ground, I'm just curious of the location(s). I didn't think it would be a hard thing that I ask of.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by ImAPepper
ATH... the photo was used by the Prosecution as an exhibit in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui. Do you know if his defense attorney objected to this evidence.

No, do you?

He didn't. Transcripts from the trial are available on line. Why dont you bother to read over the evidence and the trial?

Well I haven't seen any photographic evidence to support the fuel puddle claim and this reporter, who arrived shortly on the scene, seems to says there wasn't any fuel around:


WTAE-TV reporter Jim Parsons and a cameraman hiked more than two miles along old coal-mining roads through the woods leading up to the point where a Boeing 757 passenger jet crashed in Somerset County, Pa., Tuesday morning.
....
So if there was fuel still on the ground, I'm just curious of the location(s). I didn't think it would be a hard thing that I ask of.

you know it would be easy if you contacted the reporter to get his reason as to why he reported it that way. But i guess its better for you to get an answer from us, WHO weren't there, WHO isn't this particular reporter, and think that we are somehow psychic to read his mind.

edit" quote tags



[edit on 30-12-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by RipCurl
He didn't. Transcripts from the trial are available on line. Why dont you bother to read over the evidence and the trial?

Why should I care what his defense lawyer said, or didn't say in the trial?

you know it would be easy if you contacted the reporter to get his reason as to why he reported it that way.

Feel free to if you wish.

But i guess its better for you to get an answer from us, WHO weren't there, WHO isn't this particular reporter, and think that we are somehow psychic to read his mind.

Well you guys are the ones using the fuel puddle claim as evidence, so backup your evidence, or stop using it as evidence.

Originally posted by ATH911
Why should I care what his defense lawyer said, or didn't say in the trial?

Isn't it your position that the photo that we posted that shows United Airlines fuselage and paint scheme of a part found at the crash site of Flight 93, isn't from Flight 93?

This was a photo used AS evidence in criminal TRIAL. Dont you think that if the lawyer for Mossaoui wanted to challenge that it wasn't what the Prosectution was saying that it was of, they would have made a motion to supress the evidence.

HE did not do this, so that means the photo was introduced as evidence and ACCEPTED by a COURT OF LAW to be credible and portraying EXACTLY what the Prosecution claimed it to be: a piece of fuselage, from Flight 93.


YOU should care, since you're pretty much saying that it wasn't, and that Mossaoui was just convicted on fake/manufactured evidence.

you know it would be easy if you contacted the reporter to get his reason as to why he reported it that way.

Feel free to if you wish.

SO ITS OUR responsibility to contact the reporter who made a comment abouut seeing "puddlbes" of fuel, on a THREAD YOU created asking for proof of these puddles?

Give me a freaking break.

YOU sourced who made that quote, yet YOU will do nothing to get your answer.

Nice way of getting the truth...by doing nothing.



BTW. we are not using the "puddles" as our support for flight 93. Its a comment by a reporter who was on scene. We support our claims by the WHOLE of evidence; reports from the NTSB, FBI, the 300 volunteers who collected the evidence, the reports from Wally Miller, First responders who arrived on sceen to the crash, DNA and Forensics that indentified the passengers, the FDR and CVR supporting the hijack and crash and radar which followed the plane until it crashed.

All you have is your questioning of a "puddle" of fuel, and you think this "oddity" destroys the above list of evidence.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by RipCurl]

I'm amazed, frankly, that anyone out there will so vehemently defend the comments of first-responders, who are not necessarily trained in observation to the same degree as FAA or NTSB investigators.

It takes months to assess a catastrophic plane crash — i.e., one in which everything is blasted into confetti — and only a few investigators in the world are thoroughly trained and have experience in assessing such scenes of carnage.

In other words, who gives a damn about the observations of a bunch of local firemen and sheriff's deputies and EMT personnel who have never seen anything as destructive as a vertical impact at nearly 500 mph?

Simply, the first-responders were and are unqualified to make judgements on the nature of the crash. They're just a bunch of yokels, okay?

So, no, I kind of disregard the unqualified observations of first-responders. They're not really qualified to do anything except stand there and scratch their butts and twiddle their thumbs until the experts arrived.

I want to see an NTSB or FAA investigation report that addresses "puddles of fuel" at the crash site. Because I don't believe the NTSB or FAA ever addressed such details.

Did they?

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I'm amazed, frankly, that anyone out there will so vehemently defend the comments of first-responders, who are not necessarily trained in observation to the same degree as FAA or NTSB investigators.

Im sure that most of them would know what a plane part looks like. Seat belts, seat cushions, wheel parts, engine parts....I dont think you need any type of higher education to know what came from a plane if it doesn't look like it came from any other type of vehicle or machine.

I put weight into their claims because they have nothing to gain from lying.

They were there to put out a fire and help in the clean up. Fuel was still burning at the site even well after the crash happened.

And they also reported the smelling if jet fuel, which supports that a plane crashed there.

It takes months to assess a catastrophic plane crash — i.e., one in which everything is blasted into confetti — and only a few investigators in the world are thoroughly trained and have experience in assessing such scenes of carnage.

In other words, who gives a damn about the observations of a bunch of local firemen and sheriff's deputies and EMT personnel who have never seen anything as destructive as a vertical impact at nearly 500 mph?

that is not what most of the claims are supporting however. They are relating their experience as to what they saw, the fires they had to fight and observations. They had nothing to do with the investigations except to provide their accounts. They did not collect plane parts or evidence. That was handled by the NTSB and FBI and their teams of over 300 volunteers who were there to do so.



As to the puddles, it was claim by a report, to which ATH will not contact because he believes its OUR responsibility to clarify his statements.

Puddles is a red herring at this point, because its possible that there were puddles at first, but were soaked into the ground or burnt up in the resulting fires after the crash.




[edit on 30-12-2009 by RipCurl]

i am a ex firefighter and I think i can clear up the fuel puddles.

When the first fire responders got to the site they would have been putting out fires with water.

This water would have puddled and fuel in the ground from the crash would have floated to the top.

Others would have seen fuel topped water puddles and thought they were fuel puddles.

This is common in fuel fires and not anything unusual.
No conspiracy just someone reporting what there eyes saw but not understanding what they really saw.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by ANNED]

Originally posted by RipCurl
Puddles is a red herring at this point, because its possible that there were puddles at first, but were soaked into the ground or burnt up in the resulting fires after the crash.

My point is, did the first-responders run over there and take samples of the "puddles"?

I doubt it.

So, we don't know that there were puddles of fuel out there at all. Could have been puddles of water with a spray of fuel over the surface — jet fuel floats on water, yes? Creates a petroleum film on the surface of the water, in fact.

But that doesn't constitute "puddles of fuel" — puddles of fuel is not possible in such a catastrophic crash, considering that the plane detonated on impact (according to the closest witness).

The only way there could be "puddles of fuel" would be if the plane slammed into the earth without exploding on impact.

I'm pretty well convinced, judging from the crash site photos, that the bulk of the jet's fuel was ignited instantly and was expended in the resulting fireball.

Otherwise, where are the vast, black areas of scorched earth in the photos? There are none.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by RipCurl
This was a photo used AS evidence in criminal TRIAL. Dont you think that if the lawyer for Mossaoui wanted to challenge that it wasn't what the Prosectution was saying that it was of, they would have made a motion to supress the evidence.

How would his defense lawyers or the prosecutors know the photo was a staged photo if none of them were in on it?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Otherwise, where are the vast, black areas of scorched earth in the photos? There are none

That's actually a good question, one us truthers have been asking for a long time. Flight 93 supposedly had more than 5,000 gallons of fuel at impact. Where are the vast black areas of scorched earth after most/all of this fuel would have ignited?