The most invalid argument concerning 9/11

Originally posted by EvilAxis
Feel free to shake the ignoramus on my behalf. If you can find him. I've yet to hear anyone who hangs their theories about 9/11 on a single surviving passport.

They would have to be ignorant indeed when there's such a colossal body of contradictory evidence, much of it more significant.

That you single out one piece of data as the be-all and end-all, presumably because you think it's the easiest to dismiss, makes me doubt your sincerity.

That said, as even the mainstream media noticed at the time, the circumstances around the perfectly unscathed passport are highly suspicious.


[edit on 4-4-2008 by EvilAxis]

First, one only has to read the 9/11 forums to see people pulling out the passport survived as proof of a cover up.

Second, doubt whatever you want.. I find it funny that many people brush off others thoughts this way, keep the dream alive I guess. You can believe that I am a shill to provide disinformation all you want (at least that’s is what I read into your personal comment)

Just because I point out the fallacy of hanging a theory on one small item does not mean that there aren't mountains of other evidence pointing all different ways and just because I pick that one thing and post a comment here that annoys the crap out of my doesn't make me disingenuous.

I want this STOPPED being used as a point of reference and contention; it is stupid and ignorant on either side of the coin.

I never said it was the end-all be-all to the 9/11 conspiracy..
YOU did.
If anything, the fact that you are attempting to dismiss my thoughts tells me YOU are less than sincere. Especially if you say you agree with the initial comment…

Parry!


That said.. To some of the rest of you, the sheer amount of people on this forum who do not read and comprehend postings is just flat out amazing; I am constantly shifting my percentages of smart people vs. really stupid people every day. Not only has my point been missed on many posters but yet again a thread intended to stick to topic goes off on a journey never intended.






The point of this post was to say definitively that a passport found is NOT proof either way that 9/11 was or was not an inside job.


The point of this post was to say definitively that a passport (however improbable) CAN possibly survive this type of event.


The point of this post was to say definitively that someone who says a surviving passport could NOT survive this type of an event is either ignorant, a liar, or actually out of their mind.


I could care less who you are, what your standing is, where you’re coming from or whatever common sense you think you have, if you are of the mind that a passport could not have possibly survived then you really need to look hard at your motives, methods and ultimate conclusions.. cause you’ve got holes.


I apologize to those who are sensitive to this kind of thing I don’t mean to be dismissive confrontational or insulting, I really don’t, I don’t set out each day to be a prick, but the ignorance on this board is just sad.

There are a million little theories that one can use to prop up their own theory of the “real” story. Many I believe in, many I do not (holograms anyone) but even the far-fetched hold more weight than an absolute that a passport could not possibly survive.

The passport is not the smoking gun. Stop using it please.

That’s all.

reply to post by MajKarma


This is why I try to avoid the 911 threads, but someone has to speak for the what is right and true here..

MajKarma... Just because someone questions the logic and premises of certain claims considering this passport evidence doesn't in any way entitle you to liken them to NAZI's!! WAY out of line and one more reason the general public has a problem taking 911 debates and discussions seriously. If you wonder why there aren't more people listening, look in the mirror.

And yes everyone should expect the Moderator to stay objective and guide the debate. The OP isn't required to. If you don't think so MOD, then look up the term Moderator in the context of a debate. The Moderator shouldn't start a discussion by labeling anyone who disagrees with his highly suspect theory a Moron or in need of a Labotomy.....You are the Moderator for gods sake. This is like a boxing referee starting a match by kicking one of the boxers in the nuts and then asking both fighters to compete civilly. If you want to tussle and not be a ref then give up the Mod job, otherwise take the high road your role requires of you.

Wow ATS has really gone down hill.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by maybereal11]

While I understand the angst brought about by repeatedly having to contend with an argument you feel you 'settled.' I can't help but find you position is sort of, well, mean spirited.

I'm not arguing on topic though, so feel free to chastise me as you see fit.

Many people have not had an opportunity to hear your extended arguments regarding this or that aspect of 9/11 truth or fiction. So if they bring it up, it might not be out of stubborn defiance, but instead because the argument hasn't been 'settled' in their experience. You don't seem the type to express yourself abusively in the normal scheme of things, so I hope you understand this is not meant as an observation of you, but as one of your audience.

I'm not sure how anyone, even if their debating as a form of mental exercise, hang their argument on a single element like the whole terrorist passport found thing. It can't even be rightly called 'evidence' as such, because no one has actually verified its authenticity from a legal perspective. So I can understand the frustration with its resurgence as an 'strong argument.'

Unfortunately, I fit into the unkind categorization made by some here as one of those pathetic losers who think 9/11 'truth' has been hidden or withheld by unknown parties for unknown purposes. When you are that kind of kook, conjecture is the only tool you can use to empowers yourself to solve what you perceive to be the mystery - after all - no one seems willing to address the mystery from an official perspective.

(Please accept that those people who have 'authoritatively' put forth explanations have already relegated the follow-up questions put forth as unworthy of review) Most 9/11 acceptors do not question the accounts provided by those 'authoritative' sources - this does not make them 'acceptable' to those who doubt them. Just because you feel comfortable with the event and its explanation does not negate the questions of those who don't.

Were it as simple as - "We found the smoking gun!" there would be no debate. Since I suspect 99% of the 'kooks' are not in a position to 'find' anything, the best they can hope for it to provide a theory as to where that 'smoking gun' can and can not be, and hope that those who 'can' actually look will respond that 'we looked into that and found for xyz reason no conclusion can be drawn'; or perhaps, 'investigations into that theory have validated or invalidated other elements of conjecture.'

For the 9/11 acceptors, it fairly straight forward, 'just because you say so doesn't prove a thing,' or perhaps 'don't you think someone would have reported that if it were so?' or maybe even 'there are other possibilities.'

You (don't get defensive - it's meant as a collective generalization) have already laid claim to the ground that you don't need to prove anything. That the onus is on the theorist to provide that which you will accept as proof. Sadly, theorists never have proof to offer, all they have is theory, to ask for more is a logic trap.

I sometimes wish I could switch roles and demonstrate the way in which negative defense of an argument is so much easier than persuasive construction; but in this case I can't. There are too many indicators of doubt in those little things some called 'facts.' I won't get into them here though, out of respect for your clear indication of how 'fed up' you are with the whole exercise.

Originally posted by maybereal11
And yes everyone should expect the Moderator to stay objective and guide the debate. The OP isn't required to. If you don't think so MOD, then look up the term Moderator in the context of a debate. The Moderator shouldn't start a discussion by labeling anyone who disagrees with his highly suspect theory a Moron or in need of a Labotomy.....You are the Moderator for gods sake. This is like a boxing referee starting a match by kicking one of the boxers in the nuts and then asking both fighters to compete civilly. If you want to tussle and not be a ref then give up the Mod job, otherwise take the high road your role requires of you.

Wow ATS has really gone down hill.

This thread is in a forum moderated by: UM_Gazz, WyrdeOne, spacedoubt, Spiderj, thelibra, benevolent tyrant, yeahright, Cuhail, Sauron, NGC2736

I don't see Dr. Love's name there. Do you? So, he is NOT the mod of this forum. Therefore he is only a poster in the 9/11 forums.

Jeez, no wonder mods don't usually post in this forum.

The closest to a "smoking gun" there is that points to... something other than the official government/media drones' party line... isn't anything as miniscule as the passport issue or, for Christ's sake, the hologram theory. Such gun smoke is, trust me, the fact that there is either no or EXCEEDINGLY insufficient plane wreckage at both the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, PA. History WILL verify that; or eventually. Simply, NOTHING can "vaporize" in the way the (inexpressibly untrue/psychotic) NIST Report claims. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by gormly
I never said it was the end-all be-all to the 9/11 conspiracy..
YOU did.

At the risk of pouring oil on troubled waters that Maxmars so valiantly and eloquently tried to soothe...

When you call it the "presumed smoking gun" and say you "want to shake the ignoramus who holds this as his single proof that everything is a lie" it sounds like you're trying to discredit all who demand a real investigation by attacking a single argument you personally find unconvincing.

You title the thread The most invalid argument concerning 9/11 but it would only be invalid if one supposed this single anomaly conclusively proved something. It certainly isn't invalid as a piece of the evidence.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by gormly
I never said it was the end-all be-all to the 9/11 conspiracy..
YOU did.

At the risk of pouring oil on troubled waters that Maxmars so valiantly and eloquently tried to soothe...

When you call it the "presumed smoking gun" and say you "want to shake the ignoramus who holds this as his single proof that everything is a lie" it sounds like you're trying to discredit all who demand a real investigation by attacking a single argument you personally find unconvincing.

Thank you for the kind sentiment. As usual you sum up in one succinct statement that which took me paragraphs of gyrations to get to.

Originally posted by thedman
Tape from CVR at Pentagon was too badly damaged to yield useful
information, FDR was in good enough shape.

I think this is the first time the NTSB could not recover anything from a voice recorder.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The B767 has a very large CENTER fuel tank...as does the B757, and smaller, but the B737 too.....

Nice post. But all the repors also state that a large portion of the fuel burned off OUTSIDE the towers and of course what was left burnt off quickly.

Now for a question, do you believe that since the fire in the towers were hot enough to melt aluminum, could the molten aluminunm from the aircraft create a thermite reaction when coming into contact with other parts of the aircraft?

reply to post by Griff


My apoligies. My impression, apparently a mistaken one, was that Mods were Mods when they post. When I see the Tag "Moderator" I am usually looking for the voice of ...welll moderation. If they commonly take off their Moderator hat and toss in insulting remarks on threads that they don't moderate then I can say I don't think it's appropriate, but apparently acceptable to ATS policy if you say so.

On a side note: Like I said I usually don't comment on 911 threads because many of us lost friends in 911 and I think before anyone starts poking that wound and insinuating it was an inside job they should have thoroughly sound arguments and proof. Those that have suffered the most from that tragedy will be the first to join the ranks of conspiracy theorists calling for justice once the suspicions cease being "conspiracies".

Screaming conspiracy and pouncing on trivial inconsistencies in the event as explained by authorities though in absence of proof seems to me like self serving intellectual mastrubation. It seems flipant and mildly painful. Question truth, but respect it also. Be your own critic and debunker and then present what truth survices and look for a second opinion and actually listen. Ever wonder what the source of Bhudda's wisdom was? Find a figurine of him and look at his ears. Symbolically giant ears. His wisdom came from listening, not speaking.

Don't marry yourself to a truth you choose and then fish for trivialities and anomolies that fit your preconceptions. Truths are revealed, not constructed.

One day after 9/11 the perfectly unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami, one of the alleged 19 hijackers, was found several blocks from Ground Zero, even though its next to impossible such a flimsy item escaped the towering inferno unblemished.

Now comes another piece of mysterious evidence, like the Al Suqami passport, never before revealed to the public and overlooked by authorities and the media, showing again the FBI probably was busy planting evidence at all 9/11 locations, including the Pentagon.

Never before released and revealed first to the Arctic Beacon, a first responder said he found a perfectly intact California ID card at the Pentagon on Sept 13, 2001, supposedly now revealing the identity of one of the alleged passengers who perished on Flight 77.

However, unfortunately, for the state sponsored media and the FBI/CIA it was a piece of evidence overlooked and never used after 9/11 to perpetuate the government's myth.



Its funny how its only the passport people talk about miraculously surviving.

reply to post by Super Krout


Okay...lets assume you work for the CIA/FBI or more likely some subcontracting military SAP and your job is planting evidence at the appropriate scenes. Why wouldn't you at least take a ciggerette lighter to the passport edges? Ditto for the CA ID card? After planning all of this are they so dumb as to not try and at least make the passport appear to have survived an explosion? I suspect that the truth is that sometimes odd things happen. Maybe the nature of the impact and exlposions allowed for some materials to be ejected prior to the fuel tanks further back on the jet impacting and igniting. The hijacker would be likely be in the cockpit on impact. I am not saying this is what happened, but critical thought is called for and deserves to be explored before leaping to conclusions. Has anybody researched what other material survived and itemized it?

[edit on 4-4-2008 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by maybereal11
On a side note: Like I said I usually don't comment on 911 threads because many of us lost friends in 911 and I think before anyone starts poking that wound and insinuating it was an inside job they should have thoroughly sound arguments and proof.

I think that most of us looking for the truth are doing it because of the people that died that day. People that just believe what they are told are dong the injustice to the people that died.

But please explain to me how people can still believe the official story when there is no sound arguments and proof to support it?

WASHINGTON March 13, 2004 (AP) - The removal of souvenir debris from the scenes of the Sept. 11 attacks reached the highest levels of government, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and FBI Director Robert Mueller's chief of anti-terrorism, a Justice Department investigation has found.

The practice was so widespread inside the FBI that it even forced prosecutors in Minnesota to drop plans to prosecute a company that had taken a fire truck door from the World Trade Center, according to a still-confidential report obtained by The Associated Press. The report said the Justice Department inspector general confirmed that Rumsfeld "has a piece of the airplane that flew into the Pentagon" inside his Defense Department office. Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said Friday night that Rumsfeld has a shard of metal from the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on a table in his office and shows it to people as a reminder of the tragedy Pentagon workers shared on Sept. 11, 2001.

"He doesn't consider it his own," Di Rita said. "We are mindful of the fact that if somebody has an evidentiary requirement to have this shard of metal, we will provide it to them."

Asked whether Rumsfeld's possession of the shard was similar to FBI agents who have been criticized for taking mementos from the World Trade Center, Di Rita said: "It was never that kind of thing. ... It seemed perfectly appropriate."

The Justice Department investigation also collected testimony that Pasquale D'Amuro, Mueller's executive assistant director for terrorism until last summer, asked a supervisory agent to "obtain a half dozen items from the WTC debris."

D'Amuro told investigators that he asked for pieces of the building for himself and possibly others who worked the investigation "as a memento." He added he was aware that agents had taken such items from other terrorist crime scenes over the years.

D'Amuro left FBI headquarters last July to become an assistant director in charge of the New York office. Joe Valiquette, a spokesman for the New York FBI office, declined comment Friday.

The report also divulged that the FBI supervisor for evidence recovery at the landfill where World Trade Center debris was taken failed a lie detector test and that agents' removal of items like a Tiffany crystal globe gutted a criminal case the bureau was building against a Minnesota contractor that had taken a fire truck door from the same rubble.

Prosecutors told the FBI they "might not indict the crime regarding the fire truck door due to government misconduct involving the Tiffany globe," the report said.

Surviving family members were disappointed by the news.

"Unbelievable," said William Doyle, whose son was killed in the World Trade Center.

"Everybody has things that they probably should not have from the World Trade Center site," added Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son died in the towers.

The Justice Department's report has not been officially released, but heavily deleted versions of the report began circulating around Washington last month showing 13 FBI agents had taken rubble, debris and items such as flags and a Tiffany crystal globe paperweight.

The bureau announced it was banning agents from taking items from crimes scenes, but no agents were being charged with crimes because the bureau did not have such a policy during the Sept. 11 investigation.

A lawyer for retired agent Jane Turner, who blew the whistle on the FBI's removal of souvenir debris, said agents should have been charged.

The amount of theft from Ground Zero by federal officials is shocking," attorney Stephen M. Kohn said. "Every federal employee who stole or converted property from that crime scene must be held fully accountable under the law."

The full report obtained by the AP divulges some senior FBI managers were among those cited for having authorized or asked for mementos.

Besides D'Amuro, the report said the now-retired head of the New York FBI office, Barry Mawn, asked for and received an American flag and a piece of marble from the debris. And the agent in charge of FBI in Knoxville, Tenn., Joe Clark, requested and received a 100-pound piece of steel to display in an exhibit dealing with hate crimes, the report said.

The report stated FBI agents who worked in New York repeatedly expressed their disgust that visiting colleagues and supervisors would "want to take items, including pieces of the building which were contaminated with blood and human body parts."

The report disclosed that among the items taken, agents had cut World Trade Center security patches from the sleeves of shirt pieces found in the rubble.

"It was a ghoulish prospect that anyone would want things from a crime scene where people have died," one agent was quoted as telling investigators.

Two senior FBI lawyers from New York told investigators they were never consulted by FBI managers about the propriety of taking items, and would have objected.

The FBI New York office's ethics officer, Steven Carolotto, "emphatically stated FBI agents could not profit from working any location" and the "calamity of the event was inconsistent with the taking of items for personal use."

Investigators also stated the agent who ran the recovery effort at the landfill, Richard Marx of Philadelphia, gave "inconsistent" answers during the investigation after several colleagues claimed he had given them permission to take items. Marx failed a polygraph last summer, the report said.

I am glad that more people are asking questions. Eventually there will be enough leverage to get the truth. Whats wrong with wanting answers to questions that are constantly being avoided? Why are there so many questions? I can see if a few points don't add up, but come on. This thing has become a huge snow ball that the government wishes would just melt away. That snow ball is rolling down hill and getting bigger as we speak. Too many intelligent, intellectual, scholastic individuals are realizing something just doesn't add up. I was a skeptic. But now I honestly feel our government has been doing this for many, many years. Its time to wake up America.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, you asked about a fire hot enough to melt aluminum.

Well, back the in the 1970s we had one of our Cessna 150s crash on the runway in Hawthorne, CA...(airport code HHR, or KHHR) Anyway, the pilot got out OK, he hit the nosewheel causing it to collapse, thus shering off the carburator, and starting a fire....and the whole poor airplane just melted into a puddle. So, yeah, aluminum will melt.

I really liked that little plane, I had a lot of time in it. N8282F...and it had just recently been repainted!

Originally posted by Super Krout
WASHINGTON March 13, 2004 (AP) - The removal of souvenir debris from the scenes of the Sept. 11 attacks reached the highest levels of government, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and FBI Director Robert Mueller's chief of anti-terrorism, a Justice Department investigation has found.

I already had another thread on FBI agents taking material from the crime scenes.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, you asked about a fire hot enough to melt aluminum.

No, you misunderstood the question.

I asked if you thought molten aluminum would cause a thermite reaction upon contact with other materials from the plane?

I asked if you thought molten aluminum would cause a thermite reaction upon contact with other materials from the plane?

Not likely - real thermite is made of POWDERED iron oxides and
aluminium POWDERS. Reason use powdered materials is too increase
surface area to mass. Same why you use tinder to start a fire -
large surface area relative to mass. In addition to start thermite
reaction requires large amount of heat input - burning magnesium.

Originally posted by thedman
Not likely - real thermite is made of POWDERED iron oxides and
aluminium POWDERS.

But what happens when molten aluminum comes in to contact with any or all of the following.

1. Magnesium
2. Titanium
3. Jet Fuel
4. Oxygen
5. Steel
6. Concrete