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.
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 ....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.