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

Originally posted by ATH911

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

sorry, but why would his defense lawyers bring up the photo as being staged? that isn't being claimed. All the defense lawyer needs to do is challenge the value of the photo as evidence to the trial. He could make a motion to not include the evidence, the judge will then ask for a reason, if its due to credibility of the photo, then the prosecutor can bring in the person who took the photograph to support the value as evidence and the defense attorney could also ask questions of the photographer about the picture.

The photo has a paper trail. Who took it, when it was taken, where it was taken and how it was justified to be used as evidence. AT anytime during this process, if his defense attorney wanted to challenge the truth of the photo, he could do so. in fact a defense ATTORNEY would do as much as possible to get any and as much evdience to be thrown at as possible.

The defense attorney could challenge by bringing in the NTSB photographer who took the picture.

HE did none of these things.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

ignited a burnt in the explosion of the crash. you should really spend time reading the reports instead of demanding answers

[edit on 31-12-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by ATH911

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?

I would think it's safe to assume that the majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the massive fireball.

Here in one photograph of a scorched area:







[edit on 31-12-2009 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I would think it's safe to assume that the majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the massive fireball.

Do you also believe this of the planes that hit the towers?

reply to post by REMISNE


Different conditions

Estimated about 25% ignited in fireball at impact at WTC

Flight 93 crashed in open air - nothing to obstruct fuel cloud projected
from the impact point

American 11/United 175 crashed into a building - fuel from ruptured tanks
would encounter numerous objects in way.

In North tower fuel sloshed down stairways and some in elevator shafts
where ignited - fireball blew down the shafts through the lobby and
basements

Originally posted by thedman
In North tower fuel sloshed down stairways and some in elevator shafts
where ignited - fireball blew down the shafts through the lobby and
basements

So please tell me, how much fuel woud it have taken to make it through the floors (burning off at a fast rate) to make it to the 1 and only elevator shaft that goes from the top floors to the sub basements and then make it all the way to the sub basements?


[edit on 1-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

So please tell me, how much fuel woud it have taken to make it through the floors (burning off at a fast rate) to make it to the 1 and only elevator shaft that goes from the top floors to the sub basements and then make it all the way to the sub basements?

Roger,

Read the title of this thread. Thank you.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger,

Read the title of this thread. Thank you.

Yes I know what the title is, but i am posting about something releated, jet fuel.


[edit on 1-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Let's not stray too far off topic, please.

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

Originally posted by RipCurl
The defense attorney could challenge by bringing in the NTSB photographer who took the picture.

HE did none of these things.

Why would he have?

Originally posted by RipCurl
ignited a burnt in the explosion of the crash. you should really spend time reading the reports instead of demanding answers

I'd rather rely on photographic evidence, than written reports.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I would think it's safe to assume that the majority of the jet fuel was consumed in the massive fireball.
Here in one photograph of a scorched area:

Did the plane supposedly hit the forest first, or the grassy field?

Well, i dont think i can add much to this discussion other than to say any green plants that came into contact with fuel, grass in particular, would have yellowed and died off pretty quickly (even if they were drenched with water afterwards).

Fuel is a well known killer of grass and depending on the size of the spillage would be reasonabley obvious days and weeks after the crash (but not immediately)

So skeptics, are one of you going to tell "Gravy" to take this "fuel puddle" inaccuracies off his "debunking" pages?

Originally posted by ATH911
So skeptics, are one of you going to tell "Gravy" to take this "fuel puddle" inaccuracies off his "debunking" pages?

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

Originally posted by thedman
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

no ....this isn't a perfect example of truther logic, this is some nutball that has no scientific backround...quit trying to represent all the serious people that want answers, by using "negative association" methods.

reply to post by ATH911



In regards to the photo there, and based on my experiences of 6 aircraft crashes all of which had a fire on the ground after the initial impact it seems rather odd to say the least, at the initial impact point that the photo depicts there is no burned or charred areas. Now with that stated I do not consider myself an "expert" at crash scenes involving aircrafts just to be clear. But, after making email & phone inquirys to people I know and have worked with in the past who ARE experts in the field, they too stated off the record (and told me not to use their names if I repeated what was told to me in which I agreed) that it does appear odd since almost always at the crash site of an airlcraft the size of the one that crashed in PA and in addition, even if it was only 50% loaded with fuel that there was NOT some evidence of a large burn pattern at the impact location.

Three of my friends, again, who have many years of training & experience of direct aircraft crash investigation experience went on to tell me that while the primary charred area in the photo could have been caused by debris being ejected from the primary crash locale, it looks af if the aircraft crashed then rolled, skipped or slid into the woodline in the photo. Thereby having done so that would leave a heap of sizable wreckage and thus account for the burned trees & area obviously noticable in that photo. One of them stated too that it has always been an unasnwered question of the PA/911 aircraft site that if the burned are was caused by an accelerant (jet fuel) then why didn't the entire forest area catch fire? I have never considered that until now.

To be fair they did say that without having been on the ground investigating it on that day, they would not be 100% certain that was what happened. However, they did tell me in no uncertain terms that by only looking at that photo they would, if asked by some investigation panel or committe provide the same explanation as they told me if the photo were presented to them and asked to explain what happened or to provide a professional assessment.

NOTE: I ran that scenario of a panel or committe by them to say what their response would be.

They all agreed that while a panel or committe might ask questions relating to any other possible scenario of what may have happened those questions would be outside of the range of their expertise and the only way to arrive at any logical conclusion is to ask professionals who are experts in fields relating to those questions instead of asking good questions to the wrong people who may provide their own speculative opinions to answer. And thereby be placed on "the record" when they shouldn't be.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Doc,
You might want to rethink your statement about first responders. I spent several years working towards being an air crash investigator. One of the things I learned was about witnesses. You would rather have a witness that knows nothing about aircraft than a witness who has knowledge of aircraft. The witness without knowledge will tell you what they actually saw, while the witness with knowledge will taint their testimony by trying to tell you what they think happened. Every one of those first responders was interviewed about what they saw and what they did. Remember one thing. That reporter probably doesn't know anything about aircraft either.

A little something about jet fuel. 1 tablespoon of jet fuel, will make 100 gallons of water smell like jet fuel. Take the brush truck spray, little bit of jet fuel that sprayed out on impact and you have what looks like puddles of jet fuel.

reply to post by JIMC5499

A little something about jet fuel. 1 tablespoon of jet fuel, will make 100 gallons of water smell like jet fuel. Take the brush truck spray, little bit of jet fuel that sprayed out on impact and you have what looks like puddles of jet fuel.

Been there done that. And had it all over me as well. Burns too.

Originally posted by mikelee
One of them stated too that it has always been an unasnwered question of the PA/911 aircraft site that if the burned are was caused by an accelerant (jet fuel) then why didn't the entire forest area catch fire? I have never considered that until now.

easy: Firetruck

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.

You show an alleged team of experts one photograph and expect them to draw conclusions from it?

Sorry, Mike this stinks to high heaven.