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

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, sufficient facts have been presented to prove that Flight 93 crashed, killing all aboard in field of an old strip mine not far from Shanksville in southwestern, Pa. The idea that YOU personally are not allowed to exam the physical remains does not, in the least bit, detract from that reality.

I have been on these 9/11 forums since 2005 and still have yet to see any actual facts and evidence that supports the official story. People like to think that they have the facts and evidence but its mostly just what they have seen or heard from the media.

When you make statements that are extraordinary and not in the public domain of knowledge you may, from time to time, be asked to substantiate your claims.

I do substataniate my claims but you and others need do the same when asked.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Well, if you are not going to accept something because it was reported in the media (statements by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, etc) and will only accept evidence that is handed to you personally, then you are probably out of luck. Our government agencies generally do not brief individual citizens and give them unfettered access to physical evidence.

What it sounds like is that you are looking for an excuse to either not accept 9/11/2001 for what it really was or you do not have a common understanding of how information is developed.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, if you are not going to accept something because it was reported in the media (statements by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, etc) and will only accept evidence that is handed to you personally, then you are probably out of luck.

I will accept facts and evidence from any agency if it has proper source or can be verified.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Well, if you are not going to accept something because it was reported in the media (statements by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, etc) and will only accept evidence that is handed to you personally, then you are probably out of luck.

I will accept facts and evidence from any agency if it has proper source or can be verified.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by REMISNE]

So if someone from, say, the FBI is interviewed in the Washington Posts and describes how DNA was collected at the scene and sent down to the joint facility for ID and a match was made to one of the passenger's family members - then you are not going to accept anything he/she says until you personally can review the chain of custody records and authenticate them?

Originally posted by hooper
So if someone from, say, the FBI is interviewed in the Washington Posts and describes how DNA was collected at the scene and sent down to the joint facility for ID and a match was made to one of the passenger's family members - then you are not going to accept anything he/she says until you personally can review the chain of custody records and authenticate them?

Do you trust the Washington Post to report the complete and accurate facts?

You should also want to review all evidence to find the truth of what happened.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
So if someone from, say, the FBI is interviewed in the Washington Posts and describes how DNA was collected at the scene and sent down to the joint facility for ID and a match was made to one of the passenger's family members - then you are not going to accept anything he/she says until you personally can review the chain of custody records and authenticate them?

Do you trust the Washington Post to report the complete and accurate facts?

You should also want to review all evidence to find the truth of what happened.

Well, what part would the Post be lying about in that scenario? Would they have just made up the interview? Plus, the FBI holds press conferences, or do you think they full around with live feeds?

What relevant facts would be omitted or misrepresented? The FBI rep's name? The place the DNA was analyzed?

And, no, I do not just dismiss everything I read until I physically see the evidence. If that were the case then nothing would ever happen.

So you will think that no plane crashed anywhere until you personally are allowed to review the FBI case files? Is that a reasonable or even rational standard?

Originally posted by hooper
So you will think that no plane crashed anywhere until you personally are allowed to review the FBI case files? Is that a reasonable or even rational standard?

First with the background i have i can see when something does look or sound right.

I am satisified of a plane crash when i see the proper information is being put out.

So far with a lot what happened on 9/11 i do not see the proper informatino being put out.

reply to post by REMISNE

First with the background i have i can see when something does look or sound right.

So you think that the people who are capable of faking a whole plane crash, disappearing 50 people and fooling all the people in the world press are not capable of getting a piece of paperwork pased by you?

I am satisified of a plane crash when i see the proper information is being put out.

How many plane crashes in the US have been the result of terrorism, or any type of criminal activity? Is the same type of information forthcoming for all plane crashes? When you read about a plane crash in the paper or see it on TV or hear about on the radio, etc. Do you automatically dismiss the report until you review the serial number match reports? That must keep you busy.

So far with a lot what happened on 9/11 i do not see the proper informatino being put out.

You seem to be pretty alone in this opinion. There is a world of pretty smart people out there and there are less than a thimblefull making this so called argument.

Originally posted by hooper
So you think that the people who are capable of faking a whole plane crash, disappearing 50 people and fooling all the people in the world press are not capable of getting a piece of paperwork pased by you?

I never stated a plane crash was faked, please be adult enough not to put words in my mouth.

You seem to be pretty alone in this opinion. There is a world of pretty smart people out there and there are less than a thimblefull making this so called argument.

Most poeple want to live in their safe fantasy world an not accept the reallty that something could hae happned beside what they were told on TV.

reply to post by REMISNE

I never stated a plane crash was faked, please be adult enough not to put words in my mouth.

It would help quite a bit if maybe YOU put some words in your mouth. Tell me what you think happened. If you don't think the crash site was faked, then you must think it is real. Or do you think some of it is faked and some of it is real? You know what I think.

Most poeple want to live in their safe fantasy world an not accept the reallty that something could hae happned beside what they were told on TV.

Exactly how is it safe and comforting to know that there millions of people in the world that want nothing more than to see me (that's the collective me) dead. That they are so determined to kill me that they are more than willing to die themselves to accomplish that goal? What is safe and comforting in the reality of the, as you call it, the OS?

Originally posted by hooper
It would help quite a bit if maybe YOU put some words in your mouth. Tell me what you think happened.

We really do not know what happened since most of the evidence and reports have not been released.

What is safe and comforting in the reality of the, as you call it, the OS?

People do not want to face the reallity that thier government might have lied. They would rather feel safe and be media robots and believe what they are told.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by REMISNE]

All the images and eyewitnesses not coached all claim that there was no plane nor 1000's of gallons of jet fuel

The official story tellers keep changing the story and using unconfirmed theories as to where the fuel went.

The fuel did not 'atomize' There is no fuel burned grass. Actually whatever caused the crater didnt even have wings consistant with the wingspan of a Boeing 757. This is a fact.

All the images and eyewitnesses not coached all claim that there was no plane nor 1000's of gallons of jet fuel

The official story tellers keep changing the story and using unconfirmed theories as to where the fuel went.

The fuel did not 'atomize' There is no fuel burned grass. Actually whatever caused the crater didnt even have wings consistant with the wingspan of a Boeing 757. This is a fact.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

All the images

Confirm a plane crashed in the area.

and eyewitnesses not coached

Uh, when did we come up with this "coaching"? This is a new one, I just trust you'll be able to back this up.

all claim that there was no plane nor 1000's of gallons of jet fuel

If any of this were true it would be interesting. Here - I'll prove your wrong, they all claimed they did see a plane and they all saw the plane fuel. There - all done.

The official story tellers keep changing the story and using unconfirmed theories as to where the fuel went.

Yeah, right. Exactly who are these tellers and what exactly did they say and when???

[quote]The fuel did not 'atomize'

Yes it did, just not all of it.

There is no fuel burned grass.

Yes there was.

Actually whatever caused the crater didnt even have wings consistant with the wingspan of a Boeing 757. This is a fact.

And the hole was not the same exact diameter of the fuselage, so? Did you really expect the impact crater to be a mirror image of the plane like some kind of dirt lithograph?

Originally posted by hooper
they all claimed they did see a plane and they all saw the plane fuel.

Please show us at least ONE photo of this alleged jet fuel. If there were puddles of it, it shouldn't be too hard to find a photo to prove this.

reply to post by ATH911


I was being sarcastic and making a counterpoint.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

I was being sarcastic and making a counterpoint.

So you agree there is NO PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF of jet fuel puddles at the Shanks scene? The evidence of jet fuel puddles relies on faith?

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ATH911

 

I was being sarcastic and making a counterpoint.

So you agree there is NO PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF of jet fuel puddles at the Shanks scene? The evidence of jet fuel puddles relies on faith?

Faith? No, not faith. I am not talking about the Immaculate Conception or the Hoy Trinity. First responders and others on the scene immeadiately following the crash spoke of them briefly and the odor of fuel. That is not FAITH that is testable, FAITH is not testable, that is why we distinguish between FAITH and knowledge.

reply to post by hooper

You are relying on faith that the witnesses were accurate since you agree there is no photographic evidence to prove the fuel puddle claims.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

You are relying on faith that the witnesses were accurate since you agree there is no photographic evidence to prove the fuel puddle claims.

You really need to get a better understanding of the words you use. Faith has no witnesses. Faith is belief without proof. Faith is the absence of proof. Proof denies faith.

There are witnesses, they attest to "puddles" of fuel and the odor of fuel at the site. I doubt there is photographic evidence. You doubt the witnesses - then test them. That is the essence of knowledge as opposed to faith.

On another note - how exactly is someone not "accurate" about seeing puddles of fuel? I can see that argument if someone claimed that they saw a puddle containing 9.345 liters of fuel, but simply saying a puddle? Or are you simply trying to avoid openly calling them liars because you know that once you call them liars you are then burdened with proving they are liars which you know you cannot do?