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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


We had a low point drain in a helicopter stick open once. I got totally soaked from head to toe in JP-5. You're right it does burn. You also have to be careful in how you wash clothes that have come in contact with jet fuel. If you don't do it right you can blow the door off of your dryer.

Jet fuel has a flashpoint of about 140 degrees F. It is entirely possible that a large quantity of fuel was vaporized on impact, without igniting.




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

How are they inaccurate? There are first person reports. Because you cannot distinguish them from a days old aerial photo is irrelevant.

I still haven't seen any evidence that aerial photo I posted was days old, or do you base it on the fact that there is hardly any plane debris of the claimed "95% found wreckage" shown on that photo, so it must of been taken after cleanup started?

And since no one has been able to produce any photographic evidence of fuel puddles, at best, that claim should be categorised as "unsubstantiated."



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 



Call it whatever you want to Pepper. I'm more than sure you have friends who you talk to that aren't on here and if you choose to post a conversation you had with them regarding topics here, then thats your business and I'm sure I'll more than likely call BS to that also if it has anything to do with the manure filled 911 Commission OS.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I'm calling B.S. on your panel of anonymous sources. If they are real crash scene investigators, they would not judge a crash by one photograph. There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence including eyewitness reports.


I see you call BS a lot and talk a lot but as usual no real evidence to back up what you think or have been told happened.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
We had a low point drain in a helicopter stick open once. I got totally soaked from head to toe in JP-5.


Try working with JP-8 (one of the most unstable fuels, the Navy will not even carry it on thier carriers). I had a fuel spill from an RF-4 that the fuel covered the floor of the shelter up over the souls of my boots.

I had to go in and stop the fuel spill.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
"I see you call BS a lot and talk a lot but as usual no real evidence to back up what you think or have been told happened."

Speaking of BS, that aerial photo provided on Page 3 appears to be Photoshopped. Any other photos of that alleged burned vegetation to substantiate it? WTF, too cheap to hire some real graphic artists?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
appears to be Photoshopped.


Gee you guys like to use that word APPEARS a lot. As usual nothing to support what is posted.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

How are they inaccurate? There are first person reports. Because you cannot distinguish them from a days old aerial photo is irrelevant.

I still haven't seen any evidence that aerial photo I posted was days old, or do you base it on the fact that there is hardly any plane debris of the claimed "95% found wreckage" shown on that photo, so it must of been taken after cleanup started?

And since no one has been able to produce any photographic evidence of fuel puddles, at best, that claim should be categorised as "unsubstantiated."


So, let me get this straight - all first person testimony is heretofore declared "unsubstantiated" unless there is an accompanying photo? is that the new standard? Wow, is that going to change the justice system in this country.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So, let me get this straight - all first person testimony is heretofore declared "unsubstantiated" unless there is an accompanying photo? is that the new standard? Wow, is that going to change the justice system in this country.


If there are photos taken (which they are in crime scenes) then yes photos w/sources must be shown.

Does not change the justice system since crime scene photos are normal evidence in court.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
So, let me get this straight - all first person testimony is heretofore declared "unsubstantiated" unless there is an accompanying photo? is that the new standard? Wow, is that going to change the justice system in this country.


If there are photos taken (which they are in crime scenes) then yes photos w/sources must be shown.

Does not change the justice system since crime scene photos are normal evidence in court.





Well, yes it does. Since now any witnesses to the crime, should they not happen to have bothered to snap a photo, are now just consider "unsubstantiaed", nothing better than a rumor. What if a witness testifies to what they smelled -say jet fuel for instance - do we need some new technology or do we just dismiss the witness?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Well, yes it does. Since now any witnesses to the crime, should they not happen to have bothered to snap a photo, are now just consider "unsubstantiaed", nothing better than a rumor. What if a witness testifies to what they smelled -say jet fuel for instance - do we need some new technology or do we just dismiss the witness?


Please read the following again for better understanding.

If there are photos taken (which they are in crime scenes) then yes photos w/sources must be shown.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Heated topic I see. I have come in late but I am curious about the way the veracity of eye witness testimony is defended. I am not a 'truther' I do not know enough about aviation, construction or physics to have an oppinion one way or the other but as far as the eye witness testimony goes...

Doesn't it stand to reason that if the shanksville eye witness accoutns are accurate then wouldn't also the eye wtiness accounts of explosions at the world trade centre also be considered accurate? I don't know one way or the other but what would the difference be bewteen the two?

In my mind, I could argue that the event was in progress at the WTC thus who knows what they heard where-as the 93 crash was an investigation after the event.

I'm just curious what people think about eye witness testimony in the two cases and why the 93 crash testimony is taken, in its entirety, at face value whereas the WTC base-explosion testimony isn't.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebulldog
Doesn't it stand to reason that if the shanksville eye witness accoutns are accurate then wouldn't also the eye wtiness accounts of explosions at the world trade centre also be considered accurate?


The problem on here is that it seems that people pick and choose which eye witnesses to believe.

Thats why we need evidence and reports to support the eye witnesses.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Well, yes it does. Since now any witnesses to the crime, should they not happen to have bothered to snap a photo, are now just consider "unsubstantiaed", nothing better than a rumor. What if a witness testifies to what they smelled -say jet fuel for instance - do we need some new technology or do we just dismiss the witness?


Please read the following again for better understanding.

If there are photos taken (which they are in crime scenes) then yes photos w/sources must be shown.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]


And if there aren't any "crime scene photos"? Is the witness dismissed? And kind of getting back to the spirit of the OP (I think), what gives you the right to crime scene photos?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebulldog
reply to post by hooper
 


Heated topic I see. I have come in late but I am curious about the way the veracity of eye witness testimony is defended. I am not a 'truther' I do not know enough about aviation, construction or physics to have an oppinion one way or the other but as far as the eye witness testimony goes...

Doesn't it stand to reason that if the shanksville eye witness accoutns are accurate then wouldn't also the eye wtiness accounts of explosions at the world trade centre also be considered accurate? I don't know one way or the other but what would the difference be bewteen the two?

In my mind, I could argue that the event was in progress at the WTC thus who knows what they heard where-as the 93 crash was an investigation after the event.

I'm just curious what people think about eye witness testimony in the two cases and why the 93 crash testimony is taken, in its entirety, at face value whereas the WTC base-explosion testimony isn't.

Cheers


My initial response was directed to concept that there was no jet fuel at the Flight 93 site because there were no public photographs depicting the ground with puddles of fuel. The report was based first person accounts by first responders. The reponse to that was that the accounts were "unsubstantiated" because the there were no photos shown specifically detailing puddles of fuel (how that could be perfectly distinguihsed in a photo, I am not so sure).

Anyway, that gave rise to the new concept that only witness testimnoy that is somehow corroborated by photos can be "substantiated".

As to your point - it is not a matter of picking and choosing witness, it is a matter of review of the actual statements. I don't doubt for a minute that people in NYC heard "explosions". However that only goes to prove what they heard, not what actually happened. Specifically, explosives aren't the only thing that make explosive sounds.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And if there aren't any "crime scene photos"? Is the witness dismissed? And kind of getting back to the spirit of the OP (I think), what gives you the right to crime scene photos?


Thier should be either photos or evidence to support the witness.

If you or others are going to state that there are photos of the debris then you have to be able to show them. IF NOT THEN ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO PHOTOS OF THE DEBRIS.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
And if there aren't any "crime scene photos"? Is the witness dismissed? And kind of getting back to the spirit of the OP (I think), what gives you the right to crime scene photos?


Thier should be either photos or evidence to support the witness.

If you or others are going to state that there are photos of the debris then you have to be able to show them. IF NOT THEN ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO PHOTOS OF THE DEBRIS.



You have seen all the photos I have seen of the crash sites. That is currently what is in the public domain. If you don't think they are sufficient then that is your burden. Find better.

Witness testimony is not always supported by crime scene photos, and now that you mention it, there was a trial, some photos were entered into evidence and now are in the public domain, the suspect was found guilty and sentenced.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
, the suspect was found guilty and sentenced.


This is HUGE

When did they find anyone guilty , and sentence them



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You have seen all the photos I have seen of the crash sites. That is currently what is in the public domain. If you don't think they are sufficient then that is your burden. Find better.


If you are going to state that they are photos of the crash site then they should also have the proper sources to prove it.


Witness testimony is not always supported by crime scene photos, and now that you mention it, there was a trial, some photos were entered into evidence and now are in the public domain, the suspect was found guilty and sentenced.


Do you really think he was not going to be found guilty even without the so called evidence?

If the evidence at this trail was so good why does the FBI and DOJ both state thier is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being beind 9/11?



[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by hooper
, the suspect was found guilty and sentenced.


This is HUGE

When did they find anyone guilty , and sentence them


Really, read the papers.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join