It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is how Satam's Passport made it through the WTC.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
This video was made by me and the opinions in it are my own based on my knowledge of aerodynamics and basic physics. The "Truth Movement" has asked for a credible explanation as to how the so-called Miracle Passport could have passed through the North Tower to land in the street unscathed. This video is my answer; if the Truthers don't like the fact that there is a legitimate explanation that doesn't involve the planting of evidence, that's their problem.

This video also addresses the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon, the basement explosions in WTC1,the flash at the nose of the airplane, and the "nose-out" misconception.



Thank you for watching.
Waypastvne




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
great video.
thanks

( i like the lack of replies
)

[edit on 2-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Dropped in as a show of support, VNE.

Good job!


I'll admit, the column of the cabin air was an aspect that had not occurred to me!! I forget, did you take into account compressibility factors, or did the sequence happen so fast that it is irrelevant?

Thnx

[edit on 7/2/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
didnt the guy turn up alive anyways? so if he did turn up alive wouldn't it still not make sense though?

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Myendica]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Ok. I'll bite. I don't much like eating leftovers anyway.

It was good video. It was clear, unemotional and for the most part, believable. It was an extremely sterile presentation.

I think the creator did an awesome job of relaying their side of the story. It was a refreshing break from the overly emotional arguments that we all have grown accustomed to and although I don't agree with the image of the guy with the toaster being the conspiracy theorist, it didn't do a lot of blaming or name calling.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way.

My government has lied to me since the day I was born. You know what? I'm not alone. They've lied to ALL of us. Why does the Bay of Pigs come to mind? I don't know. You don't have to dig too deep to find that the people of this nation and all others are lied to at will so that OUR government can do whatever they want.

Unlike many here, I have NO DOUBT that at least one plane hit the World Trade Center that morning. What I am not willing to believe is that everything that was relayed to us is the complete truth. The government has a terrible track record. I know that leopards CAN change their spots, but it would require motivation. There would have to be some reason for them to all of the sudden become honest and forthright with us. When they continue to profit from wars and increased control, there is no motivation for them to change. Everything is going according to their plans.

You know what? I don't really care if a passport made it through the wreckage. I don't care if the the AIR in the cabin is somehow miraculously more inertial than larger, more heavier pieces of the craft. It doesn't matter. Yeah, a plane hit the tower. Yup, you guessed it, a plane hit the other one too.

This video, though very well done, for the most part, does nothing to address the other issues involved with this story. It is a lot of effort to explain a tiny piece of what happened.

Does this video convince me unequivicobly that there was no disimformation perpetrated against the citizens of the world on that day? No. Does it address the lingering doubt that our government was involved? No. Does it prove to ME, without a shadow of doubt that the war in Iraq is justified? No.

I can believe the theory, because I'm not real smart, that the passport somehow survived the fireball, surfing on a rocket made of compressed air. I can believe a lot of things, and I do.

Although I am certainly not zealous enough about ANY of these issues to insult someone ELSE'S intelligence, or heaven forbid, take matters into my own hands, I have been around this circus we call life far too long to believe HALF of ANYTHING the government tries to spoon feed me as 'truth.'

I appreciate the post as it offers a reasonable (to me) explanation for one piece of this very complicated puzzle. The problem I have is that there are hundreds more pieces that need the same effort. Keep 'em coming.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
That's the first video i've seen trying to debunk a conspiracy theory on 9/11 that didn't make use of absolute nonsense. Job well done. My feelings on the 'coincidences' (?) before, and the events after 9/11 aren't swayed though. I think the most damning pieces of anything we have is the collapse of WTC 7, the presence of certain people and groups before and after the 11th, the missing papers and valuables from the floors the CIA occupied (because if a passport can survive on air, then a full safe can go through worse and see the light of day)
Well i'm done with my list, i'm sure the people's investigation so far speaks for itself. and it says 'we're good at arguing, great at keeping secrets, even better at bull#ting, absolute professionals at simultaneously throwing confusion towards anything worth finding out, but not that big on actually getting anywhere. ever. especially when in large numbers or chanting DRILL BABY DRILL instead of, you know, pulling our heads out of our asses.'



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The problem I see is that it is making the assumption the cabin pressurization was at ground level which it normally is not normal pressurization of 10,000 feet which makes the weight of the "Air" considerably less. So it would in fact contain a vacuum to simulate 10,000 feet and would implode around the cabin not explode. Not to mention it's not using "Air" to pressurize the cabin it's using an O2 mixture to keep the cabin pressurized.

Do you really think a terrorist is going to depressurize the cabin when all they plan to do is run it through a bldg. anyway?

I don't go for the whole truth movement but this could easily have been made by them themselves to throw doubt on scientists trying to debunk the truthers making the scientists look stupid. So whomever put it up just needs to get rid of it because if in fact they believe this it's more fuel for the truthers, and please don't even tell me a scientist actually came to this conclusion.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Its obvious you put a lot of effort into the video. It seems to explain a lot, especially the nose-out shots that never made any sense whatsoever to me, from any perspective. I'd agree that the mass of air could allow a lot of stuff to survive, including passports. But, I have doubts that any passports would be found. There were hundreds of thousands of tons of debris. Is it realistic that a passport would be noticed? And how many passports were recovered from the passengers?

The fact that the passport was found means nothing in terms of whether it could have been planted unless that information is also known. How many passports were recovered at each of the sites, and how many of them can be attributed to the hijackers? To me its entirely damning if the only passports found were those of the hijackers. But we will never be told that information because its top-secret. The government must hide it from us because well we just can't be trusted like they can (LOL).

I'm not so sure the about the claim that the air mass could have blown through a brick wall. Surely you need to do some calculations to verify that. The first thing to find out would be how much energy it takes to blast a hole in a typical brick wall. Try estimating the speed at which air would have to be traveling before the wall is broken. It makes no sense to me that 1,500 pounds of air would not dissipate first before hitting the final wall. I think you need more information before I could view that as plausible. I think a small-scale experiment could prove or disprove the idea though I imagine it could still be expensive.

As for the blown out windows on the top floor being caused by the air in the cabin, that definitely does not make sense to me. If the air is used to blow a hole through the building it did not dissipate both up and down the elevator shafts. Your whole theory requires very little dissipation of the air. Its must more plausible that the fuel-air mixture exploded and caused that to happen. There would be no purpose to planting explosives at the very top of the building, so that seems like a plausible explanation. As for that being the cause of the windows in the ground floor being blown, that is believable but not easily believable.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
This is a joke right! This video is “speculations” and assumptions of what the producer thinks what happened. You want me to believe that an airplane flying at 500 knots plowing into the WTC, exploding into millions of tiny pieces, engulf into a huge fireball of fuel. Then the WTC explodes into a billion of tons of debris and when the dust settles there lying in the middle on top of all that the debris is the hijackers undamaged unburned untorn perfectly intact passport. Furthermore, the plane is still buried under millions of tons of debris.

Tell ya’ll what, if you all believe that this video explains how that passport got on top of all that debris and that is good enough for you all, then do I have a story for you. Since you want to believe in science fiction, I will tell you all that Michael Jackson is still alive and he has moved in with Elvis Presley.

People let stick to real science, and let’s try to stay away from disinformation web sites that makes a mockery of the truth.


[edit on 3-7-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The "Truth Movement" has asked for a credible explanation as to how the so-called Miracle Passport could have passed through the North Tower to land in the street unscathed.

First, I'm always amused that skeptics spend so much time and energy trying to stand up for the official story that the government, media, and still majority of the public accepts and believes.

As to the passport, it's not so much that we don't think a passport can survive, it's when the only known passport said to have survived from the two planes that hits the towers just happens to be one from the alleged terrorist. Then add to that it was reportedly still soaked in jet fuel. How convenient and lucky.

And it's quite amusing that just because something is possible, it must be what happened because a conspiracy is never plausible, or possible in your guy's eyes.


This video also addresses the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon

Wow, that was some theory. First if was the nose cone making the hole, then the landing gear, then the fireball, now air. In keeping with the way that's going, I guess the next explanation will be that the bricks in that spot got scared when they saw the plane hurling towards it and they all jumped out of the way.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Speaking of your air theory, I was always wondering why the explosion clouds coming out of the impact areas weren't disturbed by any wake vortex? Seems like with the air rushing so fast like that it should have created notable disturbances in the explosion clouds.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I have no problem with the possibility of your scenario, given that almost anything is possible in this universe - given enough time.

However, when we look at the probability of your scenario, it falls flat on it's face.

Nice try though.

IRM



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 

If you are asking me for the wake vortices? Here they are.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
i just want to clarify something, i get the impression, from the graphic you use to illustrate your theory, that an almost unimpeded passage through the building is required for the cabin air, would this be your view?

it seems to suggest a central line of explosive force, but this isn't evident in the video footage, are you suggesting that the "cabin air" punched through all of the internal structure without losing enough speed to carry items like seat cushions?

there were personal items found but they weren't the type of items kept in the cabin, they were the type of item that you could reasonable expect to have been initially protected by a suit case. a passport on the other hand would have been required at boarding.

your theory has is just about possible, a million to one chance, but those are still long odds.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
there were personal items found but they weren't the type of items kept in the cabin, they were the type of item that you could reasonable expect to have been initially protected by a suit case. a passport on the other hand would have been required at boarding.


It was a domestic flight so the passengers would not be required to carry, or even possess, a passport. A foreign national might be carrying his/her passport as a means of identification and for ID purposes they'd keep it on their person. A passport is far tougher than all those pieces of paper seen fluttering about after the impact yet they appear to have survived also.

A number of similar passengers' personal items like drivers licenses were also found virtually unscathed after the event but I'll admit the odds of picking up a hijackers passport immediately afterward are a long shot, but not an impossibility.

[edit on 3/7/2009 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
There is no mass in the cabin air - all the other examples are of air acting against air - the oklahoma bomb has the equivalent of an almost atomic blast - which according to video is also the same (that is simply laughable).

The plane would split immediately displacing the air - the seats in the plane would have more mass, more density than the air - as would the people - why didn't these simply pass straight through the building ? Why did the plane, the seats, the luggage, engines and everything else break up and dissipate but not the air.

This is the biggest load of #e I have ever read - anyone who believes this as a scientific video is simply moronic. The OP needs a 101 in fundamental logic......very poor.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


Darthorius, you are incorrect in your assumptions.


...the cabin pressurization was at ground level which it normally is not normal pressurization of 10,000 feet which makes the weight of the "Air" considerably less.


Please, try not to speak on matters you don't understand. It confuses others.

A pressurised passenger jet cabin will ALWAYS be below the equivalent of 10,000 feet....and you won't see more than 8,500 feet on 99% of your flights.

The pressurisation system is fully automatic. When the airplane descends, it 'descends' the cabin on a pre-programmed schedule. An airplane that had climbed up to 35,000, had a destination of an airport near sea level already programmed (LAX or SFO) then, the airplane descends...the system will assume you are landing at your destination, and will adjust accordingly. By the time the jet was at 1,000 feet, the cabin pressure was at just a smidgen over 1,000, in order to maintain a positive pressure differential. This is for the comfort of passenger's eardrums.

AN airplane can NEVER have a negative pressure, that is, less inside than outside!!!! There are spring-loaded, fully independent and not controlled from the cockpit valves that prevent this from occurring. If the outside pressure exceeds the pressure inside, they will open inwards, to equalize.

Really, if you wish to refute the OP's excellent video, at least have some facts on your side!!!

[edit on 7/3/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


I honestly thought it was a satirical attempt at humor.

But it turns out to be nonsense passed off as science.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 



There is no mass in the cabin air



The level of ignorance involving matters of science is staggering in this Forum, sometimes. If air has no mass, how do wind turbines generate electricity? How do hurricanes cause so much damage??



- all the other examples are of air acting against air -


Ummmm...yeah....that was the point!



...the oklahoma bomb has the equivalent of an almost atomic blast...


Well, please explain how nuclear blasts work then. WHAT causes the damage? (before the heat and radiation arrive). It couldn't possibly be the displacement of the air....air acting against air...which propagates from the explosion, could it???

No....because air has no mass, except when air acts against air....really, could you clarify? Because I see a contradiction....



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 




are you suggesting that the "cabin air" punched through all of the internal structure without losing enough speed to carry items like seat cushions?


I think a lot of light items were found to have exited the buildings, there is even a photo somewhere of an airplane seat that landed on the boot of a car.


there were personal items found but they weren't the type of items kept in the cabin, they were the type of item that you could reasonable expect to have been initially protected by a suit case.


Things like Driver's Licenses and credit cards were found...usually those are carried in wallets or purses???


... a passport on the other hand would have been required at boarding.


Which re-inforces that they wouldn't be in a suitcase. maybe in the carry-on (that's where I keep mine, usually).

But, bear in mind, most Americans don't even have a PassPort!!! Especially in 2001, when travel to/from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean didn't require it.


www.gyford.com...

The closest I’ve found is this page of the number of passports issued per year. First, lets be generous and say that every passport was issued to an adult and therefore lasts ten years. Assuming that everyone who’s been issued a passport over the last ten years still has it, that’s 60,884,784 people with US passports. Given the US population is around 280 million, that gives us 21.7 per cent owning passports. Taking into account some of these will be five year passports, we have a figure that’s probably a little under 20 per cent.



SO, unless the Americans onboard the AAL 11 and UAL 175 flights had travelled from abroad (and they were early morning flights, so it's unlikely they connected through from Europe or somewhere) and considering the small number of passengers...?

Will add this comment, though. ALL of the airline crewmembers would have owned PassPorts. But, for a purely Domestic trip sequence, it's not certain they would carry them with, or leave at home.

[edit on 7/3/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join