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.

 

How do "non-believers " explain the passport?

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Well, compared to the Rube Goldberg concoction of conspiracy fantasies what with their secretly planted explosives, faked plane crashes, remotely controlled planes, planted witnesses and other assorted magic tricks which are wholly without precendent in human history, the idea of hijacking a plane and flying it into a fixed object is the epitome of simplicity itself.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


And the passport..?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


A thing that survived the plane crash. Not the first time something survived a plane crash, and it won't be the last time either. Do you have something to add?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Lillydale
 


First, it wasn't the only thing. Second, it would be presented as it was discovered. The jury would have to decide. Maybe you would be on the jury. Again, you want to think that ....


Yeah, how about you stop right there. Who are you to tell me what it is that I think? You have no clue what I think. You do not know what I believe and how I see things. You are setting up your own fake argument so you can jump on your straw man. Do not pretend to use me to do it. I will say what it is that I think, not you or anyone else.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Lillydale
 


First, it wasn't the only thing. Second, it would be presented as it was discovered. The jury would have to decide. Maybe you would be on the jury. Again, you want to think that ....


Yeah, how about you stop right there. Who are you to tell me what it is that I think? You have no clue what I think. You do not know what I believe and how I see things. You are setting up your own fake argument so you can jump on your straw man. Do not pretend to use me to do it. I will say what it is that I think, not you or anyone else.


First, I apologize for this typo, I meant to say IF you want to think, you are, of course, welcome to think anything you want. My point was that in examining the odds of a passport surviving a plane crash and being found, and the odds that a massive conspiracy of unprecedented complexity and involvement, I would much rather bet that a personal item would survive a plane crash and be found.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Orion7911
 


The facts are what they are. As I have said before you may deny them until you are blue in the face, that will not change them. Someone, after the planes had crashed, but before the buildings had collapsed, found a passport and handed it over to a NYPD detective, he in turn handed it over to the FBI. It was a passport belonging to one of the hijackers. It was and is that simple. You can sqawk about north of Vessey Street, south of Vessey street, windspeeds, weather, etc. all you want. You can choose to dismiss the whole thing if that is what is most satisfying to you. But that is all there is. Lower order of probability - yes. Impossible - no.


WRONG! Theres a big difference between FACTS and HEARSAY as it relates to the factors involved in allegedly finding that passport as it was... there are NO independently confirmed FACTS about that passport being found other than govt officials making assertions (and hearsay about what happened) not even to mention common sense knowledge of all the known evidence and unanswered questions and anomalies surrounding that day and even the specifics which prove beyond a doubt the story about how it was found is UNBELIEVABLE in a logical rational world.

BASIC COMMON SENSE tells any reasonable rational logical thinking person that a passport COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN RECOVERED IN THAT CONDITION IF AT ALL.

Its not a matter of probability in this case since you can't show exactly how the argument against the "STORY" of the passport IS WRONG other than your OPINION it is... I've asked several questions and raised several points that you've completely ignored.

so the story is IMPOSSIBLE given the known evidence and "STORY" thats based on government assertions the media and world has mostly claimed is true without any logical evidence to support it and they've believed it on BLIND FAITH as you are.

I dismiss the OFFICIAL STORY because there's no logical EVIDENCE and RATIONALE to support it.

No REASONABLE person with a brain would BELIEVE such an absurd story.

speaks volumes about the types who BELIEVE the "official" conspiracy story.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Do you REALLY believe that? I guess you have to, if you want to cling and hang onto Zelikow's public myth..



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
First, I apologize for this typo, I meant to say IF you want to think, you are, of course, welcome to think anything you want. My point was that in examining the odds of a passport surviving a plane crash and being found, and the odds that a massive conspiracy of unprecedented complexity and involvement, I would much rather bet that a personal item would survive a plane crash and be found.


That is because you have decided to just make up the fact that this would have to be of such unprecedented complexity. The truth is that it is far from unprecedented; Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, Sinking the Lusitania, etc. Just because you decided to believe it was too complicated does not mean that it actually was.

You believe whatever fantasy you like but to me, defying the laws of physics compared to bad people doing the same bad things they have done before for the same reasons the used before makes it pretty easy for me to decide.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


So, unless the incident was witnessed by someone in the truth movement it is all hearsay. The NYPD testified to the FBI. Now, I know you don't believe them because, of course, they were in on it. Or you do believe them, but think that the person who handed over the passport is a government agent.

Either way there is no "hearsay" here. The NYPD officer is testifying directly, not relating a story someone else told him. So before you go off on your "independent confirmation" bandwagon please understand the difference.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

posted by hooper
reply to post by Orion7911
 


So, unless the incident was witnessed by someone in the truth movement it is all hearsay. The NYPD testified to the FBI. Now, I know you don't believe them because, of course, they were in on it. Or you do believe them, but think that the person who handed over the passport is a government agent.

Either way there is no "hearsay" here. The NYPD officer is testifying directly, not relating a story someone else told him. So before you go off on your "independent confirmation" bandwagon please understand the difference.



Oh really Mr hooper? Rewriting history again are you?

Initially the FBI claimed they found the Satam al Suqami passport in a 'grid search' which would have to have happened before either tower fell. Correct? Else the paper passport would supposedly have been buried under the rubble. Correct?

But that story changed one year and three and one half months later in 2004 when a 9-11 Whitewash Commission senior counsel claimed it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective.

Why did the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY need to be revised in 2004? If as you say the NYPD detective was testifying directly, why did he wait until 2004?

If as you say the NYPD testified to the FBI, why didn't the FBI make it public a year or more before 2004? Why didn't the FBI make the NYPD detective public immediately after 9-11? Why does this fairy tale stink to high heaven? And we still do not know what person found it or delivered it to the authorities do we? Not a clue.

How could the FBI forget that it was the NYPD detective that delivered the paper passport to them instead of a 'grid search'?

Do you see why now that this paper passport abomination is such a damnable lie?



It is reported that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami has been found a few blocks from the World Trade Center. [ABC News, 9/12/2001; Associated Press, 9/16/2001; ABC News, 9/16/2001] Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001]

However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”

source




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Redneck from Hell
 


The passport survived, but not the black boxes.................

Kinda makes you go hmmmmmmmmmm.....



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Yep. That is all there is too it.

Porgie Tirebiter.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Can you source some of your quotes. I am not finding the same things. Be that as it may, it is irrelevant, you pick and choose what you want to know and what you don't that is all there is to it. In one breath you ask why the FBI is hiding the discovery of the passport and then in the next breath post an article from 2 days after the terrorist attack saying that they found it.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Are you missing the point on purpose? He is not claiming the FBI found it and then claiming they did not. He is claiming that the OS says the FBI found it and then the OS changed to say they did not. I know you can read and understand that. You talk about picking and choosing. What makes you decide between believing the first story of how it was found instead of the second story or vice versa?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by hooper
 


Are you missing the point on purpose? He is not claiming the FBI found it and then claiming they did not. He is claiming that the OS says the FBI found it and then the OS changed to say they did not. I know you can read and understand that. You talk about picking and choosing. What makes you decide between believing the first story of how it was found instead of the second story or vice versa?


The quotes appear to be different and out of context. I don't know what the difference is anyway. If the detective turned it over to the FBI and the FBI later told a reporter that they found a passport from one of the hijackers, why does it matter that the FBI got the passport from an NYPD detective? The results are the same, the FBI has the passport of one of the hijackers found at ground zero. The narrative does not change. You want to cobble together news reports and pretend like there is some big cover up, but that is your call. In the end the passport was found by a 30 something white male in a business suit, turned over to an NYPD detective who in turn turned it over to the FBI.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Please tell me that you are not really like this. The FBI claims they found the passport and then completely changed the story. The point is that they lied. I am cobbling nothing together to make some conspiracy. The conspiracy is right there for all to see. They lied. The told one story and then told a completely different story. The very definition of what happened is changing the narrative. If I were arrested for a murder that I did not commit, would that be ok because the person is still dead so the result is still the same? They told two completely different stories. That is a lie. Why do you insist that it is ok that they had to make up a new story because there were problems with the old one?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Orion7911
 


The facts are what they are. As I have said before you may deny them until you are blue in the face, that will not change them. Someone, after the planes had crashed, but before the buildings had collapsed, found a passport and handed it over to a NYPD detective, he in turn handed it over to the FBI. It was a passport belonging to one of the hijackers. It was and is that simple. You can sqawk about north of Vessey Street, south of Vessey street, windspeeds, weather, etc. all you want. You can choose to dismiss the whole thing if that is what is most satisfying to you. But that is all there is. Lower order of probability - yes. Impossible - no.

So, unless the incident was witnessed by someone in the truth movement it is all hearsay. The NYPD testified to the FBI. Now, I know you don't believe them because, of course, they were in on it. Or you do believe them, but think that the person who handed over the passport is a government agent.

Either way there is no "hearsay" here. The NYPD officer is testifying directly, not relating a story someone else told him. So before you go off on your "independent confirmation" bandwagon please understand the difference.


Are you aware of how many points at issue and questions I and others have asked you or pointed out that you continue to TOTALLY DODGE AND IGNORE? You keep refusing to address a multitude of questions that are RELEVANT in proving what you CLAIM or disproving what "we're" claiming yet all you're doing is cherry-picking what you answer and fits your fantasy.

Its beyond obvious you're NOT a rational person with any critical thinking skills whatsoever for you to keep parroting the same failed argument over and over pretending "THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT" as if there aren't important factors to consider before BLINDLY accepting a story from the government without supporting evidence proving its true or that it happened. Using your faulty logic and twisted bizarre method of determining TRUTH, any govt official could make ANY CLAIM about ANYTHING (as its been done throughout the 9/11 hoax) and NEVER offer any Evidence whatsoever other than HEARSAY and their OPINION that something happened or something was found a certain way, and YOU'LL BELIEVE IT BLINDLY without question or supporting evidence.

WHAT KIND OF SICK DELUDED PERSON bases TRUTH on such twisted logic and baseless assertions with no evidence whatsoever to support it?

answer: either a SHILL perp payrollee, or someone completely out of touch with reality and in TOTAL DENIAL.

What don't you understand about having EVIDENCE to support a claim?

Clearly you don't even know what a FACT is or you wouldn't be using it so LOOSELY to support your weak argument.

Aside from you ignoring whats been pointed out that the STORY and narratives being changed which constitutes LYING, who cares that the NYPD OFFICER allegedly testified directly as you claim? A more important issue and question you should be asking before you BLINDLY accept face value about what he's said directly are the actual FACTS surrounding the alleged EVIDENCE he gathered and is claiming occurred.

You don't believe its important to know WHO the passer-by was?

You don't see any problem with the STORY being changed?

You don't find anything odd about the fact the only passport found was one of the alleged hi-jackers even though there's MOUNTAINS of questions and EVIDENCE surrounding their identities or facts that show these hi-jackers might not even exist?

You don't think its important to question HOW such a piece of paper (belonging to someone thats essential for selling a suspect story to the world) just happened to be the only one found and was found IN ALMOST PERFECT CONDITION RANDOMLY even though it would have had to pass through conditions DNA and the FDRs weren't able to survive?

You can just act as if all those factors and others aren't important to take into consideration in this case?

NO SIR, ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE. For you to dismiss one of those factors let alone ALL, shows what I've said all along about people like you... You're either a SHILL, a troll, or in total denial.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Well, thank you for the insults and the lecture. So the only two choices I have are I am mentally ill or a mass murderer. Thats nice.

I would love to know who the passer by was - but I don't and probably never will. You or anybody who feels the way you do are more than welcome to post an ad in some of the local papers and offer a reward to anybody having information. But I suspect that will never happen.

You loaded up your response with a lot of unfounded accusations. You keep accusing the FBI of changing its story as if in some nefarious plot to throw off the truth finders. I see no evidence of this and no reason why it would matter.

You like to pretend that there is some episode of CSI-9/11 out there where the FBI and the NYPD was conducting fingerprint analysis while the twin towers burned. That is quite delusional on your part.

These facts remain - according to an NYPD detective, after the planes had crashed but before the towers succumbed, un unknown white male, approx. age 30 wearing a business suit gave a passport he said he found to the detective, at some later point the detective turned it over to the FBI. The passport belonged to one of the hijackers.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Orion7911
 


I would love to know who the passer by was - but I don't and probably never will.



You still don't get it do you? Of course it will never happen.

The Satam al Suqami passport charade is bogus. The passerby does not exist. He will never exist. Satam al Suqami was not on the aircraft.

The FBI created a tale (the grid search) which was official for over a year and then a lawyer for the 911 Commission decided that the tale (the grid search) was too suspicious, which it was, and changed it to an anonymous 'passerby' found the passport on the streets below and handed it to a NYPD detective who handed it over to the FBI without bothering to do a detectives's job, which was to maintain the chain of evidence, by obtaining the anonymous 'passerby's' name and identity, and a full description on a police report of the location and circumstances of the passport discovery.

This is what police officers do in most cities. What makes the passport more suspicious is that it could somehow survive undamaged in any manner in the pocket or luggage of a hijacker who most likely has a stolen identity, inside the crushing fuselage of an exploding fireball aircraft inside the 97th floor of the North Tower. This paper passport also had to pass somehow through the massive core structure of the North Tower and make it outside the south side of the North Tower, and miraculously sail itself against the wind 500 or 600 feet to the north to be found near Vesey Street, according to the original FBI official report.

Not bloody likely.

Paper passport

Passport cover



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HennyPen
The FBI created a tale (the grid search) which was official for over a year and then a lawyer for the 911 Commission decided that the tale (the grid search) was too suspicious, which it was, and changed it to an anonymous 'passerby' found the passport on the streets below and handed it to a NYPD detective who handed it over to the FBI


1. The story changed.


Originally posted by HennyPen
without bothering to do a detectives's job, which was to maintain the chain of evidence, by obtaining the anonymous 'passerby's' name and identity, and a full description on a police report of the location and circumstances of the passport discovery.


2. Someone can provide evidence for something like 9/11 completely anonymously?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join