The Satam al Suqami Passport
- Thread starter Bmead
- Start date
Pete Tar
Senior Member
An opinion of it being 'unlikely' or strange or high odds against any particular thing happening is irrelevant, seeing as it happened - if one can prove it's *impossible* then they have a point, otherwise it really doesn't matter what the mathematical odds against something happening are if *that's what happens*.
The report doesn't seem to specify 'plainsclothes'?
The report doesn't seem to specify 'plainsclothes'?
Alienentity
Active Member
Tony with all due respect you're an engineer, correct? You're not an expert on emergency procedures after unprecedented terrorist attacks, right?
You're also not a legal expert.
All this speculation and effort in order to deny the validity of this kind of material seems like a personal quest rather than professional opinion. And in that regard I don't think your opinion is any more valid than mine or Mick's. Both of us seem to find it reasonable that this item could be found and handed in, especially since there's not a shred of evidence that something nefarious was going on with the guy who found it. Seems like you're being kind of mean-spirited about it.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The hijacker who the passport belonged to was alleged to have been on AA Flight 11 which hit the north face of WTC 1.
The action report says the detective left his vehicle at West and Albany, so he was apparently south of WTC 1.
This is interesting as there was very little debris that got through the south face of WTC 1.
The action report says the detective left his vehicle at West and Albany, so he was apparently south of WTC 1.
This is interesting as there was very little debris that got through the south face of WTC 1.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
No, I am highly skeptical, no different than the ABC news anchor who said a hijacker passport was found near the WTC and felt compelled to add "if you can believe that".
There certainly were nefarious things going on with Bernie Kerik and he was intimately connected with Rudy Giuliani, whose department of design and construction felt it was "prudent" to get rid of 99.5% of the steel from the twin towers and all of it from WTC 7 before it could be analyzed and tested.
Alienentity
Active Member
Tony, you're beyond skeptical. You have zero evidence that this passport couldn't have been found and handed in just the way it was described. Everything you're doing has to do with the baggage you're imposing on the event, and nothing to do with the facts of the item.
Case in point: Bernie Kerik has nothing to do with the passport except in your mind. That's the connection.
The discovery of the passport doesn't change the fact that the airline hit the tower, nor that all those people were killed. It's just a small side story. There's no evidence to directly suggest otherwise.
Consider this pristine item as well before you continue with your efforts to deny the veracity of the artifacts:
If this hat or the passport were crushed or burned would it make any difference? Some things survived well, others didn't. We can never know what the processes involved were, as we cannot go inside the crashes or collapses to know exactly where each molecule was, which random collision happened and when. Never.
Pretending to know things which can't be known is not helpful.
Feigning certainty where there can be none is not wise.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
See the following website . . . I don't know exactly where they got their information . . according to them the fire was minimal because most of the debris was buried several feet under the loose soil . . . http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A
Again this is Flight 93 where the crash debris was found deep under the soil of Pa . . . http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/claim.html
Josh Heuer
Active Member
The only facts given out can't even be agreed upon! That's why people are so skeptical. Shall we get back to the 'fact' that the passport was soaked in jet fuel? Or do we just cherry pick which 'facts' to believe from the official narrative? That's as bad as speculating in my opinion.
You're right, the passport doesn't change that airplanes hit the tower yada yada yada. But it does matter if someone planted it there. That proves beyond a doubt there was prior knowledge of an attack. It doesn't equate to nano termite bringing the towers down, or space weapons, or whatever. But it does mean someone knew about the attacks and possibly even assisted in some way, which is a major implication if true.
Last edited:
Bmead
Member
Bmead
Member
Since I don't have access to (nor have I attempted to get it) all recovered items, I've found a few things which are reportedly not damaged:
Flight 93 victim Andrew Garcia's wallet and wedding ring were returned to his family by the FBI. '"It was practically intact," Richard's sister, Lori, said of the credentials, which were returned in their wallet. "It just looked like it wasn't damaged or hadn't gone through much of anything at all, which is so bizarre and ironic.'
This bankcard of Waleed Iskandar was found in the WTC rubble and returned to them in 2002. It survived the collapse of the towers 'in good condition'. Some consider it a sign or gift from the son to his parents on the anniversary of his death. They can't understand how it could look so undamaged except by divine intervention. I guess where they see the hand of God, (positive force) conspiracy theorists see a dark conspiracy planting evidence (negative force).
The problem with the conspiracist POV is that it sees conspiracy whether the item is damaged or not - either way it must be planted, in their minds. If it's pristine, they find it even more compelling. Yet the hijacker passport above is damaged and the card below isn't. This is not evidence of a conspiracy to plant evidence or artifacts, it's just the leftovers of a tragedy.
LET US OUTLINE THIS P.O.V
Take your card here, and the passport shown earlier. The passport shown is NOT from the towers. It is NOT undamaged
This card is NOT found pre-collapse and is NOT undamaged
By virtue of not believing the official version one must obviously assume a conspiratorial element in a chosen aspect.
So i look i see a perfect passport, with al qaeda stamps, but stamps only deduced as such after the event, that had expired visas, that passed through a fireball, that avoided the destruction the bodies and plane parts did, that did not get covered in dirt or debris, that coincidentally was found and coincidentally was handed to a detective (an angle i had not anticipated whether he was uniformed or not, if not that is even more suspicious) coincidentally it was a hijackers
These points are enough to question things
The problem is with your p.o.v is
You don't want any aspect investigated, it was ironic you don't want to me telling you what you think but you tell me and us what we think
This forum is not about debate over wider issues so i won't go on except to say- I can find at LEAST 100 inconsistencies with the official version.
One or two would be enough to suspect but you won't have it. Well that is your choice.
My choice is unless someone can prove to me the opposite i will try to see the truth myself and despite a convinced mind, if i cannot prove with facts i will say that it could be as the official version says. And i will do so with every section until i become an official version believer because i KNOW from proof not hearsay, or i will have unchallengable proof of there being a conspiracy.
Bmead
Member
That is, if the cop was a obvious cop, even you cannot argue that a suited man was obviously a cop. But i do not know whether the cop was uniformed or not, i will have to look at that angle. And as far as wouldn't give your name, that is not your choice to make if the cop asks for it. But whereas another day the guy may have been chased or later found, events then didn't warrant chasing someone giving you a passport.
However i think some effort is needed to ascertain whether he actually was clearly a cop otherwise just being lucky enough to give it to a suited detective that could be anyone will just be a massive coincidence of the kind that is not acceptable
Bmead
Member
Who said ANY OTHER PERSONS id was planted? Are you making distractionary claims?
Americans didn't carry passports on domestic flights? Well 1) The hijackers were not Americans so there are a few more needed to be found. But i think finding EVERY hijacker passport would be incredulous to breaking point. It has been asserted passports were used as id, in the UK and EU you need a passport or driving licence as id for domestic flights. So if you aim to suggest that a lack of any other passport is logical, then where are the other forms of id. And, i think you will find that the flight attendants and pilots have to have their passports.
2) The fact id was still in someones pocket is very suggestive of exactly where my conclusions led so far, that if the passport was in a pocket or bag THEN it stood a chance to pass through the tower. Who was this passenger? i will bet she was further back in the plane.
The dna being told it was their is irrelevant if one believes in conspiracy, and to my knowledge there has not been clear dna confirmation of the brothers and in fact where did these dna samples come from of the hijackers?
A process of elimination is insufficient i am sorry to say given in the wtc it is not even 100% confirmed if everyone who died is known or a definite figure (single people, with no family, people unidentified but thought dead) So the only way you can claim the hijackers were id'd is a positive match from a dna source- i suggest you provide a solid source that backs that wild claim that is not in the least substantiated
People willing to kill themselves? Yes correct, a problem exists though in the question of if they were devout and willing, and if they knew the mission- That would be a seperate thread i guess but essentially there are claims that defy suggestions they were devout Muslims and there is the fact that if as people promoting the official version suggested (INC CHENEY) They didn't know the full mission until the last day-what if they decided on that day they didn't want to die and thought they would be killing but not killed?
And how are you going to do that?
You are never going to get anywhere with pretty much any of your questions in this thread, because they all fall within a reasonable range of uncertainty. Suspicious people see everything as proof of a conspiracy. That's not going to change.
Look back over the thread. What actual hard facts have your determined?
Bmead
Member
I tell you what hard facts i have determined
The passport cannot have been ejected to either side- this is due to speed of impact, likely location of passport (unless you place it in the rear) And the simulations
The Passport cannot have survived at all if it was loose, to remotely stand a chance to survive it needed to be in a bag or locker in his chair area (although still working on this i do not have the software i need currently for full analysis of this)
If in the cockpit, it could not have survived (undamaged) even bagged or in a pocket
If located in the seat area, it cannot have been soaked in fuel at all it needed to be further back
That it was expired visa visible
That it had been doctored in a way ONLY attributable directly to Al Qaeda and no other group in the world
That the doctoring would never be known until after 9/11
That the cop who found it was claimed to be from the 5th and 7th and went to the 13th to give it to the jttf who then phoned him later to ask about it despite him having given it to them on the scene and later at the 13th
Those are not assumptions they are what is stated by official sources in black and white, by numerous simulations and descriptions of damage, by tests that detail impacts of planes, by scientific analysis done by people supporting the official line
As for how i will find out if the guy was uniformed or not that is simple=
Contact NYPD 5th 7th and 13th and ask for information- ie was he a beat cop or detective, if he was a detetive find out if they are suited or uniformed
Also, submit foia requests to the jttf and nypd for their info on the passport to see who had it where when and how long.
Does anything yet make it impossible to have made it through or been soaked in fuel? No, but it is decreasing the chances slowly.
And if i find the cop was plain clothed and just handed the passport it will matter, and it DOES matter about Kerik- why? Because he had a massive part in the 9/11 scenario he was no beat cop he was a major part of things. So if he and especially, if many cops in his reign as top cop, were bent, then that has quite an implication. It proves nothing but it hardly adds to the likelihood they would tell the truth does it.
Anyway that is where i am, and if i am doubted as i said, i cannot transfer every simulation but i will give you the names of the papers i read and the links and the names of those who did tests and then the link to some simualtions and you can prove me wrong on the bits i said.
The passport cannot have been ejected to either side- this is due to speed of impact, likely location of passport (unless you place it in the rear) And the simulations
The Passport cannot have survived at all if it was loose, to remotely stand a chance to survive it needed to be in a bag or locker in his chair area (although still working on this i do not have the software i need currently for full analysis of this)
If in the cockpit, it could not have survived (undamaged) even bagged or in a pocket
If located in the seat area, it cannot have been soaked in fuel at all it needed to be further back
That it was expired visa visible
That it had been doctored in a way ONLY attributable directly to Al Qaeda and no other group in the world
That the doctoring would never be known until after 9/11
That the cop who found it was claimed to be from the 5th and 7th and went to the 13th to give it to the jttf who then phoned him later to ask about it despite him having given it to them on the scene and later at the 13th
Those are not assumptions they are what is stated by official sources in black and white, by numerous simulations and descriptions of damage, by tests that detail impacts of planes, by scientific analysis done by people supporting the official line
As for how i will find out if the guy was uniformed or not that is simple=
Contact NYPD 5th 7th and 13th and ask for information- ie was he a beat cop or detective, if he was a detetive find out if they are suited or uniformed
Also, submit foia requests to the jttf and nypd for their info on the passport to see who had it where when and how long.
Does anything yet make it impossible to have made it through or been soaked in fuel? No, but it is decreasing the chances slowly.
And if i find the cop was plain clothed and just handed the passport it will matter, and it DOES matter about Kerik- why? Because he had a massive part in the 9/11 scenario he was no beat cop he was a major part of things. So if he and especially, if many cops in his reign as top cop, were bent, then that has quite an implication. It proves nothing but it hardly adds to the likelihood they would tell the truth does it.
Anyway that is where i am, and if i am doubted as i said, i cannot transfer every simulation but i will give you the names of the papers i read and the links and the names of those who did tests and then the link to some simualtions and you can prove me wrong on the bits i said.
Bmead
Member
And i agree to an extent of suspicious people see conspiracy everywhere, but that is a stereotype at the severe end of the scale. I will admit i was wrong about YOU. You happen to be whilst i think a firm debunker, not as unreasonable as i first accused you of.
Others- very much they would not change their mind if Bush turned round and said "i did it" I think, if solid proof incontrovertible evidence is laid at your feet you would accept it.
I am that way, and unfortunately as i said before, there exist numerous questions on many things in the 9/11 story so i run them down. I may go too far to some people but i know, when i finish i'll be satisfied one way or another. You do it too, you believe in the official story (naively i think due to the unnecessarily redacted/classified parts of the official line as well as flaws and coincidences and outright incompetence in agencies that could have done small things to halt the entire op if they were not so closed minded or stupid)
But we both demand proof, unfortunately only you can demand i bear the burden, i am not allowed to demand you explain something. But i accept that, why do you think i put stuff here, i could make claims wildly but if i do it here and am attacked and shown to be full of crap i have no option but look deeper or admit that i am wrong or provide the proof. There is only so far i can go, so if i do not find proof then i have to accept i am wrong. In this case, i feel sure i will find enough.
Others- very much they would not change their mind if Bush turned round and said "i did it" I think, if solid proof incontrovertible evidence is laid at your feet you would accept it.
I am that way, and unfortunately as i said before, there exist numerous questions on many things in the 9/11 story so i run them down. I may go too far to some people but i know, when i finish i'll be satisfied one way or another. You do it too, you believe in the official story (naively i think due to the unnecessarily redacted/classified parts of the official line as well as flaws and coincidences and outright incompetence in agencies that could have done small things to halt the entire op if they were not so closed minded or stupid)
But we both demand proof, unfortunately only you can demand i bear the burden, i am not allowed to demand you explain something. But i accept that, why do you think i put stuff here, i could make claims wildly but if i do it here and am attacked and shown to be full of crap i have no option but look deeper or admit that i am wrong or provide the proof. There is only so far i can go, so if i do not find proof then i have to accept i am wrong. In this case, i feel sure i will find enough.
Bmead
Member
They ARE facts. As i said they are checkable and provable i am not making them up. They are proven by being in black and white and believing the official versions of simulations maths and science. If they are wrong then i make a false claim but if they are right, then i am asserting the evidence given not making it up
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Question . . . has the person finding the passport been specifically identified?? Seems that would be easy to do . . . would not the individual be willing to step up . . . be identified and give complete details of the events? Have I missed something here ?
qed
Senior Member
How would we do that?
No. The only name known is the cop Yuk H. Chin. I found him on Facebook and wrote to him, but got no reply.
Alienentity
Active Member
George, some things are not knowable. This might be one of them. How do you propose to contact the fellow? Put a giant ad in the NYTimes?
Regarding the Flight 93 items, I was told by a forum member that not one single item from the plane crashes had been discovered undamaged. I see the goalposts are already shifting now I've found some undamaged items. Really classy, guys.
If you bother to read the thread you'll see the new preconditions (pre-collapse only) were not listed in the initial declaration. I know how this 'deny the clear evidence' game works; you keep narrowing down the admissibility until you can exclude the evidence you don't like (that which contradicts the conspiracy claim).
Marisa's wallet survived the collapse of the towers, in undamaged condition. But of course it's now declared invalid. LOL
I suppose the Fire Chief's hat is also invalid as proof that things did survive the crushing and collapse intact.
You do realize that the odds of an item surviving pre-collapse, if they dropped onto the street from above, are greater than post-collapse, right?
Josh, the passport was reported to be soaked in jet fuel. It came from a plane crash so that isn't surprising. If it wasn't burned up then it wasn't burned up. That's what the facts are. There is no evidence of foul play in its discovery, you conspiracists are adding this element through your bias alone.
Anyway, I posted these pictures to directly contradict some of the claims made here that nothing has ever been recovered undamaged. We can see that this claim is false. I agree with Mick that this thread is degenerating. I won't bother visiting the thread again unless I find some further pictures, but I've done my bit to find them already.
I have no interest in further banter with people who can't accept clear evidence.
Regarding the Flight 93 items, I was told by a forum member that not one single item from the plane crashes had been discovered undamaged. I see the goalposts are already shifting now I've found some undamaged items. Really classy, guys.
If you bother to read the thread you'll see the new preconditions (pre-collapse only) were not listed in the initial declaration. I know how this 'deny the clear evidence' game works; you keep narrowing down the admissibility until you can exclude the evidence you don't like (that which contradicts the conspiracy claim).
Marisa's wallet survived the collapse of the towers, in undamaged condition. But of course it's now declared invalid. LOL
I suppose the Fire Chief's hat is also invalid as proof that things did survive the crushing and collapse intact.
You do realize that the odds of an item surviving pre-collapse, if they dropped onto the street from above, are greater than post-collapse, right?
Josh, the passport was reported to be soaked in jet fuel. It came from a plane crash so that isn't surprising. If it wasn't burned up then it wasn't burned up. That's what the facts are. There is no evidence of foul play in its discovery, you conspiracists are adding this element through your bias alone.
Anyway, I posted these pictures to directly contradict some of the claims made here that nothing has ever been recovered undamaged. We can see that this claim is false. I agree with Mick that this thread is degenerating. I won't bother visiting the thread again unless I find some further pictures, but I've done my bit to find them already.
I have no interest in further banter with people who can't accept clear evidence.
Alienentity
Active Member
The passport of Maynard Spence apparently was recovered from the tower rubble. He was in the South Tower for a meeting on 9/11. It appears in undamaged condition, but you can go to the NYC museum to look at it yourself if you want to verify this.
I suggest you folks make the trip to the museum where you can view undamaged and damaged personal effects from the towers and jets. This should answer your questions. We've led you to the water, now the rest is up to you.
Better image:
http://timeline.911memorial.org/#Timeline/3/ImageEntry/606/1
http://timeline.911memorial.org/#Timeline/3/ImageEntry/605/1External Quote:
External Quote:
Bmead
Member
Let me use an analogy to substantiate a claim- It is based on real research by real universities but i said i refuse to copy and paste thousands of pages, especially when some won't read a few hundred words.
The Claim-Loose passport will not survive undamaged
The impact speed is set around 200-240 m/s and the impacct analysis in every single text or sim. backs up the utter destruction of the front of the plane on impact.
This means that the nose, window and whole cockpit area is annihilated totally, and its shards move forward like shotgun pellets destroying things.
The rest of the plane is losing kinetic energy from the microsecond of connection,
The analogy- A man on a motorbike travelling at 100mph hits wooden fence, what happens?
The man is slung forward the bike carries on, bursts through the fence but is not restricted by the fence or anything
Now if the passport is loose or in a pocket or bag in the cockpit, it travels forwards whilst the plane is slowing still, the passport, the hijacker or the bag, CANNOT not hit something, this is fact because there is a wall to the core section, plenty of core columns and a wall to the core section on the other side and a wall to the other side of the tower, this is 3 walls that a passport, a body, or a bag has to pass through. NONE of those 3 (perimeter wall, core walls and core columns) things can be given enough force to pass through these three walls and remain intact, not even to pass through these three objects
The passport or bag or person can be pushed forwards by anything behind it, however this still puts the passport to be pierced by objects behind it or pushed ahead and punch through the walls the columns and the perimeter walls. There is no test ever anywhere where this will result in undamaged items coming through
Nists own simulations and MIT paper and others, show the disintegration of the plane right back to the point where the wings hit, only then do they suggest the wings smashed into pieces with larger chunks rather than utter destruction
Now this is FACT.
If you want to prove me wrong go right ahead but this categorically proves the passport physically cannot have been in the cockpit area because it would be damaged, NOT soaked in fuel.
That is solid hard proof that dicounts one place the passport could never have been, so now it can ONLY have been in the chair area. And i am still working on that.
It doesnt matter if you dont respect me, dont like me dont like how many words i used, these are basic facts.
And you must categorically disprove all simulations all scientific analysis of the impact to deny this statement.
So feel free.
It is no breakthrough but it is a start and it is a fact
The Claim-Loose passport will not survive undamaged
The impact speed is set around 200-240 m/s and the impacct analysis in every single text or sim. backs up the utter destruction of the front of the plane on impact.
This means that the nose, window and whole cockpit area is annihilated totally, and its shards move forward like shotgun pellets destroying things.
The rest of the plane is losing kinetic energy from the microsecond of connection,
The analogy- A man on a motorbike travelling at 100mph hits wooden fence, what happens?
The man is slung forward the bike carries on, bursts through the fence but is not restricted by the fence or anything
Now if the passport is loose or in a pocket or bag in the cockpit, it travels forwards whilst the plane is slowing still, the passport, the hijacker or the bag, CANNOT not hit something, this is fact because there is a wall to the core section, plenty of core columns and a wall to the core section on the other side and a wall to the other side of the tower, this is 3 walls that a passport, a body, or a bag has to pass through. NONE of those 3 (perimeter wall, core walls and core columns) things can be given enough force to pass through these three walls and remain intact, not even to pass through these three objects
The passport or bag or person can be pushed forwards by anything behind it, however this still puts the passport to be pierced by objects behind it or pushed ahead and punch through the walls the columns and the perimeter walls. There is no test ever anywhere where this will result in undamaged items coming through
Nists own simulations and MIT paper and others, show the disintegration of the plane right back to the point where the wings hit, only then do they suggest the wings smashed into pieces with larger chunks rather than utter destruction
Now this is FACT.
If you want to prove me wrong go right ahead but this categorically proves the passport physically cannot have been in the cockpit area because it would be damaged, NOT soaked in fuel.
That is solid hard proof that dicounts one place the passport could never have been, so now it can ONLY have been in the chair area. And i am still working on that.
It doesnt matter if you dont respect me, dont like me dont like how many words i used, these are basic facts.
And you must categorically disprove all simulations all scientific analysis of the impact to deny this statement.
So feel free.
It is no breakthrough but it is a start and it is a fact
Josh Heuer
Active Member
I'm just wondering why we were previously discussing the FBI's report saying it was soaked in jet fuel, and the response from 'debunkers' was basically no, it was not, or that must be a mistake. It struck me as odd.
So you think the passport was soaked in jet fuel, as per the feds? Do you think it is some insignificant detail? It might be. It might be to people like you. But if that's the case then why bother even discussing it? Or trying to change people's minds about what you think happened? What's your motive for defending their story?
The image of the leather handbag, the wallet, and the receipt illustrate how a flimsy piece of paper can make it through a fire. A second or so of even very intense fire will not make it through the natural insulation of leather. So something inside a bag, or a leather jacket could make it though a fireball.
Bmead
Member
On 9/11, Ester DiNardo lost her daughter, Marisa. Ester remembers how on her last night, Marisa brought her to Windows on the World on top of the WTC to celebrate her birthday. Marisa's recoveredpurse and wallet have been donated to the Memorial Museum.
So did she get on the plane NO!
what floor was she on? was the wallet in her pocket, and fyi the bag ripped up AND the wallet nice and dirty
Never said nothing survived but you have selected not AA11 passenger items but wtc occupants items recovered post collapse and made of stronger stuff than paper and again, all exhibiting scratches and dirt and tears.
I do not dispute items were found in the rubble but how that proves the passport passed through the tower i havent a clue
So i would like to see images of the items that PASSED THROUGH the tower, was ON THE PLANE is UNDAMAGED
THAT is comparable
So did she get on the plane NO!
what floor was she on? was the wallet in her pocket, and fyi the bag ripped up AND the wallet nice and dirty
Never said nothing survived but you have selected not AA11 passenger items but wtc occupants items recovered post collapse and made of stronger stuff than paper and again, all exhibiting scratches and dirt and tears.
I do not dispute items were found in the rubble but how that proves the passport passed through the tower i havent a clue
So i would like to see images of the items that PASSED THROUGH the tower, was ON THE PLANE is UNDAMAGED
THAT is comparable
This makes no sense at all.
The passport could be in the cockpit, in a jacket pocket, it could have avoided direct impact. It could have been wetted by fuel later. Your personal incredulity has no place here.
Bmead
Member
I agree Mick, which is where i am now, but, please explain how the passport gets out the bag? it cannot be ripped apart inside the building because it will catch and tear and change the momentum of the passport within, i assume, but am working on that angle, i think i will see i am right. But would be interested to hear your explanation for the fact that given that unless suqami was at the back of the plane, the passport had to be in a bag in the seat area, how does it get out ?
Josh Heuer
Active Member
I think the only answer you're going to get here is 'it just happened.'
Bmead
Member
No- IT CANNOT
Let me explain again
The passport can sure be in a jacket pocket, but the plane splits open it is smashed to pieces on impact to the perimeter wall. Now it HAS to pass between floors because if a direct impact happens it drives straight through 60 feet of floor head on which all science tests dictate it physically could not do once let alone twice PLUS the core PLUS the other perimeter wall
So, the smash between floors tears it apart and the body in the jacket comes out and slams forwards it HAS to pass through the core walls and the perimeter wall if we pretend it did not strike a single column, the human body will not survive intact through that ergo the passport can be up his backside, it will STILL be damaged.
So no i am not guessing or saying. I am basing it on the science provided and the fact human flesh jacket or not, cannot pass unscathed through 3 walls
Bmead
Member
I am interested Mick though as i know you will say i am asserting it. Please tell me the science where a man in the cockpit Jacket on passport in pocket, how without direct impact does that passport get to the other side of the tower, i mean with no direct impact it cannot just float out the pocket can it
qed
Senior Member
Bmead
Member
You fail to realise you have a item that was we guess in a trouser or a wallet and hardier than a passport yet STILL scratched up. Very good i suggest you look at the circle again cos it seems your on the wrong one, this circle led me back to a damaged item of hard plastic whereas i am talking of a paper item UNdamaged
qed
Senior Member
External Quote:
If something was in a sturdy bag, and then fell out as the bag tumbled on the way to the ground, then it would land undamaged.
Where is the science that dictates this?
Bmead
Member
Ok go first of all go to the nist website then watch their impact simulations, then read ALL the analysis of impact, do the same with femas then MIT then x quan and n burnbaums work. Then, show me where a human boody can bust through a minimum of 2 walls and a perimeter wall? If it was in a jacket then what you say is this- man falls forward passport comes out and busts through all this unscathed, or, man falls forward busts through all this and falls to floor and the passport rolls out unscathed to be picked up
Those are the two solutions.
But i have not counted any core column impacts by a human body we are assuming it dodged these. The walls we cannot assume it dodged because they cannot be dodged. So review all that and debunk all there science and i will concede that a human body and passport can pass unscathed through an entire building with no scratch
Similar threads
