Full Version: Dep Reports
Can anybody please give me more info on the DEP reports which showed a lack of fuel contamination at the ´crash site´? I used to have a link to it here on this site and now can´t find it. Cheers guys.
QUOTE
SHANKSVILLE, Pa. -- Three groundwater monitoring wells show no evidence of groundwater contamination and nearly 6,000 cubic yards of dirt sifted for human remains and aircraft debris will soon be returned to the crater left Sept. 11 by United Airlines Flight 93.
http://html.thepittsburghchannel.com/pit/n...002-151006.html
http://html.thepittsburghchannel.com/pit/n...002-151006.html
QUOTE
By today, Environmental Resources Management Inc. of Pine, a contractor hired by United, expects to return 5,000 to 6,000 cubic yards of soil to the 50-foot hole dug around the crater left by the crash.
The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said.
So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said.
http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp
The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said.
So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said.
http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp
Thanks very much Rob. Any time I mention this on other forums there are very few who know about it and even on Youtube there are no videos pushing this topic. It can´t be blurred by debunker ´logic´.
It´s been scientifically proved by an official government body , although their explanation that it ´must have dissipated´ or simply ´burned off´ are laughable given their insistence on saying the plane crashed at a 90º angle at 500mph....I love using their own stats
It´s been scientifically proved by an official government body , although their explanation that it ´must have dissipated´ or simply ´burned off´ are laughable given their insistence on saying the plane crashed at a 90º angle at 500mph....I love using their own stats
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 25 2009, 07:55 PM) 
Thanks very much Rob. Any time I mention this on other forums there are very few who know about it and even on Youtube there are no videos pushing this topic. It can´t be blurred by debunker ´logic´.
It´s been scientifically proved by an official government body , although their explanation that it ´must have dissipated´ or simply ´burned off´ are laughable given their insistence on saying the plane crashed at a 90º angle at 500mph....I love using their own stats
It´s been scientifically proved by an official government body , although their explanation that it ´must have dissipated´ or simply ´burned off´ are laughable given their insistence on saying the plane crashed at a 90º angle at 500mph....I love using their own stats
We cover it in Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Three - Flight Of United 93 and in our United 93 Press Release.
DuhBunkers rarely tackle such a subject, but when they do, common arguments are:
- "The source is a newspaper!" (Duhbunkers love to ignore the name of the spokesperson quoted)
- "The dirt was replaced, not returned!" - (no where does it say the dirt was "replaced" or "decontaminated", and specifically says it was returned with no signs of contamination)
There is a reason not one "DuhBunker" wishes to debate P4T, yet attempts to only slander and libel sans opponent.
It is true. It is undebunkable. There was one guy who, when I stated that there was no plane crash on this site used the same info I´d given to say that if this was so then the ´shoot down´ scenario had been debunked too.
But this is the only POSSIBLE explanation for there being no contamination (other than there was no plane), in that the fuel could have been mostly burned off in midair and whatever was left over would have dissipated over many miles if it was a few thousand feet in the air.
He then went on to say that the passengers of flight 93 were heroes either way...but if it WAS shot down is he trying to tell me that by pure coincidence when they made their move USAF missiles were simultaneously fired? Proving that it was shot down would then cast doubt on the validity of the latter portion of the telephone calls/recorded movements, hence all of the telephone calls.
I´m now starting to believe (and I know it´s pure conjecture) that the hole made in the field may have been from another ´stray´missile. I don´t know if I´m watching too many movies and I´m not sure where to search for this info but don´t 2 missiles get simultaneously fired at any moving object? It would be interesting to find other missile craters and compare them.
But this is the only POSSIBLE explanation for there being no contamination (other than there was no plane), in that the fuel could have been mostly burned off in midair and whatever was left over would have dissipated over many miles if it was a few thousand feet in the air.
He then went on to say that the passengers of flight 93 were heroes either way...but if it WAS shot down is he trying to tell me that by pure coincidence when they made their move USAF missiles were simultaneously fired? Proving that it was shot down would then cast doubt on the validity of the latter portion of the telephone calls/recorded movements, hence all of the telephone calls.
I´m now starting to believe (and I know it´s pure conjecture) that the hole made in the field may have been from another ´stray´missile. I don´t know if I´m watching too many movies and I´m not sure where to search for this info but don´t 2 missiles get simultaneously fired at any moving object? It would be interesting to find other missile craters and compare them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.