Why would the finding individual want to remain unknown? Seems like a discovery of this nature would normally result in a desire to help further?
If the passport was simply found on the street then what more help is there that he can possibly give?
Why would the finding individual want to remain unknown? Seems like a discovery of this nature would normally result in a desire to help further?
Wild theory is it? It was just a question, seemingly reasonable to me.
Why do you determine the passport can only be in one spot in relation to the fireball to get thrown back? I understand it must be behind it, but why is it limited to where you say it must be (right below the tanks)? We can assume the fireball was compressed into the available space somewhat, so it would have kept its force until it reached the open air.
The passport can be at any point along the plane behind the the ignition point and still be acted on.
Charkhi Dadri mid air crashHere is a list of missing black boxes. They are not 'indestructible' We don't have that technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders
And there is already a thread here on this and passport came up then.
Look at the Naudet video. There is a large amount of debris thrown out along the NE side of WTC 1 on impact, and a fair amount of it well below the fireballs. The material could be pulverized building material, fragments of the jet and unburned fuel, office contents, and so on. Whatever it is, it didn't get incinerated by the fireballs - you can see it isn't burning.
Presuming that material landed somewhere roughly below, that would place some of it around WTC 5 and WTC 6, just South of them in the plaza. - looking at the drift of the material to the East, that could be around WTC 4 towards Church St.
A couple of minutes after impact the more solid items would have come to rest already, and could be seen and picked up by numerous people who were wandering the area.
There was no police cordon at that time anyway. There are simply dozens and dozens of spots where the passport might have landed and been eventually found, then carried some unknown distance to be given to that police officer.
You cannot possibly calculate all of those because of the dispersal of material both N and S of the tower, the area below which would receive this material, and the patterns of people leaving buildings and walking or wandering around.
There's not enough data for that calc. Can't be done. If you claim to be able to somehow 'narrow it down' I think it's an unsupportable claim; it's nothing but fiction.
I noticed Tony Szamboti earlier claimed that no debris from the aircraft exited the S face of WTC 1, but clearly that is false, as I showed earlier with both pictures and eyewitness accounts. I don't understand how someone who has devoted so much time to this subject could get such an important fact wrong. I just don't.
But it does help me to understand why the conclusions are so bizarre.
The shockwave from the ignited fuel may not have been extreme, but the momentum of the jet was extreme and carried an enormous pressure wave with it - it is that pressure wave which ejected so much material in several directions from the tower. Simulations have shown that the pressure from the fuel alone was capable of enormous destruction - you could compare it to a tsunami if you like only less mass and higher speed (same energy to destroy stuff though).
It doesn't require a solid object to do damage, that's a function of the mass and speed. After all, you can cut metal with a high pressure water jet....
The NIST report shows very little aircraft damage to the south face of WTC 1.
The fuel on the aircraft was 10,000 gallons which has a volume of 1,337 cubic feet and at least a third went up outside the building. That leaves about 900 cubic feet or a volume equivalent to that of a 3.5 foot x 18 foot diameter backyard pool. The fuel was spread over several floors which were about 40,000 square feet in area and that doesn't count the vertical surfaces which would add to the area. Spreading the fuel over 120,000 square feet would result in a film of about 0.090" thick. So it is very unlikely any tsunami action occurred after the initial wall was impacted.
I am consistently amazed at all of the destructive tasks the small amount of fuel, relative to the building size, is claimed to have performed by those supporting the present official theory. It is like the magic fuel theory.
There was a fuel air explosion but it was only on the north side of WTC 1 and would not have involved an excessive amount of fuel.
It can't get the passport two blocks to the south.
I have never seen the fire on the south side in the photo you show and it is about ten to twenty stories below the aircraft impact, which makes me wonder about your photo. There was almost no damage to the south wall.Is this not an image of a fireball exiting the south side of the building?
Why not?
You are looking at the north and east sides of the building in that photo. There was almost no damage to the south wall.
Where it was found, when was it found, how was it found and who found it . . . I have investigated: negligence, incompetence, accidents, suicides, murders, assaults, and acts of God . . . often as a third party investigator . . . don't remember anyone with significant evidence trying to remain anonymous . . . sure it is possible but pegs my curious meter all the way to "needs to be questioned." I can only think of four reasons 1) Person was completely devoid of an understanding of its importance (not highly likely), 2) Person was later killed or became incompetent (also, low likelihood), 3) Person feared any public disclosure (more likely) 4) The story of the policeman was false and/or the person was giving planted evidence. (Possible and should be investigated if possible). . .If the passport was simply found on the street then what more help is there that he can possibly give?
Yeah, exactly. This is why I'm amazed that Tony continues to make these kinds of easily debunked assertions. That's two big ones now:Is this not an image of a fireball exiting the south side of the building?
Why not?
Where it was found, when was it found, how was it found and who found it . . . I have investigated: negligence, incompetence, accidents, suicides, murders, assaults, and acts of God . . . often as a third party investigator . . . don't remember anyone with significant evidence trying to remain anonymous . . . sure it is possible but pegs my curious meter all the way to "needs to be questioned." I can only think of four reasons 1) Person was completely devoid of an understanding of its importance (not highly likely), 2) Person was later killed or became incompetent (also, low likelihood), 3) Person feared any public disclosure (more likely) 4) The story of the policeman was false and/or the person was giving planted evidence. (Possible and should be investigated if possible). . .
There was almost no damage to the south wall.
Don't think one would have to track "him" down . . . unless "he" was traumatized beyond normal he/she/it will probably come forward on their own . . . and by the way healthy skepticism catches much criminal activity . . . just say some human behavior is atypical and leads to further investigation . . .Sorry, I don't buy into this mindset. You simply don't know what the mind of that person was, and you won't unless you can eventually track him down. You might want to try it.
I have a feeling that even if a dude came forward and said 'I just saw it, and picked it up, recognized it was a passport and thought I should pass it on to this cop I walked into' you'd dismiss his explanation and still think he was working for the NWO or something. I'm skeptical that you'd accept any real evidence, you just don't seem to want this story to go any other way than the conspiracy way.
If you let yourself succumb to the paranoia/conspiracy mindset, there's no way to see things any other way. It's a one-way street to paranoia-ville.
You don't know who the dude was, what his mindset was, all you do is speculate endlessly. You're chasing your own tails on this one. As usual, I might add.
I have never seen the fire on the south side in the photo you show and it is about ten to twenty stories below the aircraft impact
Yeah, exactly. This is why I'm amazed that Tony continues to make these kinds of easily debunked assertions.
It's really hard to take Tony seriously. What concerns me is that Tony is one of AE911Truth's most senior and respected members. And yet he's really, really inaccurate with things like this. It doesn't give me confidence in the abilities of these 'truther' organizations.The thing that gets me is, I posted this picture back on page one of this thread... about 328 posts ago.
Are you saying the fireball shown in that photo on the south side is on the same vertical level with the impact on the north side? Because that is what would be needed for the passport to blow through it, as its momentum would have been horizontal.It's really hard to take Tony seriously. What concerns me is that Tony is one of AE911Truth's most senior and respected members. And yet he's really, really inaccurate with things like this. It doesn't give me confidence in the abilities of these 'truther' organizations.
Meh
The NIST report analysis shows a small amount of debris moving at 105 mph at the south wall of WTC 1
I have never seen the fire on the south side in the photo you show and it is about ten to twenty stories below the aircraft impact, which makes me wonder about your photo. There was almost no damage to the south wall.
But the debris velocity was very low by the time it reached the south wall and there is essentially no damage to the south wall, so it could not have left the building.
It would be interesting to see what would happen to evidence like this alleged hacker passport in a court, given that the cop never got the alleged finder's name or even asked where it was found.Where it was found, when was it found, how was it found and who found it . . . I have investigated: negligence, incompetence, accidents, suicides, murders, assaults, and acts of God . . . often as a third party investigator . . . don't remember anyone with significant evidence trying to remain anonymous . . . sure it is possible but pegs my curious meter all the way to "needs to be questioned." I can only think of four reasons 1) Person was completely devoid of an understanding of its importance (not highly likely), 2) Person was later killed or became incompetent (also, low likelihood), 3) Person feared any public disclosure (more likely) 4) The story of the policeman was false and/or the person was giving planted evidence. (Possible and should be investigated if possible). . .
This is why an evidentiary trail is important and why it was important for the cop to get the person's name and the location of the passport when found.If someone came forward today, and said he picked it up the truthers would attack them as a plant, or such. They would not believe them. Most likely they would be hounded and threatened.
Since the standard of evidence for the 911 Commission and NIST was not those required in criminal or civil proceedings . . . they are thus able to speculate that the passport was from one of the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . proof for public consumption is much, much lower . . . I suppose there was no desire to prosecute those responsible?It would be interesting to see what would happen to evidence like this alleged hacker passport in a court, given that the cop never got the alleged finder's name or even asked where it was found.
This is why an evidentiary trail is important and why it was important for the cop to get the person's name and the location of the passport when found.
It does seem that any attempt at alleging the finder now would have a tough time in a court since there isn't much original background to give him/her standing. But there are still ways to develop credibility if the passport was actually found and handed in as alleged and the real finder was to come forward.
The reality is that it is more likely that evidence planting is the reason for a no-name finder and lack of location for the passport when found.
Given the lack of pedigree with both the witness/finder and location, and the difficulty in getting it out of the building with it having been on a southward trajectory and little to no south wall damage, it is very unlikely that the passport would be allowed as evidence, in a court, as proof of a certain person being on the plane as a hijacker. As you imply, much of what the 911 Commission and NIST said would be cast aside in a courtroom also.Since the standard of evidence for the 911 Commission and NIST was not those required in criminal or civil proceedings . . . they are thus able to speculate that the passport was from one of the aircraft that struck the Towers . . . proof for public consumption is much, much lower . . . I suppose there was no desire to prosecute those responsible?
Given the lack of pedigree with both the witness/finder and location, it is very unlikely that the passport would be allowed as evidence, in a court, as proof of a certain person being on the plane as a hijacker. As you imply, much of what the 911 Commission and NIST said would be cast aside in a courtroom also.
It is pretty clear that it was for public consumption and can somewhat fairly be labeled as propaganda.
It is pretty clear that it was for public consumption and can somewhat fairly be labeled as propaganda.
No judge would allow it as evidence as it has no bonifides.Not based on your whim. Any evidence?
Mick, take a look at the south wall of WTC 1 in NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and tell me how something with a southward trajectory while inside the building gets out of it heading south.In your opinion. Let's try to deal with actual facts here Tony. Please don't derail an already helterskelter thread with your personal opinions. Let's focus on facts. Like your claim of "little or no south wall damage" - can you back that up, based on the contradictory evidence above? And can you then demonstrate the impossibility of the passport exiting in any other direction?
No judge would allow it as evidence as it has no bonifides.
Mick, take a look at the south wall of WTC 1 in NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and tell me how something with a southward trajectory gets out of the building heading south.
You can't copy images from the NIST report as it is locked. It is available on the web.Post an image of it. Then we can discuss it.