The Satam al Suqami Passport

[Mick West]

Sorry this is long but i cannot make it shorter

There's your problem!

 

[Alienentity]

Bmead I skimmed through your last post and I see you've missed a few important facts, physical realities and so on.
1) Most people have been to an airport and smelled jet fuel during their lives. Memories of odours are very lasting as well, as we probably can attest to in our own lives.
There is a large difference between gasoline and Avgas in terms of odour, the two are very unlikely to be confused. To dismiss all reports of jet fuel smell is not only unscientific but completely off-base.
Besides, there was at least one pilot or former pilot who recognized the fuel right away, and a reminder that this smell was reported high up in the towers immediately following impact as well. We were just dealing with the lower parts of the building to isolate the concept.

In my judgement your objections fail very badly.


2) The plane impact severed a lot of elevator cables, sending those elevators plunging. This is a fact. FDNY personnel reported the #6 and #7 elevators, for example, had fallen all the way down and they could view the wreckage of the crashed cars. The doors were blown open. Thus, just in that one example, there was no obstruction to fuel that might be dumping from above. Your denial fails immediately in the face of this clear evidence.

3) There is air inside the elevator shaft. When one of the several cars plunges, it creates overpressure below (described as a growing whistling sound by witnesses) and suction above. Thus, like a piston sucking in fuel in an internal combustion engine (before the compression stroke) it would be able to draw in both air and jet fuel, even if the fuel vapours didn't explode.

4) There was tremendous overpressure from jet fuel explosions, this provided additional force to both elevators and droplets of fuel or fuel vapours in the building. The violence of both the fuel explosions and the elevator plunges was reported by many witnesses, some of whom were directly burned by the blasts.

Your denials in the face of this overwhelming evidence are essentially meaningless. It further demonstrates the invalid reasoning and method you're using in that your efforts are virtually indistinguishable from the various no-planer denials we've come across. The systematic denial of easily verifiable facts puts your position in opposition to reality.

 

[Bmead]

Bmead, post: 82137, member: 2454"]



Do you not think that your "overwhelming majority of people" might actually be confined to those who trawl and contribute to conspiracy theorist websites? Or do you have some way of quantifying that which you claim to be an overwhelming majority? Is it not more likely that the overwhelming majority of people never give this subject a second thought?
We do not know how many items from the plane survived the impact. We do not know how many were found. We do not know what the condition of them was. We do not know if any were handed to someone in authority. It's possible the passport was one of many pieces that survived, and is therefore not unusual at all.




It is easy to see the ordinary as suspicious if that is what you desire. Do you never consider that that those involved with your perceived conspiracy would reason that "planting" the passport would be so counter productive from their point of view as to be a ridiculous notion?

In my opinion the journey of the passport to the officer it ended up with can never be mapped because it could have been affected by so many variables along the way. Compare it to the JFK "magic bullet" if you like. We have bucket loads of info about it. Where it was fired from....When it was fired...It's trajectory...Speed...The gun that was used............... And yet, that debate rumbles on.

I have a way to quantify- Ask everyone you meet, do you think that it was lucky that on 9/11 a passport passed out a plane,through several walls and office furnishings,through fuel then, through fire, dropped over 1000 feet, rested in debris then spotted then handed in, then turned out to be the hijackers, then turned out that despite being soaked in fuel was not burnt, no stamps bled, and it was not dusty/dirty or torn or scratched or bent.
And if we are going to say soaked meant smelled, do we say smelled of cordite meant soaked in cordite?
Even some media sources thought it odd. And lets be clear, it HAS to be seen as remarkable given that just the PLANE hitting the tower was supposedly UNIMAGINABLE to Rice,Fleischer and Bush who were privvy to multiple classified schemes. So your GUESS, is, that while multiple hijackings and events like kamikaze pilots and scenrios of plane crashes and testing the possibility of a plane hitting a nuclear installation, all made the actual plane into tower unimaginable, the passport was not just normal, it was actually expected.

The point is, you continue a denial of obvious fact- There CANNOT have been any fuel in pools outside the towers as i have shown, evaporation, the fact that the pavement WILL soak up large quantities, and the fact that NO official source claims this, the fact that to do so, requires the fuel to accelrate ahead of the debris and burst through the other side before we can visibly see the fire and smoke burst through, and NONE of that spread out it just slopped in great pools

It CANNOT have been in the lobby due to simple facts which if you STILL deny i will do a graphical representation, that will show where according to laws of the universe (gravity/pressure etc) it cannot form large separate pools of fuel, and if there is just A pool, it HAS to catch light with the rest of the fuel.

Not only this but how is it, that when someone supposedly sees fuel on the floor, it can be fuel not just water from sprinklers?.
How is it, the FBI can be wrong about the passport being soaked after a forensic examination, but the witnesses could make no mistake?
How is it, you will say the witnesses are never mistaken, but then will fail to explain fl93 witness who cited an explosion and smoke-Did he say this AFTER the crash?
And, don't bother with citing JFK i have researched that beyond anything you may have, and i can tell you this, you SHOULD read the entire warren commission report the hsca etc and, liston to what John and Nellie said, they said "we do not care what the w/c said, they were not in that car.
It is an entire separate thread but please don't cite one thing to compare when that one thing relies on calling the witness a liar.

And as for me being a conspiracy theorist yes yes yes. To a point, there ARE conspiracies. Mk Ultra, 85 institutions involved, allegedly unknowingly. FBI poisoned alchohol and killed hundreds if not thousands, approved eugenics programs. The point being some are real some are not. And i deliberately look hard at the evidence, not skim it.
And i only really have focussed on a few, you obviously are a confirmed official version supporter.

Therefore a claim of bias extends two ways and in this matter, i can prove not with a guess, but physical facts, logical assumption, psychological fact, the fact the interviews were conducted AFTER the event, and the fact that to say no witness is a liar or mistaken means we accept ALL witness claims

In the matter of the fuel

The FBI and others, will hopefully clarify the soaked statement
It was not and could not be resting in a puddle of fuel

The route taken by the finder
It cannot be guessed but what CAN be done is identified if they used a particular route, that they actually HAD to avoid officers to get to Yuk,Chin. That is ridiculous unless we want to suggest he was "in on it" which i do not hold up as sensible. The other option is, he went a different route. That, based on the length of such a alternate route, is nonsensical and, again as we can prove, many officers were at another command post. So we are making our finder walk up roads littered with JTTF,NYPD,PAPD and just totally by the way it is normal(not) avoids seeing or coming near one, until Yuk Chin. Or he deliberately walks a very long way round to come to where it was handed in.

There was a perimeter round the north tower, i have confirmed this by Keriks testimony, there was a specific evacuation route via wtc 4 and 5 through the plaza. I can and will, find the details of when the plaza was abandoned and the width of the perimeter.
I have with my picture that backs Keriks testimony and places the police presence at the place id'd which is west street. So we know no one would walk up that street and see no police. Or anyone else in authority.

I am happy to be proven wrong, so in the matter of the fuel pools. Don't just cherry pick some isolated testimony and cite a separate conspiracy theory that needs the eyewitness to be a liar, to prove your is not.

Show me, show me how the fuel did not ignite all the way down the shaft, ( 1000 ft fall, is longer in time for the fuel than for the plane to pass through the width of the tower, where we saw fire, so it falls unignited pools and then only part ignites- Show me how THAT happened.
Show me how the fuel did not fill the space under the lift car and only came out to form separate pools of fuel in the lobby

Tell me the psychology phd's who formed the basis of what is used in court and everyday and is accepted as fact, is all wrong
Tell me these witnesses all had no influence by any source prior to their interview
Tell me that no witness can lie.
You base credibility on the presence of fuel in your mind, yet you will refute the witness who smelled cordite,heard explosives, saw molten metal, because you will say it wasn't there. Yet THEY were so we accept either- There are mistakes and lies, and seek corroborative evidence- Or we say ALL tell truth
If we choose the former, then there is NO corroboration for fuels in possibility or in other evidence.

So i am not cherry picking or lying. I KNOW how the elevators worked, and how most elevators work, I KNOW the Jfk facts and assumptions, i KNOW psychology inside out.
So accuse or deny but i am not a liar OR wrong

 

[Mick West]

You are wasting your time @Bmead

This thread has devolved into long rambles on essentially irrelevant semantic points. I'm going to close it for a while. Try to come up with more quantifiable arguments.

 

[Montauk]

Did we ever come to a consensus with this claim?

 

[Mendel]

Did we ever come to a consensus with this claim?

if you were to revive this thread, it would profit from a summary of the sources that provide evidence.

for example, I didn't see any evidence that the passport was "fuel-soaked" on page 1 of the thread, yet it is part of the argument.

one theory seems to be that the cockpit debris reached an elevator shaft, the passport was sucked down in the wake of a falling elevator car, emerged somewhere, was picked up by a person who was leaving the building, and handed to the first policeman they saw, which was the detective standing outside interviewing people, who was presumably trying to get a picture of the conditions inside the building.

What I also didn't see was a coherent theory why unnamed conspirators would plan to insert a passport into the investigation that way, when the FBI had the means to independently identify al Suqami as potential hijacker; his name was on the passenger list, I believe?

The conspiracy theorist simply sees a chain of events that can give rise to incredulity, and that sense of "I can't believe that really happened" is then generalized and applied to the official version of the event as a whole, without any evidence to back it up. The official version, on the other hand, is constructed from a multitude of evidence that reinforces each other, and the passport is not actually that important.

In a nutshell, "I can't believe someone found this passport and gave it to a policeman outside the building" generalizes to "9/11 was an inside job".

 

[Thomas B]

In a nutshell, "I can't believe someone found this passport and gave it to a policeman outside the building" generalizes to "9/11 was an inside job".

I don't think that's the reasoning. Conspiracy theorists see the passport, and the strange way that it turned up, as evidence that Suqami was framed. I think they are fine with the idea that whoever thought up this way of implicating him was incompetent.

In any case, I really don't think conspiracy theorists "generalize" from (incredulity about) every anomaly to "9/11 was an inside job". They just don't think the story as a whole, in all its "official" details, makes sense. This is just one little weird detail they might point to.

The consensus here seems to be that it is in fact a little weird, but might have happened.

 

[Mendel]

I don't think that's the reasoning. Conspiracy theorists see the passport, and the strange way that it turned up, as evidence that Suqami was framed.

No, that's exactly the reasoning I'm alluding to. You put that very well.

The consensus here seems to be that it is in fact a little weird, but might have happened.

No, the consensus here is that it did happen. No "might" about it.
The passport and its owner were on the aircraft, and the passport survived the crash and was handed to the police. There is no evidence to think otherwise.

 

[MapperGuy]

No, that's exactly the reasoning I'm alluding to. You put that very well.


No, the consensus here is that it did happen. No "might" about it.
The passport and its owner were on the aircraft, and the passport survived the crash and was handed to the police. There is no evidence to think otherwise.

The conspiracy would be if ALL of the highjackers passports were recovered. THAT would be suspicious.
Its finding was just the result of aother roll on the Random Events Table in the game of Life.

 

[Mendel]

The conspiracy would be if ALL of the highjackers passports were recovered. THAT would be suspicious.

But it still wouldn't invalidate all of the other evidence that this was an al-Qaeda operation that Suqami was involved in.

Its finding was just the result of aother roll on the Random Events Table in the game of Life.

Indeed.

 

[Oystein]

I don't think that's the reasoning.

It absolutely is, and you instantly provide an example of it:

Conspiracy theorists see the passport, and the strange way that it turned up

That's "we can't believe this happened by chance"

, as evidence that Suqami was framed.

That's "therefore conspiracy / inside job"

I think they are fine with the idea that whoever thought up this way of implicating him was incompetent.

You have that backwards. I think you will have big problems finding any example of a "Truther" ascribing something to incompetence where malice would also explain the data.

In any case, I really don't think ...

That's Incredulity

...don't think conspiracy theorists "generalize" from (incredulity about) every anomaly to "9/11 was an inside job". They just don't think the story as a whole, in all its "official" details, makes sense.

That's generaliziation.

This is just one little weird detail they might point to.

That's Anomaly-Hunting - one of the major ways in which CT-thinking is deeply and hopelessly flawed.

The consensus here seems to be that it is in fact a little weird, but might have happened.

Did happen. Not might. As I am sure even you agree.

 

[Thomas B]

No, the consensus here is that it did happen. No "might" about it.

Did happen. Not might.

I just want to be clear that when I said

The consensus here seems to be that it is in fact a little weird, but might have happened.

I was trying to capture the mild hedges in Mendel's summary post:

one theory seems to be that the cockpit debris reached an elevator shaft, the passport was sucked down in the wake of a falling elevator car, emerged somewhere, was picked up by a person who was leaving the building, and handed to the first policeman they saw, which was the detective standing outside interviewing people, who was presumably trying to get a picture of the conditions inside the building.

And the "weirdness" I had in mind was similar to

the result of aother roll on the Random Events Table in the game of Life.

 

[Mendel]

I was trying to capture the mild hedges in Mendel's summary post:

I'm hedging here because that sequence of events is a guess of how I would connect "passport in the aircraft" to "passport with police", but it's probably not the only way these two points can be connected.

What we have evidence for is where the passport was initially (because Suqami checked in with it) and where it ended up (the police officer secured it). The fact that I'm hedging on how these points are connected doesn't mean that I doubt them.