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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

posted by Orion7911

Hey Preston... Can you believe these duhbunkers theory??? I haven't laughed this hard since,, well.. since 3 posts ago...

they're actually claiming that punch out hole was created by air pressure... Are they serious? Really? waypastvne?? You believe that?



Do you mean like an extremely powerful passing of gas?

I don't know; but one time one of those really cleared out a movie theatre I was visiting in just a few seconds. These GLs might be on to something; anything to prop up their self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY a while longer.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Good grief. This is STILL going on?

For the hard of thinking... arguing over whether the passport could have survived the crash is irrelevant because all we have to go on is the word of an anonymous man in a suit.

Can anyone prove that this man in a suit was not planting evidence?

Can anyone prove that this man was not in the employ of the security services?

Because until you can, arguments about whether the passport could have survived or not are irrelevant.

It's pathetic, ignoring the same fatal flaw over and over again.


Please note the use of the two words PROVE and NOT in the same sentence. I expect you understand the problem with this kind of argument.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by waypastvne

This is how I explain it



[edit on 22-9-2009 by waypastvne]


AIR PRESSURE?????




[edit on 23-9-2009 by Orion7911]


It lost credibility for me when it asked "What is holding up this [very heavy] airplane? That's right, air!" Lol. Not "lift" then.caused by an aerofoil moving through air? Good luck with your "science". It also gave the empty volume of air in the plane, not including flooring, wiring, seats, passengers, insulation, luggage, etc.

And for those who accuse anyone of fitting facts to answers, rather the other way around, is that not exactly what the US gov did when they declared that the attacks were the responsibility of Al Qaeda? That passport, with its exceedingly suspect provenance, was instrumental in their reaching that decision so quickly. The fact that the holder of that passport turned up alive and well shows what utter tripe the official story is.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



waypastvne doesn't seem to realize that since the cabin psi was lower than the psi outside the plane, it would have imploded, not the other way around.


Duh. The aft portion of the fuselage just forward of the pressure bulkhead imploded.

Take a really good look at the photo below. Notice how the armrests are imprinted in the aluminum below the windows. You can clearly see how edge failures are folded inward at the top and bottom of the piece of debris. It appears that the top of the fuselage collapsed inward folding the outer skin around the bottom of the overhead storage compartments. As the skin collapsed inward, it pressed against the line of armrests, leaving a visible series of creases. Further evidence of an implosion is the inward fold at the bottom edge of the debris.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Personally I would never believe anything coming from either the FBI or the FBI Lab. Over a dozen FBI whistleblowers have confirmed this suspicion.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Personally I would never believe anything coming from either the FBI or the FBI Lab. Over a dozen FBI whistleblowers have confirmed this suspicion.



Fine - that is your personal belief. You don't mind if msot Americans feel otherwise, do you? Or does that automatically make them all paid government shills?



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


It lost credibility for me when it asked "What is holding up this [very heavy] airplane? That's right, air!" Lol. Not "lift" then.caused by an aerofoil moving through air?


In the end, no matter how you look at it, that aircraft is being held up by air.


It also gave the empty volume of air in the plane, not including flooring, wiring, seats, passengers, insulation, luggage, etc.


My volume numders came from Janes all the worlds aircraft, they are for the interior of the aircraft. If you dont like thosenumbers do the calculations and give me the ones you think are right. Also the center fuel tank on both AA11 and UA175 where empty. I left out that volume of air to make up for people and luggage, You will need to add it in to your calculations.


The fact that the holder of that passport turned up alive and well shows what utter tripe the official story is.


You know him personally? Cool! Drag him out here so we can all get look, or least post a link to his Facebook page. Or provide any piece of evidence at all that he's alive... dated after 9/27/2001. He's dead and I know this because he's not hosting his own talk show on Al Jezeera



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Uhmm, we're all waiting for you to present two things waypast....

1) please show proof the pictures of aircraft debris are from UA175/AA11 and be sure to show matching serial numbers.

2) a scientific model or logical explanation with supporting academic evidence how AIR PRESSURE was responsible for punching that nice perfectly round hole out of the C RING.

any evasion and failure to do so is an automatic acceptance that you're either a shill, in denial or have no clue what you're talking about as I suspect.

--insert music from Jeopordy here--



Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by JPhish
 



waypastvne doesn't seem to realize that since the cabin psi was lower than the psi outside the plane, it would have imploded, not the other way around.


Duh. The aft portion of the fuselage just forward of the pressure bulkhead imploded.

Take a really good look at the photo below. Notice how the armrests are imprinted in the aluminum below the windows. You can clearly see how edge failures are folded inward at the top and bottom of the piece of debris. It appears that the top of the fuselage collapsed inward folding the outer skin around the bottom of the overhead storage compartments. As the skin collapsed inward, it pressed against the line of armrests, leaving a visible series of creases. Further evidence of an implosion is the inward fold at the bottom edge of the debris.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
Last I checked, I made no mention of pieces of paper being unable to survive a space shuttles failed reentry into the atmosphere.


False analogy (1)

The events are not even comparable. There is no fire during a reentry, get your facts straight, there is only ablation.

If you drop a piece of paper from above the earths atmosphere it will make it down to earth without burning 99.9999999999999999% of the time. That .000000000000000000001 % being when it by chance grazes something HEAVY entering the atmosphere at high speeds; in which case it would only get singed and would not burn because there is insufficient amounts of oxygen to sustain a fire at those heights.


Not comparable? No fire during re-entry?

This is what happened during the particular re-entry the other posters were referring to:



I think a piece of paper surviving that catastrophe would have a similar chance as a piece of paper at the WTC. And yet it actually did, along with other flammable items.

People need to remember how explosions work. First comes the pressure wave, or shockwave. THEN comes the fireball/shrapnel.

To point it out clearly - look at video footage of atomic bomb tests. I realise this is a much larger scale, but as you can actually see the shockwave, it helps demonstrate it more clearly.

What can happen in explosions is certain random items within the plane can be projected by the pressure wave AHEAD of the resulting fireball.

This is why there are numerous cases of easily flammable objects surviving horrific plane crashes.

Rewey




[edit on 23-9-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

posted by hooper

Actually, the passport was not found in the rubble, it was found by an unidentified person and turned over to a NYPD detective a block or so from the WTC before the towers collapsed. Its in the 9/11 Commision Report.



I have a question. Don't NYPD detectives wear plain clothes; no uniforms? So how did this alleged passerby who allegedly found this unblemished paper passport know to give it to this NYPD detective? Why didn't he give his alleged discovery to a uniformed officer or a guy wearing a FBI jacket?

This entire paper passport scenario is unbelievable and poorly scripted.

Only absolute fools would believe such nonsense.



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


Larger version

Passport exterior cover



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Columbia didn't crash into a building and then ignite into a giant fireball, allegedly hot enough to bring down a building. Columbia broke apart in air and the pieces burned as the fell down to earth, it is plausible that the items fell out before the piece they fell from burnt. Or perhaps they where in a "fireproof" container or suit?

[edit on 9/23/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Oh, the passport - it's kind of like the OJ Simpson's glove. Planted evidence that some dummy really didn't think through.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 




1) please show proof the pictures of aircraft debris are from UA175/AA11 and be sure to show matching serial numbers.


Wreckage on top of WTC5



Wreckage on top of WTC5



N612UA cn 21873/41




2) a scientific model or logical explanation with supporting academic evidence how AIR PRESSURE was responsible for punching that nice perfectly round hole out of the C RING.


Can you think of anything else, besides air, that can weave its way through that maze of columns. A missle couldn't do that.




any evasion and failure to do so is an automatic acceptance that you're either a shill, in denial or have no clue what you're talking about as I suspect.


Yea I'm a shill. I get all the free gas I want and I don't have to pay any taxes. EAT YOUR HEART OUT.









[edit on 23-9-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 





There is no fire during a reentry, get your facts straight, there is only ablation.


OOOOkay..........no fire during a failed reentry. Yeah..........



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
In fact, which is more likely - the passport survived and was found or everyone in all levels of government is capable of being a cold blooded murderer?

Don't use weak straw man arguments. You discredit yourself when you do so and make yourself a target. By using such pathetic arguments you've identified yourself as one of two things. You are either a genuine paid shill, or you have serious deficiencies in your ability to reason and use logic, deficiencies which are common, but not limited to, people with extra chromosomes.

I'd love to believe the official story, but its defenders often use arguments which appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that's really suspect.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by JPhish
 



waypastvne doesn't seem to realize that since the cabin psi was lower than the psi outside the plane, it would have imploded, not the other way around.


Duh. The aft portion of the fuselage just forward of the pressure bulkhead imploded.

Take a really good look at the photo below. Notice how the armrests are imprinted in the aluminum below the windows. You can clearly see how edge failures are folded inward at the top and bottom of the piece of debris. It appears that the top of the fuselage collapsed inward folding the outer skin around the bottom of the overhead storage compartments. As the skin collapsed inward, it pressed against the line of armrests, leaving a visible series of creases. Further evidence of an implosion is the inward fold at the bottom edge of the debris.

this is a random picture with no time stamp that could have been taken at any time any where. Not to mention that everything you are saying is pure conjecture.



Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by JPhish
Last I checked, I made no mention of pieces of paper being unable to survive a space shuttles failed reentry into the atmosphere.

False analogy (1)

The events are not even comparable. There is no fire during a reentry, get your facts straight, there is only ablation.

If you drop a piece of paper from above the earths atmosphere it will make it down to earth without burning 99.9999999999999999% of the time. That .000000000000000000001 % being when it by chance grazes something HEAVY entering the atmosphere at high speeds; in which case it would only get singed and would not burn because there is insufficient amounts of oxygen to sustain a fire at those heights.


Not comparable? No fire during re-entry?

This is what happened during the particular re-entry the other posters were referring to:




That is not a fire burning, it is ablation. Not comparable.


I think a piece of paper surviving that catastrophe would have a similar chance as a piece of paper at the WTC. And yet it actually did, along with other flammable items.
well, fortunate for us, what you think isn’t reality.


People need to remember how explosions work. First comes the pressure wave, or shockwave. THEN comes the fireball/shrapnel.
the space shuttle did not explode, it was ripped apart.


To point it out clearly - look at video footage of atomic bomb tests. I realise this is a much larger scale, but as you can actually see the shockwave, it helps demonstrate it more clearly.
sorry, but the delay between the initial shock-wave and the actual "fire" is negligible. The air is also hot enough to melt your face off.


What can happen in explosions is certain random items within the plane can be projected by the pressure wave AHEAD of the resulting fireball.
yes, many random items do survive plane crashes. In fact with most plane crashes, nearly the entirety of the planes parts can be salvaged. Not on 9-11 though. That day physics took the day off.


This is why there are numerous cases of easily flammable objects surviving horrific plane crashes.
absolutely. But not like the “plane crash" on 9-11.


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
OOOOkay..........no fire during a failed reentry. Yeah..........

i didn't say no fire at all . . . there is practically none, except for maybe a few split seconds here and there, but that's only towards the end when the ship is already being torn apart.



[edit on 9/24/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I've already pointed this out, but you seem to forget and continue to
spread BS:



There is no letter marking that touches the window on the original aircraft
photo.

care to explain why there is a strip of white paint touching the window
cavity of the 'debris' if the red outline does not show this?

Your debris does not match the section you outlined and/or does not
belong to the aircraft you believe.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

1) please show proof the pictures of aircraft debris are from UA175/AA11 and be sure to show matching serial numbers.

Wreckage on top of WTC5




I'll repeat myself since your response doesn't remotely answer the question I asked which is very simple.......

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT DEBRIS IS FROM UA175/AA11 WITH A MATCHING SERIAL NUMBER AND A POINT OF REFERENCE WHERE EXACTLY THAT PHOTO WAS TAKEN.

---Insert Jeopordy theme here---


Originally posted by waypastvne
Wreckage on top of WTC5




I'll repeat myself since your response doesn't remotely answer the question I asked which is very simple.......

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THAT DEBRIS IS FROM UA175/AA11 WITH A MATCHING SERIAL NUMBER AND A POINT OF REFERENCE WHERE EXACTLY THAT PHOTO WAS TAKEN.

---Insert Jeopordy theme here---


Originally posted by waypastvne
N612UA cn 21873/41




Please explain how the above image has anything to do with proving the debris is from that aircraft? And please explain how you KNOW the DEBRIS is from the portion you outlined in RED.

---Insert Jeopordy theme here---


Originally posted by waypastvne
2) a scientific model or logical explanation with supporting academic evidence how AIR PRESSURE was responsible for punching that nice perfectly round hole out of the C RING.

Can you think of anything else, besides air, that can weave its way through that maze of columns. A missle couldn't do that.


So let me get this straight... you BELIEVE and ASSERT (without any SCIENTIFIC BASED MODEL or supporting evidence) that some AIR POCKET/PRESSURE from the alleged EXPLODING aircraft had a MIND OF ITS OWN and somehow WEAVED its way through several WALLS and maze of columns in the midst of an apocalyptic scenario and aligned itself with the trajectory of the flight path and somehow managed to maintain its FORM and end up punching a hole through the C RING????

:
:
:
:
:


HOLY BUNKER BUSTERS BATMAN!

you're joking right?

and I thought the theory the LANDING GEAR made that hole was INSANE.... you just gave new meaning to the word.

if thats not absolute proof to anyone with a brain here that debunkers aren't in touch with reality, I don't know what is. In fact its so bizarre, I'm not sure whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

But seriously, Is there anyone else here who agrees and believes this new 9/11 fantasy you've just put forth?

Oh and btw... a MISSLE CAN do that... so can pre-placed explosives


Originally posted by waypastvne



how is that image relevant to proving your bizarre hypothesis?


Originally posted by waypastvne
any evasion and failure to do so is an automatic acceptance that you're either a shill, in denial or have no clue what you're talking about as I suspect.

Yea I'm a shill. I get all the free gas I want and I don't have to pay any taxes. EAT YOUR HEART OUT.
[edit on 23-9-2009 by waypastvne]


Are you in denial then, or just trolling?

With all due respect, How does your theory have any basis in reality in this universe?

Hec, i'll put up 100 USD if you can show any rational or scientific basis for your claim. I might even be willing to add a zero on to that challenge. You seem pretty sure of yourself to come here and assert such an incredible claim.


[edit on 24-9-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
A missile can weave around walls and columns?

Is it a nanomissile?


Seriously though, you should learn to spell jeopardy if you're going to use it to mock and patronise people.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


There are a number of ways, the detective in question may have been in uniform, may have been wearing a "POLICE" jacket like we have all seen or may have been displaying his badge as is common in a public situation. Might have been sitting in a marked police car, may have been talking to uniform officers and on and on and on.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join