qed
Senior Member
But we see that delicate objects made their way out of both planes.
So it is possible from either plane.
Last edited:
The Satam al Suqami Passport
- Thread starter Bmead
- Start date
So it is possible from either plane.
Of course it's not impossible, but there's zero evidence, and zero motive (as they knew he was on the plane from the passenger manifest).
You are trying to use the seeming improbability of finding the passport as evidence of a conspiracy. But to do that you need to demonstrate just how improbable it is. It does not seem (from what you have shown so far) to be unreasonably improbable - given you don't know where it was found, and given that many other things were found from people on the plane.
Bmead
Member
Well i don't think many other, because bar one, we are talking about after the towers fell and the rubble was combed.
And we don't know condition of the other piece.
But i seem to be requiring more. Which may/may not be possible to find or prove
Namely location found, and whether it would have come out the building seeing as pointed out, there was something (paper) and other parts that came out. Any demonstration of difficulty of the passport coming out only refers to other parts and main supporting evidence of the passport not passing THROUGH is in my view the fuel soaking.
As thus far i need help to provide the mathematical analysis of where it would be to be doused in fuel. And to pin point finally resting place, i can't offer any defence now of my view until i can do both of those.
So i'll have to leave it there for now.
And we don't know condition of the other piece.
But i seem to be requiring more. Which may/may not be possible to find or prove
Namely location found, and whether it would have come out the building seeing as pointed out, there was something (paper) and other parts that came out. Any demonstration of difficulty of the passport coming out only refers to other parts and main supporting evidence of the passport not passing THROUGH is in my view the fuel soaking.
As thus far i need help to provide the mathematical analysis of where it would be to be doused in fuel. And to pin point finally resting place, i can't offer any defence now of my view until i can do both of those.
So i'll have to leave it there for now.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
It's what was in the FBI's report. They never said anything about it smelling like fuel, so that idea can be dropped.
How could it not smell of jet fuel if it was soaked in it? How else would they determine what it was "soaked" in?
Josh Heuer
Active Member
I'm not saying that it didn't smell, I'm saying that's not what they described. They described it being soaked, not that they smelled fuel. If it was soaked in fuel, then it would be reasonable to believe it smelled like it as well.
History commons mentions this but the link to the FBI timeline no longer works. I'll have to try to fish it out later.
External Quote:An FBI timeline concerned with the 9/11 hijackers will state that the passport is found by a civilian "on the street near [the] World Trade Center," and is "soaked in jet fuel." [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 291]
Bmead
Member
The evidence i have relies solely on the FBI report. Now this is a good thing because either it indicates a report from the police and the terrorism task force guy who received it. And if that was a lie, at least one of those two would have clarified by now.
And if it was still soaked when the FBI received it then naturally they would list it so. As well as, they forensically examined it according to them. Now a few drops of kerosene will not smell for long, not after falling some distance laying on a dirty street, and being given from one person to another. This you can test for yourself. If a good amount say 25ml is spilt on it that doesn't soak but will retain the smell. However then we are presented with a choice-
Decide the FBI cannot tell the difference between soaked and smelt, or that they got the details wrong.
Or decide that they were right
If we say they were wrong then again how come those who handled it did not correct it, or are we the only ones who may think failure to correctly classify the state of an object matters? Certainly would you believe them if they said an item was "soaked" in blood, would you assume that said item "smelled" of blood, and if you suggest a variance between fuel and blood visually, there is the same degree of variance between seeing something soaked, and smelling a dry object.
Additionally if this is one mistake, what else can we rely on? If we pick apart to this degree, how many errors are there? We have to believe them at some stage if we are to believe the official story. And besides not everyone can be "in on it" so we would assume it was reported as found
Therefore i elected to choose they published that in their papers because knowing the importance of forensic preservation and being correct in what they say- with the potential for prosecution potentially relying on no mistakes. They were right
Other than that, i have no other corroboration yet.
And if it was still soaked when the FBI received it then naturally they would list it so. As well as, they forensically examined it according to them. Now a few drops of kerosene will not smell for long, not after falling some distance laying on a dirty street, and being given from one person to another. This you can test for yourself. If a good amount say 25ml is spilt on it that doesn't soak but will retain the smell. However then we are presented with a choice-
Decide the FBI cannot tell the difference between soaked and smelt, or that they got the details wrong.
Or decide that they were right
If we say they were wrong then again how come those who handled it did not correct it, or are we the only ones who may think failure to correctly classify the state of an object matters? Certainly would you believe them if they said an item was "soaked" in blood, would you assume that said item "smelled" of blood, and if you suggest a variance between fuel and blood visually, there is the same degree of variance between seeing something soaked, and smelling a dry object.
Additionally if this is one mistake, what else can we rely on? If we pick apart to this degree, how many errors are there? We have to believe them at some stage if we are to believe the official story. And besides not everyone can be "in on it" so we would assume it was reported as found
Therefore i elected to choose they published that in their papers because knowing the importance of forensic preservation and being correct in what they say- with the potential for prosecution potentially relying on no mistakes. They were right
Other than that, i have no other corroboration yet.
I'm not saying that it didn't smell, I'm saying that's not what they described. They described it being soaked, not that they smelled fuel. If it was soaked in fuel, then it would be reasonable to believe it smelled like it as well.
History commons mentions this but the link to the FBI timeline no longer works. I'll have to try to fish it out later.
External Quote:An FBI timeline concerned with the 9/11 hijackers will state that the passport is found by a civilian "on the street near [the] World Trade Center," and is "soaked in jet fuel." [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 291
It was linked above:
Full document attached, in two parts, this is from page 291, in the second section.
There's no way of knowing how they actually determined it was "soaked" in jet fuel, or what they mean by "soaked". It reminds me of all the people describing non-molten metal as "molten" just because it was a bit sooty. I suspect it simply smelled strongly of jet fuel.
All we have is this one reference, with no context, no explanation as to what "soaked" means, what time it was soaked, or how it was determined. There seems no visual indication that it was soaked. And who determined this, the cop?
http://cis.org/9-11-Suqami (http://archive.is/Ra8nR)
Kerosene is a solvent. It would dissolve ink.
Last edited:
Bmead
Member
Well that is true i thought i mentioned that earlier? As you say we have but a single source. I am going to make a foia request to the nypd and fbi for information relating to the report made regarding that by all parties. See if i get anything at all.
I dont think a quick dunk would dissolve all the ink, but certainly it would look nothing like that passport if "soaked" meant totally immersed.
Ill have to see what turns up
I dont think a quick dunk would dissolve all the ink, but certainly it would look nothing like that passport if "soaked" meant totally immersed.
Ill have to see what turns up
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Assuming the passport was planted - he was known to be on the plane from other sources, so that doesn't achieve anything, unless the suggestion is he was not on the flight at all and the other evidence confirming it is faked as well.
How did he get on the plane without his passport? (isn't it required for visitors on domestic flights?)
The task seems impossible - what you are trying to prove seems solely reliant on a judgement of what is possible in a highly chaotic system where nothing can really be ruled out. Whether it's improbable or not, it appears that is what happened so deciding exactly how improbable you think it is is moot.
If you can demonstrate it is *impossible* then you have something, but I really don't think you can do that given the other items found.
How did he get on the plane without his passport? (isn't it required for visitors on domestic flights?)
The task seems impossible - what you are trying to prove seems solely reliant on a judgement of what is possible in a highly chaotic system where nothing can really be ruled out. Whether it's improbable or not, it appears that is what happened so deciding exactly how improbable you think it is is moot.
If you can demonstrate it is *impossible* then you have something, but I really don't think you can do that given the other items found.
MikeC
Closed Account
One of the problems here is the definition of "chance".
In "real life" the passport did not survive because of "chance" or luck" or "miniscule odds" - it survived because the initial and following conditions were such that it survived - and given those conditions its survival was actually guaranteed. (presupposing for the sake of the argument that the passport was on the plane, the plane did hit the tower etc. as per the "official story")
Humans use the term "chance" or "luck" because we usually cannot calculate the initial conditions accurately enough to know exactly what the result of any given action is.
However the idea that something "should have been destroyed" is not actually real - if something was not destroyed then it was NEVER going to be destroyed - except perhaps in some parallel universe where initial conditions were different so that it was destroyed!!
Physics does not roll dice - either conditions are met or they are not.
In "real life" the passport did not survive because of "chance" or luck" or "miniscule odds" - it survived because the initial and following conditions were such that it survived - and given those conditions its survival was actually guaranteed. (presupposing for the sake of the argument that the passport was on the plane, the plane did hit the tower etc. as per the "official story")
Humans use the term "chance" or "luck" because we usually cannot calculate the initial conditions accurately enough to know exactly what the result of any given action is.
However the idea that something "should have been destroyed" is not actually real - if something was not destroyed then it was NEVER going to be destroyed - except perhaps in some parallel universe where initial conditions were different so that it was destroyed!!
Physics does not roll dice - either conditions are met or they are not.
Bmead
Member
That depends how far you buy into conspiracies, i do of course but not unless i have substantive reason to do so. A small point, i would make is that we don't know necessarily that it was Satam al Suqami given that the only other evidence we have is the passenger manifest which i am given to understand is not fully released
And the FBI did say i believe they may have stolen identities.
And, i can't think off the top of my head which, but according to the fbi or 9/11 commission, one of the hijackers actually didn't board with a passport as it went in Atta's bag which never made it on to the plane.
As it stands i think i am therefore at this stage at an impasse, i cannot prove BEYOND doubt currently, seeing as i relied on the place it was found. I can offer conjecture and statistical probabilities but seeing as it doesn't count. Until i have further evidence, i will say that i find the passport improbable but not entirely impossible.
JRBids
Senior Member
I'm sorry if you misread my post "Are you American? English does not seem to be your first language, yet you mention patriots." Your syntax seems as if English is not your first language, just an observation.
Yet other items made it out. The doubt seems to be THIS particular item, and in your opinion.
Are you stating or implying you do not believe Satam al Suqami was on the plane, even though the passenger list states he was?
Which manifests were not fully relased? I do not know of any.
Bmead
Member
I have to say i cannot answer everything, because i have so much research and other things i do means i have to specifically focus on certain things. As far as the other things came out- Yes, but again, it depends where they were and the likelihood they could come out-So the likelihood of someones underwear coming out was slim, so it comes down to the fact i personally found it improbable the passport would based on assumption of things like being in a pocket or bag and a few other things. Things i have said i need to add more evidence to. Therefore i have no more to comment until i can satisfactorily do so.
As for the manifest-this is where memory fails, i cannot remember where but i did read a few places that this image was what we are told was so, but the original actual flight manifest, and passenger lists still are classified.
Can't argue that as it is not something i am currently working on.
As for English, it is my first language given i AM English in England.
My reference to patriots is that if it was aided in anyway by "insiders" it would be because they could see the multiple benefits for America, in permitting the event and could quite easily allow the sacrifice to get the end result. And they would believe they are doing what the country needs.
And it isn't as if we can doubt that they would allow their own to die.
Anyway overall, as i say. I am as far as can be until i provide you further evidence
Science experiment of the day - momentarily soaking a piece of a UK passport (expired) in some random solvent (32% Toluene, 19% Methanol, 47% Acetone).
Text was fine, but the paper turned splotchy blue - possibly a security measure to prevent stamps being washed out. I didn't want to experiment with my old travel samps though, sentimental reasons.
Text was fine, but the paper turned splotchy blue - possibly a security measure to prevent stamps being washed out. I didn't want to experiment with my old travel samps though, sentimental reasons.
Last edited:
Bmead
Member
Did you record the evaporation time by any chance-ie till it was dry to the touchScience experiment of the day - momentarily soaking a piece of a UK passport (expired) in some random solvent (32% Toluene, 19% Methanol, 47% Acetone).
Text was fine, but the paper turned splotchy blue - possibly a security measure to prevent stamps being washed out. I didn't want to experiment with my old travel samps though, sentimental reasons.
Less than an hour, but it was kind of sat with one corner dipped in a small pool of the stuff. I think it would be just a few minutes in the open air.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Science experiment of the day - momentarily soaking a piece of a UK passport (expired) in some random solvent (32% Toluene, 19% Methanol, 47% Acetone).
Text was fine, but the paper turned splotchy blue - possibly a security measure to prevent stamps being washed out. I didn't want to experiment with my old travel samps though, sentimental reasons.
A couple questions.
- How would you compare your random solvent to kerosene?
- What results were you expecting to see in regards to the passport's condition?
- What do the results tell you in regards to the claim of Satam al-Suqami's passport being "soaked in jet fuel"?
1) I think it's more volatile, so would like strip ink more
2) I had no idea, as I suspected the printing might be resistant.
3) It was not soaked in jet fuel, as there was a lot of hand-written notations in various inks, and stamps, which did not run at all. It's also likely it was chemically sensitized security paper like the above.
MikeC
Closed Account
Thomas Hughson
Member
I went though this thread very quickly so bare with me if it has already been answered but when was the passport first reported by the media? What I want to know is was this passport first used liked "this is probably one of the terrorist" or was it only after the flight list and all the names of the hijackers had been official released to the public did the media pick up this story.
This is the earliest story I'm aware of, from Sept 18th, one week after the attacks:
https://web.archive.org/web/2005022...om/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/
https://web.archive.org/web/2005022...om/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/
But I think the passenger names were known to the press before that.External Quote:
Thomas Hughson
Member
I have always assumed that The Truthers were saying that this passport thing was "planted" evidence by "Them"(the real people behind 911). I never thought that made much sense because there is so much other evidence pointing to who was on those planes. No need to plant this evidence but after reading this:
I guess the Truthers are saying that it was planted by someone who was trying to let us know the truth that Suqami had out stayed his Visa. or maybe can someone tell me how the fact that he had outstayed his visa was important to the "official story"??sorry I'm confused.seriously I'm confused.
I guess the Truthers are saying that it was planted by someone who was trying to let us know the truth that Suqami had out stayed his Visa. or maybe can someone tell me how the fact that he had outstayed his visa was important to the "official story"??sorry I'm confused.seriously I'm confused.
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member
I think for some, creating a state of confusion is enough to conclude nefarious manoeuvres - that is the goal and they consider it the QED of their argument.
eg, 'wow this doesn't make sense given the way I have presented it, therefore conspiracy.'
But 'truthers' aren't necessarily all in agreement and so must be taken on individual terms. They do span a spectrum.
I'm not sure exactly where the deduction is leading in this case.
It may just be speculation for the sake of it.
Let's not presume yet.
eg, 'wow this doesn't make sense given the way I have presented it, therefore conspiracy.'
But 'truthers' aren't necessarily all in agreement and so must be taken on individual terms. They do span a spectrum.
I'm not sure exactly where the deduction is leading in this case.
It may just be speculation for the sake of it.
Let's not presume yet.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
As you identify, there are many strands of mysterious events out there. Individually addressed, ( as Mick insists ) here in Metabunk, they don't grab the attention of a disinterested person much. But if they are viewed as part of a larger picture then some kind of pattern emerges.
If you consider the possibility of a 'controlling hand' over the message to be delivered to the public that day, then this could fall into that catagory. Its a well known method of selling a story, to state it early - with confidence- and repeat if often. People with poor critical thinking skills latch on to that story and repeat it immediately around the water cooler. Soon it becomes established fact - and anyone who says " hang on a minute" is labelled as a conspiracy theorist.
This 'passport' incident falls into that theme. Another example was 'Harley Shirt' man who stated to the world and his wife within minutes of the second tower falling, with absolute confidence - that the towers fell -- quote " ....mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense". He didn't need to wait to be told that by a structural engineer - he just knew - minutes after the incident. Odd how experts later confirmed his words and even odder how cooler chatters then were able to nod and say - yeah we know that already.
The public being rapidly shown the passport of a 'terrorist' - complete with a picture of an 'arab extremist' - found in the debris, nails home the message that it was indeed arab extremists, and the message can then imparted to others around the cooler.
That is the significance of the discovery of a pristine passport to the many people who question the official fairystory. Not the discovery itself but the timing and coverage given to it.
The reason I insist points be individual addressed is that otherwise we just get arguments based on the length of lists of points. And one can always add another point to the list.
Points need detailed inspection to determine their status. The status of this one seems to be it was just a lucky event. But to the conspiracist there are no coincidences, and everything is laden with meaning.
Bits of paper survive high speed place crashes all the time. It's counterintuitive, but that does not mean it's made up.
Points need detailed inspection to determine their status. The status of this one seems to be it was just a lucky event. But to the conspiracist there are no coincidences, and everything is laden with meaning.
Bits of paper survive high speed place crashes all the time. It's counterintuitive, but that does not mean it's made up.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Actually History Commons mentions that ABC reported on the passport the next day, September 12 2001. Like most links from that long ago it's broken, so I'll have to try to fish it out of the archive.
History commons has a pretty solid timeline of events that went down on 9/11, I spent a good 2 hours reading through their stuff.External Quote:
Here's a good start.
Last edited:
You can use Archive.org to get a good picture of when information emerged - although I feel this might be veering towards another thread.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010701000000*/http://cnn.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20010701000000*/http://cnn.com
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Why wouldn't coverage be given to it?
If things actually happened as they seem to have, there is nothing untoward about any of the points you raise.
Maybe it actually was arab extremists, have you considered that?
Bmead
Member
Actually the FBI had said that as soon as the flights were identified it took 45 minutes to id who the hijackers were.
The passports (if in a conspiracy mindset) were never intended as a focal aspect at the time. You will note that later on in the 9/11 commission there are al qaeda identifiers of flasification. These markers were not known to border control staff at the time so they could not have picked up on this. Obviously that opens a whole new door of how they linked this to Al Qaeda (as it assumes a need to verify more than 1 from a known a/q terrorist) and how long that takes and thus SHOULD they have known pre -911.
Anyway back to the topic of Suqami- Seeing as you seem to be quickly able to source details compared to me Mick, there are two items i never looked at which i wonder if you happen to know
1) Supposedly he was illegally in the states-did that show on the passport
2) Supposedly he had been named as alive (likewise others) has anyone provided d.o.b's or other details for the one who claimed to be alive?
Bmead
Member
To stay on topic- I am attempting to narrow down the passports resting place. Now i do understand both the fact we can't just assume anything but there must be a degree of feasibility.
Looking at this image
From the direction of wtc 7 is where we know the plane came. Now i believe the cop that had been handed the passport was walking up West street and into vesey where we believe the passport was handed in. As best as we can tell. Now what i am supposing is, that (and i will do my best to validate i am just positing it so if it is shot down for a particular reason i will know how to proceed)
The gap between 6 and 1 would not be where people would be walking ( i will be using images/testimony to try to veify this was even blocked or not possible to pass through) so the passport wouldn't be found there.
The same may be true of 3 and 1 especially as the 2nd tower had been hit at this time (we know because the cop said minutes after receiving passport the 2nd tower fell) so if there was debris falling between two towers the chances are at least the gaps between those places would be made inaccesable. And potentially other than evacuees no one would be allowed in the plaza.
Anyway i guess that is something i need to prove, what i can't find is did wtc 1 have entrances onto the plaza, onto west street or both?
And if i can demonstrate that people would not be allowed beteen 1 and 6 and 1/3/2 that we then can narrow the spot where the passport was found to the plaza/west street or vesey street.
Or will you insist that maybe someone slipped through a police barrier?
Looking at this image
From the direction of wtc 7 is where we know the plane came. Now i believe the cop that had been handed the passport was walking up West street and into vesey where we believe the passport was handed in. As best as we can tell. Now what i am supposing is, that (and i will do my best to validate i am just positing it so if it is shot down for a particular reason i will know how to proceed)
The gap between 6 and 1 would not be where people would be walking ( i will be using images/testimony to try to veify this was even blocked or not possible to pass through) so the passport wouldn't be found there.
The same may be true of 3 and 1 especially as the 2nd tower had been hit at this time (we know because the cop said minutes after receiving passport the 2nd tower fell) so if there was debris falling between two towers the chances are at least the gaps between those places would be made inaccesable. And potentially other than evacuees no one would be allowed in the plaza.
Anyway i guess that is something i need to prove, what i can't find is did wtc 1 have entrances onto the plaza, onto west street or both?
And if i can demonstrate that people would not be allowed beteen 1 and 6 and 1/3/2 that we then can narrow the spot where the passport was found to the plaza/west street or vesey street.
Or will you insist that maybe someone slipped through a police barrier?
He had a valid looking visa (until 2002). However for internal flights passports were just used for i.d.. Other hijackers had expired visas.
Someone with a similar name, that's all.
Similar threads
