The Satam al Suqami Passport
- Thread starter Bmead
- Start date
Alienentity
Active Member
Hey Josh,
Since there's no way I can
a) go back to 2001 on the day to personally inspect the passport in its found condition
b) get my hands on it today
I have no particular opinion as to whether it was or wasn't soaked in fuel and to what extent it was soaked if it was...
Either way it doesn't change the basic facts, so isn't really much more than a passing curiosity.
If certain of you refuse to accept that it came from the jet, you still have no way to prove it was planted. So you're no further ahead than someone like me who doesn't see it as planted there. It still has no bearing on the reality that the jet crashed into the tower and lots of debris and personal effects showered out onto the streets.
None of us has access to all the material so we cannot say that a particular item should or should not be burned. We can't know those things as we can't know the exact conditions after impact.
That's why this exercise becomes futile at some point.
Bmead
Member
Joseph Iskandar said his son, Waleed, always carried his cards in his wallet
So they were protected by that,
They were found after collapse
The 2nd point is irrelevant we give it the benfit of the doubt it passed through with 0 proof of that (despite the fact i would not be extended the same courtesy)
What does matter is since it would logically be in a wallet and is claimed it SHOULD have been, that it STILL HAS scratches on it means good condition is not perfect unscratched condition.
It IS scratched it IS harder than paper or leather
So sorry very good try but you can't pass off something that is damaged as not damaged no matter what you say, just looking at it physically contradicts that claim
So they were protected by that,
They were found after collapse
The 2nd point is irrelevant we give it the benfit of the doubt it passed through with 0 proof of that (despite the fact i would not be extended the same courtesy)
What does matter is since it would logically be in a wallet and is claimed it SHOULD have been, that it STILL HAS scratches on it means good condition is not perfect unscratched condition.
It IS scratched it IS harder than paper or leather
So sorry very good try but you can't pass off something that is damaged as not damaged no matter what you say, just looking at it physically contradicts that claim
qed
Senior Member
Bmead
Member
CORRECT
Plane still hit.
But as for the fuel it matters a hell of a lot.
If it turns out that i am right and it needed to be behind or under the wings to be soaked in fuel (certainly i dont see how it got soaked if it was in a jacket in the cockpit at the front) then it means there is something wrong, the evaporation rate of the fuel does not permit the passport to be soaked after it landed, it needs it to be open to the fuel when the tank ruptured not in bag not in a pocket ahead of the tanks
So maybe there was no fuel soaking, in which case you categorically prove the fbi lied
Bmead
Member
Whose was it source please?
qed
Senior Member
Accepted.
Which bit of that says that a passport would be damaged? Look at the simulation video, there are plenty of large chunks of the plane that make it inside and ahead of the explosion. The explosion would then force lots of matter forward, and some of it will end up being blown out of the building. That could be a piece of jacket or bag, and the passport then falls out during the tumbling fall to the ground. Or the passport might have exited the bag or jacket at some point inside the building.
Bmead
Member
ONE- This is NOT a proper simulation is it but please which bit of it shows that the front of the plane is NOT disintegrated, which part shows the fuel would hit the passport if it was at the cockpit
Which part shows the FACT acknowledged by NIST that the wingtips did NOT penetrate the tower as proof in the visual images of the impact zone
Which part shows the fireball at the entry point
Which part shows the smoke at the side and very top of the tower that occured in the same second the plane impacts
What we DO see is, the front drives down through a floor when actually the top of the plane cannot be intact when it drives down through the floor because it has a 16 foot diameter versus a 12 foot gap and the top of the plane is sheering off, AND, if the plane dove down, as this sim shows, the plane will continue down and the exit hole will be significantly LOWER than the impact hole, this is NOT so.
So we have destroyed this poor simulation
We do see that the fuel neither catches the front of the plane, nor does the sim show the core walls, nor does the sim show the plane nose undamaged.
So 1) you picked a hasty innacurate sim, and even THAT shows yes the front is destroyed
Bmead
Member
This is the simulation showing massive chunks exiting but remember i asserted that a loose passport or a passport in a pocket or bag will be damaged not that it wont exit.
This is backed up by the fact this sim shows the front going down through floors, the fact that science proves that if a object is freestanding and like say a body stood on a flight deck, it will continue at the velocity it was moving, whilst the plane is halted, weight and momentum push the plane forwards but the body,bag or passport alone, can and will be now pushed ahead, the bag cannot be opened without tearing which cannot occur with no impact, unless debris behind slices through the bag and even then this is only possible inside the tower which then needs this debris to dodge the passport and then the passport still has to impact walls ahead of it.
The jacket idea requires the body to lose the jacket pre impact to any wall because if this body passed through the walls intact to let the passport fall, then the body will be smeared across the floor like all other jumpers were and then later easy id will be made. I saw earlier that all hijackers were dna confirmed, i saw no claim a large body slung a few blocks away was id'd as one
This is backed up by the fact this sim shows the front going down through floors, the fact that science proves that if a object is freestanding and like say a body stood on a flight deck, it will continue at the velocity it was moving, whilst the plane is halted, weight and momentum push the plane forwards but the body,bag or passport alone, can and will be now pushed ahead, the bag cannot be opened without tearing which cannot occur with no impact, unless debris behind slices through the bag and even then this is only possible inside the tower which then needs this debris to dodge the passport and then the passport still has to impact walls ahead of it.
The jacket idea requires the body to lose the jacket pre impact to any wall because if this body passed through the walls intact to let the passport fall, then the body will be smeared across the floor like all other jumpers were and then later easy id will be made. I saw earlier that all hijackers were dna confirmed, i saw no claim a large body slung a few blocks away was id'd as one
Yes you assert it, but assertions are not evidence.
And if the jacket was not being worn? Just discarded in the cabin? Or if the passport was in a bag?
Bmead
Member
Here is my thought, they got smashed to pieces and ripped apart and hit walls and stayed inside the tower, a few fragments of the front were smashed forwards by debris behind, this damaged these things. I believe this because this is necessity of the case not because i think it. They, being at the front of the plane, have to go through the tower hitting everything and being hit by everything, the plane is available for 2 options only
Direct impact to a floor or slip between two floors.
Now sandia tests said a 500mph f4 phantom turned ENTIRELY to dust hitting a 3.7m steel reinforced block of concrete. A boeing is many times larger, but it was slower too, so, the front of the plane is much smaller than an entire f4 phantom, and if it hits head on it will be entirely dust and CANNOT plow through the entire width of the floor and core walls and perimeter wall
If it hits between 2 floors it tears apart and objects that are not bolted down move on at the speed they were going whilst the plane slows, debris crashes on driving items through walls and columns. So if it was in a bag, you are telling me that a bag will bust through 3 walls at least and the contents will not have even a fold in them?
I didn't base this off one simulation, i based it on many and this was one despite the fact that i think it false but all i see are saying the same over and over the front is smashed apart and then travel through the walls and core
That being so i feel that the cockpit is not an option for the passport to be
Until anyone can drive a suitcase or holdall through 3 walls and not damaged a passport inside it. I will belive that as we see in multiple sims and analysis, that the passport IF in the cockpit, should have at least a scratch on
Bmead
Member
Assertions are not evidence, Only the current simulations are
If the jacket was laid to rest then it holds its passport for the whole width and destruction, only to see it fall out as it comes clear, although, in no photo do i see a jacket in any debris pile. But as with the bag, i do not see how the analysis and sims can be translated to say this all worked
Plus, this demands we call the fbi a liar, that the passport was fuel soaked. So lets make the bag a wall breaker, that means the fbi lied.
If the jacket was laid to rest then it holds its passport for the whole width and destruction, only to see it fall out as it comes clear, although, in no photo do i see a jacket in any debris pile. But as with the bag, i do not see how the analysis and sims can be translated to say this all worked
Plus, this demands we call the fbi a liar, that the passport was fuel soaked. So lets make the bag a wall breaker, that means the fbi lied.
Bmead
Member
I will have to find a piece of software that can track objects and see if i can track every piece of the nose debris in the simulations and see if the debris behind catches up to it and then maybe you will believe me. Besides, i do not know why you seem so desperate to make the passport in the cockpit anyway. The possibility remains, if it was further back that it has a clearer path to make it through since so far i cannot analyse the sims in grater detail i cannot deny that option
You are thinking about it all wrong.
Bmead
Member
Explain it then, i see it as far as the item being in the cockpit, that where we see utter destruction that would damage the person and bag, now 2 seat cushions exist which do not match the cockpit seats so unless measurements of those can determine the location of them, they could be any seat bar the cockpit.
However nothing else from the cockpit is found, so basically we have to say that the passport and its holder dodged everything whilst hats clothes jackets bags and chairs and instruments of the cockpit all did not make it out unscathed and in fact did not make it out in a way that could make them even remotely identifiable as from the cockpit
The fact also exists that a object that is unsecured will move forward at the current velocity whilst the vehicle will not. This is why we have seatbelts.
That means once the cockpit is torn apart this bag that is brought to the cockpit for no reason at all (fashion accesory?) goes ahead of the debris, impacting walls and columns and whatever bag or jacket that it is, they physically cannot pass through the barriers and come out the other side with the contents unscathed.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
What exactly are you referring to here? Because I think you mean me wanting to confirm the soaked in fuel part, as it was asserted from the beginning but I didn't know what it was based on. It is also claimed it was soaked through completely, but this is not apparent from the simple description given, though it was used to speculate on it's ability to fly through the air. So it was relevant to understand to what extent it was confirmed. Not enough to make judgements on it's aero-dynamic properties.
And Mick experimented with soaking a passport to see if its condition would be obvious. I think it is still impossible to say that 'soaked' means soaked, or just had a splash of residue on it. It may have been the strong smell of fuel that prompted the word.
Passports are very light, it takes very little force to stop them, so they don't sustain damage, especially if inside a bag.
A jacket with a passport inside it is subject to a very different set of forces to a human body, or a seat.
Because of the very high surface area to mass ratio of light things like jackets and passports, they don't sustain high velocities. They are basically entrained by the air, so they are carried or pushed by explosions, or by the movement of air from other moving objects. Their own inertia is pretty irrelevant.
Take an extreme example. A sheet of tissue like Kleenex. How far can you throw it? What difference does it make how fast you can throw it? An open sheet of tissue can only be thrown about three feet, regardless of how fast it is going.
Then compare that to how far the wind can carry it.
A jacket with a passport inside it is subject to a very different set of forces to a human body, or a seat.
Because of the very high surface area to mass ratio of light things like jackets and passports, they don't sustain high velocities. They are basically entrained by the air, so they are carried or pushed by explosions, or by the movement of air from other moving objects. Their own inertia is pretty irrelevant.
Take an extreme example. A sheet of tissue like Kleenex. How far can you throw it? What difference does it make how fast you can throw it? An open sheet of tissue can only be thrown about three feet, regardless of how fast it is going.
Then compare that to how far the wind can carry it.
It hasn't, and I think that's entirely possible.
Alienentity
Active Member
btw, it hasn't been determined what the exact condition of the green passport was when it was handed over to police. Did it have dust on it or a footprint? Maybe.
There's no mention of its condition, and for all we know it was cleaned up by forensic technicians.
Prove that it wasn't dusty on discovery! You can't.
It appears that Maynard Spence's passport is in essentially undamaged condition, in spite of having been recovered in the rubble of the tower collapses. I think this is very good evidence that small objects like wallets (many were apparently found after the plane crashes at WTC, we don't have pictures of them) and passports can indeed survive in very good condition.
In this regard it is not remarkable.
I suppose if conspiracy theorists on the internet want to disqualify all this evidence by some arbitrary measure, they will. It's very convenient for them to avoid fair comparisons.
Likewise the pentagon and shanksville crashes are inadmissible for the same reason.
Must be nice to exclude almost everything from your inquiry. How simple! Actually it reminds me that the red bandana has been used as another 'proof' of planted evidence, this time at Shanksville. However, there was no bandana found at the WTC, why not?
And the passport at Shanksville was badly damaged. Why?
The conspiracy theory of planted evidence is not consistent from site to site, partly because it is based on a fixed conclusion and confirmation bias, but partly because it insists on knowing things which can't be known. It devolves into a circular argument or tautology rather than a successful inquiry. Nothing new in the annals of 9/11 Truth, I guess.
There's no mention of its condition, and for all we know it was cleaned up by forensic technicians.
Prove that it wasn't dusty on discovery! You can't.
It appears that Maynard Spence's passport is in essentially undamaged condition, in spite of having been recovered in the rubble of the tower collapses. I think this is very good evidence that small objects like wallets (many were apparently found after the plane crashes at WTC, we don't have pictures of them) and passports can indeed survive in very good condition.
In this regard it is not remarkable.
I suppose if conspiracy theorists on the internet want to disqualify all this evidence by some arbitrary measure, they will. It's very convenient for them to avoid fair comparisons.
Likewise the pentagon and shanksville crashes are inadmissible for the same reason.
Must be nice to exclude almost everything from your inquiry. How simple! Actually it reminds me that the red bandana has been used as another 'proof' of planted evidence, this time at Shanksville. However, there was no bandana found at the WTC, why not?
And the passport at Shanksville was badly damaged. Why?
The conspiracy theory of planted evidence is not consistent from site to site, partly because it is based on a fixed conclusion and confirmation bias, but partly because it insists on knowing things which can't be known. It devolves into a circular argument or tautology rather than a successful inquiry. Nothing new in the annals of 9/11 Truth, I guess.
Bmead
Member
Simple, there was no explosion as such. This i take directly from the Fema work that said there was no shockwave specifically, rather, some isolated points of overpressure, and the explosive force of the fireball is not great because of the time it took to reach it's full extent.
Now the science of that is theres so you argue it.
However consider this. The passport cannot be pushed back unless it is behind the outer edge of the fireball. It simply cannot go backwards unless it is at the least, directly under the fireball, something that requires the passport to be at the least, in the section of the fuel tanks, even this location, will likely force the passport down not back but let us assume this is so.
The passport then moves back into economy class to arrive in this section. How does this occur?
Secondly the speed of impact is between 200-240m/s the plane itself is 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m) now if you want to do the math yourself, this will mean that to pass over its own length at just 200mph, this will take
200 mph =
89.40800 metre per second
Which means the plane itself is inside the tower in 0.5s for its entire body length at just 89.4m/s
So given the official versions cite 200m/s and more this is even less. The entire body of the plane 16 foot of which the passport if on the floor of the cabin is still over 6 ft from the belly. It takes 0.33-0.36s to drop 6 feet (passport) if the entire plane opens up.
But this again requires it being near the "explosion" to be blown backwards which even so requires the entire length of the plane to be in half and the passport to drop
My own calculation of drop was a stationary drop not a 200m/s in forward direction so factor that and the passport still cant go backwards
But imagine that it is on the floor, in economy, plane opens and shockwave pushes backwards against its 200m/s speed forwards, then it will hit the wind, which observing footage we see is relatively strong, so it will just be blown back into the tower or to the plaza
But the reality is, whilst you may think it is possible to have gone backwards you cannot justify that why the passport would be on the floor of the plane,in economy class. And why it managed to defy such forwards momentum when the observed fireball could not make itself expand in 1s (fema said 2s) so a object with less force, moving slower pushes an object back.
I would ask for some numbers to prove such a wild theory before making that assertion because it is very doubtful and you would want me to prove it if i said it so i will say that the numbers say it cannot go backwards. I will happily admit otherwise if you can show how
Bmead
Member
btw, it hasn't been determined what the exact condition of the green passport was when it was handed over to police. Did it have dust on it or a footprint? Maybe.
There's no mention of its condition, and for all we know it was cleaned up by forensic technicians.
Prove that it wasn't dusty on discovery! You can't.
It appears that Maynard Spence's passport is in essentially undamaged condition, in spite of having been recovered in the rubble of the tower collapses. I think this is very good evidence that small objects like wallets (many were apparently found after the plane crashes at WTC, we don't have pictures of them) and passports can indeed survive in very good condition.
In this regard it is not remarkable.
I suppose if conspiracy theorists on the internet want to disqualify all this evidence by some arbitrary measure, they will. It's very convenient for them to avoid fair comparisons.
Likewise the pentagon and shanksville crashes are inadmissible for the same reason.
Must be nice to exclude almost everything from your inquiry. How simple! Actually it reminds me that the red bandana has been used as another 'proof' of planted evidence, this time at Shanksville. However, there was no bandana found at the WTC, why not?
And the passport at Shanksville was badly damaged. Why?
The conspiracy theory of planted evidence is not consistent from site to site, partly because it is based on a fixed conclusion and confirmation bias, but partly because it insists on knowing things which can't be known. It devolves into a circular argument or tautology rather than a successful inquiry. Nothing new in the annals of 9/11 Truth, I guess.
Yes the forensics may well have cleaned it up. BUT you and i know that forensics are REQUIRED to list this. So if it was then it should be in a report, and somewhere there should be 3 examination reports and one detailed forensic report.
I accept FAIR comparisons but the passport you compared to is not is it, apply the same rules to yourself as to me, i look at official document data and simulation and i am drawing assumptions well ok heres another
It is a fact that half the passport is visible, it is a fact the owner of that passport was not in that plane ergo why should it be damaged?
So my assumption is thus- It was in a jacket or drawer and when the towers collapsed it was found a bit dusty but essentially undamaged because the fall of a floor onto a jacket or desk would not do much to damage a passport and it would be trapped there until ground level
Another assumption, it is out on a desk, plane hits window smashes debris hits desk, passport flutters down.
Pentagon crash is a close comparison to the wtc but not the same still and what we have seen is that the items from that plane are not undamaged totally and besides what we are also forgetting which i never wanted to say is this
If any evidence was planted then it stands to reason innocent parties and guilty parties evidence would be too to validate the very evidence that was wanted to be found.
However i will not put that in as a point because i do not see an item from any passenger on wtc 1 and 2 that went through and survived unscathed
EXCEPT the passport
Now by all means show me, this magic where the cc you showed has logic and testimony it would be in a wallet and ( unless you suggest it gets rested on a seat) a pocket, yet then those are shredded and the cc is still scratched up yet this is my proof that a paper passport shouldnt be even scratched?
I see a passport from an office worker found in the rubble yet that is proof my passport in question would go through a tower in the same condition?
Sorry but that is not wiggle room that is just ridiculous comparison put in its place
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Wild theory is it? It was just a question, seemingly reasonable to me.
Why do you determine the passport can only be in one spot in relation to the fireball to get thrown back? I understand it must be behind it, but why is it limited to where you say it must be (right below the tanks)? We can assume the fireball was compressed into the available space somewhat, so it would have kept its force until it reached the open air.
The passport can be at any point along the plane behind the the ignition point and still be acted on.
Cairenn
Senior Member
Paper FLOATS, It gets caught in an air current and moves a lot further than one thinks it can. I guess that those of us that have spent more time outdoors with the wind are more aware than you are of how far and how oddly things can move.
I have to wonder how far some passport size and weight cards would be found if one simply dropped them off the top of a tall building
Remember even one of the planes seat cushions was found mostly undamaged, and that is LOT heavier and not as aerodynamic as a passport would be
I have to wonder how far some passport size and weight cards would be found if one simply dropped them off the top of a tall building
Remember even one of the planes seat cushions was found mostly undamaged, and that is LOT heavier and not as aerodynamic as a passport would be
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Yes, paper floats, but it does not go through walls.
The detective got out of his car at West and Albany, which is about 800 to 900 feet south of WTC 1. So, the passport was apparently found about 800 feet south of WTC 1.
However, the plane impacted the north face of the building with no breach of the south face, except for a small hole from a piece of landing gear. Can anyone here explain this?
Last edited:
That's near where the detective was handed the passport. Not where it was found.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
So where was it found Mick?
Cairenn
Senior Member
First that is where the passport was given to the policeman, correct? It is quite possible that the man picked up in a different place and then handed it to the first policeman he saw. It would make sense that anyone on the south side would move the OTHER direction away from that area.
There is NO way, sort of hijacking the 'Dr's Tardis (and fixing it so it can appear at a certain point in time) to determine exactly where it was found.
Y'all seem to have invented the 'perfect' hook for a conspiracy theorist, the unprovable 'fact'.
Personally I do not see any way of resolving this to your satisfaction.
There is NO way, sort of hijacking the 'Dr's Tardis (and fixing it so it can appear at a certain point in time) to determine exactly where it was found.
Y'all seem to have invented the 'perfect' hook for a conspiracy theorist, the unprovable 'fact'.
Personally I do not see any way of resolving this to your satisfaction.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
You probably can't resolve it to the satisfaction of anyone with a rational mind. The story fails because, according to it
- the detective did not even ask the guy where he found it
- the detective doesn't get the guy's name so he can't be contacted later
- conveniently the guy gets lost in the confusion
It really does sound like it was actually found in someone's desk (Bernie Kerik's maybe) and pulled out and handed to a NYC detective or policeman when the time came.
Are any of those who believe this story interested in that bridge for sale in Brooklyn?
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Only if the receiving police officer had no thought the document was significant would I believe he did not establish . . . who, where, when and how it was found. . .
Nobody knows.
That's the same point made three times. And quite reasonably answered by the guy wanting to leave quickly as it seemed like the end of the world.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I didn't think so.
It's the entire point of this thread. The fact that nobody knows renders the entire argument moot, and you've just got some vague suspicions about it seeming to survive it too nice of a condition, and some cop not getting some guys name. There's really very little here to raise suspicion - it's only that interesting to the already suspicious.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why would the finding individual want to remain unknown? Seems like a discovery of this nature would normally result in a desire to help further?
Cairenn
Senior Member
He may not want to remember that day. He may have died of natural causes. Most likely he has no idea that anyone is interested in finding out where he found something that day. He may not even remember exactly where he found it.
I have seen folks in a mild panic and they do not act the way you think folks should.
I have seen folks in a mild panic and they do not act the way you think folks should.
Similar threads
