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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Exactly what do the words "vicinity of" mean to you?




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston
 


Exactly what do the words "vicinity of" mean to you?



Well gee whiz hooper.

It means to me that it was not allegedly found according to the FBI near Liberty Street nor Cedar Street nor Albany Street nor Carlisle Street nor Rector Street nor Church Street nor West Street nor Trinity Pl nor Greenwich Street nor Washington Street. Why else would they single out Vesey Street north of the WTC1 Tower against the wind hooper?

Isn't endless DENIAL a terrible compulsion to be stuck with hooper?

Why do you think the FBI changed the Satam al-Suqami paper passport script to a passerby found it and gave it to a NYPD detective hooper?

If the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY was the truth; then why did the FBI and other government officials have to change the official scripts in many 9-11 explanations hooper? Why is that?



-- Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said.

CNN Source



posted by hooper

Or it means that when a piece of paper is dropped from an elevation of 850 feet it doesn't fall to the ground like a cannon ball. It may, just may, have been effected by the atmoshpere.



Larger Diagram from Moussouai Trial Exhibits



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
"Or it means that when a piece of paper is dropped from an elevation of 850 feet it doesn't fall to the ground like a cannon ball. It may, just may, have been effected by the atmoshpere."

First of all, an intact passport is composed of a number of pieces of paper and a heavier cover binded together, not just one piece of paper, as you claim. This isn't one sheet of thin paper flying in the breeze, as you would like us to believe. If you don't even know something as elementary as how many pieces of paper a passport is composed of, how can you expect us to believe anything else you are claiming?

Second of all, can you be a little more specific as to how this passport was affected by the atmosphere? Were there hurricane force winds blowing from south to north at the time? Maybe I'm wrong, but by all accounts, it looked like a beautiful mild September day to me.

Also, it appears from the photographic and video evidence, the smoke rising from WTC 1 after impact was not blowing north. According to the video below, it appears the smoke is drifting slowly in an east to southeasterly direction. For your theory to be even remotely close to being correct, the wind would have to be blowing in a northerly direction.

www.youtube.com...

Second of all, take a look at that diagram again. The landing gear from Flight 11 landed approximately nine city blocks SOUTH of WTC 1? Now I ask you, how much force would it take to propel a piece of landing gear almost half a mile from the accident location? Therefore, one can reasonably assume the same amount of force was acting on the passport as was acting on the landing gear.

So let's review. You want us to believe that a passport (which, by the way, was durable enough to sustain temperatures which allegedly melted steel) was expelled with a tremendous amount of force out of the south side of WTC 1 and headed in a southerly direction with the wind at its back. The passport then miraculously proceeded to do a U-Turn, traveling three or four blocks against the wind in a northerly direction, and came to a rest on the north side of WTC 1?

Hey, I have another idea, maybe the passport was remote controlled. Sadly, the aforementioned is more believable than your preposterous theory.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Sorry, the denial is all on your guys side, not over here. The passport was found, it was handed over to the NYPD and then to the FBI. You want to pretend that there is some exact predetermined trajectory for passports falling 1000 feet out of the sky (I forgot it was the 97th floor) that this particular piece of paper is in violation of, go right ahead.

I think the most hilarious thing is hearing the passport being likened to a book of stone when it suits the trajectory argument and then the same passport is a single sheet of kerosene soaked rice paper when arguing that it would never survive the impact. It did, and it was found and it is in evidence.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


I believe that Satam al-Suqami passport official storyline is toast (pun intended) figuratively speaking. With the FBI shooting themselves in the foot again and again on 911 issues, I believe it has been sufficiently proven that the passport was planted.

But why would the FBI and government officials think they need to fake evidence if 911 happened as claimed? Wouldn't the simple facts which naturally occur during an event be sufficient?

So what other evidence did they decide needed to be faked and planted covertly? Other passports claimed to be recovered from alleged 911 crash sites? Drivers licenses? Fuselage pieces? DNA? Single steel aircraft wheels with nine missing and single aircraft tires? Engine rotors? Jet fuel? Downed light poles? Eyewitnesses who cannot be tracked down publicly or who changed their original testimonies? Passengers still strapped into aircraft seats?

If they will lie about one event; why wouldn't they lie about other events?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HennyPen
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


I believe that Satam al-Suqami passport official storyline is toast (pun intended) figuratively speaking. With the FBI shooting themselves in the foot again and again on 911 issues, I believe it has been sufficiently proven that the passport was planted.

But why would the FBI and government officials think they need to fake evidence if 911 happened as claimed? Wouldn't the simple facts which naturally occur during an event be sufficient?

So what other evidence did they decide needed to be faked and planted covertly? Other passports claimed to be recovered from alleged 911 crash sites? Drivers licenses? Fuselage pieces? DNA? Single steel aircraft wheels with nine missing and single aircraft tires? Engine rotors? Jet fuel? Downed light poles? Eyewitnesses who cannot be tracked down publicly or who changed their original testimonies? Passengers still strapped into aircraft seats?

If they will lie about one event; why wouldn't they lie about other events?


First, prove it was planted with something other than - "I don't believe it". Then prove who lied and waht exactly they lied about. Please note the differnece between being wrong and lying. Just because you can prove that something said is wrong is not the same as proving that they lied.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston
 


Sorry, the denial is all on your guys side, not over here. The passport was found, it was handed over to the NYPD and then to the FBI. You want to pretend that there is some exact predetermined trajectory for passports falling 1000 feet out of the sky (I forgot it was the 97th floor) that this particular piece of paper is in violation of, go right ahead.

I think the most hilarious thing is hearing the passport being likened to a book of stone when it suits the trajectory argument and then the same passport is a single sheet of kerosene soaked rice paper when arguing that it would never survive the impact. It did, and it was found and it is in evidence.



How do you explain the passport heading north against the wind when the rest of the aircraft headed south? Oh did I forget; after surviving a fireball supposedly trapped inside the fuselage as the fuselage rammed into the 97th floor concrete floor slab at an alleged 466 mph and with the alleged passport officially soaked in kerosene inside the fireball inside the North Tower?

But oh no; you accept on faith that your government would never fake the evidence even though the entire Satam al Suqami passport fable stinks to high heaven.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HennyPen
 


Unless of course the passport was covertly carried to the WTC area by a person unknown and soaked in jet fuel before it was handed over to the alleged NYPD detective.

But darn it that official passport cover sure doesn't look like it is soaked with jet fuel and is a uniform color.

Passport cover

And shoot the passport looks pretty good too. No jet fuel stains and no burn marks. I see only ordinary official watermarks in the paper.

Paper passport

Assuming this was really the actual passport of Satam al Suqami (and it sure looks authentic), then who would be the most likely person to have the passport in his possession? Why Satam al Suqami himself. But he was supposed to be 97 stories above and to the south burning up to a crispy critter.

But maybe as a CIA asset with extensive training on US military bases, Satam al Suqami was required to deliver the passport to a NYPD detective, incognito of course, and in disguise. If he pretended not to speak English, of course it would be difficult for the NYPD detective to obtain his identification, which would be a definite no-no for the official storyline. Then Satam could have headed off for his next CIA mission.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HennyPen

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by SPreston
 


Sorry, the denial is all on your guys side, not over here. The passport was found, it was handed over to the NYPD and then to the FBI. You want to pretend that there is some exact predetermined trajectory for passports falling 1000 feet out of the sky (I forgot it was the 97th floor) that this particular piece of paper is in violation of, go right ahead.

I think the most hilarious thing is hearing the passport being likened to a book of stone when it suits the trajectory argument and then the same passport is a single sheet of kerosene soaked rice paper when arguing that it would never survive the impact. It did, and it was found and it is in evidence.



How do you explain the passport heading north against the wind when the rest of the aircraft headed south? Oh did I forget; after surviving a fireball supposedly trapped inside the fuselage as the fuselage rammed into the 97th floor concrete floor slab at an alleged 466 mph and with the alleged passport officially soaked in kerosene inside the fireball inside the North Tower?

But oh no; you accept on faith that your government would never fake the evidence even though the entire Satam al Suqami passport fable stinks to high heaven.


Sorry, but a continued chorus of "I don't believe it" and "it stinks" and "planted evidence" are not going to get you anywhere. It is what it is. Really, to sit there and try to argue that a passport falling from 1000 feet (or maybe much more) can only go in one direction must sound absurd even to those trying to argue it.

As to prevailing winds, etc. Think about that a little bit in the context of the twin towers - think about why the towers, in their design, were not in line.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
to prevailing winds, etc. Think about that a little bit in the context of the twin towers - think about why the towers, in their design, were not in line.



So you believe that a southerly wind will create a northerly vortex around WTC 1? Can you show in a wind tunnel test how that is even remotely possible?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
to prevailing winds, etc. Think about that a little bit in the context of the twin towers - think about why the towers, in their design, were not in line.



So you believe that a southerly wind will create a northerly vortex around WTC 1? Can you show in a wind tunnel test how that is even remotely possible?


Yes, let me get out my wind tunnel and I'll show you. The point is that air movement in the vicinity of the WTC and lower Manhattan is as simple as it is on an open plain. Something as small and with decent sail area could end up going in any direction.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

posted by Nutter

So you believe that a southerly wind will create a northerly vortex around WTC 1? Can you show in a wind tunnel test how that is even remotely possible?


posted by hooper
Yes, let me get out my wind tunnel and I'll show you. The point is that air movement in the vicinity of the WTC and lower Manhattan is as simple as it is on an open plain. Something as small and with decent sail area could end up going in any direction.


Sail area? So now you are claiming the miracle WTC passport hoisted sails and tacked back and forth up-wind like an America's Cup challenger yacht?




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   

posted by hooper

As to prevailing winds, etc. Think about that a little bit in the context of the twin towers - think about why the towers, in their design, were not in line.



As a former sailor, I know that winds will increase in velocity passing between tall buildings or canyon walls or between sails.

But what winds will not do is turn around and head back in the opposite direction against the following winds. No, that space in the atmosphere is already filled with higher pressure and the winds will continue away from it in its original direction. So your incessant denial and weak arguments are pipe dreams.

That miracle passport did not sail upwind more than 500 feet. But it could have been carried any number of feet or miles by a miracle passport evidence planter.




posted by hooper

Really, to sit there and try to argue that a passport falling from 1000 feet (or maybe much more) can only go in one direction must sound absurd even to those trying to argue it.



Much more than 1000 feet? So now in your denial are you going to tell us that Satam al Suqami somehow at almost 400 knots opened the cockpit window, before the aircraft reached the North Tower at the 97th floor, and threw the miracle passport out the window? Another pipe dream in your denial?

Your desperation grasping at straws in all directions is apparent to all of us.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



"sail area" is simply a term used in construction or engineering to refer to the area of an object or structure that can be affected by wind. Like the sides of buildings, billboards, banners, posters, etc. The passport like any object with a relatively flat surface had a certain sail area, area subject to wind or airpressure. That passport could have easily sailed above the 97th floor area after the impact.

Rather than "investigate 911" maybe you should try and investigate science and the physical world around you. Maybe find a high bridge or structure around you and simply drop a sheet of paper. But before you let go, try to predict where it is going to land to withing a foot or two. If your predictions don't hold true then the piece of paper was obviously "planted" right?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I am just a little curious as to where in your studies you learned that anything with a decent sail area will travel against the wind especially for a rather lengthy period of time?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by hooper
 


I am just a little curious as to where in your studies you learned that anything with a decent sail area will travel against the wind especially for a rather lengthy period of time?


Sorry - the whole "against the wind" thing is just conjecture on your part. You have assumed you have an exact map of the air movement, speed, direction, and duration in an around the WTC that morning - you don't. Therefore any statement about "against" the wind or "with" the wind is just an uninformed opinion. Nothing more.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Rather than "investigate 911" maybe you should try and investigate science and the physical world around you. Maybe find a high bridge or structure around you and simply drop a sheet of paper. But before you let go, try to predict where it is going to land to withing a foot or two. If your predictions don't hold true then the piece of paper was obviously "planted" right?


I can, without a doubt, know that the piece of paper WILL NOT fall in the direction of the prevailing wind. Talk about investigating the real science and physical world around you all you want, but until you do it and understand it, we can see your desperation.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I just found something interesting in favor of your arguement hooper. According to weather underground, the wind in Manhattan, NY was 3 mph - NNW. I may have to rethink my stance on this particular arguement.

www.wunderground.com...

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by hooper
Rather than "investigate 911" maybe you should try and investigate science and the physical world around you. Maybe find a high bridge or structure around you and simply drop a sheet of paper. But before you let go, try to predict where it is going to land to withing a foot or two. If your predictions don't hold true then the piece of paper was obviously "planted" right?


I can, without a doubt, know that the piece of paper WILL NOT fall in the direction of the prevailing wind. Talk about investigating the real science and physical world around you all you want, but until you do it and understand it, we can see your desperation.


Really? You know what "prevailing" means correct?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Are we going into a semantic arguement? You know what I ment.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join