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: 11
13
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HennyPen

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


I won't bother repeating the response about the "chain of custody" nonsense. You know better than that. Exactly how have you come to the conclusion that the FBI is lying? All I have seen is some old quotes from CNN that are not very clear about who is talking about what and when. Do we have anywhere a clear statement that says, to the effect, "agents of the FBI physically located the passport while conducting the grid search the week after 9/11 at Vessey Street adjacent to the World Trade Center complex"? I don't think so, I think we have a FBI representative talking to the press the week after 9/11 and describing the grid search process and also telling them they have a passport of one of the hijackers. I think you have melded the things together strictly for the purpose of wanting to call the FBI liars and promoting non-existant conspiracies.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

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?



Where exactly did the "story" change? Or are you reading things into the statements that really aren't there.

As for anonymous tips - please tell me you don't think that ever happened in the world of law enforcement or jurisprudence until 9/11.

As for the silly chain of custody argument - again - it is the morning of 9/11, two planes have just crashed into the WTC towers, people are dying, everybody is running around in a panic, every piece of emergncy equipment in NYC is trying to get to the WTC and you are an NYPD detective trying to help control the chaos. A man walks up to you, hands you a passport and says he just found this. You have no reason it is connected to anything, you pocket it just because it is a passport and continue to try and manage what is becoming an unmanageable situation.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Where exactly did the "story" change? Or are you reading things into the statements that really aren't there.



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 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.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
You know the one that was found in the rubble, that flew out of the terrorist dude's pocket from inside the plane.

Without much of a scratch........


The Official Story once again takes another quantum leap in logic.
It's hysterical people are even attempting to debunk this one.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
"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."

Yeah, you're right, no need to "squawk" over how a very key piece of evidence was obtained on that day. No need to squawk over the bozo investigation of the whole 911 incident. No need to "squawk" over insignificant investigative details because they just insert doubts into people's minds about the garbage they have been fed.

Let's just all believe some story which has a "low order of probability" because the people who gave us this information are the same people who bungled the investigation from the very beginning. Gee, what a wonderful world this is where we can all make up some "low probability" statements without having to back them with a proper investigation and supporting evidence.

Why "squawk" when you can just sit on your fat lazy behind and believe what you are being told by people whose credibility and identity is unknown?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"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."

Yeah, you're right, no need to "squawk" over how a very key piece of evidence was obtained on that day. No need to squawk over the bozo investigation of the whole 911 incident. No need to "squawk" over insignificant investigative details because they just insert doubts into people's minds about the garbage they have been fed.

Let's just all believe some story which has a "low order of probability" because the people who gave us this information are the same people who bungled the investigation from the very beginning. Gee, what a wonderful world this is where we can all make up some "low probability" statements without having to back them with a proper investigation and supporting evidence.

Why "squawk" when you can just sit on your fat lazy behind and believe what you are being told by people whose credibility and identity is unknown?


So what exactly do you want to do and what are you doing about it? Have you ever tried to contact the NYPD detective that was given the passport? Have you contacted the FBI and requested clarification on the grid search data and dates? Or are you content to just call everyone a liar and walk away?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

posted by SphinxMontreal
"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."

Yeah, you're right, no need to "squawk" over how a very key piece of evidence was obtained on that day. No need to squawk over the bozo investigation of the whole 911 incident. No need to "squawk" over insignificant investigative details because they just insert doubts into people's minds about the garbage they have been fed.

Let's just all believe some story which has a "low order of probability" because the people who gave us this information are the same people who bungled the investigation from the very beginning. Gee, what a wonderful world this is where we can all make up some "low probability" statements without having to back them with a proper investigation and supporting evidence.

Why "squawk" when you can just sit on your fat lazy behind and believe what you are being told by people whose credibility and identity is unknown?


posted by hooper
So what exactly do you want to do and what are you doing about it? Have you ever tried to contact the NYPD detective that was given the passport? Have you contacted the FBI and requested clarification on the grid search data and dates? Or are you content to just call everyone a liar and walk away?


Have you conveniently forgotten that this is the same FBI which bungled the WACO massacre ending with the deaths of many innocent women and children?

Have you conveniently forgotten that this is the same FBI that bungled the 1st attack on the WTC in 93 ending with the FBI helping the alleged terrorists actually manage to set off some of their FBI supplied explosives?

Have you conveniently forgotten that this is the same FBI that fakes evidence and loses critical evidence in their own labs according to many FBI whistleblowers?

Have you conveniently forgotten that this is the same FBI that was immediately on scene at the Pentagon confiscating cameras and videos and bullying eyewitnesses and confiscating the Arlington County 911 call-ins and transcripts so the public would never know what potential eyewitnesses might have called in about?

Have you conveniently forgotten that this is the same FBI that cannot put together any evidence connecting Usama bin Laden to 9-11? Do you think it was the FBI or CIA creating the lousy Osama videos with the lousy actors? Surely you have an opinion? Since many world intelligence agencies think Osama died in December 2001, who do you think made the later Osama video and audio tapes?

Seems like you conveniently forget a lot of things doesn't it hooper?




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrnBruFiend

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
You know the one that was found in the rubble, that flew out of the terrorist dude's pocket from inside the plane.
Without much of a scratch........

The Official Story once again takes another quantum leap in logic.
It's hysterical people are even attempting to debunk this one.


I have to agree on this one wholeheartedly. It seems to me, and I do not profess to be an expert in the mind set of a terrorist, that if I were stealing someone identity to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, assuredly killing myself and all aboard, I would not bring along my OWN passport.

I mean c'mon these guys, have got to be smarter than allowing their whole plan to come apart simply because they might need to identify themselves to a government official. Yup, "going to go on a rampage, better bring my real ID with me, just in case."

You know, common sense should be a super power, because it is so uncommon these days.

..Ex



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


I'll take that as a "no, I have never done anything to help me understand what happened".

Sorry, I forgot all that stuff you made up, I'll try and keep it in mind next time.

Do you think the FBI still beats its wife?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

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.



posted by HennyPen

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


How is it hooper that you find nothing suspicious about the miraculous survival of the Satam Al Suqami paper passport? Wasn't there an official report that it was soaked in kerosene? Ahhh yes here it is again.

The claim is located in the unclassified heavily redacted secret FBI document called the HIJACKERS TIMELINE. However when looking at the high resolution official trial exhibit photos of the paper passport and cover, I see no signs of kerosene soaking at all. Do you hooper? I see the watermarks which these sorts of documents are protected by and no distortions of those by kerosene soaking. So did the FBI lie or what?



When hijacker Satam Al Suqami’s passport was recovered on 9/11 on the street near the World Trade Center, it was “soaked in jet fuel.”

source


If you think the FBI is lying, then take it up with them.





Here is the unclassified but heavily redacted FBI document here and that statement is located on page 291.

You are just too trusting hooper in a corrupt government which has proven to the American people that it will lie to the American people again and again and again and again whenever the ends justifies the means.

That means hooper that they will lie to us whenever it pleases them.

You really do need to develop an open and investigative mind if that is possible
.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Wow - you SEE no signs of kerosene soaking. That's pretty good. Can you also look at the photo and tell me what the temperature was in the room when they took the photo?

I apologize for not sharing in your paranoia.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


He had to bring his own passport because it had the same picture as his stolen driver's license and he knew he needed one fake and one real form of PHOTO id to meet Allah. Allah is big on photo IDs. I have a stolen driver's license too and I had to get my own real passport with a matching picture just because of how much sense that makes.




top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join