Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
You should be able to take a screen shot of it Tony and then upload that here... if that doesnt work, would you mind posting a link directly to the picture you're referring to so that we know we're all on the same page?
The Satam al Suqami Passport
- Thread starter Bmead
- Start date
Here, I unlocked it for you:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST NCStar 1-2 101012_unlocked.pdf
Also you can just do a screen grab. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-take-and-upload-screenshots.2635/
You could at least just give a page number? Referencing a 462 page document as evidence is not very rigorous.
An interesting term to search for in the document is "debris cloud", which is how you should probably think about how the passport and similar lightweight objects were transported.
Last edited:
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member
Here's an interesting picture from that document showing damage to the southern wall of WTC1.
Alienentity
Active Member
There's already plenty of hard evidence that al Suqami was on the plane. Betty Ong reported that he stabbed an Israeli passenger who tried to intervene.
But just checking a little further I note there were 5 hijackers, yet only one passport was recovered. Am I right that no passports were recovered from flight 175?
That's another 5 hijackers, presuming they had passports, a total of 10 passports and only one recovered. It stands to reason that it was a fairly low probability that any would be recovered at all given the conflagrations.
Since we already know that the velocity of the jets provided ample momentum to shoot contents well outside the towers in various directions, that actually gave this passport a good chance of recovery, once it was free to fall. It had a good chance of falling either on a rooftop or the street, where it would be visible to some number of the many people below.
I figure that, had it not been picked up quickly, it likely wouldn't have been found after the collapses. It may even have been that there were indeed other passports which dropped onto the street but which were lost during the collapses. We'll never know. But it can't be ruled out as a possibility.
In that context I don't find it terribly odd that one was recovered. It's an important artifact, like many others which have been recovered.
But just checking a little further I note there were 5 hijackers, yet only one passport was recovered. Am I right that no passports were recovered from flight 175?
That's another 5 hijackers, presuming they had passports, a total of 10 passports and only one recovered. It stands to reason that it was a fairly low probability that any would be recovered at all given the conflagrations.
Since we already know that the velocity of the jets provided ample momentum to shoot contents well outside the towers in various directions, that actually gave this passport a good chance of recovery, once it was free to fall. It had a good chance of falling either on a rooftop or the street, where it would be visible to some number of the many people below.
I figure that, had it not been picked up quickly, it likely wouldn't have been found after the collapses. It may even have been that there were indeed other passports which dropped onto the street but which were lost during the collapses. We'll never know. But it can't be ruled out as a possibility.
In that context I don't find it terribly odd that one was recovered. It's an important artifact, like many others which have been recovered.
I think an important thing to recognize here is the the primary moving force of the debris cloud was not forward inertia. It was air movement. It was also not movement in straight lines.
If the cockpit is ripped open as it enters the building, then the contents become part of the debris cloud. They would have been carried by the (admittedly rather violent) air movements, and could have ended up pretty much anywhere.
Much like the contents of flight 93. Plane ends up buried underground, bits of paper found miles away.
If the cockpit is ripped open as it enters the building, then the contents become part of the debris cloud. They would have been carried by the (admittedly rather violent) air movements, and could have ended up pretty much anywhere.
Much like the contents of flight 93. Plane ends up buried underground, bits of paper found miles away.
Alienentity
Active Member
Fair enough. I think even if you attempted to model the spread of contents you'd find it fairly random in terms of individual items. ie where one particular item would end up in the debris cloud(s).
Alienentity
Active Member
I just checked some estimates about survivors from the towers. The figure is between 16,000 and 17,000. That doesn't include people in the other WTC buildings.
On the face of it that puts a huge number of people outside the towers and able to notice and pick up important items on the plaza or street. I think the odds of someone noticing a passport are pretty decent given that it's distinct from a random white piece of paper. Certainly you can see pictures of people puzzling at debris like seat cushions and engine parts, and there are verbal descriptions of people noticing wallets, suitcases, life jackets and even finding the flight itinerary.
Anyone know what happened to the flight itinerary? I guess I need to visit the museum next time I'm in the Big Apple. I'll send my wife shopping..
On the face of it that puts a huge number of people outside the towers and able to notice and pick up important items on the plaza or street. I think the odds of someone noticing a passport are pretty decent given that it's distinct from a random white piece of paper. Certainly you can see pictures of people puzzling at debris like seat cushions and engine parts, and there are verbal descriptions of people noticing wallets, suitcases, life jackets and even finding the flight itinerary.
Anyone know what happened to the flight itinerary? I guess I need to visit the museum next time I'm in the Big Apple. I'll send my wife shopping..
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
ya beat me to it AE... I was going to cite Chaos Theory as a prime candidate to explain exactly that.
Almost entirely random for the lighter items. You've got things like an engine shaft that simply keep going - but things like paper, or passports will just go where the air goes - which as anyone who has modeled fluid motion, or tried to shoot a rapid, will know is pretty unpredictable.
Alienentity
Active Member
I'm with you there. Light stuff could go flying, whereas bodies tended to stay there and get pulverized along with the office furniture. Grisly stuff.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
The passport would still need to get through the south wall with a southward momentum and it is extremely unlikely that would have happened as there was no damage to it from the aircraft impact.
If you read the Executive Summary of NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and then read the pertinent sections of NIST NCSTAR 1-2B you will see that there would have been little to no damage of the south wall of WTC 1 from the aircraft impact and it is explained that the debris cloud velocity was severely slowed down by the time it got to the south side of the building.
The likelihood of a passport getting out of the building and moving further southward is slim to none and is very likely to be why the alleged finder and the location where it was found are not identified. Those niggling complications apparently needed to be avoided, and are exactly why the passport would never be allowed as evidence in a court of law.
Last edited:
Josh Heuer
Active Member
...and after all is said and done, after the passport somehow makes it out of the plane fine, out of the building and into the streets, after it's picked up, it's handed to a detective. You know, those guys who are dressed like any other of the 16-17,000 citizens (alienentity's figure) in that vicinity escaping the scene.
Really, it's not even a case of 'what are the odds,' it's more like 'well they didn't think this part through....'
Really, it's not even a case of 'what are the odds,' it's more like 'well they didn't think this part through....'
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
I believe I said there was little to no damage of the south wall of WTC 1. Yes, a piece of landing gear apparently went through the south wall of WTC 1 and there was a small hole in it. So it isn't a 100% impossible for the passport to get through the wall, just very remote. However, when coupled with the other unlikely issues of
- an anonymous finder
- no location given for where it was found
- the finder picking a plain clothes detective out of a crowd
it becomes so remote as to be impossible and unbelievable. It is much more likely to have been an attempt at planting evidence and I am sure a court would not allow it as evidence since it has no bonafides.
Bmead
Member
Yes this shows smoke, debris? maybe and what is that side? The plaza, now i freely admit, that the passport could be blown there but, NOT if it is in the cockpit or seat area, the reason being, that the speed of entry, to turn it to the side requires force acting from the side debris or impact or the fireball, there can be no fireball before there is one. The passport in a bag or pocket or anything is still moving forwards at 200 m/s this puts it ahead of the fuel tanks by speed and position. That you may dispute but that we know is FACT.
Now this pressure wave is also moving forward and spreads, there is no way, after impact that this pressure wave stays in tube form, the fireball although not explosive per se, creates overpressure which blows out windows and office papers and furniture. The passport being further ahead can be subject to the pressure and pushed in a direction but not at a 45 degree angle to blow it out the side. And not backwards. The other side has almost no damage to it. I would suggest that you look at the other footage and images of the first impact.
The other point is, the fireball igniting and blowing the passport to the side, apart from needing to pull the passport back and turn it to the side, it would place the passport in the fire, now it can be claimed the passport was in a jacket or bag and was not burnt, but then there can be no fuel on it (no later is not an option, if you think it is, spray a liter of jet fuel off the empire state building and have someone below record what fuel hits the floor. None is the answer due to evaporation.
Then, IF the passport defies any mathematical rules to go out the side, you can claim the plaza was packed with people, for a while. But, the wind being over 10mph blows it to the corner of wtc 4 most likely, but wherever it was, the plaza was abandoned and cordoned off long before the collapses. So, lets imagine the passport falls there, it is found, then wandered around with past many many NYPD,FBI,PAPD,JTTF. So why? Ok ok i know, he had a lot on his mind, he was scared he was busy selling hotdogs etc etc But, how then could it stay wet enough to be classified as soaked, and, after wandering around for so long, how is it he needs to rush off as soon as he hands it in?
The sensible location would be on the path where known aircraft debris landed, which was over wtc 3 and onwards.
Bmead
Member
To the corner of wtc 4 in the plaza and onto its roof at farthest
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member
No, In post #373 you said there was no damage. That's why I quoted it.
But to be fair, your claims seem to change from post to post. In some you claim no damage, in others you claim very small holes, and yet in others you claim one or two columns were damaged. Which is it?
Why are you ignoring the images of debris ejected out of the southern side of WTC1?
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member
Like I said on the first page of this thread, debris was ejected backwards, to the sides, and passed right through the building.
If there is a mathematical model that can depict the "sensible location" of where a passport being ejected at 100mph from 95 floors up is to be found, you have yet to show it here.
Bmead
Member
They would never be going to court. They are dead, therefore it is used as implied links to a terror group. Did you fail to read the 9/11 report Susan Ginsberg- She details how the recovered passports all bore evidence of false stamps. The fbi examination detected NO forgery and nor did anyone else during their actual use. This was she told the commission, because these indicators were discovered only recently. And that meant no one would ever know they were forgeries. They knew because, the forgeries were specific to Al Qaeda, a way in which ONLY Al Qaeda uses. Now lets examine that claim.
How can they be linked to Al Qaeda only forgeries-NOT by comparison to each other, this confirms only the link to each other. Therefore it requires passports used by 100% known Al Qaeda persons. That provides a tenuous link, but to rule out an outside forger it needs other forgeries from other forgers. This then narrows down probability to anyone else but can only be a high chance not a certainty. So what it needs is that the actual forger be located and be proven to be linked to Al Qaeda or for other terrorists caught, to admit they use a forger and only one.
Now given the report states they are identifiable as ONLY Al Qaeda the above which i mentioned is not a mystery and can be explained but is not, she dodges that bullet by saying, "to avoid getting into classified detail" There IS no classified detail in admitting that specific inks were found and used by a certain person and persons proven to be Al Qaeda had them on their passports too.
The reality being that ALL of them having these forgeries endangered a mission that required NO forgeries. The only function the forgeries serve is.
1) Validates the places the named persons have been, which, if the persons holding the passports have NOT been, then they are not the holders of the passports
2) They clearly prove that the hijackers were Al Qaeda
There is no other use for the forgeries
So either they were stolen identities, an idea given credence by the FBI themselves, and therefore there is a reason to steal identities which is to get in the country, but also means they have had to have been known as terrorists by their visual features which means they were previously known, or they all had surgery
Without these passports at that time there was ZERO proof that it was Al Qaeda except accusations and the never revealed proof that the Bush team said they had. All the proof up to then was names of Middle Eastern origin, which does not prove a link to Al Qaeda, if the FBI or anyone could make the Al Qaeda link before any physical evidence, then they knew who they were already.
Ergo the passports are a critical identifier
Bmead
Member
No correct yourself, debris did not get ejected backward, it fell from the tower and plane.
You imply backwards momentum against forwards momentum. Where did this backwards force come from? Remember it has to exceed the forwards momentum to move it backwards a bit.
The plane if it impacts a floor head on, will begin driving through the steel and concrete (as proven by NIST and others)
The plane sliding between floors is sheared apart (as proven by NIST and others)
Now the frontal part of the plane can plow through a certain amount of the floor, but not through 60 feet and core walls and columns and another wall and floor and perimeter wall. So when the plane hits head on, the front undergoes plastic deformation and is ruined, the rest can, and would also undergo some deformation and fall (NOT go backwards) but unless you assert 2/3 of the plane did not enter the tower then this didn't happen, but even if it did, the front is smashed into the floor and according to the known tests not making it all the way through so the passport never passes through the tower.
UNLESS, it is in the rear of the plane, fine, put it there, just explain why it is there.
This is not assumptions this is based on EPIR/Sandi tests, Nist and Mit and Fema to name a few.
Go argue them that they got it all wrong if you like but on the assumption they got some bits right
That means the passport cannot be backwards of the impact zone. PLUS the wind factor.
The other method of impact, shearing the plane apart sends the passport or its container, straight ahead at the same speed it was going, to punch through every desk,chair,wall,floor,column and fall and turn up without even a dent or scratch
Now as usual you will say this is BS that is fine, because then you BS the works of the People who actually impacted planes and engines into concrete and saw them disintegrate.
The sides, one side there are 2 tiny holes which barely even smoke comes out of, and as i explained, it cannot just turn things around that are moving ahead of it.
You continue to say there is no math or science just guesses. But they are not, they are based on official sources own computations and independent tests carried out for other reasons before and since
Now you show me the solution then how the passport being no further back than the seat 10b at no less than 192 m/s (the lowest official estimate) is halted until the fireball hits and pushes it sideways.
To do this you need a simulation whereby the 192 m/s passport object stays at this speed. The plane shearing apart needs to copy the kinetic energy drop as depicted in official sources that provably reduces the speed of the plane meaning milliseconds difference between when the wings with no wall hitting the nose, would hit that area where an imaginary wall would be. And where the passport is. Then when the wings did hit, it must accelerate the fuel to catch up to the passport and soak it, then ignite the fireball and push it sideways to come out no further than the most extreme point of the furthest hole in that face of the tower.
You cannot do it because that is not a physical possibility but i look forward to that simulation.
Until then, i will go with what is already known within normal physics
Bmead
Member
Oh and Trig, dont worry about what claims of columns were severed, not unless you have complained to NIST and MIT neither of whom could actually decide what was cut and varied from 7-20 in wtc 1 which is a massive variance and though they are clear that it cannot be decided, they opt for the columns to be severed which makes collapse easiest. That is not science is it.
Science is testing if a column actually COULD be severed by even an aircraft engine at say 350mph Then you have a base to see the energy left whether it could cut another or not and then proceed to make a better analysis, not just say oh well we need it to collapse so we admit some maybe didnt get cut but lets just say that as many as we need got cut just make this damn sim work!
But then it is only CT's who need to explain it not the official version
Science is testing if a column actually COULD be severed by even an aircraft engine at say 350mph Then you have a base to see the energy left whether it could cut another or not and then proceed to make a better analysis, not just say oh well we need it to collapse so we admit some maybe didnt get cut but lets just say that as many as we need got cut just make this damn sim work!
But then it is only CT's who need to explain it not the official version
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member
It can come from an exploding cloud of jet fuel that displaces air and ejects debris in all directions as per these images of the actual impact and a simulation graphic.
ETA. The point is that personal items did survive in good condition. Debris was ejected in all directions. So it is plausible for a passport to have survived the impact to be found later somewhere on the ground.
Most importantly, after almost 400 posts there is still no evidence the passport was planted.
Last edited:
The al Suqami passport was used in court in US vs Zacarias Moussaoui.
Could you provide links to support the rest (in another thread because it is off topic) of your theory? You must remember that id (passports) was not required to board aircraft at that time. If you would like to review the posting guidelines please do so at the top of the page.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
There is actually no evidence that the passport was anything more than an attempt to plant evidence.
Let's focus on the "plain clothes detective."
The statement:
The statement "... was assisting people flee the area when a male white ..." It is clear that the detective had assumed a position of authority and could have donned a jacket to mark that authority. Say
There is no evidence to support your claim at all.
Alienentity
Active Member
Tony, you're engaging in a strawman argument. First, you are pretending that there was only a 'small hole' in WTC 1 South face, without giving any scale. You don't want the passport to get out that way, yet this picture on Albany St shows a lot of small debris, papers and of course a flight 11 seat cushion.
So your argument fails immediately just based on this.
This image below also shows large amounts of small debris scattered about. Clearly your theory is falsified by the direct evidence.
As far as your denial of the person being able to identify the detective, again this is a strawman. You don't know what the detective was doing at the time. I have found one reference from FBI agent Dan Coleman that the detective was
So according to this report, which is as credible as any other you might cite, the detective was conducting police business by talking to people. You cannot pretend the guy who picked the passport up would not have been able to identify him as a cop. That's not supported by any evidence. The cop may have even been identifying himself, you can't say he wasn't.External Quote:
Further, when he says 'run off' does he mean it in the literal sense or commonly 'to leave suddenly'. And does it matter either way?
I'm still somewhat shocked you're attempting to deny such basic evidence, if you're looking for answers. Frankly your credibility is nearing zero on this subject, as you've repeatedly mistated or misrepresented the facts and failed to acknowledge your errors and exaggerations. But it tells me a great deal about your failure to deal with this subject.
Alienentity
Active Member
Completely true. Weirdly we accept all the evidence, while he's mightily resisting it. It's not hard to understand these events if you open your eyes.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
It is the pedigree of the passport which has no credibility and yes it also has a problem getting out of the building based on analysis.
Bmead
Member
Landru-
The supposition that the fireball could push items is true, i did not deny this, what you need to consider though is the speed of the passport and location. You will have it anywhere between the tail and the windscreen. I will "guess" that it would be in a bag in the cabin above his seat, in his jacket on his seat, or, in the cockpit. There is no reason for it to not be one of these places. The burden of proof of anything else falls on you-No one, on a plane not even half full, puts their baggage in a class they are not sitting in. No one takes their passport to the rear to leave it there, unless it is with them. Also you forget something, the side ejections are in a region that is aligned with the core so what you are saying is that the passport turned a corner and turned again?
I would assert, the pressure burst a few windows, and heavier debris smashed through, i would not assert the passport a light object even in a bag, being in the cockpit could bust through the core turn sideways wait for the fire ball that blew mostly through, to blow the passport sideways through another wall.
If it was in his seat area, then if the corner of the core was destroyed, it could go diagonally out the gap, but on that lovely image you have their, they have shown dispersal not destruction, but assume this is so. It is still caught in the fire. It is STILL ahead of the fuel, if bagged it cannot be soaked. And when it does come out, it ends up in the plaza. The plaza which is deserted before the collapse and yet this means someone carries it for sometime, yet you fail to answer this.
Then you assume that a detective put a jacket on despite having only just arrived. Maybe he did maybe didn't. I intend to try to find out.
As for my claims for a separate thread- i will do so at a later stage.
Overall there seems to me a desire to want the passport to be anywhere on the plane, and anywhere in new york. And soaked but not soaked,
Why? I so far have said the passport wont make it through the tower unscathed if in the cockpit, it won't make it out 1 side at all, and the other side it may but must have been found before desertion of the plaza, and carried around for ages.
All of which are based on the science the official version supplies and the known properties of objects ie as said a object not impacting something moves at the speed it was going whereas a object hitting something does not. So it moves ahead, the fact that a bagged object cannot be soaked.
Your answers are not to refer me to any part that says, items would be spread across New York, or anything that refutes the destruction, you tell me
"wrong" Well then prove it.
As far as the Moussauoi trial, i was not aware it had been used there but if the passport was used, then it is critically important so wipes out any claim it was not needed to prove anything as obviously it was. But it was not for that reason it was ever used previously it was not used as evidence against anyone before, only after it's conclusive link to A/Q was insinuated. It served simply as justification of accusation so after invasion Of Afghanistan, when people looked at the 9/11 report it was nicely there.
But that depends on the point of view. People said it was not proof of anything and irrelevant and now all of a sudden you say it WAS proof of something and used in a trial.
For an official version believer, it is normal move along nothing to see
For people who are even sceptical at the least, they would say, well if that was needed in a trial, if that was needed to make a definite a/q link/ if that was needed to prove he was on the plane (manifests are not sufficient since the only ones ever seen are media mock ups NOT the actual airlines ones)
Then that is damn lucky it survived it really is a piece of the puzzle
It is clear by the way assumption is made, why has anyone assumed a position of authority because he is helping people? Have you seen any 9/11 footage, people helping people with NO badge/jacket or cap on to give that authority to them? So you made a hopeful guess on that score
Oh and fyi do remember photographic id WAS required to board flights you never could just mosey on up grab a ticket and get on with none. The id that most people have is drivers licence and passport so id is very much needed and whilst people recalled things like talking to them during visa applications months ago, and bags packed despite thousands passing them by since, they cannot and never have said, they checked in with a saudi driving licence.
The supposition that the fireball could push items is true, i did not deny this, what you need to consider though is the speed of the passport and location. You will have it anywhere between the tail and the windscreen. I will "guess" that it would be in a bag in the cabin above his seat, in his jacket on his seat, or, in the cockpit. There is no reason for it to not be one of these places. The burden of proof of anything else falls on you-No one, on a plane not even half full, puts their baggage in a class they are not sitting in. No one takes their passport to the rear to leave it there, unless it is with them. Also you forget something, the side ejections are in a region that is aligned with the core so what you are saying is that the passport turned a corner and turned again?
I would assert, the pressure burst a few windows, and heavier debris smashed through, i would not assert the passport a light object even in a bag, being in the cockpit could bust through the core turn sideways wait for the fire ball that blew mostly through, to blow the passport sideways through another wall.
If it was in his seat area, then if the corner of the core was destroyed, it could go diagonally out the gap, but on that lovely image you have their, they have shown dispersal not destruction, but assume this is so. It is still caught in the fire. It is STILL ahead of the fuel, if bagged it cannot be soaked. And when it does come out, it ends up in the plaza. The plaza which is deserted before the collapse and yet this means someone carries it for sometime, yet you fail to answer this.
Then you assume that a detective put a jacket on despite having only just arrived. Maybe he did maybe didn't. I intend to try to find out.
As for my claims for a separate thread- i will do so at a later stage.
Overall there seems to me a desire to want the passport to be anywhere on the plane, and anywhere in new york. And soaked but not soaked,
Why? I so far have said the passport wont make it through the tower unscathed if in the cockpit, it won't make it out 1 side at all, and the other side it may but must have been found before desertion of the plaza, and carried around for ages.
All of which are based on the science the official version supplies and the known properties of objects ie as said a object not impacting something moves at the speed it was going whereas a object hitting something does not. So it moves ahead, the fact that a bagged object cannot be soaked.
Your answers are not to refer me to any part that says, items would be spread across New York, or anything that refutes the destruction, you tell me
"wrong" Well then prove it.
As far as the Moussauoi trial, i was not aware it had been used there but if the passport was used, then it is critically important so wipes out any claim it was not needed to prove anything as obviously it was. But it was not for that reason it was ever used previously it was not used as evidence against anyone before, only after it's conclusive link to A/Q was insinuated. It served simply as justification of accusation so after invasion Of Afghanistan, when people looked at the 9/11 report it was nicely there.
But that depends on the point of view. People said it was not proof of anything and irrelevant and now all of a sudden you say it WAS proof of something and used in a trial.
For an official version believer, it is normal move along nothing to see
For people who are even sceptical at the least, they would say, well if that was needed in a trial, if that was needed to make a definite a/q link/ if that was needed to prove he was on the plane (manifests are not sufficient since the only ones ever seen are media mock ups NOT the actual airlines ones)
Then that is damn lucky it survived it really is a piece of the puzzle
It is clear by the way assumption is made, why has anyone assumed a position of authority because he is helping people? Have you seen any 9/11 footage, people helping people with NO badge/jacket or cap on to give that authority to them? So you made a hopeful guess on that score
Oh and fyi do remember photographic id WAS required to board flights you never could just mosey on up grab a ticket and get on with none. The id that most people have is drivers licence and passport so id is very much needed and whilst people recalled things like talking to them during visa applications months ago, and bags packed despite thousands passing them by since, they cannot and never have said, they checked in with a saudi driving licence.
It has a perfectly fine credibility. It was handed to a cop (Yuk H. Chin). Found objects are handed to cops all the time. The cop then in the first step in the chain of custody.
Bmead
Member
Er are you SURE the street these images were both taken from? not the same street, and look in pic 1 a green document maybe that is the passport there, but examining the area no one stops and collects it then. But they should because it is passport sized it is green they must have picked it up. Oh wait you mean that the person who picked it up could clearly read PASSPORT stamped on it and had picked up only that not anything else that LOOKED LIKE a passportTony, you're engaging in a strawman argument. First, you are pretending that there was only a 'small hole' in WTC 1 South face, without giving any scale. You don't want the passport to get out that way, yet this picture on Albany St shows a lot of small debris, papers and of course a flight 11 seat cushion.
So your argument fails immediately just based on this.
This image below also shows large amounts of small debris scattered about. Clearly your theory is falsified by the direct evidence.
As far as your denial of the person being able to identify the detective, again this is a strawman. You don't know what the detective was doing at the time. I have found one reference from FBI agent Dan Coleman that the detective wasSo according to this report, which is as credible as any other you might cite, the detective was conducting police business by talking to people. You cannot pretend the guy who picked the passport up would not have been able to identify him as a cop. That's not supported by any evidence. The cop may have even been identifying himself, you can't say he wasn't.External Quote:
Further, when he says 'run off' does he mean it in the literal sense or commonly 'to leave suddenly'. And does it matter either way?
I'm still somewhat shocked you're attempting to deny such basic evidence, if you're looking for answers. Frankly your credibility is nearing zero on this subject, as you've repeatedly mistated or misrepresented the facts and failed to acknowledge your errors and exaggerations. But it tells me a great deal about your failure to deal with this subject.
Oh and look wheels embedded in steel, but the bag that was suggested the passport was in, just blasts clean through that sort of thing. Damn why dont they make black boxes from bags and passports, they would have shot straight through in good condition.
Bmead
Member
Yes Mick can you say which precinct he definitely was from? Coleman says one thing the report another, which one, NYPD don't even list the guy
He was from the 7th.
He was physically at the 13th when he handed over the passport (or at least that's where the passport was when the JTTF guys got it)
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry . . . that is not a legally valid chain of custody . . . we cannot validate that the passport was from the street or even was originally from the man who allegedly gave it to the policeman . . . was the evidence sealed in a container and protected from tampering by the policeman on receipt? Was the sealed evidence then identified, inventoried, logged into a tracking system and secured from tampering and alteration . . . ????
All chains of custody start somewhere. So it's valid (in terms of possession) back to that point.
If it were found by President Bush on live TV lying on the street, the argument would simply shift to it being planted there.
I didn't talk about this why are you?
I did not assume a detective put on a jacket. The detective, through his own testimony, indicated he assumed a position of authority. It is possible he reinforced that position by a jacket or badge.
[...]
Do you have any links to support your claim? Any?
[...]
I was a 100k flyer in 2001. No id was required to board a plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks
Many airports allowed non passengers to meet the planes at the gate pre 9/11.
Last edited:
And it was found valid enough by a court of law to admitted as evidence. http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/WT00001.html
Similar threads
