The Satam al Suqami Passport

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff 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.
That's fine . . . I am through with the issue . . . Nothing can really be proved or disproved about the lack of evidence . . . unless this man comes forward no one will probably know . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
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?
I was referring to the image of the environment Alienentity described above . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As a moderator of this forum, I would think you should know the value of opinion and speculation.
I am aware . . . but sounds to me much on this Thread from both sides has been speculation and opinion. . . so either allow it or lock the Thread . . . Mick is much more objective . . . I have been too involved . . . I recuse myself and will not participate further . . .
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I am aware . . . but sounds to me much on this Thread from both sides has been speculation and opinion. . .
As a moderator you decided that adding your opinion and speculation to the mix was the right thing to do. After two pages of further derailing an already messed up thread with your opinion and speculation, you now decide to 'recuse' yourself. Perhaps you should have attempted to steer the thread according to the posting guidelines instead of offering your opinions.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As a moderator you decided that adding your opinion and speculation to the mix was the right thing to do. After two pages of further derailing an already messed up thread with your opinion and speculation, you now decide to 'recuse' yourself. Perhaps you should have attempted to steer the thread according to the posting guidelines instead of offering your opinions.
If you wish to continue this discussion with me please start a private discussion and I will join in . . ,
 

Alienentity

Active Member
The only thing that can be proved is that the passport was turned in and the conditions under which it was found and returned are explained without the necessity of a further conspiracy.

As to the returning question of the jet fuel, Firefighter Moribito reported seeing several people either on fire or burned. Burned = fireball = jet fuel so if the luggage was in the presence of burned people then it was in the vicinity of fuel or the fireballs. It's not difficult to understand:

These were people who were in the lobby of WTC 1, not on flight 11. They were burned by fireballs which traveled down the elevator shafts along with fuel. There are numerous reports of the smell of kerosine. If you insist I can quote them for you. But it's on record. Smell of kerosine, burns, all are hard evidence that jet fuel was in the area burned and unburned.
To imagine that some of the luggage was not either burned, doused in fuel or carrying the smell of fuel is ludicrous. The condition of the passport is consistent with these reported environments at the time immediately following the crash of flight 11.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Further testimony about jet fuel at the lobby level of WTC 1 - And why it is not unexpected that an object found in the general area of the rest of the debris might smell of kerosine.
There was a lot of kerosine at the lobby level of WTC 1.

 

Bmead

Member
Now I can see, and obviously smell, the jet fuel that had come down the elevator shaft and that was all over the floor." (Smith, Dennis. Report From Ground Zero.

Reported a provable lie then-
Some of the fuel could have made it into the core, despite the flames but then if you see the way the floors are constructed it is NOT a direct hollow tube to the lobby and the elevators are not able to flow tons of fuel out, so if fuel fell into the core it would flood the cores into one elevator and then come to the floor and spread and have to work through the elevators and remain unignited until the bottom, and then ignite.

The very idea of seeing pools of fuel is irreconcilable with

Lauren Manning: Building one. And as I walked into the building, the plane had hit -- I imagine as I was getting out of the cab -- and the fuel just poured down.
I walked into the lobby. As I was turning toward the elevator banks, the fireball exploded out and caught me from behind, and literally pushed me toward the doors as I was running, and...

They can't BOTH be true.

And besides which the fuel will have mostly soaked into items and evaporated as well as, having ignited.


These two statements do not concur and should not be used together


They sound good, but it is a shock how many people said JET fuel, they may know it was a plane but seeing as most had no idea the size, they would likely have said, fuel. But it is irrelevant because the quantities of fuel that entered the core could have been the entire 10,000 gallons and by the construction of the core most won't have reached the bottom.

And, if all this fuel did, then why was the fires burning mainly UPWARDS of the impact?
You can argue the jet fuel burnt itself out, but then that means that the jet fuel on the top floors would be burnt out equally fast.
 

Bmead

Member
Jet fuel is strange in this instance, it lays in a burning building in pools and doesn't burn?

anyway my purpose here was [Broken External Image]:http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...t=gm.10152107038310250&type=1&theater

This shows that there was a police presence in the area early and persistently, that firetrucks which remained unmoved, covered a lot of debris, and if anyone walked up West Street, they would pass plenty cops. So is it realistic to assume they held on to the passport for a specific cop? Or that they came from a different way?
No doubt you will say, they came round the other way. Well fine, but then that is the plaza, which was emptied after the main evacuation. Where there were plenty cops until the plaza was deserted. So this passport finder just took a stroll round NY with the passport before handing it in?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
So is it realistic to assume they held on to the passport for a specific cop?
Maybe the guy held on to the passport because he was overwhelmed by unfolding events. Maybe the guy held on to the passport because at the time the cops were too busy dealing with other things. Maybe there are a multitude of reasons that I just can't think of right now. Maybe.


No doubt you will say, they came round the other way
Seriously Bmead, read the posting guidelines. Please stop this endless speculation.

We don't know where the passport was found. Do you have any evidence the passport was planted?
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
What is the point of this post? What does this have to do with the passport?
Because the 'impossible passport' theory is built on the report of it being 'soaked' in fuel, and bmead's analysis assumes that if it really was on the plane it can *only* have been exposed to jet fuel at the moment of tank rupture on impact, so alienentity posted other sources of possible exposure, which is why bmead feels it necessary to refute those reports.
I think.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I guess that our doubter never saw the experiment where a fireman lit a match and quenched it in a container of gasoline. It is the vapor that is flammable, not the liquid itself.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
Reported a provable lie then-...
No it's not a 'provable lie'. It might be if you had photographic or video evidence of the moment being referred to, or access to a time machine. All you have is speculation based on your rationalisation of the situation.
 

Bmead

Member
What is the point of this post? What does this have to do with the passport?
Alien is trying to assert there was gallons of fuel soaking everything whilst talking of flames everywhere, ironically the bagged passport soaked up fuel that pooled round but dodged any flame above AND below, Lucky bit of fuel that was, how did one "see" fuel, and know it was ? Do you know how many gallons will soak into a pavement, there'll be no pools outside the towers nor in the lobby
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So the folks that were there and that reported pools of fuel are lying? There can be flames in one area and pools of fuel in another, at least until there is enough vapor for it to ignite.
 

Bmead

Member
No it's not a 'provable lie'. It might be if you had photographic or video evidence of the moment being referred to, or access to a time machine. All you have is speculation based on your rationalisation of the situation.
Ok let me hear YOUR rationalisation.
t I know as do you, that the elevators hadtops and bottoms, and that only the express went all the way the rest you had to get off and change,http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc2.htm

So only ONE elevator can let fuel down it, the rest require fuel to soak through the floor, something that even Harry Potter hasn't a spell for.
So, with the fuel pouring into one shaft, if it hit's the bottom it needs to flow out of the doors and congregate into a large pool, although we are hearing of "pools" so it needs to jump apart from the main pool, THEN it needs ignition, the lobby windows cannot be blown out by no pressure so presumably you concur ignition is required, so eventually after it waits for fuel to drop down over 1000ft and through the elevator avoiding actually going with gravity to the base ( i have done elevator work, the base is BELOW the lowest level fyi) So it flows around the elevator and avoiding gravity out of the closed doors, then along the lobby and avoids the ignited fuel that we assert blew the lobby windows out, then lays there?

Sorry but that is ridiculous and idiotic, if fuel went down the shafts it would fall to the bottom of the shaft the ONLY shaft it could, and if ignited, it would ignite the VAPOURS. Which, arise from the LIQUID form.

Leaving ZERO pools of jet fuel at the bottom. And after the fire there would be no kerosene smell there would be a smell of charring and scorching.
But hey i am talking of the ACTUAL construction, the ACTUAL way fuel ignites in close proximity to flame, and the ACTUAL way that fuel doesn't soak through concrete, and the ACTUAL way that it doesn't defy gravity.

Argue please but prove the argument
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Because the 'impossible passport' theory is built on the report of it being 'soaked' in fuel, and bmead's analysis assumes that if it really was on the plane it can *only* have been exposed to jet fuel at the moment of tank rupture on impact, so alienentity posted other sources of possible exposure, which is why bmead feels it necessary to refute those reports.
I think.
That's right. I think there are estimates as to the amount of fuel that went up in the large fireballs high up the tower, and what was lost outside the tower before the ignition of some of the fuel.

I don't think anybody should make the claim that there was no unburnt fuel, as we can observe the Naudet video a large amount of somewhat fine material (maybe a mixture of concrete, gypsum dust, fuel and who knows what else) dropping well below the fireball. I think it would be prudent to assume there was some kerosine in that shower of debris which included suitcases, valises and airline tickets as described by Moribito.

That probably would have transferred some odour to items, even if they weren't burned, just by proximity. It cannot be eliminated as a likely source for the reported smell.

Ironically if the passport had been charred, such as the one found in Shanksville, conspiracy theorists would still cry that it was planted, but they'd use different rationales. We're not going to stop them from insisting on conspiracy everywhere (it just doesn't end, does it?), but at least we can inject some basic facts into the discussion. That is why I thought it relevant to show clear evidence of kerosine at the lobby level, reported by many people.
If conspiracy theorists want to call them all liars, let them. I don't think that gets the conspiracy argument anywhere, frankly.
 

Bmead

Member
So the folks that were there and that reported pools of fuel are lying? There can be flames in one area and pools of fuel in another, at least until there is enough vapor for it to ignite.
Well let me ask this, are ALL of them telling the truth. You see you are in a quandary that i am not.
You cannot assert they all speak the truth, take the witness who smelled cordite at the Pentagon, take the witnesses at the Tower who said they heard explosions and knew because they used to deal in demolitions,were ex army etc, take the guy on Fl 93 who said (from the toilet) that there was smoke in the plane and had been an explosion

Take the firemen who cited Molten steel.

Now i have two explanations, one is, people can often be led to think they smelt what they didn't saw what they didn't (this has been proven in psychology tests)
And we know in multiple wtc footage there were people telling people that the towers fell because of....the impact severed columns and fire weakened the supports and made collapse inevitable. Pre conditioning i call that, especially as there was no reason to NOT suspect a bomb also, especially due to bombs elsewhere that day, it being also, a/q and other terrorist practice to use them. But just magically, they say the very words a Multi Million dollar investigation will say.
The other is people can be mistaken and confused

You however cannot allow all to tell the truth or you put yourself in a position of contradiction.

The facts are that physically it is NOT possible for there to be pools of jet fuel in the lobby or outside, outside because it would evaporate, be caught in the fireball, and splashing any residue to the floor would require thousands of gallons to slop onto the ground to create pools of it. Gallons of which are in NO footage, gallons of which are NOT widely reported by anyone. I think these people are misled or mistaken.

And, for the reason the fuel is mentioned, this assumes that the passport in a bag is laying face down in a puddle and comes out the bag later, or is face up and soaked in fuel or fell out its bag and got splattered by a huge ton of fuel. Which is great, but then it definitely WAS soaked, and a fact is, it would cause bleeding of the stamps, which it did not do so it was NOT soaked was it, just listed as
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is all vastly irrelevant. There were both puddles and a huge cloud of incompletely combusted fuel, and zero quantification of "soaked".
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Besides, we know for a fact, not just through speculation, that the plane hit the tower, that it carried jet fuel in the thousands of gallons, that certain hijackers were onboard etc..
So if a passport was found below (amongst many other items from the jet) and it smelled of jet fuel this cannot be surprising.

It is only through some truly terrifying twists of logic and denial of evidence that conspiracists arrive at the conclusion that the passport COULDN"T have dropped and been found that way.

But of course the burden of proof is on them to show that it was planted. Which of course they cannot do. The facts say otherwise and we can be very confident of this.
 

Bmead

Member
That's right. I think there are estimates as to the amount of fuel that went up in the large fireballs high up the tower, and what was lost outside the tower before the ignition of some of the fuel.

I don't think anybody should make the claim that there was no unburnt fuel, as we can observe the Naudet video a large amount of somewhat fine material (maybe a mixture of concrete, gypsum dust, fuel and who knows what else) dropping well below the fireball. I think it would be prudent to assume there was some kerosine in that shower of debris which included suitcases, valises and airline tickets as described by Moribito.

That probably would have transferred some odour to items, even if they weren't burned, just by proximity. It cannot be eliminated as a likely source for the reported smell.

Ironically if the passport had been charred, such as the one found in Shanksville, conspiracy theorists would still cry that it was planted, but they'd use different rationales. We're not going to stop them from insisting on conspiracy everywhere (it just doesn't end, does it?), but at least we can inject some basic facts into the discussion. That is why I thought it relevant to show clear evidence of kerosine at the lobby level, reported by many people.
If conspiracy theorists want to call them all liars, let them. I don't think that gets the conspiracy argument anywhere, frankly.

Well the amount i would like to know, i think it is a seperate issue but we know they know, whilst speaking to Ong an operator was taking a check on the endurance, ie fuel load/distance travelled/consumption over speed also they have info on what the plane was filled with. None of those details have ever been released

The only way to know best as possible is, Know the fuel consumption at a minimum of the plane, then the total distance covered and the total amount that could be left from a maximum fuel load. Hardly a perfect example but as close as can be without the documents that have no reason to be hidden but are.
 

Bmead

Member
This is all vastly irrelevant. There were both puddles and a huge cloud of incompletely combusted fuel, and zero quantification of "soaked".
Well i intend to get that info subject to the fbi etc being willing to provide it. But i disagree with ANY puddles at the ground level. I see no physical way it can occur, as i said, i have worked on elevators, i know if i ran a hose continuously for six hours, it would for most of them STILL not make it overflow outside the elevator doors, there is a base UNDER elevators the bottom is NOT at the point where one steps out, so at best the fuel can fall in hundreds of gallons onto the lift roof and then flow a little out but as soon as any flame comes near that lift, the whole lot is going up.
You can claim no fire in the elevator but then you need to explain the lobby damage, but you can't have liquid defy gravity or change direction to appear yards from the lift doors by trickling through millimetric gaps. And as for outside, well go get a gallon of fuel go to the top of your house and fling it out a window and see how many "pools" land on the floor, you will find zero pools and a lot of damp spots
 

Bmead

Member
Besides, we know for a fact, not just through speculation, that the plane hit the tower, that it carried jet fuel in the thousands of gallons, that certain hijackers were onboard etc..
So if a passport was found below (amongst many other items from the jet) and it smelled of jet fuel this cannot be surprising.

It is only through some truly terrifying twists of logic and denial of evidence that conspiracists arrive at the conclusion that the passport COULDN"T have dropped and been found that way.

But of course the burden of proof is on them to show that it was planted. Which of course they cannot do. The facts say otherwise and we can be very confident of this.
Actually, IT IS NOT TWISTS of logic, i am going step by step, and it is TWISTS of the data and simulations that come from your side. I have not yet denied the passport can drop, i have denied that in certain places it cannot drop and be undamaged. And, in other places it cannot be soaked in fuel.


There's tons of footage find some then that shows one pool of fuel.
You won't see any anywhere
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You deny the eyewitnesses that don't fit your 'story' and cling to those that give you grounds for it.

You twist logic and the FACTS to fit your belief,
 

Bmead

Member
You deny the eyewitnesses that don't fit your 'story' and cling to those that give you grounds for it.

You twist logic and the FACTS to fit your belief,
Nope, lets straighten it with simple points and actually ANSWER them

Do you claim that fuel can defy gravity and seep through the gaps of the ONE elevator that goes all the way up to the lobby
Do you claim ALL witnesses are truthful

Beware 1) I have PROVED the floor/elevator layout and will further seek details of where the entrance to the express elevator was but it is FACT that the fuel needed to TOTALLY fill under the elevator to leak out, if some fuel ignited anything with a connecting line of fuel WILL ignite, ergo it is FACT to NOT ignite, the fuel MUST be in a separate pool totally UNCONNECTED to the fuel that ignites

2) If you claim NO witness can lie or be wrong then 93 WAS downed by a bomb or a missile
There WAS a bomb at the Pentagon, there WAS explosions at the wtc site, there WAS molten metal

So That is simple basic undeniable FACT, well actually you can deny it but it IS fact and i challenge you to put cold hard proof of the opposite because i can PROVE no liquid defies gravity. And, if you claim witnesses can lie or be wrong you just contradict the validity of your own witness.

Answers please?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You have NOT PROVED anything. You are calling many eyewitnesses to that day of horror liars just to support your beliefs.
 

Bmead

Member
Do you say fluid defies gravity, do you say that the fuel gathered pressure to spray out the gaps in the elevator intoo the lobby, do YOU say ALL eyewitnesses said nothing but truth, stop dodging and answer
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There is no reason to, since you ignore anything that doesn't fit your conspiracy belief.

You have your 'facts' and you refuse to accept any others. By the way, you can't order me to do anything.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
So the folks that were there and that reported pools of fuel are lying? There can be flames in one area and pools of fuel in another, at least until there is enough vapor for it to ignite.
With all due respect, this is what I mentioned in another thread about what goes on here.
I see people posting eyewitness accounts about there being fuel in the lobby, but there's no visual evidence to back it up. But , I know it's off topic, people discount all the eyewitness accounts of explosions or eyewitness accounts of molten steel that we've been over numerous times. (I know, save it for the proper thread.)
Why should we believe eyewitness accounts of jet fuel but not explosions or molten steel? This is what I was referring to about people picking and choosing which eyewitnesses to take into account, 'only take into account those that match the official narrative.'
It boggles the mind.

You deny the eyewitnesses that don't fit your 'story' and cling to those that give you grounds for it.
Again, molten steel and explosions? You're doing the same thing, picking eyewitnesses that support your view of what happened.

I hate to drift off topic but I'd say maybe these eyewitness accounts mean nil.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why should we believe eyewitness accounts of jet fuel but not explosions or molten steel?
Very briefly, because there are more reasonable alternate explanation for the reports of explosions and "molten" metal. There are not reasonable explanations for why people would smell kerosene, other than it being jet fuel from the plane. The presence of jet fuel fits the observed events (plane half full of jet fuel hits a building).

Anyway the key point here is that it is not at all unreasonable to expect the passport to smell of kerosene. And given the way people use words, it's not at all unreasonable for someone to describe that as "soaked" in kerosene - even though it quite obviously was not literally "soaked".

The presence of pools of kerosene on the ground is not entirely unexpected - but irrelevant to the passport issue.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Ok let me hear YOUR rationalisation....
I don't particularly feel the urge to, as I'm much less motivated on this subject than you. I'm just content to point out when you're making an unfounded assertion ie, that you've proven a lie. If you would like to do a more thorough job, then maybe I'll agree.
I don't get much more sophisticated in my speculation on this than 'the liquid was high up, then fell down, and people noticed it'.
*Maybe* there was just an incredibly strong *smell* of fuel, and puddles of water were mistaken for it, but I see no reason to question the possibility of actual fuel being there.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
The subject of elevator shafts has been well studied and there were a number of avenues for fireballs to reach the sub-basement levels, mainly the shafts for the #6 and #7 elevators but also from the Skylobby to the lobby. Several elevators crashed at ground level (FDNY and EMT reports) which would leave the shafts open for jet fuel to make its way into.

Source:
Here is the factual information presented in clear English for you:
Any engineer can confirm the basic information, it's not difficult to corroborate with eyewitness testimony.

But more important there was opportunity, whether right at impact or afterwards, for fuel and luggage to come into direct contact, burning or not. Who knows if a suitcase was flung open by centrifugal force whilst in a cloud of jet fuel and the passport along with the rest of the contents was exposed then?
It doesn't require a great deal of imagination to see how these conditions would allow for this to happen, what with a jet travelling at 400+ knots.

In any case, you can't prove a negative, that's a logical fallacy. Nobody can say that this cannot have happened. In fact this is what appears to have happened.

Conversely we can't say for certain that the passport wasn't fake and planted at the scene, or that other plane parts weren't planted there. It's just that there's no evidence to support that idea, and as Mick mentioned there were ample conditions for the observed debris and the passport's discovery by the plane crash alone. No additional secret conspiracy was needed for this outcome.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Or perhaps if they planted the passport then maybe the pools of fuel were planted as well.

I'm just joking, let's not go there.
Let's keep it simple and go with either they're lying/mistaken, or you just don't want to believe it because it provides a mundane (in relative terms) source of 'soaking' compared to the dance you are forcing the passport through if it was to arrive there of its own accord.

Your attempt to map the chaos of this one aspect of the event in order to definitively exclude possible variations is a losing battle I think. Quixotically ambitious.
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
I have not yet denied the passport can drop, i have denied that in certain places it cannot drop and be undamaged. And, in other places it cannot be soaked in fuel.
You agree then, that the passport could have dropped and that it could have come into contact with fuel. So far, you have made a pretty good fist of debunking this conspiracy theory. Now you just need to conclude that it could have been picked up and it could have been handed to a cop, and BINGO! Job done.

(It's notable that the quasi mathematical/scientific approach you started out with has evaporated..........

so at best the fuel can fall in hundreds of gallons onto the lift roof and then flow a little out
A little? How much is a little? How much do you need to infuse the aroma into something the size of a passport?)



Either way, there is no reason for a conspiracy theory here at all. It's as weak as the Sandy Hook "Nuns In Sensible Shoes" nonsense.
 

Bmead

Member
Sorry this is long but i cannot make it shorter

Right to answer several points

1) Yes i have said COULD-Ergo Bingo! Except, the passport is a remarkable item, one can dispute this but even debunkers can only lie to themselves if they say otherwise, the overwhelming majority of people agree that it is a piece of luck that not only it survived but was found and handed in, and, that it was in such condition, and, that it was a hijackers. THAT is the reason i began looking in the first place because, as a conspiracy theorist i felt it was suspicious. I cannot disagree that as one who does not believe official version, i AM more likely to see what is "ordinary" as suspicious, ESPECIALLY when it is something remarkably lucky/coincidental. To combat this i took an approach that meant i HAD to see what was and was not possible, despite what you say, i have within the limits of the analysis done so far, ruled out certain places the passport could be and couldn't be. No magic just sense and analysis of impact, use of natural laws of momentum and force. So i have never said yet, physical impossible for that passport to be there. I have asserted certain placings make it impossible to be undamaged/or present at all. I have steadfastly continued investigating freely admitting errors i made, and, being willing to "lose" my claim.

2) Mick, you say there was "reasonable" point to smell kerosene, actually this is not totally correct. The correct wording would be for most people to have said "i smelled petrol/gasoline" the reason being that A. Most people had no idea it was a large jet, so would not have said jet fuel, B. Most people cannot define the difference between petrol/diesel/jet fuel/kerosene/crude oil/lighter fluid by smell, the chemicals are quite similar and people tend to a explanation closest to what they know ergo the likelihood is actually that they would say, i can/could smell gasoline/fuel, but NOT Jet-fuel, or, kerosene. Then, secondly, there is the fact that these interviews were conducted later, once people had been told what happened, had heard more details, and begun to be exposed to the official story which, exposure is psychologically proven to alter peoples choices, familiarity and comfort with a story can make people say they saw/heard/smelled things they did not if you want the psychologists who have studied these effects i will provide them. Truly, if there was pools of fuel in the lobby or outside, this would be in FDNY reports and Police reports, and HUNDREDS of evacuees recollections. But in actuality, this presenting a fire hazard would be instructed to be eradicated immediately-If you challenge this, ask FDNY if they would not attempt to mop fuel away from a place or lay sawdust-it presents a risk-in the Naudet full footage NO attempt is made, there is NO report of clearing large pools of fuel.
And Let us not forget, that this answer "reasonable" applies IF, thre are pools of fuel, ergo then the smell of cordite,hearing bombs, explosion and smoke on FL93 applies IF they are true. So, once again, if ONE witness is mistaken or lied due to unconsciously having false memory bred by reported events prior to their recorded recollection, then others can be, if NOT, then you CANNOT accuse one person of being mistaken and not another. That then would be YOU selecting your witnesses as liars/mistaken based on YOUR choice of the event.

And let us examine the fuel in the lobby properly.
There is only ONE lift that the fuel could go all the way down to the lobby, the others, whether some fell down the shafts or not, if any liquid fell down, would fill up (again there is in EVERY lift, a space UNDER the lift car, below the actual level of it's lowest stop) then have to spread across another floor and into another lift and down and repeat this to the lobby area.
Now assume even the entire 10,000 gallons drops down the express. There is a very fine gap between any elevator and the floor it is on and ALL floors have a door to the elevator no matter where the lift car actually is. No pressure is added to the falling fuel so let us assume the lift is at the bottom and doors open, the fuel HAS to fall onto the lift, and then, flow down its sides, then, it HAS to fill any gap below the lift before it can rise above the level of the floor of the lift car-My PROOF is ....GRAVITY. Some of the fuel can flow around the sides, but there is NO pressure to make the fuel spray around the sides of the lift it can at best, pour out and form a large pool near the lift door and spread. The fuel has Now waited to have the drop and spread before ignition, but, since other testimony (much MORE) Than fuel spotters, says there was fire down the shaft, then that fuel HAS to ignite. There existed NO force to pressurise the fuel to shoot out the lift into seperate pools, so any fire ignites ALL the fuel ergo there is ZERO in the lobby

As for outside, aside from NO footage of any, NO claims of pools of it, the fuel has to accelerate PAST the fire and slop out the other side of the tower to avoid ignition in the fireball, OR after the fireball has passed, rise up off the floor(defying gravity) and slop out the building


There is not a way to create a large pool of fuel that remains after the fires in the lift shaft, nor, is there sufficient to fill the elevator shaft the floors, the lobby, outside and the fireball.

The importance here is, the fuel soaked - Talk to FBI idiots who cannot define SMELL over soaked, although after being handled by discoverer, cop,jttf and fbi, it should not smell much should it.

You are creating pools to allow the passport to be soaked. The construction of the shafts, the way liquids work, preventing large separate pools, the way fire works, the way FDNY works, the way witness testimony works ALL combine to PROVE there were NO pools of fuel in the lobby. OR outside

Find more than a couple of quotes, show me the gaps the fuel flowed through, show me how it separated into separate pools, show me the claim in NIST/FEMA of separate large pools show me a model just a picture even with a blue line representing fuel, and how it pressurised to spray out, and how the fuel up top missed the fireballs. I am correct here.

But, if you claim your witnesses exceed all the above. Then damn sure any other witness knows what THEY saw/heard/smelled ergo we have proof of bombs and molten metal and missiles
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Bmead, post: 82137, member: 2454"]

The passport is a remarkable item, one can dispute this but even debunkers can only lie to themselves if they say otherwise, the overwhelming majority of people agree that it is a piece of luck that not only it survived but was found and handed in, and, that it was in such condition, and, that it was a hijackers.
Do you not think that your "overwhelming majority of people" might actually be confined to those who trawl and contribute to conspiracy theorist websites? Or do you have some way of quantifying that which you claim to be an overwhelming majority? Is it not more likely that the overwhelming majority of people never give this subject a second thought?
We do not know how many items from the plane survived the impact. We do not know how many were found. We do not know what the condition of them was. We do not know if any were handed to someone in authority. It's possible the passport was one of many pieces that survived, and is therefore not unusual at all.


THAT is the reason i began looking in the first place because, as a conspiracy theorist i felt it was suspicious. I cannot disagree that as one who does not believe official version, i AM more likely to see what is "ordinary" as suspicious
It is easy to see the ordinary as suspicious if that is what you desire. Do you never consider that that those involved with your perceived conspiracy would reason that "planting" the passport would be so counter productive from their point of view as to be a ridiculous notion?

In my opinion the journey of the passport to the officer it ended up with can never be mapped because it could have been affected by so many variables along the way. Compare it to the JFK "magic bullet" if you like. We have bucket loads of info about it. Where it was fired from....When it was fired...It's trajectory...Speed...The gun that was used............... And yet, that debate rumbles on.
 
Top