The Satam al Suqami Passport

Absolutely.

And that is one of the reasons that this subject has remained unresolved. It could be argued that if the finder was legit, and had indeed found it to hand it in, then at some stage he would have said that.

But it could then also be argued that because he hasn't done that, that suggests that he was an 'agent' who 'pretended' to find it in order to re-inforce the message of 'arab terrorists' very early into the media, and publics mind.

That, linked to its pristine condition, and survivabilty after being central to a massive impact and fireball, helps to build the mystery that @Bmead is trying to unravel.

Or maybe he has a life and a job and being that he was at Ground Zero that day, he doesn't spend much time on message boards reading conspiracy theories about the WTC. Maybe he was traumatized and would like to not even think of it.
 
The majority of folks are not aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories or those surrounding chemtrails. Many may think that the government missed some clues, and that was not mentioned, but most folks saw the planes hit, saw the towers fall and they don't need to invent elaborate stories.
 
Absolutely.

And that is one of the reasons that this subject has remained unresolved. It could be argued that if the finder was legit, and had indeed found it to hand it in, then at some stage he would have said that.

But it could then also be argued that because he hasn't done that, that suggests that he was an 'agent' who 'pretended' to find it in order to re-inforce the message of 'arab terrorists' very early into the media, and publics mind.
Agent?!! The far more likely explanation is that the man who handed over the passport was an ordinary Joe who may not even be alive now (he may have died on the day) or he simply does not know that he's the centre of these discussions. Simply, the passport may have been found ANYWHERE in the building OR the locale at ANYTIME between the hit and the handover and by ANYONE. This cannot be solved by math. This is not an episode of "Numbrs".
 
Just to add to the earlier "other stuff came off too" i have looked at that and i so far have found 0 that talk of undamaged papers.

It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper.

It was apparently very blackened and kind of ripped up," Mrs. Gaillard said. "It was a red envelope, and it didn't look red.

The majority of undamaged items were actually wtc papers NOT items present on board the planes. The Michael Sheehan piece used earlier is not admissible on the following grounds No condition is mentioned and this guy presumably did not hand it in (unimportant evidence? But a passport is? There is not an argument that can be used for one and not the other,a passport feasibly could be anyones, the itinerary could id the plane and the people especially after the second plane hit.) This piece never turned up and any excuse can be made that the second plane hit etc etc, but he was if we believe, under falling debris, he says himself he stood in a pile of papers and debris, so a dangerous spot - All reasons to hand a passport in apply to an itinerary and there were plenty cops nearby at this stage.
But basically you cannot verify condition so it is realistic to expect the item be damaged.
Also, if the lighter piece of paper was right under the tower then it would be highly unlikely based on the fact that at the front people were moving constantly, there was limited debris there, so he moved around the tower staying at its base still with falling debris still? Sheehan who did not see the plane, did not know that it necessarily was a plane, a bomb is as likely an assumption and yet he had suspected a light air craft until he saw the itinerary.
But then the wind is visibly strong yet didn't blow that away and further on, therefore the passport could equally be very close to his spot

Anyway much of that is speculation which i am awaiting the very comment of to debunk it
Which thereby verifies my initial point that was if i cannot, neither may you, a comparison must be of like pieces. If you can source-pre collapse items from the plane and show pictures or even descriptions of them THAT counts as a comparison. Seeing as all that has been offered says burnt,charred,torn, and seeing as even other sites of planes crashing show similar, (and bare in mind a ground crash and building crash will release material differently) but even so, the majority do not come close to the clean, and undamaged condition and that's across aviation disaster history. As for the wtc impacts, as yet not ONE other item was found, handed in pre collapse and was in such condition.
Therefore the only conclusion that it is logical to extrapolate is the item should be significantly more damaged.
 
Therefore the only conclusion that it is logical to extrapolate is the item should be significantly more damaged.

I disagree - a conclusion that it COULD have been significantly more damaged, but there is not enough information about it to determine why it isn't is also a logical conclusion.
 
Agent?!! The far more likely explanation is that the man who handed over the passport was an ordinary Joe who may not even be alive now (he may have died on the day) or he simply does not know that he's the centre of these discussions. Simply, the passport may have been found ANYWHERE in the building OR the locale at ANYTIME between the hit and the handover and by ANYONE. This cannot be solved by math. This is not an episode of "Numbrs".
YES IT IS something solvable by maths.
I mentioned probabilities and was not allowed it. But probability as i said, is used in everything everyday. The probability of guilt in court is established based on evidence which can include psychological profiling. This is itself probabilities. When your team has a coin toss before the game, you have a 50/50 chance of winning it: either heads or tails, in one flip of the coin the probabilities are not 80/20 not unless the coin is weighted or the flip made stronger- If you are told you need surgery, you’ll want to know the success rate of the operation. Based upon the statistics, you can make an informed decision whether or not it’s a good choice for you. You might decide whether or not to begin a course of medication, based on other patients' positive outcomes or side effects.

Now i mentioned, the streets i have been viewing were empty of debris, i mentioned roped off areas,
The probability of someone being on those streets and finding something on an empty street is remotely smaller than being allowed on the street and having SOME debris. A vast amount of images exist and footage so it IS possible to cover much of the distance in and around the wtc. That can thereby say where the only options were for it to be.
As i said, it is narrowing to only vesey or albany as possibilities
Then we come again to probabilities- You say anywhere? How please tell me, is the probability the same for the passport to be in the basement, as it is to be in the street somewhere?
It is NOT therefore maths can eliminate options

Now also if it is found in a certain place, we come to a problem of why not hand it in. Because from specific areas there are many many cops and army and jttf so, why walk past the lot for a specific cop? Probabilities therefore suggest a very very low chance that he did so except if he intended to do so which i leave you to explain that chance and reason

It is said- why? the passport didn't need to be found to identify anyone we knew by xxxx and it was obvious because xxxx
Actually, what evidence have you ever seen of the complicity for Al qaeda?
None-Simply because it is 1-classified so any links cannot be revealed, and parts that have been are bits like-The passports showing clear signs of al qaeda fraudulent alteration (9/11 comm.) Or saying Bin Laden said xxxx on this tape conveniently left in a bombed out house undamaged, But YOU speak no Arabic do you?
So you see, explaining why the passport would be a plant is possible but not required
Mathematically determining a probable resting place IS entirely achievable, and i will and am doing so
 
I disagree - a conclusion that it COULD have been significantly more damaged, but there is not enough information about it to determine why it isn't is also a logical conclusion.
Well ok let us say it this way- based on the available evidence of recovered items from both, multiple aviation disasters, and, the wtc incident in which a lack of similarly conditioned items can be verified. There is more reason to assume it SHOULD have been more damaged

It is not impossible to be (at this stage,Subject to my attempts to clarify some aspects of it with certain bodies) in good condition by a remote but freak occurrence of being in the right place to be blown out at the right time.
 
...
Actually, what evidence have you ever seen of the complicity for Al qaeda?...

Just some...

This approach didn’t last for long, though. Soon after the initial denial, both bin Ladin and other Al Qaeda members have made many admissions that variously accept that Muslims were involved, that they were those named by the US, or that Al Qaeda were directly responsible.

7th October 2001: bin Ladin

In this statement he appears to be saying that the attacks were committed by Muslims, and threatens the possibility of more

When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States...

I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

October 9th, 2001: Suleiman Abu-Ghaith

Just in case that’s not enough, another Al Qaeda spokesman makes the threat explicit:

"He issued a chilling warning to the U.S., saying there would be no peace until it stops supporting Israel and ends blockades against Iraq.

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2001/10/09/alqaeda_warn011009.html


14th October: Suleiman Abu Ghaith

And the same message is repeated a few days later. Why would someone who knew nothing of, and disagreed with the attacks threaten more?

Finally, I address the US secretary of state, who cast doubt about my previous statement and downplayed what we said that there are thousands of Muslim youths who are eager to die and that the aircraft storm will not stop, God willing.

"Powell, and others in the US administration, know that if al-Qaeda organisation promises or threatens, it fulfils its promise or threat, God willing.

"Therefore, we tell him tomorrow is not far for he who waits for it. What will happen is what you are going to see and not what you hear.

"And the storms will not calm, especially the aircraft storm...

We also say and advise the Muslims in the United States and Britain, the children, and those who reject the unjust US policy not to travel by plane.

We also advise them not to live in high-rise buildings and towers...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/1598146.stm

27th December 2001, bin Ladin:

"Those who carried out the act (September 11) were not 19 Arab countries... they were 19 secondary school students..." He then went on to say how they should all become martyrs, ie: "Another, Muhammed Atta came from Egypt. We beseech God to accept them all as martyrs".
www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin_122701.pdf

February 2002, bin Ladin:

Now he appears to be accepting that the attacks were carried out by the Muslims named by America, but claims he did no more than "incite" them:

"What many leaders have said so far is that America has an indication only, and not a tangible proof. They describe those brave guys who took the battle to the heart of America and destroyed its most famous economic and military landmarks.

They did this, as we understand it, and this is something we have agitated for before, as a matter of self-defense, in defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites/things. If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists".
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/indexold.html

April 4th, 2002: al Qaeda statement

The first charge of the heroes of the New York and Washington attacks was obedience to all of their orders, an obedience that was established before their departure to the enemy's land, beginning with the hero Ahmad al-Ghamdi, may Allah almighty have mercy on him...

We have put forth this directive in order to deliver a new blow to America and to expose to the world the fallacy of the American propaganda which claims it has irrefutable evidence regarding the warriors (mujahideen) who carried out the operation. It claims it has twenty-four thousand threads leading to knowledge of the agents of the operation. But what appears to it as evidence is weaker than a spider's web, and the American case cannot rely upon it to indict the suspects, let alone convince the world with it. In this directive we say to America that hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered. Rather, some of the heroes were intent on leaving Islamic fingerprints on the operation. This is a new blow received by the American security agency that has looked here and there in confusion unlike anything ever seen before. On account of the hunt for a trace of the heroes who entered their country, noses have sniffed with honor and pride.

[there then follows a lengthy justification explaining why they claim the attacks were permissible under Islam]

These comments about the permissibility of the martyrdom operations in the attack of New York and Washington are taken from the book The Truth about the New Crusader War. Whoever wants further evidence and a detailed discussion of the matter should consult the entire book.
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol10/alqaeda.html

Why are al Qaeda writing about and naming a “hero” of 9/11 if they don’t know anything about it? Doesn’t the statement “hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered” indicate their involvement? Why are they bothering to justify the attacks (and write a book about them) if they had nothing to do with it?

No, this is clear acceptance of al Qaeda involvement. Read a detailed analysis of the statement here.

April 2002, Ahmed al-Haznawi:

"For the first time, one of the 19 suicide hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks has been shown explaining his motives, with the broadcast yesterday by an Arab television network of a videotape made last year by a man identified as a Saudi conspirator.
The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament".
www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,685127,00.html

September 10th, 2002: bin Ladin and others

"Two days before the anniversary of the September attacks and at a time the U.S. is using its war on terror to launch an attack against Iraq, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel on Monday, September 9, aired video-clips in which it says Osama bin Ladin claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the United States"...

Apart from Atta, bin Ladin named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”

Al-Jazeera showed photographs of Hamza al-Ghamdi (alias Julailib al-Ghamdi), Saeed al-Ghamdi (alias Mutaz al-Ghamdi), Wael al-Shehri (alias Abu Suleiman) and Ahmad Naami (Abu Hisham), whose names, like those cited by bin Ladin, figure on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of hijackers.

Al-Jazeera also aired footage of one of the hijackers saying in his “will” that he was trained by Laden.

“May God reward all those who trained me and made possible this glorious act, notably the fighter and mujahid (Islamic warrior) Osama bin Ladin, God protect him,” said Saudi kamikaze Abdul Aziz al-Omari.

Al-Omari, who according to the FBI was one of five hijackers who slammed an American Airlines Boeing 767 into the north tower of the World Trade Center, was shown wearing a grey robe with his shoulder-length hair turbaned in a keffiyeh (chequered headdress).

The September 11 attacks were “a message to all infidels and to America to leave the Arabian peninsula and stop supporting the cowardly Jews in Palestine,” he said.

“Let it be known that we can bring you and other enemies down,” Al-Omari said, addressing the United States.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2002-09/10/article02.shtml
Content from External Source
continues...http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html
 
Well ok let us say it this way- based on the available evidence of recovered items from both, multiple aviation disasters, and, the wtc incident in which a lack of similarly conditioned items can be verified. There is more reason to assume it SHOULD have been more damaged

No, there is not. There have been other essentially completely undamaged documents - that this is one of them is actually wholly unremarkable - only its importance sets makes it noteworthy in any way.

It is not impossible to be (at this stage,Subject to my attempts to clarify some aspects of it with certain bodies) in good condition by a remote but freak occurrence of being in the right place to be blown out at the right time.

there is no "freak chance" involved - if the initial conditions were such that it remained undamaged then that is the only possible result - physics does not roll dice.
 
Half of that is NOT proof. 1 praising and threatening more is NOT the same as admission, 2) Proof was there (according to the whitehouse) in days yet thus far never released. 3) The admissions were after denials 4) they were made in arabic and not translated by you in open public displays of the footage.
5)why write about a hero? because why write about any one,so all writers about hitler were nazis?
And the involvement is one thing but the total proofs are much later than the initial accusations. MUCH

But i am not denying involvement here only that the proofs are later and a hell of a lot less strong. (Links to A/Q must be made with extreme difficulty as this was not known at the time and only torture extractions got half the info, including KSM admitting to a bomb that destroyed a plane in November that NTSB determined was NOT a bomb.
No, there is not. There have been other essentially completely undamaged documents - that this is one of them is actually wholly unremarkable - only its importance sets makes it noteworthy in any way.
#
Then provide some?
Explain the discarded but infinitely more valuable itinerary?

there is no "freak chance" involved - if the initial conditions were such that it remained undamaged then that is the only possible result - physics does not roll dice.
Everything is chance, as time and again i try to say, and the potentials of possibilities would, even IF that was as you wish it to be, so low, that repeat the impact 100 times and 100 times it may come out just the once. Just because something happens does not make it a certainty. That is like saying, a horse wins a race and is now unable to lose.

That is the whole point of what i am doing, and the initial conditions were NOT right, which makes it unlikely else we wouldn't even been arguing it

As you speak again of other documents provide a few.
In the same condition from the same plane. Or from the other tower?
The fact that there is a limited number of items found pre collapse in such condition means it IS unlikely, whether it did escape because of the fact it was meant to thus it did, does not make the likely chance higher

So i say Very unlikely based on little substantiating evidence

You say, it did so it was ergo it is VERY likely

The comparative evidence makes its probability of exit small, its probability of being found small, its probability of undamaged small
This is in relation to the limited items from the plane, found, recovered and handed in pre collapse and even after collapse, and undamaged at that

Being later reported as found again, adds a small problem when it was already in the possession of the FBI. So we can say the media got it wrong, ergo this discredits the media in other aspects.

Now you can argue it anyway you like, but the odds make this a winning lottery ticket, not, as you would have it, a losing lottery ticket

You can if, and but and maybe for each part but where is the evidence, you say if it wasn't found here, or if the man found it here.

You suggest he found it anywhere in the tower or vicinity-then forget to explain why he held on to it past multiple officers of multiple agencies including PAPD, NYPD JTTF, as such where i am trying and steadily moving nearer a better answer, you are still throwing in ifs buts and maybes while denying me the use of any.
 
Mathematically determining a probable resting place IS entirely achievable, and i will and am doing so

No. Mathematically determining a POSSIBLE resting place is achievable. a similar result is achievable by pure guesswork.

You suggest he found it anywhere in the tower or vicinity-then forget to explain why he held on to it past multiple officers of multiple agencies including PAPD, NYPD JTTF, as such where i am trying and steadily moving nearer a better answer, you are still throwing in ifs buts and maybes while denying me the use of any.

He COULD have found it anywhere.
You forgot to explain how you know that he "held on to it past multiple officers of multiple agencies." He may have considered holding on to it until later or keeping it, and then changed his mind. Maybe he had other things in his head. Maybe he had acquired the document earlier and put it in his own pocket and it was now not uppermost in his thoughts. Was he frantically searching for someone? Was he disorientated in general? Had he suffered an injury that impaired his ability to reason?.........You are trying to evaluate the behaviour of someone you don't know, who was in a unique situation.

Unless you consider all of these "Ifs, buts and maybes" you cannot arrive at your "better answer". As far as this situation is concerned, however, there are only two answers....right and wrong, and a wrong answer is just that, whether you consider it to be slightly wrong or hideously so.
 
No. Mathematically determining a POSSIBLE resting place is achievable. a similar result is achievable by pure guesswork.



He COULD have found it anywhere.
You forgot to explain how you know that he "held on to it past multiple officers of multiple agencies." He may have considered holding on to it until later or keeping it, and then changed his mind. Maybe he had other things in his head. Maybe he had acquired the document earlier and put it in his own pocket and it was now not uppermost in his thoughts. Was he frantically searching for someone? Was he disorientated in general? Had he suffered an injury that impaired his ability to reason?.........You are trying to evaluate the behaviour of someone you don't know, who was in a unique situation.

Unless you consider all of these "Ifs, buts and maybes" you cannot arrive at your "better answer". As far as this situation is concerned, however, there are only two answers....right and wrong, and a wrong answer is just that, whether you consider it to be slightly wrong or hideously so.

I am considering ifs and buts, but once again we are at the maybe maybe maybe options. Mathematical determinations reduce the maximum possible locations. You say ANY where. I say, not in the basement,not under a fire truck, not in the lobby, and there is going to be way way harder a time explaining it being not just in those places but found there.
You say maybe he was disoriented, but then this presupposes he got out then got injured, then wandered about, then recovered and remembered. Had he been injured or disoriented would he wander around then suddenly remember and then run off?
The probability factors DO come into play.
What is my probability of winning the lottery? 175 million to 1 but to win the lowest prize, about 335 to 1. What we are seeing is that as i reduce, or try to reduce one factor the 175million to one option is the winner every time. The lack of other items of a similar condition, of a similar type, found, and, handed in. Suggest that the passport is less not more likely.
Even if it did happen as a natural freak occurrence,the probabilities are unchanged. If i win the lottery today, i don't have any change in my odds of winning again next week, they remain the same. So just because something DID happen does not make it less likely or more likely before or after it occurs.
So we have a low probability event happening, coming out of the building, which is preceded by the low probability of it being let free of wherever it was. This is again confirmable by low probability of happening by the fact that passports, loose and free and untarnished, are not the usual recovered items in aviation disasters. Often if they are, they are in bags, or pockets or retained among the crash site.
This low probability is added to by being undamaged, which is added to by being unignited despite its soaking in fuel
Here we have the higher odds of each occurrence being defended by ifs,buts and maybes which probability allows for. However as each occurs we are winning that jackpot every time. Now although playing the lottery every week ones chances of winning THAT lottery are the same as the previous week, the odds of winning more than one jackpot are separate odds and highly unlikely, but has been done in fact, indeed four times in a row once, with odds exceeding 4 billion to 1.
So we have this in the passport scenario-the wins just keep stacking.
Where was this itinerary? It was reported but i cannot find an agency or in the 9/11 commission, any reference to such document, suggesting it was not handed in. And unfortunately denying us the condition to appraise.
There is more to the passports luck than even its being found, which i am working on in my own private work currently. But in as much as we do know,
There were places where no one was, within minutes of the police arriving. You say he may have just realised to hand it in, however that then gives us the if and but of, IF he walked past other police, BUT only because he saw them he remembered.

I am far off finished but as i said, i am seeing clear evidence of empty streets, (of people and debris) Cordoned off streets, Crushed streets where a stop and pick up is nigh impossible, clear evidence that all bar a few photographers, were focussed upwards. The streets with debris were so filled that seeing a passport amongst the dirt and mess of the rest, was a monumental task, that debris was still flaming, and ash and dirt was everywhere (in the streets it actually was) meaning a good chance for dirt, fire, and damage to the passport,

So even whilst yes we see that until i can categorically disprove a location entirely- The probability is far higher for placement that lucky find

However, it is abundantly clear too that should i shut down one thing, and prove another, the response will not be, ah yes you're right, it will be "BUT IF.. "
And if i proved it couldn't even exit the building, the response would be "Maybe..."
I willingly will accept the possibilities, but still we hang on the passport being as good as new and found and handed in (despite other items not being) as the more likely
You base that, not independent of the entirety. Because you believe no conspiracy, there can be only one answer, but taken in isolation away from the incident it was part of, it would be an improbable occurrence.
 
As far as this situation is concerned, however, there are only two answers....right and wrong, and a wrong answer is just that .........

That is the crux of this issue of course.

But to state the obvious, that also boils down to two schools of thought.

#1 --Whether it was in fact handed in by an ordinary passer-by -- who did pick it up from the street -- after it had been involved in a plane crash.

#2 --Whether it was handed in by an 'agent' as part of a larger plan, and the P/P had not been on a plane that hit the WTC at all.

In the first case it doesnt matter a jot where it was picked up, what state of mind that guy was in, or how far he walked before taking the decision to hand it in. Its irelevent if that was the real chain of events. And until or unless he is traced, identified by the receiving officer, and explains the full sequence, then there is zero chance of proving anything by this incredible and futile investigation on where it could, or could not, have been located.

Equally, the second supposition is therefore unable to be proved or disproved until #1 is resolved.

This is a classic 'conspiracy theory' that will always be put forward. People fall in three groups over such irresolvable issues.

One group being unable to accept that their government would be involved in any way in 9/11 and therefore any suggestion of that has to be vigorously refuted. And are therefore able to ignore the obviously illogical issues over this P/P discovery and pile up alternative theories to explain its last moments.

Another group, have researched many instances in history where their government has been shown to be involved in false flag operations, see the illogical issues here, and add them to the large list of anomolies over 9/11 that have already been discussed. They add the pristine P/P handed in within an hour by a man who then 'ran away' to that list.

A third group watched a TV report of the P/P story and nodded wisely - saying " I knew it would be those damned islamic extremist terrorists" - and pass the story on around the water cooler at work. They then file the info away and never amend that position ever again. And that is exactly how 'phsyops' work.

But this thread is of no use to any of those three groups. Unless the' running' man can be traced.
 
Last edited:
And so i am attempting. It is numbingly slow and tedious, and i can hope i am correct. But if i cannot show that, then i will accept that. I fervently believe the overall complicity of some hand beyond 19 or so terrorists else i would not pursue to such depths. And even should i be successful, that cannot prove the entirety of deception. But we will see just how far it gets. Maybe the mathematical aspects will still leave too many ifs and buts to be satisfactory
 
....
i am seeing clear evidence of empty streets, (of people and debris) Cordoned off streets, Crushed streets where a stop and pick up is nigh impossible, clear evidence that all bar a few photographers, were focussed upwards. The streets with debris were so filled that seeing a passport amongst the dirt and mess of the rest, was a monumental task, that debris was still flaming, and ash and dirt was everywhere (in the streets it actually was) meaning a good chance for dirt, fire, and damage to the passport,
....
How much time passed from 1st impact until streets were cordoned off?

Your theory that 'everyone was looking up so no-one would have seen anything on the ground' seems really misguided. I wouldn't pursue that as a credible reason against finding something on the ground.
People scan their environment even when focused on something, especially if they are moving through it. It takes fractions of a second. And someone in a daze or shock might not have been looking up at all.
 
Oh i agree, i meant that just in the most densest areas, where the crush was greatest. And of course timings of the cordon is relevant, but then so long as it can be identified as some while before a collapse that at least extends the time the item is carried around for. But as best as i can i am loking for times
 
Two points. Now that the Saudis are going to be sued in court, the full details of the Suqami passport may be investigated - actual date & place of issue, etc. Similarly the full details of its US visa too. And all of Sugami physical activities prior to boarding the plane may be revisited. OK so if this passport issue is laid to rest a lot of other issues may be discarded.
 

Attachments

  • Sod Suqami.jpg
    Sod Suqami.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 499
Oh i agree, i meant that just in the most densest areas, where the crush was greatest. And of course timings of the cordon is relevant, but then so long as it can be identified as some while before a collapse that at least extends the time the item is carried around for. But as best as i can i am loking for times
I think you've been shown, succinctly, that the place where the passport was picked up can't be determined. All that is known is that the cop was somewhere near Albany and West, which is S of the WTC.
This is always going to be inconclusive.
Was it soaked in kerosine? Possibly. That most likely means the kerosine came from the jet.

You are incorrect about flight 11 not penetrating WTC 1 and exiting the other side. Some of the landing gear ended up at West and Rector, a few blocks S of WTC 1.
Additionally there was a section of exterior columns from WTC 1 which landed on Liberty St and Cedar, just by St. Nicholas Orthodox Church. The section had embedded in it some landing gear from flight 11 as well.

Lots of light paper items from the flights were found, from airline tickets to the flight manifest etc. There's no indication that this was impossible in any way, nor even improbable. There probably would have been more passports found if the flight had not been a domestic one - I don't think Americans at that time used passports for such flights, can any of you comment on your own habits?
I think we used to travel only with our driver's licenses when we visited the USA in the past, including for flights. Nowadays it's different, of course.

To your insistence that nothing could have fallen from the N face of WTC 1, eyewitness accounts beg to differ with you. Take this one for example - the gentlemen were in WTC 5, to the NE of WTC 1, when Flight 11 struck. They exited and could see both the N and E faces.


A revolving door put them under a soffit, an overhang sheltering the entrance to 5 World Trade Center. They peered out. Debris had rained onto the plaza-steel and concrete and fragments of offices and glass. Above them, they could see the east side of the north tower, and also its northern face. Instead of the waffle gridding of the building's face, they now saw a wall of fire spread across ten or fifteen floors. Then they saw the people coming out the windows, driven toward air, and into air. The plane had struck not two minutes earlier.

On the ground, they saw an odd shape. Reiss looked closer. It was the nose gear of an airplane, missing the rubber tire, but with its wheel still connected to the hydraulic elbow that retracts into the bottom of the plane. Paugh began to take notes on its shape and location. Reiss protested. "There's crap falling on us," he said. "I don't have a hard hat on or anything, let's just drag it in.
Content from External Source
Edit to add: it's entirely possible and even likely that some people were inside buildings in cordoned off areas, I don't think there's any way to prove otherwise. Therefore it still remains likely that items might be found and given to authorities before the tower collapses.
Nothing unusual about that considering the circumstances.

There's no reasonable grounds for you to make a claim that other debris (like a passport) could not have fallen in that vicinity. You simply cannot say that.
Also a passport is very different in appearance from a random scrap of white paper (of which there were thousands). Probably quite easy to spot lying on the ground.

And since there were paper items both burned and unburned, you cannot say that the passport would have to be charred either.

It seems like you've set up a few strawman arguments, as explained by me and others, and then topped it off with a few arguments from incredulity.
 
Last edited:
I have been spending a little time reviewing NIST and others AA11 impact simulations, themselves debatable on some points but that is a separate topic. One thing is clear, the front of the plane is shredded in milliseconds. This is demonstrable and factually inescapable. The reason being, the plane at 16ft diameter, had to pass between a space no more than 12ft, the floors being comprised of steel and concrete poured over steel webbing, would rip the plane apart.

The distance the plane would need to carve into the floors would be 60 feet to reach just the walls to the core columns. But Nist itself in demonstrating its engine impact directly onto the floor shows it could not plow through. The Testing for nuclear safety conducted by US Electric Power Research Institute along with the Sandia labs tests, showed that steel and even, just steel reinforced concrete would survive well against impacts of a 767 400 at 350mph (these at not more than 5m thickness of steel reinforced concrete.

So there is no reason at all to suppose the passport was not in either, the cockpit or, his seat/cabin above seat. We can see by using NIST that the plane rips apart and all the pieces within are smashed apart on the core columns which then are severed by the engines and wings and rear of the plane. The walls and office furnishings are not factored into any simulation but since they do exist and pieces ejected from the towers that were OF the towers furnishings and offices papers, that the plane smashed into these too. The Nist simulations show a total decimation of the front of the plane, and so with all the debris flung forward, this would include the passport, smashed into the core (by which time its momentum being reduced that the tiniest touch of something will cause it to fall, and at a stationary drop, it will drop 6ft in 0.36s at most.
But the passport cannot penetrate the core wall on the other side by itself and similarly, the passport cannot NOT be hit by debris behind it else it will not penetrate the walls, and because penetration of the exit perimeter wall is made by the rest of the plane moving faster through an area partly destroyed by the front of the plane what it means is we are left with 3 options

1) The passport passes through the tower with brute force punching through 2 external walls and 2 internal walls, avoiding any furniture, door, or core column this is without any shockwave given FEMA decided there is NO shockwave from the fireball which they say is PROVEN because of the 2s timeframe to reach full expansion.

2) The passport is punched through by debris behind it

3) The debris is in a pocket ot bag or cabin that punches through the towers then falls open to let the untarnished passport fall free

1 & 2 Cannot leave the passport untarnished, nor can they allow any soaking with fuel, and 3 is just outlandish in light of the simulations and the fact that any item retaining intact status until exit is not going to just fall open afterwards. (Of course i am sure this is where you will suggest a bag was unzipped and the passport found inside- i cannot argue that and wont)

Oh there are 2 other options

1) The passport was at the rear of the plane and smashed forwards as the fuel tanks rupture, get doused in fuel and because now, with more debris punched through the tower, there is open unobstructed space to move through, it CAN do this and have had a good sprinkling of fuel

2) the jet slams dead on into a floor and the wings also impacting the floor split, the entire plane is torn apart and whilst some enters the tower, most does not, it actually falls straight down, soaked in the fuel that fell when the tanks split, (large amounts of smoke and debris fall straight down on the naudet footage so this could be plausible)

The problems are 1-why the hell is the passport at the rear of the plane when only the passengers who were NOT hijackers were at the back
2- If so, then much of the plane did not damage the tower much at all and the majority of it fell beneath the tower, meaning something else severed the core columns

I am sure this will all be refuted but then i suggest before doing so, you actually review Simulations of the impact aand research the test by US Electric Power Research Institute and Sandia.
Because so far, despite having found much evidence there were severely limited places on the ground the debris was, and thus that the passport could be, it seems that unless the passport was at the rear, it was not getting through that tower unscathed, and so far despite what other claims of items from the plane you offer, NOT ONE has been produced that is not torn, crumpled, blackened by dirt or soot and actually charred in some places. Showing items from another crash is not proof of AA11 debris.
So far the evidence simply continues to say the passport is one hell of an anomaly
 
In reference to the comment before mine, 1) i am not saying no debris exited i know some did 2) I see many coloured items in the debris where the seat cushion was found so why exactly should a passport stand out? it is also smaller than most things so by any logic where colour infers noticeability, size would logically apply to invisibility.
And the paper that was not burnt, was of the tower not the plane and even that paper from the offices were in many places, on fire even at street level. People may well have been trapped anywhere, and then walked out but then they MUST omit handing passport to the officials nearest.
I CAN remove discovery of the passport within time frames, like the plaza, there is a very limited time frame where it could be found there, and that was NOT available for just anyone to be wandering around in even ten minutes prior to collapse. Ergo- if we see it empty then you assert that someone found that passport and sprinted to the officer and slapped in his hands ran off, THEN the building fell. That is barely plausible and is fine to believe if you wish. But as i said above, i doubt the passport ever made it out. And i am continually finding more to suggest this is so.
 
Then, if the passport was planted as you seem to be implying by all this elimination, he was not on the plane?
Or was it known he was going to be on the plane, and the passport was planted to allow the 'discovery' of the identity of one perpetrator?
The main way of identifying them was not the passport though, that is just a bit of 'colour' to the event.
There were reports from the plane in flight that identified Satam.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Identifying_the_Hijackers
 
In reference to the comment before mine, 1) i am not saying no debris exited i know some did 2) I see many coloured items in the debris where the seat cushion was found so why exactly should a passport stand out? it is also smaller than most things so by any logic where colour infers noticeability, size would logically apply to invisibility.
And the paper that was not burnt, was of the tower not the plane and even that paper from the offices were in many places, on fire even at street level. People may well have been trapped anywhere, and then walked out but then they MUST omit handing passport to the officials nearest.
I CAN remove discovery of the passport within time frames, like the plaza, there is a very limited time frame where it could be found there, and that was NOT available for just anyone to be wandering around in even ten minutes prior to collapse. Ergo- if we see it empty then you assert that someone found that passport and sprinted to the officer and slapped in his hands ran off, THEN the building fell. That is barely plausible and is fine to believe if you wish. But as i said above, i doubt the passport ever made it out. And i am continually finding more to suggest this is so.
I don't agree with your logic. Your restrictions seem arbitrary and not provable anyway.
But fundamentally a passport doesn't look like anything else, if you want to argue that it was somehow invisible then good luck to you. Just doesn't compute.

Also, look at the picture below. No proof that the unburnt items were not from the plane as well; also we know there was a flight itinerary found, plus tickets.
No proof that they were all burned, or that none of them have kerosine on them.

You simply don't have enough data to come to any firm conclusions about what COULDN'T have happened in that regard. Any attempt to claim otherwise will be fictional.

Were you to drill down on the recovered items, produce a comprehensive qualitative survey of them which could be verified independently, perhaps you'd be closer to knowing for sure. But obviously you're not going to do that. So please stop trying to justify conclusions for which you do not have relevant data.

 
Bmead, I forgot to add that, while you are correct that there was a lot of paper from the towers after the plane impacts, you've neglected to factor this into your assessment whether such flammable materials could or should be blown out without being incinerated by the fireballs. Clearly a lot of the paper was not charred at all, so it seems that the process which ejected them may have placed them ahead of the fireball or otherwise out of reach.
The main point is to illustrate that this phenomenon was fairly widespread on 9/11 so the condition of the passport cannot be used as evidence that it was 'planted'. You just can't know that from its condition.
 
Bmead, I forgot to add that, while you are correct that there was a lot of paper from the towers after the plane impacts, you've neglected to factor this into your assessment whether such flammable materials could or should be blown out without being incinerated by the fireballs. Clearly a lot of the paper was not charred at all, so it seems that the process which ejected them may have placed them ahead of the fireball or otherwise out of reach.
The main point is to illustrate that this phenomenon was fairly widespread on 9/11 so the condition of the passport cannot be used as evidence that it was 'planted'. You just can't know that from its condition.

It does not make sense for a lot of paper to be blown out of the buildings during the plane impacts if the plane is only entering and does not exit. There would be some blown out of blown out windows during the detonation of some of the fuel but it would be very small compared to what was observed after the collapse.

As for the reasons the paper was not burnt

- the fires on the several floors in the impact zones should have been smothered during the collapses by the enormous amount of gypsum dust generated.

- most of the paper was blown out during the collapses of the lower portions of the building after the fires would have been smothered.
 
Last edited:
@Alienentity - your picture of debris is from after the building collapsed, is that correct?
I don't have a timestamp for it, but it isn't covered with thick dust so I doubt it. FDNY EMT Briam Smith said ' 'I remember there was
life jackets everywhere, the yellow in-flight life jackets' on Liberty St at the front of the bank before WTC 2 collapsed.

Also if you look at the pictures of the street there's a fair amount of white paper after the first and second plane impacts. I think Tony Szamboti wrote 'It does not make sense for a lot of paper to be blown out of the buildings during the plane impacts' but just look at the pictures and read the eyewitness descriptions, that's what happened. Whether it makes sense or not doesn't change the fact that it happened that way... :)
 
I can imagine Dan Rather saying that given the scattered debris after the impacts and being told a hijacker's passport was found

"Amazing, incredible, pick your word, but a hijacker's passport was just found and turned into Bernie Kerik, who is Rudy Giuliani's police commissioner."

Here is a compilation of anchors talking about it and even Bernie himself saying the passport was found some three or four blocks away from the twin towers

[Admin: off topic material removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree with your logic. Your restrictions seem arbitrary and not provable anyway.
But fundamentally a passport doesn't look like anything else, if you want to argue that it was somehow invisible then good luck to you. Just doesn't compute.

Also, look at the picture below. No proof that the unburnt items were not from the plane as well; also we know there was a flight itinerary found, plus tickets.
No proof that they were all burned, or that none of them have kerosine on them.

You simply don't have enough data to come to any firm conclusions about what COULDN'T have happened in that regard. Any attempt to claim otherwise will be fictional.

Were you to drill down on the recovered items, produce a comprehensive qualitative survey of them which could be verified independently, perhaps you'd be closer to knowing for sure. But obviously you're not going to do that. So please stop trying to justify conclusions for which you do not have relevant data.

A passport does look like anything else. Unless ALL passports look the same. The point i am making is- And you so aptly prove with your photo- The passport is clean and undamaged. You have not provided anything like that. You talk of a itinerary, but id the man (not just name but some large detail on him) And the itinerary is way more valuable to any investigation than a passport. The itinerary is NOT in ANY collection of evidence so what did that guy do? sling it in the trash?
I am not saying btw that a passport is invisible i am comparing your logic. You suggest it will be vastly noticeable due to colour, but what i am saying is, there are plenty of coloured objects that are larger, so basically like saying looking for wheres waldo even if the rest of the people are not red and white is still a bloody hard job. If waldo also is smaller than the other people in a picture, that makes it even harder to see.

Life jackets everywhere but photographed on a roof and where else? and again where are these UNdamaged items?

I am working on this and i think it is quite possible to make the claim that these items are from the rear of the plane. If you see all simulations and math for the destruction of the front of the plane there really isn't a legitimate argument for an undamaged passport passing through the tower, there is a small possibility if it was slightly further back but there are a few points i need the numbers on still but i am 90 % sure i will be proven right (which is much more sure than of anyone on even how many columns actually were severed)

And as far as data, i am using the data compiled by MIT/FEMA/NIST and some debunking sites.

You say i am being fictional. So in fact you will provide the simple explanation to this.

I assert that as the facts show debris smashes out the other side of the north tower then the flames, what that means is, if we suppose the passport was in the cockpit, aside from the fact confirmed everywhere of the massive deformation of the cockpit, that to NOT be destroyed it must be loose and flying with the debris, it is ahead of the wings and the fuel is not able to accelerate faster than the passport which as it was loose would be maintaining momentum, the slightest touch on anything is going to drop it (if it is inside a pocket then to get free it requires impact as fema state there is NO shock wave from the fireballs so this cannot blast the clothes off or a bag open )so as we are saying it passed through, and was ahead of the fuel which the momentum of the plane and hence the fuel is slowing down by the time the wings are ruptured, so there can be ZERO fuel on the passport and if there had been, it would have to be further back which places it among the flames, i mean fire retardant passport is stretching it but fuel soaked fire resistance?.
That applies to the passport being loose or in a container in the cockpit. Also it applies to the loose passport in the seat that was paid for and sat in by suqami.
If you think this is a lie or fabrication then how about go run through it all.

I realise this still leaves the option of the passport being inside a bag or cabin locker but there is not a way for the passport to have passed through if bagged or otherwise if it was in the cockpit or loose anywhere in front of the wings. So the next step is the secured passport in a locker/bag.

And that is dependent on careful consideration of the impact and testing the force of tearing open a suitcase after the cabin locker is smashed apart.

I would imagine you too will deny the passport was soaked in fuel, you will also deny the fact that it would be at all damaged but as i say examine the impacts and perhaps the paper produced by MIT and nist and femas work on deformation.

And finally show me the itinerary the tickets and any other paper part recovered even AFTER the collapses that were from AA11 and undamaged.

 
I don't have a timestamp for it, but it isn't covered with thick dust so I doubt it. FDNY EMT Briam Smith said ' 'I remember there was
life jackets everywhere, the yellow in-flight life jackets' on Liberty St at the front of the bank before WTC 2 collapsed.

Also if you look at the pictures of the street there's a fair amount of white paper after the first and second plane impacts. I think Tony Szamboti wrote 'It does not make sense for a lot of paper to be blown out of the buildings during the plane impacts' but just look at the pictures and read the eyewitness descriptions, that's what happened. Whether it makes sense or not doesn't change the fact that it happened that way... :)
As for that claim, of COURSE it makes plenty sense for paper to be blown out, and i would not say otherwise, there are many factors which could cause papers to to be blown out the towers, and a greater volume of paper is something you support i imagine as a white page versus the bright green passport nestled neatly on it with arrows directing to it, the more paper the more chance the passport got covered.

And look at the areas you showed earlier, not the plaza and not heavy with people. A time stamp would be nice on those images, but is probably unlikely. But it further demonstrates in the moment of that image that people are not racing into the street to pick stuff up, they are leaving a building.
 
Then, if the passport was planted as you seem to be implying by all this elimination, he was not on the plane?
Or was it known he was going to be on the plane, and the passport was planted to allow the 'discovery' of the identity of one perpetrator?
The main way of identifying them was not the passport though, that is just a bit of 'colour' to the event.
There were reports from the plane in flight that identified Satam.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Identifying_the_Hijackers

Well is it possible he got on the plane without a passport? It was certainly doable for AL Omari wasn't it.

And in terms of conspiracy, i hadn't really wanted to get into wild accusations of what if and who etc.
However if i was to i will offer the following, i will say though i will NOT offer a backing of any idea in depth simply a option.

1) That as they were later identified as explicitly al qaeda linked in the eventual 9/11 commission it provided a proof of a) Suqami was on the plane b) A solid backing that it was al qaeda because of these stamps which were later id'd as specifically al qaeda- something debatable itself-but the point is, this was ideal as a non direct but explicit proof of al qaeda involvement. I say non direct because they were not waved as the definitive proof of al qaeda but just subtly used as proof

2) There are persons who may have been aware of the operation and their part in it, and realising the sheer extent, wanted a way out. But in a situation that demanded any knowledge of something would result in ones death, or family, there is no way that someone can just say "hey i am blowing the whistle" (after all, many HAVE and you do not believe them anyway) So what better way than make a drop of improbable evidence that would stand out like a sore thumb being the ONLY passport of ANY passenger or hijacker on the planes to have been recovered

3) The passport was on the plane, at the rear where survivability potential is maximised which meant suqami either deliberately slung it there quickly calculating it would survive and then implicate al qaeda hoping as nothing else but the magic proof the whitehouse never revealed , it would tell the world who did it-not logical as al qaeda had no reason to deny the act anyway- or, it was at the back with him because actually, he was named as an attacker solely for his name and citizenship but actually wasn't

The ideas are mad and crazy to you but that is just some quick ideas, and i do NOT have to explain the whys of it, i simply have to be able to demonstrate it's location and survivability.

And as yet, there is not ONE single other item in the towers crashes that survived in comparable condition. Rings and plastic cards are cited so often yet strangely they were recovered IN the rubble, and ARE damaged.
 
And as yet, there is not ONE single other item in the towers crashes that survived in comparable condition.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to read thru walls of text to see if you have anything coherent to say. Others can do that.
I skimmed over you posts but they appear to be rather rambling - one thing that caught my eye was something which is frankly ridiculous and you can't prove it anyway.
 
I would imagine you too will deny the passport was soaked in fuel,
This assertion still hasn't really been provided for, evidence-wise. You insist it was soaked enough to alter it's aerodynamic behaviour and increase its weight, based on exactly what? There was a quote saying it smelled of kerosene. What has convinced you it was soaked?
 
This assertion still hasn't really been provided for, evidence-wise. You insist it was soaked enough to alter it's aerodynamic behaviour and increase its weight, based on exactly what? There was a quote saying it smelled of kerosene. What has convinced you it was soaked?

The quote was that it was soaked. However subsequent images of the passport make it clear it was not, as no ink had run. So more likely it was just smelling of fumes.
 
Here is the relevant post.... Sorry for going over old ground.



Full document attached, in two parts, this is from page 291, in the second section.



There's no way of knowing how they actually determined it was "soaked" in jet fuel, or what they mean by "soaked". It reminds me of all the people describing non-molten metal as "molten" just because it was a bit sooty. I suspect it simply smelled strongly of jet fuel.
 
Back
Top