The Satam al Suqami Passport

All chains of custody start somewhere. So it's valid (in terms of possession) back to that point.

If it were found by President Bush on live TV lying on the street, the argument would simply shift to it being planted there.
And that discussion regarding President Bush would be appropriate . . . you seem to assume because something is found where lost items are often found then ulterior motives for its presence are to be ignored or eliminated from consideration . . . remember the rocks that were on the beach at Normandy on President Clinton's state visit to France near the D-day memorial . . . he formed a cross with them . . . a wonderful photo-Op . . . some people wondered about how those rocks just somehow got there ???
 
And that discussion regarding President Bush would be appropriate . . .

The passport was either planted or it was not planted. If it was not planted then there's essentially no way of proving it was not planted (given the circumstances). So the focus should be on finding evidence that it was planted. So far this seems to boil down to "it seems unlikely to me".
 
And it was found valid enough by a court of law to admitted as evidence. http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/WT00001.html
Do we know if the evidence was accepted by both parties in the case . . . sometimes even questionable evidence is seen as advantageous to both parties in a civil or criminal case? All that can be testified to is the Policeman under oath received the passport . . . Both parties benefiting from the Hijackers being involved in the proceedings . . .
 
The passport was either planted or it was not planted. If it was not planted then there's essentially no way of proving it was not planted (given the circumstances). So the focus should be on finding evidence that it was planted. So far this seems to boil down to "it seems unlikely to me".
I agree up to a point . . . the only way I know to determine the open question of the possibility of planted evidence is to find the individual who gave the passport to the policeman and question him . . .
 
Do we know if the evidence was accepted by both parties in the case . . . sometimes even questionable evidence is seen as advantageous to both parties in a civil or criminal case? All that can be testified to is the Policeman under oath received the passport . . . Both parties benefiting from the Hijackers being involved in the proceedings . . .

Splitting hairs about unknowables now George. Perhaps we should return to the actual physics of if the passport could have made it out of the plane.
 
Do we know if the evidence was accepted by both parties in the case . . . sometimes even questionable evidence is seen as advantageous to both parties in a civil or criminal case? All that can be testified to is the Policeman under oath received the passport . . . Both parties benefiting from the Hijackers being involved in the proceedings . . .

The passport was not part of the defense exhibits and there was no indication of a pretrial motion to exclude. The issue was that many people here claimed that the chain of custody was suspect and therefore the passport was not valid evidence in a court of law. This is now shown to be not true.
 
The passport was not part of the defense exhibits and there was no indication of a pretrial motion to exclude. The issue was that many people here claimed that the chain of custody was suspect and therefore the passport was not valid evidence in a court of law. This is now shown to be not true.
That is not known. . . . Unless the defense had seen fit to challenge the evidence and the court had ruled it was admissible over the defense's objections . . . evidence is not validated or germane simply because it is part of an evidence list . . .
 
That is not known. . . . Unless the defense had seen fit to challenge the evidence and the court had ruled it was admissible over the defense's objections . . .

Not true. The fact they were in the trial means they were admissible. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.
 
Not true. The fact they were in the trial means they were admissible.
Admissibility is a technical issue . . . because it is on an evidence list . . . is it admissible? If evidence is admissible does it validate its authenticity? If the evidence is authentic is it important to the court proceedings in question? I said the truer test of its validity is if it were challenged by either party and still was allowed to be presented in court over the other parties objection . . . you stated yourself there was no pretrial motion to exclude . . . all we know is the passport was on the evidence list . . . we don't know how, or if it was even used in the proceedings. I would say most evidence is never used in civil or criminal cases and much is advantageous to both sides . . . I will say that if the passport was an important piece of evidence for either side it would not stand up to a challenge made by either party . . .
 
Admissibility is a technical issue . . . because it is on an evidence list . . . is it admissible? If evidence is admissible does it validate its authenticity? If the evidence is authentic is it important to the court proceedings in question? I said the truer test of its validity is if it were challenged by either party and still was allowed to be presented in court over the either parties objection . . . you stated yourself there was no pretrial motion to exclude . . . all we know is the passport was on the evidence list . . . we don't know how, or if it was even used in the proceedings. I would say most evidence is never used in civil or criminal cases and much is advantageous to both sides . . . I will say that if the passport was an important piece of evidence for either side it would not stand up to a challenge made by either party . . .

Once again George. The claim was that the passport was not admissible as evidence. It was. End of story.
 
Once again George. The claim was that the passport was not admissible as evidence. It was. End of story.
My claim was there was not a valid chain of custody from the owner until received by the policeman . . admissibility has a very low test for inclusion in most courts . . . it does not say the evidence is certified to be unchallengeable . . .

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. indicia of reliability. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence
Content from External Source
 
My claim was there was not a valid chain of custody from the owner until received by the policeman . . admissibility has a very low test for inclusion in most courts . . . it does not say the evidence is certified to be unchallengeable . . .

For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. indicia of reliability. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence
Content from External Source
If it was determined that there wasn't a valid chain of custody it wouldn't have been admitted as evidence. Read the whole wiki George. It was admitted as evidence.
 
I've wondered that myself. Detectives are pretty much just guys in typical suits like other typical folk in New York, right? I mean, they don't stand out, they're detectives. Is it a case of 'guy picked it up, handed it to another guy who just happened to be a detective'?
In a situation where Police are taking command, an officer would no doubt display his badge on his breast.
 
If it was determined that there wasn't a valid chain of custody it wouldn't have been admitted as evidence. Read the whole wiki George. It was admitted as evidence.
The court did not under any circumstances authenticate by its inclusion on the evidence list that the passport was controlled by its alleged owner, with him when he hijacked an airliner, flown into a building at 500 mph, get blown into the air and landed on the street in NYC . . . it only accepted the fact it came under the control of a NYC policeman on a certain day in an approximate location . . . enough said . . .
 
The court did not under any circumstances authenticate by its inclusion on the evidence list that the passport was controlled by its alleged owner, with him when he hijacked an airliner, flown into a building at 500 mph, get blown into the air and landed on the street in NYC . . . it only accepted the fact it came under the control of a NYC policeman on a certain day in an approximate location . . . enough said . . .
And you base this on what? The claim was that the passport would not be admitted as evidence. It was.
 
I didn't talk about this why are you?

My apologies i thought that was in response to you i guess i misread who said the thing i was responding to.



I did not assume a detective put on a jacket. The detective, through his own testimony, indicated he assumed a position of authority. It is possible he reinforced that position by a jacket or badge.
[...]

A fair assumption in reality, i only argue because no conspiracy theorist is allowed a fair assumption because of the magic words conspiracy theorist

Do you have any links to support your claim? Any?
[...]

What do you want proof of exactly?
This seems evasive- You said it was used in trial not me, i said i didn't think it was ever meant to be used for court, namely because the perpetrators were dead.

I did say, i believed it to be useful to back the claim of who was to blame.
I cannot provide links to the claims of how it was identified, i need to contact a forensic scientist.
But until i do, perhaps then you will explain for me, a way in which a passport can be named as linkable to Al Qaeda (9/11 report http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm


Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. To avoid getting into classified detail, we will just state that these were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda.

Since the passports of 15 of the hijackers did not survive, we cannot make firm factual statements about their documents. But from what we know about al Qaeda passport practices and other information, we believe it is possible that six more of the hijackers presented passports that had some of these same clues to their association with al Qaeda. Other kinds of passport markings can be highly suspicious. To avoid getting into the classified details, we will just call these suspicious indicators


So, from what they KNOW about Al Qaeda but later it is said these items were not known to anyone, which explains why an FBI forensic examination found no evidence of doctoring except a bit of correction fluid and Visa personnel knew nothing and boarding staff saw nothing.
But i am not a scientist so you will knocj back any assumption, but explain then a method where one can say THIS IS AL QAEDA practice, this cannot be solely based on linking 2 recovered passports and a few digital copies. There has to be something very specific, unless you want to suggest JTTF / INS / FBI / NYPD / and the Airlines, just could not recognise any forgeries. OBVIOUSLY they have seen forgeries before, so whilst some pass cursory examination, those trained to know- do know, ergo it is beyond a guess to say these doctorings were very specific and very very good, so explain please
Also explain the danger in revealing exactly what linked them to Al Qaeda
Presumably saying "we know,we link them to a/q" is enough to make a/q use a new method/forger so why couldn't they say ink type/multiple a/q passports/ a specific forger admitted.......
There is NO reason none of those things would damage national security at all

I was a 100k flyer in 2001. No id was required to board a plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks

Many airports allowed non passengers to meet the planes at the gate pre 9/11.

So why did the hijackers have them then? They never needed them you purport yet they took them with them when they did not need them at all? With forgeries that THEY could never be sure no one would detect, and Visa's expired which were very visible. But despite this risking them being stopped they brought a passport they never needed? Are you seriously telling me you never ever took your passport with you anywhere when you flew? A hell of a lot of people do. In Spain for example, for years people have been required to present id if a cop asks, and there are many many who have passports on them even though they just live in the country not flying anywhere.
So, with all the memories of the hijackers how many people have been id'd to have not gone with their passports then?
 
So why did the hijackers have them then? They never needed them you purport yet they took them with them when they did not need them at all? With forgeries that THEY could never be sure no one would detect, and Visa's expired which were very visible. But despite this risking them being stopped they brought a passport they never needed? Are you seriously telling me you never ever took your passport with you anywhere when you flew? A hell of a lot of people do. In Spain for example, for years people have been required to present id if a cop asks, and there are many many who have passports on them even though they just live in the country not flying anywhere.
So, with all the memories of the hijackers how many people have been id'd to have not gone with their passports then?

They were a means of identification around the country. They were not required to board the aircraft. I never fly with my passport unless I am going out of the country. You are clearly not familiar with travel within the US. Maybe you should stop writing as if you know what you are talking about. Evidence is a good substitute for a lack of knowledge.
 
As far as i have come i boil this to the following, and this is something that can be disproved, i have said before and will say it again, i will not paste every single document,simulation or equation when these have taken me months to go through. What i will say is that the below can be tested and whether one does not like my conclusions, they are based on the "facts" presented by official sources

The passport can't have been in the cockpit and exited undamaged
It cannot have been in the 10b seat loose or in a jacket and exited undamagedt
It could be in a cabin in 10b inside a case, but then it cannot have been soaked in fuel
It cannot have exited the east side of the tower
It can have exited the west side but would have to land in the plaza or on wtc 4 roof, after lateral ejection there is only now, the wind to carry it further and that distance will not be enough to take it streets away
If it was found in the Plaza it was carried around for some time
It can, if in a bag, or cabin in the seat area, have gone forwards and ended up on the streets where a seat cushion is photographed but not soaked in fuel
It did contain an invalid visa that no one noticed
It did contain forged stamps that match none of the huge list of forgeries known and only matched to Al qaeda forgeries
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm
From the mid 1970s when terrorists began to launch attacks in the Middle East and Europe, intelligence and border authorities knew that terrorists used forged or altered travel documents. By the 1980s the U.S. government had developed a Red Book used to guide and train consular, immigration and customs officers throughout the world on spotting terrorists. It included photographs of altered or stolen passports and false travel stamps also known as cachets used by terrorists.

Passport found on different occasions

The passport was handled by NYPD,JTTF,FBI,INS and probably the Airline
No agency knew of the forgeries, this was discovered in time for the 9/11 report, the forensic examiner at the FBI could not id any forgeries that matched any previously known

The other "surviving" artefacts that have been presented are, not from in the plane,not from the same location in the plane,not undamaged at all even when they were known to be in wallets etc. Not from the same type of crash, not passed through the towers, not in existence except in a story

The other "Undamaged" item is a far more important item but there is no claim to either its condition nor to why it was not handed in too-the passenger itinerary

This naturally will be disputed but that requires disproving, which can be done if you wish to spend the time going through the simulations-I suggest that using decent ones is best rather than provably false ones. And the papers detailing the speed of impact and the deformation/destruction

To go further requires

Identify if soaked meant damp/smelled/moist
Identify if the officer was a plain clothes or had identifiers of his authority
Identify if Suqami actually had baggage to have put his passport in
Identify exact times for cordoned areas and abandoned areas
Identify number of times and sources passport was found

This is going to be achieved by detailed analysis of footage, a FOIA request to FBI/JTTF/NYPD as well as rerunning through FAA details and 9/11 report to see if there is detail that says Suqami had a bag. Also check all media sources for written and video, of when the passport was allegedly found

If the passport is found to have been soaked as is suggested then this will need a examination of the fuel and its accelration to catch up with a bagged object in quantity to soak through that and soak the passport. Then identify how little is required to bleed stamps on a passport (none where affected)

If the cop was not in uniform, the bag cannot allow enough fuel through and the tiniest amount causes a bleed of the stamps, if suqami had no bag, and areas were cordoned for a long period prior to passport being handed in, any of these add huge credence to conspiracy theory and some downright prove it.

I am in the process of doing what needs to be done to get these answers

So as it stands it is not actually UNLIKELY the passport was planted in fact it has a reasonable chance of having been the case.
This is self evident, if i had said a missile hit the towers you could outright destroy that theory, this is not so clear cut otherwise where was that proof that rebutted everything?
So i will be looking for the other items of information, you will all dispute what i have said but i think that we will be wasting the thread rehashing it so feel free to do so, i think these final points will be a major factor so ill be back when i can find the answers to these points
 
They were a means of identification around the country. They were not required to board the aircraft. I never fly with my passport unless I am going out of the country. You are clearly not familiar with travel within the US. Maybe you should stop writing as if you know what you are talking about. Evidence is a good substitute for a lack of knowledge.
I see that you are pig rude, i do know what i am talking about, example, a March Mclellan person has his passport found in the rubble, ergo SOME Americans carry their passport with them, and many more would when they are getting on a plane, to go to another state or even across the same state. Now if you claim you are representative of a nation feel free, but even the 9/11 report felt that most of the hijackers passports were destroyed, i guess they just burned them prior to leaving their hotels, knowing as foreigners they could just get on planes?
And, i suppose every passenger did not have a passport at all so not one can appear otherwise that would be weird yes?
 
I see that you are pig rude, i do know what i am talking about, example, a March Mclellan person has his passport found in the rubble, ergo SOME Americans carry their passport with them, and many more would when they are getting on a plane, to go to another state or even across the same state. Now if you claim you are representative of a nation feel free, but even the 9/11 report felt that most of the hijackers passports were destroyed, i guess they just burned them prior to leaving their hotels, knowing as foreigners they could just get on planes?
And, i suppose every passenger did not have a passport at all so not one can appear otherwise that would be weird yes?

Do you have any evidence to support any of your claims? For example. March Mclellan person has his passport found in the rubble. Evidence please (in a new thread). As to the fact that many more would carry them to get on a plane. Do you have any evidence (in a new thread)? Only 52 million passports were in circulation in 2001. Out of over 281 million people in 2000 that would mean that the passport carrying population of the US was at approximately 18%. It is clear you are not familiar with US customs. Pig rude is not a common American expression or in keeping with the politeness policy.
 
Just to clarify the two images I posted (again to remind Tony et al. that light airplane stuff did in fact get ejected well South of WTC 1) the first one is Albany St, the second Liberty around Church.
 
Sorry . . . that is not a legally valid chain of custody . . .

It was, later that day, bagged and tagged according to another FBI agent.

It was also used (are you not reading Landru's posts?) in a criminal case, so it was admissible. If you correct (you're not) the defence team would have had a duty to their client to have it declared so. They did not, unless you can come up with evidence for that.

Why must you fight reality so hard? What point is there in that?
 
It was, later that day, bagged and tagged according to another FBI agent.

It was also used (are you not reading Landru's posts?) in a criminal case, so it was admissible. If you correct (you're not) the defence team would have had a duty to their client to have it declared so. They did not, unless you can come up with evidence for that.

Why must you fight reality so hard? What point is there in that?
I did not say it was not admissible . . . I said it was an invalid chain of custody if one is asserting it proves it was on the aircraft . . . or from the alleged owner to the police officer . . . it is valid from the police officer forward only. . . its possession prior to the NYC policeman is implied not fact . . .
 
I did not say it was not admissible . . . I said it was an invalid chain of custody if one is asserting it proves it was on the aircraft . . . or from the alleged owner to the police officer . . . it is valid from the police officer forward only. . . its possession prior to the NYC policeman is implied not fact . . .
Moving the goal posts and not that effectively.
 
Do you have any evidence to support any of your claims? For example. March Mclellan person has his passport found in the rubble. Evidence please (in a new thread). As to the fact that many more would carry them to get on a plane. Do you have any evidence (in a new thread)? Only 52 million passports were in circulation in 2001. Out of over 281 million people in 2000 that would mean that the passport carrying population of the US was at approximately 18%. It is clear you are not familiar with US customs. Pig rude is not a common American expression or in keeping with the politeness policy.

I don't think he has any evidence, which is one reason why I can't be bothered to read his posts nor reply to them. But AFAIK Suqami used his passport to check in at Logan Airport. Another passport was discovered in luggage of Abdul Aziz al Omari. I don't have any info whether other hijackers used their passports at check-in, but it could have been that they brought passports if needed, then checked them with their bags. Why else would it be in the suitcase?

I suppose Suqami's passport might have been in his suitcase as well, which might help to explain why it wasn't damaged. But I don't have any citations to confirm any of this.

Most if not all the hijackers had American ID of one kind or another, such as valid drivers licenses. I think you could get onto a domestic flight in 2001 with that kind of ID. According to wikipedia Suqami had both a ' Florida State Identification Card ......' and ' Florida drivers' license '
 
I did not say it was not admissible . . . I said it was an invalid chain of custody if one is asserting it proves it was on the aircraft . . . or from the alleged owner to the police officer . . . it is valid from the police officer forward only. . . its possession prior to the NYC policeman is implied not fact . . .
Huh? You said it wasn't legally valid. I guess you meant that doesn't mean anything. If it's admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence then it's valid.
The chain of custody was about as good as you're going to find. I have an FBI reference that it was bagged as evidence the same day it was collected. Oh well, I guess you guys will have to fight this one out in court to prove your points.... XD
 
Moving the goal posts and not that effectively.
Think what you wish . . . it doesn't change the truth . . . the courts cannot accept the existence of the passport in the possession of the NYC policeman as absolute proof the passport was on the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . if they did . . . they are negligent and as I suspect accepted the evidence because the state and the defense did not challenge it . . . why? Because it was to both of their benefit to do so . . .
 
The claim was it could not ever be used as evidence in a trial. It was shown that it was.
the courts cannot accept the existence of the passport in the possession of the NYC policeman as absolute proof the passport was on the aircraft that struck the Towers
This was never claimed.
 
Think what you wish . . . it doesn't change the truth . . . the courts cannot accept the existence of the passport in the possession of the NYC policeman as absolute proof the passport was on the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . if they did . . . they are negligent and as I suspect accepted the evidence because the state and the defense did not challenge it . . . why? Because it was to both of their benefit to do so . . .

Based on what? Evidence please not your conjecture.
 
Think what you wish . . . it doesn't change the truth . . . the courts cannot accept the existence of the passport in the possession of the NYC policeman as absolute proof the passport was on the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . if they did . . . they are negligent and as I suspect accepted the evidence because the state and the defense did not challenge it . . . why? Because it was to both of their benefit to do so . . .
Dude, you're validating your conjecture with your own imagined answer? Really? You are unable to provide a shred of evidence to back up your opinion, and your opinion on its own is really not worth much. Sorry, but you've got to ground your opinions in facts somewhere along the line.
 
Based on what? Evidence please not your conjecture.
What was the purpose of the trial? Do you have a transcript where the evidence was discussed? What was the findings of the court? Who was prosecuted?
 
Dude, you're validating your conjecture with your own imagined answer? Really? You are unable to provide a shred of evidence to back up your opinion, and your opinion on its own is really not worth much. Sorry, but you've got to ground your opinions in facts somewhere along the line.
It is not my purpose to convince you of anything . . . my opinion is IMO well based . . .
 
I cannot back a claim of the marsh mclellan claim? Well let us see that is a twist isn't it Alienentity posted the image, i checked the name of the guy where he worked and the passenger list i checked that it said found in the aftermath NOT PRE COLLAPSE
Now howsabout YOU do some proving, so far as i see it your all so good at saying nope, but feel no need to prove anything, You insinuate that i cannot prove a thing. Well let me see can you prove that the guy WAS on the plane? NOPE can you prove the passport was found pre collapse NOPE
so why infer i need to prove the opposite?

And any other claim, i claim like passport soaked in fuel, you say (by you i mean community here) no it smelled.
I say that it would move at the speed of the plane still once the plane impacted and the plane would be slower
You deny this? well test it, go ride a motorbike at 100mph hit the brakes, dont worry you wont carry on over the handle bars will you because i am wrong in saying this effect of inertia would make not bolted down objects move forwards.
The bike also wont slow down will it because breaking or hitting something doesnt do that does it?

Mick Shows a simulation in 5 minutes of my claim, that sim, if you watch is FALSE it shows the plane dipping DOWN into a floor, this would at the angle shown, put the exit hole LOWER by far than the actual exit hole, but you didn't fuss about that.

I said a bag or passport cannot pass through walls and not be damaged i was told both- yes it can and, maybe it impacted nothing.
Well where is the proof a bag can bust through walls?

This is what i mean when i said about rudeness, you are free to say i do not know what i am talking about, yet you ask for me to prove people would have a passport on the plane, ok then, so what if they didnt, then satam al suqami didnt need his he knew that and didnt take it, now how the hell did a passport not taken on the plane bust out of a plane it wasnt on?

You are trying to build a picture of the fact that no one BUT the hijackers had passports on them so ONLY hijackers passports are likely to be found. But you cannot prove that. Unless, id is logged somehow which i freely do not know, if it is, then there will be a record somewhere. I know today in the uk our passports in Uk and EU are scanned and checked an this is logged so there IS a record of id used. If that was so in 2001 america then you can say only hijackers passports would survive because the figures show it but otherwise you are assuming on behalf of everyone. And do you say that the pilots and flight attendants had no passports?

I guess they can just walk into an airport ready to fly and never need id to prove who they are because one airline runs one airport each-er no wait a minute no they dont. But enlighten me, because i do not know.

I may not have the answers to everything, i admit that but do not start being disrespectful because you dont like what i say that IS rude.
 
The claim was it could not ever be used as evidence in a trial. It was shown that it was.

This was never claimed.
I claimed nothing else . . . I said the chain of custody was not valid if it was being used to prove the passport was anywhere except in the possession of the NYC policeman forward . . . If you think otherwise it was not my desire or intent . . .
 
Bmead, I got stuck trying to read the first paragraph of your comment. I'm sorry, I just don't find your writing coherent enough to ponder. What you write just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
I cannot back a claim of the marsh mclellan claim? Well let us see that is a twist isn't it Alienentity posted the image, i checked the name of the guy where he worked and the passenger list i checked that it said found in the aftermath NOT PRE COLLAPSE
Now howsabout YOU do some proving, so far as i see it your all so good at saying nope, but feel no need to prove anything, You insinuate that i cannot prove a thing. Well let me see can you prove that the guy WAS on the plane? NOPE can you prove the passport was found pre collapse NOPE
so why infer i need to prove the opposite?

And any other claim, i claim like passport soaked in fuel, you say (by you i mean community here) no it smelled.
I say that it would move at the speed of the plane still once the plane impacted and the plane would be slower
You deny this? well test it, go ride a motorbike at 100mph hit the brakes, dont worry you wont carry on over the handle bars will you because i am wrong in saying this effect of inertia would make not bolted down objects move forwards.
The bike also wont slow down will it because breaking or hitting something doesnt do that does it?

Mick Shows a simulation in 5 minutes of my claim, that sim, if you watch is FALSE it shows the plane dipping DOWN into a floor, this would at the angle shown, put the exit hole LOWER by far than the actual exit hole, but you didn't fuss about that.

I said a bag or passport cannot pass through walls and not be damaged i was told both- yes it can and, maybe it impacted nothing.
Well where is the proof a bag can bust through walls?

This is what i mean when i said about rudeness, you are free to say i do not know what i am talking about, yet you ask for me to prove people would have a passport on the plane, ok then, so what if they didnt, then satam al suqami didnt need his he knew that and didnt take it, now how the hell did a passport not taken on the plane bust out of a plane it wasnt on?

You are trying to build a picture of the fact that no one BUT the hijackers had passports on them so ONLY hijackers passports are likely to be found. But you cannot prove that. Unless, id is logged somehow which i freely do not know, if it is, then there will be a record somewhere. I know today in the uk our passports in Uk and EU are scanned and checked an this is logged so there IS a record of id used. If that was so in 2001 america then you can say only hijackers passports would survive because the figures show it but otherwise you are assuming on behalf of everyone. And do you say that the pilots and flight attendants had no passports?

I guess they can just walk into an airport ready to fly and never need id to prove who they are because one airline runs one airport each-er no wait a minute no they dont. But enlighten me, because i do not know.

I may not have the answers to everything, i admit that but do not start being disrespectful because you dont like what i say that IS rude.
Once again a lot of claims no proof. Please read the posting guidelines.
 
Back
Top