Smelling jet fuel on 9/11

[spooked911]

Lots of people said they smelled jet fuel on 9/11 at the sites of the putative plane crashes. SDuderstadt recently used jet fuel "nosewitnesses" as evidence that planes crashed on 9/11.

I just have two simple questions about this.

I have flown on commercial jets regularly for years, but I don't think I could identify what jet fuel smells like. Particularly, I'm not sure I could distinguish the smell of jet fuel from diesel fuel. That is, there is a fuel smell I have noticed at airports when boarding planes, but it is similar to a fuel smell that I smell in other places besides airports, often around heavy machinery or generators, that I think is diesel fuel.

Thus, on 9/11--
1) how did so many people know exactly what jet fuel smelled like?
2) how did so many people know for sure that they were smelling jet fuel, and not say, diesel fuel?

[LARED]

1. Well I can only assume if people saw

a giant back hoe impacting the towers, rather than a jet, they would have said they smelled diesel fuel.

[spooked911]

2. I'm talking about people who didn't see a plane but only said they smelled jet fuel

how did so many people KNOW it was jet fuel? word of mouth maybe?

[LARED]

3. Which people are theses?

How do you know they did not see a plane but knew it was jet fuel?

[spooked911]

14. because SDuderstadt used these people as proof of planes

if they saw the plane, then there is no reason to worry about what they smelled

[LARED]

15. So if they saw the plane they had no reason to mention

jet fuel???????

Huh????


Spooked, why not just start advocating giant diesel powered Backhoes where flown into the world trade center. That would be as sensible as the path your on now, and far more amusing.

[spooked911]

17. that's not what I said

I love the way you guys twist these things.

SD used these "nosewitnesses" as some kind of proof of planes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=278562&mesg_id=278562

What is the point of the smell if they had already seen the plane?

[LARED]

21. Two things

1. SD was not trying to provide proof there were planes. Planes impacting the WTC are as factual as the sun rising today.

2. The only point I can discern from the OP you linked me to is to point out that eyewitnesses not only saw the planes, they also saw and smelled evidence of planes. It was merely an attempt (my guess) to get you to either wake up from your delusions about no-planes or to see what type of goofy claims you might make to explain away the smell of jet fuel in order to maintain your delusion.

[spooked911]

22. clearly he used "smell evidence" as proof of planes

Duh. He was making a rebuttal to no planers.

Why are you all so incapable of answering a simple fucking question?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Jesus, fucking christ, Spooked...

You keep mischaracterizing this to make it seem that I/we are only using "smell witnesses" as proof of planes. We're clearly not.

This is the last fucking time I am going to indulge your silliness because, frankly, Lared's Rule makes far more sense in dealing with you.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people saw the fucking planes.
There was plane debris found at all the crash sites.
There are multiple videos of the WTC being attacked by the planes.
There are NO videos of the WTC exploding in a fireball WITHOUT being struck by a plane.
People reported being burned by some sort of flaming fuel...the only one who cares how they identified it appears to be you.

When confronted with this overwhelming evidence, you:
a) argue that the people who were direct witnesses to the planes were all "fooled".
b) When confronted with the plane debris, you claim it was all "planted" (nevermind that not ONR person reports debris being planted).
c) When confronted with the multiple videos showing planes attacking the WTC, you claim they were all confiscated and altered. Nevermind that you can't even explain how anyone could possibly have known about every video taken that day.
d) When confronted with the absence of videos showing the WTC erupting in flames without being struck by a plane, you claim that they actually exist, but that no one who shot said video will come forward because they have been "intimidated".
e) When confronted with the victims who report being burned by flaming jet fuel, you claim that what actually happened was that the "perps" pre-stored diesel fuel in the towers, then doused said victims with it, while simultaneously duping them into believing they were actually burned by flaiming jet fuel.

Enough of your silliness, Spooked. More importantly than that, enough of your mocking of the victims from that day. Enough.

[spooked911]

24. I asked a simple question-- how they knew it was jet fuel.

No need to get so excited.

So are you saying they knew it was jet fuel because:
1) they saw the plane?
2) they were told the smell was jet fuel?
3) they knew what jet fuel smelled like?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

[LARED]

25. And the answer is

1, 2, and 3. and possibly others.

[spooked911]

27. 3 is unlikely, as I pointed out in the OP

1 means that smell of jet fuel is not proof of a plane.

2 means that they had possibly been fed misinformation.

[SDuderstadt]

30. "Misinformation"

LOLOLOLOLOL

Jesus, Spooked.

[spooked911]

34. glad you can at least laugh at yourself,

SDuderstadt.

[LARED]

31. I know this seems an impossible concept for you to grasp

but no one is trying to prove planes impacted the towers buy claiming people smelled jet fuel. As I said planes impacting the WTC are a factual as the sun rising this morning.

You are the one trying to claim (and quite lamely I might add) that the fuel people smelled might be something other than jet fuel.

You know if you don't like the flying backhoe theory as a way to explain the fuel smell, perhaps you might think better of a new theory I've thunk up. How about a flying diesel locomotive. That might even explain the nose cone issues you have.

[spooked911]

33. SD used jet fuel smell as part of the evidence for proof of planes

'nuff said.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Dude...

your "no planes" theory is so goofy, even the "9/11 truth movement" shuns you.

[spooked911]

38. it's not a monolith

and I would say the REAL, knowledgeable and smart "truthers" are no planers.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude...

it doesn't make any fucking difference. Your "divide and conquer" strategy isn't working. You need to understand the concept of "convergence of evidence", however, given your poor deductive reasoning ability, I'm not hopeful.

Enough of your silliness, dude.

[spooked911]

28. Dude...

It does make a difference. I am trying to break the evidence down into nice bite-size pieces for you. You offered jet fuel smell as proof of planes. I am saying that is problematic.

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

29. "Convergence of evidence"

Remember that phrase, dude. Your "break it down into small pieces" strategy is what I referred to as your "divide and conquer" strategy, which isn't working, dude.

Do you think police solve crimes by only looking at one piece of evidence in isolation at a time? No, they consider the evidence together, using deductive reasoning, something you appear incapable of.

Enough of your silliness, dude. Lared already explained this to you.

Enough.

[spooked911]

32. I've amassed my evidence too--

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

which you won't accept, so I am trying to take it bit by bit for you. So far, your smell of jet fuel argument has been as not held up.

[defendandprotect]

7. First time I've heard that...but those at Pentagon said they smelled ....

something to do with explosives . . . can't remember the name now, but begins

with a "k" --

And, all experienced people at Pentagon with bombs/explosives, etal -

[spooked911]

9. cordite

is what you are thinking of

[SDuderstadt]

4. Is there any end to your silliness, Spooked?

Please.

[spooked911]

13. I am simply asking how so many people identified the smell as jet fuel

given that you used the smell as some kind of proof of planes

[SDuderstadt]

16. As near as I can figure...

Spooked "reasons/argues" backwards. He starts with his conclusions, masquerading as a premise, then twists the actual premises to appear to support his claim, in the process, trying to pass off one of the premises as a conclusion. It looks like this:

No planes could have crashed into the WTC.
Multiple victims reported smelling and/or being burned by flaming jet fuel.
Therefore, what actually happened was the "perps" had stored giant tanks of diesel fuel in the WTC without anyone seeing them, doused innumerable people with said diesel fuel and, simultaneously, tricked them into only THINKING they had seen jets crash into the WTC because, as we know, there were NO PLANES.

If it wasn't so stupid and the actual event so tragic, trying to follow Spooked's tortured "thinking" process would actually be funny.

[spooked911]

18. I just asked a simple question that you still haven't answered

how did they know it was jet fuel?

Because:
1) they didn't see a plane but knew what jet fuel smelled like?
2) they saw the plane and surmised the smell was jet fuel?
3) someone told them the smell was jet fuel?

[tiny elvis]

5. it is a dead end

unless you have a formula to prove the equation scent of kerosene=scent of diesel=no planes

[spooked911]

12. I am simply asking how so many people identified the smell as jet fuel

given that the smell was used as proof of planes

[Flatulo]

6. Jet fuel andf deisel fuel are very similar. They are both mostly kerosene.

[spooked911]

11. OK, so why did they say jet fuel?

Because they heard an airplane crashed?

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Q: Why do you assume your lack of familiarity with the smell of jet fuel

is typical of the average person?

[spooked911]

10. I am simply asking how so many people identified the smell as jet fuel

[Bolo Boffin]

19. And I am challenging your basic assumptions

1. Why do you feel your experience is indicative of others?

And for a second one -

How do you know that most people identified "jet fuel" rather than just "kerosene"?

[greyl]

20. If you see horses running and hear pounding hooves,

it's not reasonable to think you might be hearing giraffes.

[jberryhill]

37. Hidden premise

Because people who would not recognize the smell of jet fuel, or who did not associate the presence of fuel with an immediately seen plane, would not identify it as jet fuel.

Among "jet fuel identifiers", you have already defined a small subgroup of "9/11 witnesses".

What you are asking is "Why did all of the people who smelled jet fuel know it was jet fuel?"

The simplest answer is - those who do not know the smell of jet fuel did not identify any smell as jet fuel.

Let's try an experiment. Pick a language spoken in a remote location, say, Swahili. I do not speak Swahili, and I'll bet I'd have to travel some distance to find someone who speaks Swahili.

Now, put an insulting Swahili phrase on a billboard in Times Square. I'll bet within a very short span of time, you are going to have a crowd of angry Swahili speakers on your hand.

New York City is like that.

But you'd be sitting there saying, "Why do so many people in New York speak Swahili?"

The answer to all questions of this type is - there is a buttload of people in New York City.

But it is easier to get where you want to go. Instead of convincing people that diesel is jet fuel, then simply use planted jet fuel along with the parts and the fake videos, etc. This can easily be stored in containers in the sewers, and then sprayed out of the manholes into the street, for the desired effect.

[sabbat hunter]

36. Jet fuel

is basically high octane kerosene and has a very similar smell.

If you have been at an airport on the tarmac (which at some airports you can do when boarding/exiting the plane) you would know the smell of jet fuel.

Diesel fuel has a different smell than kerosene.