The Satam al Suqami Passport

Bmead

Member
The passport of Satam al Suqami is a controversial piece of 9/11 evidence but before we look at the key evidence regarding it i want to address a small but often asked question.
WHY?
Why, if it didn't just come from the crash as we are told, is it there at all?
Firstly i would like to say that the requirement to explain is only upon any who don't believe the official story. I can offer 2 explanations which i have in my blog (link below) but simply that an inability to explain the why, does not make the facts different.

So, what are the facts?
Essentially the basic story is plane hits building passport crashes through with other debris, lands on sidewalk, is found and handed in.

The basic issues with this-Let's begin with the easily debunkable
1.) The passport would be among tons of paper and debris and not easily locatable.
This is hardly a proof of conspiracy but it is starange luck to have this pulled from the vast number of documents, more so when the majority of persons, as is visually provable, are looking up not down.
2.)The hijackers not the victims or office workers
This does present a minor problem given that it is extremely suspect that id and cards or documents of innocents were not readily handed in at the time, in fact if they were this would be readily picked up on by the debunking society. And the police and FBI would have documented it just as was done with Suqami's passport. However this is just the second coincidence and proves nothing.
3.) The passport made it through the building, Suqami was on aa11 which was for the most part retained inside the tower
This is a difficult one because there is no way for the passport to have fallen out of the plane, it has to go through the building, based on plane length the entire plane would enter the tower in under 1s, insufficient time to drop the distance from pocket,cabin, or even floor,to below the belly of the plane before it was driven into the building. Plane speed appx 400mph at the entry and as outlined on my blog, the length of the plane even at 100mph means that passport HAD to be inside the tower
4.) The passport should, if not burnt or shredded, been impacting on something. When the fron of the plane disintegrated the plane behind ploughed forwards and pushed on, but everything is slowing down as it hits objects and remember the plane hit across floors, so there are floors, cupboards and lights and walls and steel columns and shredded parts of the plane, all waiting to hit the passport, any one of which will alter its trajectory.
This is another huge problem, if the passport was with Suqami in the cockpit, as soon as he hits a wall or object the momentum of the passport, is slowed (assuming it can break out the bag/pocket) as we must assume it did, it then hits but one wall or desk or cabinet and it stops dead and falls to the floor.
5.) Soaked in fuel, as per fbi report. Which is fine except if it was in the cockpit it can't be in the fuel, simply because to become soaked requires the wings which carry the fuel to break and the passport to be doused with a torrent at that stage, however as the forward momentum of the plane meant the passport was inside already, it has to be by the wings ( a little further back than Suqamis seat was) in fact it needs to be behind the wing so it can be doused as the break sloshes fuel everywhere as the break will happen and fuel leak just as the row or two behind the wings come under that point. Except, that then must mean it goes either through the fireball, or, it is pushed to the floor of the plane, a wtc floor by the force of the fuel hitting it. after all, this is happening in the space of thousandths of a second and the plane is pushing forwards still.
But maybe, it was behind the wings (why unless he was NOT a hijacker)maybe he threw his passport up there for no reason at all?
6.) Assuming that is all true and occurred and the passport was not in a pocket, not in a bag or locker, behind the wings, hit by fuel, missed the flames, got driven through the building, missed all objects, maintained momentum for 238 feet despite the majority of the plane not doing so, then passed through the building and out the other side IT WILL BE ON THE WRONG SIDE!
The passport was found in Vesey street,where the plane came in from, at high speed.
The wind was blowing between 8 to a maximum of 11 mph in that same direction as evidenced by the smoke direction.
So, after all of the above it either, turns BACK against the speed and metal of the plane, or passes all that way and floats across the width say 100ft of the exit hole, then floats BACK against the wind for the 238ft of the wtc, then further 200ft back, then changes direction again to end up where found.

The passport through out all its troubles remains in perfect condition. NOT catching fire like hundreds of papers did, NOT being scorched like fire retardant seats not doused in fuel.

But our passports ride isn't over.

It is then discovered again and again and again

At least so a variety of sources told us, whereas the official version by 9/11 commission and fbi records and police statements said before collapse and soaked in fuel by a person who handed it to a cop and ran away.
Multiple media sources reported the passport found later that day, later that week, on different days by different people

They cant ALL have got the true story mixed up.
But then if they did, who really gets confused with handed in before collapse, against found after collapse three days later?

Is everything kosher here?
Not in the least.
My blog is not fully edited for perfect grammar etc, but i placed the work up as is, so you can look and see the images and more in depth to combat this.

This is not about wanting to make a conspiracy, but THIS is exactly what we need a rational and sensible answer to and nothing really can cut it except either it was planted, or Suqami rolled down his window and dropped his passport out just before impact.
http://afraidof911truth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-smoking-gun-of-911.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This seems to be mostly an argument from incredulity - i.e. you just think it was all rather unlikely.

It's also something of a "Gish Gallop", a large number of points that are individually explainable, but together look like a lot, because you get this wall of text. This is against the posting guidelines, as it's not covering a single claim of evidence.

Pick one claim of evidence, and back it up with references, diagrams, math, and science. Like, say, #5.

Otherwise the thread will just degenerate into whack-a-mole, as people explain the sequence of events that could lead to each point, and then you raise endless multiple objections, which are then explained in the same way.

The bottom line here is that bits of paper can survive a fiery impact undamaged, and get blown by the wind. This is something that has been demonstrated time and time again.
 

Bmead

Member
Ok i pick the FACTS That the plane went in in one direction and that the passport ended up in another.And the fuel soaked passport.
You want details click the blog link.
I do not need to "whack-a-mole"
I'll do it for you
Among debris someone chanced to look down, they chanced to pick up something that they could not be sure was a passport unless it was the right way up and not dirty. They handed it to a cop. They ran off because (well that's normal isn't it?) And the cops never chase a runner. Besides you can discount all that. You correctly assert i can make a counter claim, i wouldn't however if it was feasible.

Essentially you have two major pieces to debunk. But allow me to point one thing out
Yes paper can survive fiery impact. This happens in a number of ways and they are limited. Again i will not argue this as we would be caught up in all that

Basically you can argue any part you like about whether suqami defied normalcy and pocketed the passport


What you can't argue is that the passport HAS to enter the building due simply to the maths of speed and the lack of plane debris below entry impact zone. If there was a lack of the plane on entry direction, the passport that is INSIDE the plane can't pass outside. Video analysis of all plane impacts and official speed estimates have the plane inside the building.
As for fuel soaked

So go debunk the FBI, but that is official source so debunk the official is debunk to suit a better explanation, ergo you HAVE to stick with the official line.
And as stated we KNOW the fuel is in the wings, if the passport were in front of the wings it just cannot be doused in fuel without having been slowed so much it gets a good slosh as fuel runs inside the building, however to be "soaked" which we know kerosene evaporates fast. The impact of wet fuel alters trajectory, which as it is coming from above, it would drive our passport to a floor.

But assume it did that, then it runs out the other side of the building

Now these are visual facts and testimony backs it as does all other evidence. So, a passport (appx 50grams non fuel soaked) Will fall 6feet in just over half a second but fuel soaked accelerates this and of course stick pages together preventing creating a drag, we can assume that also because else the fuel would dry out.

So, a scorched plane seat, yet the requirements call for some fire retardance factor. But whilst the seat looks thus.....the passport looks
911zion03_05.jpg
and
911zion03_04.jpg

So. I am happy if you explain a sensible way that the passport was not in a pocket or bag or locker, or if it was, it got out of that place with a further boost in momentum to push it one way, avoided any obstacle blew forwards from there dodged every single obstacle and pass through what nearly the entire rest of the plain couldn't.

Or how it reversed backwards on impact against 400mph speed and doused in fuel fell further backwards (Not from explosive force of the inferno because if it was then it cannot be blown backwards unless it was level with the explosive force which requires it to get soaked, pass backwards through roaring fire, sustain no damage and then land to be never trod on and dirtied or covered with other debris, until found.

So debunk, if there is rationale at play then go ahead
I unlike the debunkers, am not immovable and will accept plausibility. I imagine your whack a mole theory is to discourage a response.
So give YOUR maths and pictures and evidence and we will compare
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bmead

Member
Yes every single bit of official source. If you need it proved, then check it out, watch the impact and note the buildings, watch the impact of the 2nd plane and note that comes from the opposite side where there is not the entrance hole on the north tower. Check sources as to where the passport was found.
This is something that cannot be debunked without calling every video a lie. And police, 9/11 commission, fbi and media all liars.
Which of course is fine if you believe in the conspiracy angle. But if you don't you can't deny all of it. Even CT's don't deny EVERY video and claim.
So that single statement is as factual as saying the sky is blue
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Yes every single bit of official source. If you need it proved, then check it out, watch the impact and note the buildings, watch the impact of the 2nd plane and note that comes from the opposite side where there is not the entrance hole on the north tower. Check sources as to where the passport was found.
This is something that cannot be debunked without calling every video a lie. And police, 9/11 commission, fbi and media all liars.
Which of course is fine if you believe in the conspiracy angle. But if you don't you can't deny all of it. Even CT's don't deny EVERY video and claim.
So that single statement is as factual as saying the sky is blue
Please provide a link showing the direction of the plane and the place where the passport was found.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So that single statement is as factual as saying the sky is blue
What single statement?

Is there a map of all plane debris found?
Would you say that no other plane debris can have been found upwards of its trajectory?
Which plane/building impact was the passport from, 1st or 2nd?
 

Bmead

Member

Which is this now
upload_2013-12-8_20-16-58.png
Which is this
upload_2013-12-8_20-38-48.png
So that shows the video angle. I am not selecting every video there is or every single text to prove my claim, because i already did my research. If you still doubt that then go check for yourself but i assure you it is the case
 

Bmead

Member
What single statement?

Is there a map of all plane debris found?
Would you say that no other plane debris can have been found upwards of its trajectory?
Which plane/building impact was the passport from, 1st or 2nd?
I will explain this, there is details of where debris was found, and, if it was found by a passerby, there was no debris of plane with it, i am saying there is no debris BACKWARDS of impact, bar a few scraps which should have fallen downwards for the most part.
The passport was supposed to come from al suqami now if that doesn't tell you what plane why are you trying to debunk something you know nothing about?
The data i got was not from conspiracy sites, it was from Nist/fbi/boeing/fema/ etc all official sources.
So please debunk the hell out of it but it is only the official story you distort to then support the same story. Which is a little paradoxical.
I said little debris not no debris.
Best bet is do some research yourselves. Or else i must go over every tiny bit. THE FACT is the plane provably went in one way, passport appeared the other way.
I have shown a proof of the plane an will demonstrate the passport in a second
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.



i am saying there is no debris BACKWARDS of impact,
Regrading the issue of impact direction and debris location...

It seems that when the plane hit WTC 1, debris went flying in every direction. As in the picture below, stuff went forwards, backwards and sideways.

keep.jpg


How do you know the passport was not ejected when the building was collapsing? That certainly must have caused debris to go flying in all kinds of random directions.

Edit undo. I see the passport was found before the building collapsed.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
This one will most likely be chalked up to 'confusion' due to the nature of how the passport was found.

Satam al-Suqami was on Flight 11 that hit the North Tower (WTC1). The initial reports are a little iffy on where it was found (few blocks away, several blocks away, on Vesey St, etc), but that's to be expected, especially given the magnitude of the events that day.

What is agreed on is that before 9:59 AM the passport was handed to NYCPD Detective Yuk H. Chin by an individual who is described as being in his 30s, in a business suit. The individual ran off before he could be identified and to this day is still unknown.

The detective turned over the passport to the FBI and they later were able to connect Satam al-Saqami to the attacks.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Even "truthers" have massive debris fields 1000 feet in diameter - (see here - it is figure 8)



And that is for the steel and concrete from the collapse - a passport might easily be carried further.

And as for its likelihood of being there, found, etc - very unlikely for any 1 given piece of paper - but not at all unlikely for some piece of paper from among all the possibilities. Anything more than that is just argument from incredulity, and doesn't actually support or undermine any theory at all.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
The passport was supposed to come from al suqami now if that doesn't tell you what plane why are you trying to debunk something you know nothing about?....
Why can you not respond to a simple query? I haven't done the research you have, I am not trying to debunk anything, just to get a clearer picture of the scenario.
Could you share the links to your references for your research, or quote the relevant parts? Then we can be on some common ground.

ETA...


However, this report does not specify it being found before the collapse...
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Also a passport will have a bit more inertia than sheets of paper so may travel further from the initiating force.
 

Bmead

Member
Suqami's passport was found by a passerby (identity unknown), reportedly in the vicinity of Vesey Street,[8] before the towers collapsed Source wikipaedia
I wont provide multiples for all because if you know nothing then you are sungularly unqualified to debunk based on more than opinion.
There rests sufficient which i can assert again i took from scouring Nist, 9/11 commission, media most committed to the official line
 

MikeC

Closed Account
So provide it - hiding evidence does not help with either debunking or proving the case.
 

Bmead

Member
So we see no debunk, what is required is not a better verification of what i am saying, a passport MAY have inertia more so than paper, but you need to look at the physics look at how much exited the north tower, and how, and where it came from, multiple files and papers stacked and on the far side can be ejected, but First where was the passport. If you have multiple untouched id/and papers (papers already in the offices not inside a plane. The passport can't exit even the plane until the plane breaks, this means the section where it exits has hit or caught or blown apart due to some force, assuming this has NO impact on the passport it must continue in a direction and hit nothing, AND be soaked in fuel.
It seems here that at best you can say "no it didn't" or "no it wasn't" but that is it if you dig like i have the official line supports what i say, not to mention, Mick supported the claim of it being found pre collapse (he neglected the cops own testimony that the guy RAN away. but forget that.
If it was found pre collapse why was it so many outlets decided it was found after collapse.
But forget that too. It is a irrelavance
What matters is we can as said prove the plane impact direction, we can even through some images and video see the speeds fire spread, objects in the hole, and have testimony and images of debris on the street,.
What matters is exactly where the passport was found
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Suqami's passport was found by a passerby (identity unknown), reportedly in the vicinity of Vesey Street,[8] before the towers collapsed Source wikipaedia
I wont provide multiples for all because if you know nothing then you are sungularly unqualified to debunk based on more than opinion.
There rests sufficient which i can assert again i took from scouring Nist, 9/11 commission, media most committed to the official line
Reportedly? That reference [8] goes to:
8. ^"Ashcroft says more attacks may be planned". CNN. September 18, 2001. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
Archived: https://web.archive.org/web/2005022...om/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/

And 9 is:
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm
So really we have no idea where it was found. A single CNN story from 9/18/2001 is not sufficient evidence. A passerby picked it up. There's no evidence he said where he picked it up.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
(he neglected the cops own testimony that the guy RAN away.
Why don't you add that, with a reference?

What matters is exactly where the passport was found
Which is something that:

A) We will never know
B) could quite plausibly be anywhere in the entire pre-collapse debris field.
 

Bmead

Member
So provide it - hiding evidence does not help with either debunking or proving the case.
Provide what? I have [provided, i have done and been told too many points, i make one i a m asked more, i do more i am asked proof of the proof, i provided that and i am asked proof of the proof of the proof.
I will add more but where is the ruination of the claim, you guys slap opinion down say that is proof=case closed.
Look there's a plane which proves Bin laden did it because he has flown before.
That's before the investigation begins.
But fair enough i'll provide more
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Those cutaway aircraft diagrams you have provided seem to be the wrong aircraft type. Flight 11 was a 767-200, not a 757.
 

Bmead

Member
Well, i will have to get back to you on that, i cannot find the police statement right now.
And to me, i have to be attacked as with every debunker because i wont be brushed off too easy. If this was anything but every 1 of my 6 points would be valid.
I will find among my work the other sources. And you brush of the very statements of "found in vesey st" as we will never know.
If they are correct, then it places the passport in the entire wrong place.
The debris that was coming away from impact falls where? That is to the person who showed a still of the video, take a look, and show me, where is the plane there?
Inside.
My point to all debunkers is not to not debunk. But that we should question the what if.
I will add the sources once i run through all of my work again.
And yet as some sources say no name, will you accept it?
No.
So is it worthwhile?
We know this is juust the tip of the suqami issue because the very passport was showing (according again to official source) he had outstayed his visa)
When luck adds on luck on luck on luck
You all say "could be"
All i push for is so people look hard themselves, prove me wrong and i am only wrong.
Fail to do so an the implications are much worse.
You think i want to be right?
 

Bmead

Member
Those cutaway aircraft diagrams you have provided seem to be the wrong aircraft type. Flight 11 was a 767-200, not a 757.
Possible but i took the best cutaway as i could get, if you can possitively identify that plane as the wrong type pls point out the errors i made in saying who was where and the plane length
 

Bmead

Member
@Bmead, could you draw the region on the map where you think a passport could plausibly have ended up in?

The only place I PERSONALLY think it could be is inside the tower with the rest of the plane and it's owner as if it was with him, it would have been driven into every window,wall,desk, beam that he was. Provably we can say at best it was immediate vicinity of the tower as we can agree that all sources go not much further than that
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Let's stick on topic. Where was the passport found and how could it ended up there? There's pretty much no evidence for where it was found, and there seems no real reason why it could not be anywhere that WTC1 debris was found.

There was quite a lot of debris before the collapse.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The only place I PERSONALLY think it could be is inside the tower with the rest of the plane and it's owner as if it was with him, it would have been driven into every window,wall,desk, beam that he was. Provably we can say at best it was immediate vicinity of the tower as we can agree that all sources go not much further than that
Immediate vicinity? So it could be on the same side as the impact? Blown out by the explosion?

Consider Shanksville, flight 93. There was a LOT of paper debris there, and yet the plane was buried underground. So if bits of paper from flight 93 survived, then why not here?
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Possible but i took the best cutaway as i could get, if you can possitively identify that plane as the wrong type pls point out the errors i made in saying who was where and the plane length
Ok, here is a cutaway of a AA 767-200. You have the length correct. It is no biggie but it helps keep it accurate.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
6.) Assuming that is all true and occurred and the passport was not in a pocket, not in a bag or locker, behind the wings, hit by fuel, missed the flames, got driven through the building, missed all objects, maintained momentum for 238 feet despite the majority of the plane not doing so, then passed through the building and out the other side IT WILL BE ON THE WRONG SIDE!
I think there's a basic physics problem here. The passport is a relatively light object, with a large surface area to mass ratio. It has a very low terminal velocity. The only way it can keep moving (horizontally) is if it's being carried by something - either it's attached to (or inside) a much more aerodynamic or denser object, or it's being carried along by the movement of air.

We assume it was just by itself when found, but that tells us nothing about how it traveled either through the building, or was blown back out of the impact explosion. It could have been in person, or seat pocket, or a bag, which traveled through the building, and then partially disintegrated upon exit. Or, (and this seems far more likely), it was carried back out of the hole by the movement of air from the explosion. Just like debris from an aircraft hitting the ground.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Provide what?
Provide what you referred to in this:

There rests sufficient which i can assert again i took from scouring Nist, 9/11 commission, media most committed to the official line

I have [provided, i have done and been told too many points, i make one i a m asked more, i do more i am asked proof of the proof, i provided that and i am asked proof of the proof of the proof.
No one has asked you for "proof" of anything.

You have been asked for the EVIDENCE you have.

Debunking is about removing bunk from the EVIDENCE - so far you have provided evidence that there was a passport for Satam al Suqami, that it was found, and its condition when found.

AFAIK no-one is debunking any of that - it is factual.

You said it was found in a particular position - that has been debunked - no-one knows exactly where it was found, even according to your own evidence.

I will add more but where is the ruination of the claim, you guys slap opinion down say that is proof=case closed.
No it is not case closed - it is piece of evidence debunked - whatever remains is not bunk, and can be examined to see what it tells us about the events of the day.
 
Last edited:

Bmead

Member
Immediate vicinity? So it could be on the same side as the impact? Blown out by the explosion?

Consider Shanksville, flight 93. There was a LOT of paper debris there, and yet the plane was buried underground. So if bits of paper from flight 93 survived, then why not here?
Well i think the two are incomparable. And i do not think it credible to be there on same side of impact because of the speed of entry and the fact that jet fuel ignited outside, therefore it is one thing to say, it went out the other side (although again i find improbable) but to go backwars through flames soaked in fuel? It's a stretch to say the fire wouldn't ignite ordinary paper, but saying it wont ignite fuel?

If you posit that it was going forward which we must do we must ask if the explosive force was sufficient to blow it back.

I will give even further research into it to check because i did look at this but failed to put that in my original work
 

Bmead

Member
Provide what you referred to in this:








You said it was found in a particular position - that has been debunked - no-one knows exactly where it was found, even according to your own evidence.



No it is not case closed - it is piece of evidence debunked - whatever remains is not bunk, and can be examined to see what it tells us about the events of the day.
[/quote]

Nope, i have sources for where it was found which i provided, what i said is that came from official sources which i thought was sufficient.

If you say debunked, then you are debunking everyone who says vesey street
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The only place I PERSONALLY think it could be is inside the tower with the rest of the plane and it's owner as if it was with him, it would have been driven into every window,wall,desk, beam that he was.
Here's a map of where human remains were found around the towers - see this link

Provably we can say at best it was immediate vicinity of the tower as we can agree that all sources go not much further than that
How do you prove that? I certainly do not agre that "all sources" say that it could not go much further because "all sources" say that no-one actually knows how far it went.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Nope, i have sources for where it was found which i provided, what i said is that came from official sources which i thought was sufficient.

If you say debunked, then you are debunking everyone who says vesey street
Your post was this - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-satam-al-suqami-passport.2788/#post-78676

In it you quoted Wikipedia, which said it was HANDED IN in the VICINITY of Vesey Street.

What has been debunked is that this is definitely where it was FOUND - no one except eth guy who found it actually knows that.
 

Bmead

Member
If you look at the complex, then there will not be "passers by" in the plaza, and that is fairly sure to have been said if it was.
FBI agent Dan Coleman explains that the passeport was not found by any agent on the WTC site,
Here is the transcript of the interview :
So we can argue that maybe he was in the plaza, that places the passport coming out the side where even less damage was done. But whatever you choose
Ithink we are safest to assume a straight through or blown back which then comes to the physics of that.
There is a multitude of accounts of where the passport was, and the most tenable that name it says vesey street.
Others say a few blocks away.
And a few say just near the wtc
If you want the entire physics of it http://www.takeourworldback.com/911/911passport.htm
And i am not a published scientist but have run a number of tests to weigh passports dry,wet, drop speed, and finally tests on ignition. The passport soaked in kerosene will ignite in contact with naked flame of any size subject to proximity of the vapours. Basically, in the huge fire ball of the impact. It is not possible for a fuel soaked item to NOT ignite unless it was beyond the reach of the flame, so it exited the plane prior to jet tanks rupturing and then took a small soaking an d rushed ahead of the inferno.

Am i being pedantic? I do not think i am, i just can't line this up with the speed, where the passport should be inside the plane, where even it MIGHT be. To where it ended up. Had it been torn or damaged or charred, i would believ it. But having tested old passports myself and other paper and card. It just doesn't fly
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bmead

Member
Your post was this - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-satam-al-suqami-passport.2788/#post-78676

In it you quoted Wikipedia, which said it was HANDED IN in the VICINITY of Vesey Street.

What has been debunked is that this is definitely where it was FOUND - no one except eth guy who found it actually knows that.
Well i guess i'll find another source. But will it matter if the roles were flipped i would be told i am being unreasonable. But lets then say your right and he passed it to the first officer he came to where would he have come from?
If Not in vesey street he had to go through the plaza, by then FULL of cops, or barclay street even further back or west street again filled with cops nypd and papd

This is to me something that is just too easy, guy runs away after coincidentally handing in a piece of vital evidence.
What direction did the guy go, where did he come from, what street was the cop in?
THIS is my point about information i make to others, this should not be classified or lost or unknown, so in absence of that i take the best i can. Circumstantially it suggests Vesey street, and i will provide as i dig out my files, the other sources.
Although i doubt they will be any more use than any other place
But i think again, if we say a in and out it stil should have been burned, more so because we see the explosion, see the fire eject out are told the fire was inside. So logically, as with the other tower where the fire and debris burst out the other side. Why would a fuel soake dpassport survive that?

Do you honestly and 100% find no little tiny part in you that says, wow, that was lucky to be unidentified as over visa/unknown as tampered with get out its case/pocket/through the plane/through the tower hitting nothing/through the fire/soaked in fuel/land in a visible place/not get covered in debris/be one of the only items reported as handed in/ be the hijackers/ have no testimony from discoverer/no record of the detail from the police describing the guy other than a suit/ In near brand new condition And all the while you think.
Yep sure sounds normal

I will concede not that you debunked where it was, but just that you call it into question. I will attempt to find further sources
 
Top