The Satam al Suqami Passport

Bmead

Member
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.

Well i guess I can only apologise.
A great bulk of text is bad enough but then I want to express a point, trying to make it short and explain is a problem that often makes for error. Also I am not claiming a degree in grammar or spelling.

And some of it is not perfectly explained but as I said I made claims based on months of research not minutes. It is not practical to put the entirety on here, I am trying to do this on my own work which will be on the net eventually but some things like the NIST simulations cannot be copied.
Maybe when I finish, it will be better suited to your comprehension, i can only try (that is not implying you have poor comprehension by the way, simply that i hope the eventual work will be ideal for you)
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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?
I provided a link. Read it. The passport was admitted as evidence in a trial. Get passed it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are posting guidelines. I believe your opinion is bunk. Any evidence to suggest otherwise?
In this case my opinion is my evidence . . . if one does not have possession of a piece of evidence (passport) you cannot factually prove who had it or where it came from originally . . . the authorities had possession of the passport when the NYC policeman took possession of it . . . not before . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I provided a link. Read it. The passport was admitted as evidence in a trial. Get passed it.
I don't have to read it . . . it does not change the facts . . . unless the NYC policeman testified at the trial he had possession of the evidence before it was given to him . . .
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
In this case my opinion is my evidence . . . if one does not have possession of a piece of evidence (passport) you cannot factually prove who had it or where it came from originally . . . the authorities had possession of the passport when the NYC policeman took possession of it . . . not before . . .
You're not a judge George. It doesn't matter how many episodes of Law and Order you saw you do not know the rules of evidence. Sorry.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You're not a judge George. It doesn't matter how many episodes of Law and Order you saw you do not know the rules of evidence. Sorry.
Are you ? Is it your contention that this passport which came into the possession of the NYPD is proof that the passport was not tampered with, altered, or planted by someone before it came into possession of the NYPD ?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Are you ? Is it your contention that this passport which came into the possession of the NYPD is proof that the passport was not tampered with, altered, or planted by someone before it came into possession of the NYPD ?
Once again George, the contention was that the passport would not meet the requirements of evidence. It did. Also, there is no proof to support any of your contentions in your last sentence.
 

Bmead

Member
Once again a lot of claims no proof. Please read the posting guidelines.

Ok so what claim is not right, are you saying then that if the passport was say on a seat or bag or in a pocket, that it will not be moving forward when the plane impacts?

I don't need a source to prove that i need you to know how the world works. If i am on a moving object and i hit something i do not stop moving in the direction i was going and i move at the same speed i was until gravity affects me.

I assert that something does not just go sideways by magic it requires an external force acting upon an object to alter its direction i do not need proof it is self evident if you have ever lived in the world

I assert a bag cannot pass through a core wall, core columns a core wall and a perimeter wall, plus any number of office items.
Again i do not need to prove this type of thing, YOU do.
I am not the wild claim maker in saying that it can.

I am saying if the passport is in a bag or jacket in a cockpit or on a seat and thus unencumbered when impact happens, it will not only move ahead at the speed it was going, while the plane already is slowing, but that no fuel can soak it.

As far as saying the fuel soaked the passport, well, is the fbi not good enough a source?
And that i am attempting to verify further since Mick suggested they meant smelled like not soaked.

So i cannot explain all things to you but here is a starter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
and here is a bit more http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/...Global+Analyses/WTC1/GA3_Trans_Top_1.avi.html

and another bit


Now what i want you to do is observe that in sim 1- the front of the plane is torn open, also though there is no deformation to walls or columns in this simulation ( there is none except in isolated parts like wing bits, engine bits, nose hit) What can be seen is that items break up and pass through multiple objects, the objects you see will be parts of the plane, the objects in front of it which are not there are going to be hijackers and pilots that were flung forwards as the window and nose was mashed to nothing and driven into every wall/floor/column in its way. But you call me a liar and tell me that a bag or body will survive that and release a pretty little passport in great condition without even a bend in it.

Then, go to the last sim, notice again how the plane dips down into the floor but then rather than staying that way and the rest plowing downwards, it just straightens itself up, the passport, being in the cockpit, is being punched down through a floor and dropping to the bottom of the room it enters, a floor which also will be broken and so ripping into the floor with fuel and debris and flame will damage that passport and punch it through into the core at best where it will fall.

But you call me a liar. That is just fine, but i think if you watch these and other sims, research who was meant to be in the cockpit, research impact analysis, and kinetic energy graphs. You will either have to admit that the passport if in the cockpit, realistically cannot survive, but, if by a miracle it did, it sure as hell wont be unscratched or unbent.

Or just say "no proof"

But, by YOUR version, NIST has "no proof" that the plane cut any columns at all. It just shows a plane going in and breaking up, and isolated engine/ wings impacting columns but backed by NO (that's NONE) PHYSICAL TESTS so either accept what is based on the facts of the physical worlds and the models made by the official version, or call them liars too
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Once again George, the contention was that the passport would not meet the requirements of evidence. It did. Also, there is no proof to support any of your contentions in your last sentence.
Show me where I made that statement? My last statement was a question to you . . .
 

Bmead

Member
Once again George, the contention was that the passport would not meet the requirements of evidence. It did. Also, there is no proof to support any of your contentions in your last sentence.
Yes there is, the FACT that there is ZERO evidence it wasn't tampered with or altered before it was found. Actually, there is evidence it was, albeit by al qaeda we are told. But what proof have you to support a claim that a passport held in a precinct run by a guy who was facing 142 years jail was not tampered with?
Oh i know i know corrupt people don't do bad things and can be fully trusted.
I by the way make no claim Kerik did anything to it at all other than what he should have done, but the point is, you have no proof of the opposite and if you like, i can smother a new thread in examples of NYPD corruption of bribes/lies/crime/ evidence tampering. In fact i provided proof elsewhere that The supreme court said forensic tampering did happen and too often so the past precedent suggest there is a bundle of "backing" to a claim it COULD be tampered with.

There is one backing claim to it not being, because you say so. That is not over strong is it in comparison

Actually i am being unfair, because i am discounting all the good csi and non corrupt persons, but then that is what you are doing by not considering the reverse.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Show me where I made that statement? My last statement was a question to you . . .
In post 351 you said that the standard of evidence was lower for NIST and other 9/11 investigations. You said:

Since the standard of evidence for the 911 Commission and NIST was not those required in criminal or civil proceedings . . . they are thus able to speculate that the passport was from one of the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . proof for public consumption is much, much lower . . . I suppose there was no desire to prosecute those responsible?
Pretty plain there. And you last sentence was silly. He should testify he had it before he had it?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Yes there is, the FACT that there is ZERO evidence it wasn't tampered with or altered before it was found. Actually, there is evidence it was, albeit by al qaeda we are told. But what proof have you to support a claim that a passport held in a precinct run by a guy who was facing 142 years jail was not tampered with?
Oh i know i know corrupt people don't do bad things and can be fully trusted.
I by the way make no claim Kerik did anything to it at all other than what he should have done, but the point is, you have no proof of the opposite and if you like, i can smother a new thread in examples of NYPD corruption of bribes/lies/crime/ evidence tampering. In fact i provided proof elsewhere that The supreme court said forensic tampering did happen and too often so the past precedent suggest there is a bundle of "backing" to a claim it COULD be tampered with.

There is one backing claim to it not being, because you say so. That is not over strong is it in comparison

Actually i am being unfair, because i am discounting all the good csi and non corrupt persons, but then that is what you are doing by not considering the reverse.
Bring evidence and we can discuss otherwise no.
 

Bmead

Member
In post 351 you said that the standard of evidence was lower for NIST and other 9/11 investigations. You said:



Pretty plain there.
That is patently true though.

There was NO requirement that they follow anything, in fact, guidelines suggest they tested for explosives but they didn't.
The 9/11 report was not required to validate anything as it was not a prosecution panel, nor was NIST so it had no duty to follow any standard but that which it sets. I think you will find, if you check the standards for evidence vary from a commission and Nist, than what it does for a piece of forensic evidence submitted into a prosecution
 

Bmead

Member
Well i will go work on that evidence like i said earlier, else i just get drawn into ruining the thread with back and forth.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
That is patently true though.

There was NO requirement that they follow anything, in fact, guidelines suggest they tested for explosives but they didn't.
The 9/11 report was not required to validate anything as it was not a prosecution panel, nor was NIST so it had no duty to follow any standard but that which it sets. I think you will find, if you check the standards for evidence vary from a commission and Nist, than what it does for a piece of forensic evidence submitted into a prosecution
However the passport was later submitted into evidence in a court of law so it met the higher standard.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In post 351 you said that the standard of evidence was lower for NIST and other 9/11 investigations. You said:



Pretty plain there. And you last sentence was silly. He should testify he had it before he had it?
. What? That is a criticism of NIST and the 911 Commission and is accurate in my opinion . . . I think it in no way says what you are implying . . . .Let's see the whole quote . . .
George B said:
Since the standard of evidence for the 911 Commission and NIST was not those required in criminal or civil proceedings . . . they are thus able to speculate that the passport was from one of the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . proof for public consumption is much, much lower . . . I suppose there was no desire to prosecute those responsible?
The bold type above explains it all IMO . . . I did not say it could not be evidence . . . I said it was not worthy of anyone to speculate that the passport proved the owner was a hijacker or that it could not have been planted . . .

P.S . the last statement was being silly . . .
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
I've found what I think are some more relevant pieces of info regarding Suqami, his passport, and the other passports and general items recovered at the WTC and other crash sites.

Reading thru Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission Report I can find no mention that Suqami used the passport to check in, and in fact it appears that the hijackers had enough State ID or DL's to get onboard, and may have kept their passports in checked luggage, or perhaps valises if they had any. The valises might have been carried onboard with them.

Firefighter John Moribito reported that, upon arriving at 1 WTC after flight 11 had impacted
There's no question that suitcases, valises and airline tickets had to come from flight 11. He's describing the courtyard between 1 WTC and 2 WTC, btw.

In that case, it is a fact that luggage fell directly next to the towers, and naturally that luggage would probably split open after such impacts and long falls to the ground, spilling contents hither and thither. This can explain how a single passport could avoid damage, just like other items kept in the suitcases etc..
We already know that Atta's luggage arrived too late to be loaded onto the jet, and other hijacker luggage at Logan contained a passport as well. So the precedent for all these things is there if you look carefully.

Therefore I think it can be established that not only could the passport have been ejected from a similar suitcase to the ones described by Morbito, around or close to the WTC plaza, but as such it could have been seen and picked up by a person leaving one of the towers, then handed to the NYC Police detective soon afterwards at a nearby location. I don't know how many yards it is from WTC 1 to Albany St, for example, but just for the sake of argument if the person picked the passport up it was within easy and short walking distance if indeed it was walked over to West and Albany.

There's no reason I can come up with that all the above couldn't have happened naturally without any further need for a conspiracy to 'plant' the passport.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I've found what I think are some more relevant pieces of info regarding Suqami, his passport, and the other passports and general items recovered at the WTC and other crash sites.

Reading thru Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission Report I can find no mention that Suqami used the passport to check in, and in fact it appears that the hijackers had enough State ID or DL's to get onboard, and may have kept their passports in checked luggage, or perhaps valises if they had any. The valises might have been carried onboard with them.

Firefighter John Moribito reported that, upon arriving at 1 WTC after flight 11 had impacted
There's no question that suitcases, valises and airline tickets had to come from flight 11. He's describing the courtyard between 1 WTC and 2 WTC, btw.

In that case, it is a fact that luggage fell directly next to the towers, and naturally that luggage would probably split open after such impacts and long falls to the ground, spilling contents hither and thither. This can explain how a single passport could avoid damage, just like other items kept in the suitcases etc..
We already know that Atta's luggage arrived too late to be loaded onto the jet, and other hijacker luggage at Logan contained a passport as well. So the precedent for all these things is there if you look carefully.

Therefore I think it can be established that not only could the passport have been ejected from a similar suitcase to the ones described by Morbito, around or close to the WTC plaza, but as such it could have been seen and picked up by a person leaving one of the towers, then handed to the NYC Police detective soon afterwards at a nearby location. I don't know how many yards it is from WTC 1 to Albany St, for example, but just for the sake of argument if the person picked the passport up it was within easy and short walking distance if indeed it was walked over to West and Albany.

There's no reason I can come up with that all the above couldn't have happened naturally without any further need for a conspiracy to 'plant' the passport.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
If what you posted is correct . . . IMO . . . it makes me even more suspicious . . . a person picking up one passport in all that mess had to realize its importance and would have known it was important to identify himself to authorities and indicated where it was retrieved . . . in not doing so raises more questions than it answers . . .
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I don't know how many yards it is from WTC 1 to Albany St, for example, but just for the sake of argument if the person picked the passport up it was within easy and short walking distance if indeed it was walked over to West and Albany.
255 metres, according to Google maps.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
. . a person picking up one passport in all that mess had to realize its importance and would have known it was important to identify himself to authorities and indicated where it was retrieved . . . in not doing so raises more questions than it answers . . .
A baseless assertion based on your opinion of 'what people should do'. Why should he have known it was important to give his identity? Couldn't he just hand it in and feel good about doing a small bit to help? Given the urgency of the situation he's already dealt with the most important bit, handing it in - sticking around to give his identity so it wouldn't be a discussion point 13 years later would have been way beyond his concerns at the time.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
If what you posted is correct . . . IMO . . . it makes me even more suspicious . . . a person picking up one passport in all that mess had to realize its importance and would have known it was important to identify himself to authorities and indicated where it was retrieved . . . in not doing so raises more questions than it answers . . .
I don't think you can make any determination about the guy's motivations, since you have no info about him to speak of. I'm simply taking the facts we have and trying to determine if it was reasonable to expect luggage contents to be in the vicinity as people exited the towers etc.. and crossed the plazas.

I believe that at the first plane crash it was not generally understood that a terrorist attack was underway, so your premise of nefarious motivation really comes from nowhere. It's more likely the chap recognized a passport (they're not hard to identify) and probably didn't think at all about who's it was, or what the significance might be 12 years later on an internet forum. :)
I doubt most of those people in the towers had a clue why the jet had crashed there at that moment.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
If he didn't think it important why pick it up when
Good samaritan picks up wallet so it can be passed on to the loved ones of the wallet's owner.

there were obviously from the description other items and of course fleeing the area would have been the first imperative for most people . . .
How do you know the guy didn't give the wallet to the cop as he was on his way out of the area?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't think you can make any determination about the guy's motivations, since you have no info about him to speak of. I'm simply taking the facts we have and trying to determine if it was reasonable to expect luggage contents to be in the vicinity as people exited the towers etc.. and crossed the plazas.

I believe that at the first plane crash it was not generally understood that a terrorist attack was underway, so your premise of nefarious motivation really comes from nowhere. It's more likely the chap recognized a passport (they're not hard to identify) and probably didn't think at all about who's it was, or what the significance might be 12 years later on an internet forum. :)
I doubt most of those people in the towers had a clue why the jet had crashed there at that moment.
So you contend he was unaware luggage and debris was not unusual in the plaza . . . so he picked up only this document . . . Hmmmmm . . . he thought it important enough to give to a NYPD officer but not enough to indicate he got it in the plaza or ID himself . . . ?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A baseless assertion based on your opinion of 'what people should do'. Why should he have known it was important to give his identity? Couldn't he just hand it in and feel good about doing a small bit to help? Given the urgency of the situation he's already dealt with the most important bit, handing it in - sticking around to give his identity so it wouldn't be a discussion point 13 years later would have been way beyond his concerns at the time.
IMO . . . your opinion is no better or worse than mine . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Good samaritan picks up wallet so it can be passed on to the loved ones of the wallet's owner.



How do you know the guy didn't give the wallet to the cop as he was on his way out of the area?
Good Samaritans also go to the next logical step to tell where the passport was found . . .
 

Bmead

Member
GREAT work, and so long as the passport is confirmed never to have been soaked in fuel, so long as the place where the suitcases were, was not empty and cordoned off too long before the passport is handed in, then you have a good case and the cop was clearly a cop, that makes a good case. Butt if those items fail, then so does that idea. Not to mention, that there is a chance they were from the rear where more cases would survive and be able to bust through already made holes. But i will be focussing on just the first points.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
GREAT work, and so long as the passport is confirmed never to have been soaked in fuel, so long as the place where the suitcases were, was not empty and cordoned off too long before the passport is handed in, then you have a good case and the cop was clearly a cop, that makes a good case. Butt if those items fail, then so does that idea. Not to mention, that there is a chance they were from the rear where more cases would survive and be able to bust through already made holes. But i will be focussing on just the first points.
Bmead, it should be noted that we are on the twelfth page of this thread. Historically these later pages don't get much outside traffic. If you have something monumental (with evidence) maybe you should start a new thread.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then why bring it up when we are trying to see what *can* be justifiably asserted or verified?
So you are indicating that your opinion in the story presented by Alienentity about the actions of the man in question is not an opinion but mine is ????
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How do you know? Do they always? Can you think of a situation where one wouldn't? Could he have been leaving the area when he gave it to the cop?
Sure all those . . . but do I think it is just as reasonable or even more reasonable to communicate where something was found . . . especially if it may have taken some risk in retrieving . . .
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Wtf? I was countering your baseless opinion on what this man *should* have done and why it was 'oh so suspicious' by saying he wouldn't have been at all concerned with your opinion of him not giving his identity, just getting out of there. Is that far-fetched?
If you didn't keep giving your *opinion* that gets us nowhere then others wouldn't have to give reasonable counter-opinions to your opinions.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
especially if it may have taken some risk in retrieving . . .
How do you know he took a risk in retrieving it? How do you know it didn't drop at his feet? How do you know it wasn't just sitting there on the ground as he left his office building or his mistresses condo?
 
Top