9/11 Attacks

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Medal time.

You do realise that thermite burns very hot for a short period and then cools off quickly?

meglome

meglome wrote: »

Can demonspawn, BB or Sovereign tell me what they actually believe happened then.

I'm a little confused by what it actually is. You think that thermite was used to collapse the buildings. And there was molten steel witnessed after the collapses. Is that right?

Soveriegn wrote: »

Medal time.

is that a yes?

alastair wrote: »

You do realise that thermite burns very hot for a short period and then cools off quickly?

Exactly where i was going with the question. Thermite is a fast reacting chemical reaction, it burns hot and fast. It couldn't cause the molten steel so how do you explain it?

Soveriegn

I read that one of the hijackers forgot or left his luggage at the airport. Officials found a pilot outfit inside.


Just thought i'd say that.



Maybe he was gonna sneak into the cockpit and pretend to be the pilot or something.

Maybe he had a pilot suit fetish


Who knows.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

See this. This occurs through extremely high tempatures. Much hotter than office fires can reach.

I'm seeing some structural rods in that - which are probably steel all right - the thing is - they're not molten - they're twisted alright, but they haven't been molten. Heat might have distorted them, or pressure, but molten - nope.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

You do realise that thermite burns very hot for a short period and then cools off quickly?

Yeah man, and molten steel stays very hot for weeks in certain circumstances.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

1.Well it was picked up off the street in NYC.


2. I think it's fair enough to expect it travelled with it's owner.

How can you prove either?
It's hearsay....show me the evidence that either happened.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

I'm seeing some structural rods in that - which are probably steel all right - the thing is - they're not molten - they're twisted alright, but they haven't been molten. Heat might have distorted them, or pressure, but molten - nope.

I'm pretty sure it was molten in the middle. Just by using my eye's and brain.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

Can demonspawn, BB or Sovereign tell me what they actually believe happened then.

I'm a little confused by what it actually is. You think that thermite was used to collapse the buildings. And there was molten steel witnessed after the collapses. Is that right?

I have an open mind on the subject.

Before I was a schmuck. I believed it was the Muslims with boxcutters because I was ignorant and gullible. I believed because I didn't have an absense of reasons not to believe it, which is why I believe many believe it today. Having looked into it objectively I now have many reasons not to believe it, but my mind is certainly not made up.

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Yeah man, and molten steel stays very hot for weeks in certain circumstances.

Molten metal can stay hot for a long time all right - it doesn't have to be steel. And thermite plays no role in keeping molten metal, eh molten.

meglome

Soveriegn wrote: »

Yeah man, and molten steel stays very hot for weeks in certain circumstances.

no steel might stay hot.. not molten steel. Once the temperature drops it wouldn't be molten so how did people supposedly see it?

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was molten in the middle. Just by using my eye's and brain.

You have x-ray vision!? Otherwise, eh no.

Soveriegn

I used to like pancakes. Can't look at them now.

Happyman42

meglome wrote: »

Can demonspawn, BB or Sovereign tell me what they actually believe happened then.

I'll tell you what I think, the Inquiry was a massive FAIL and I have only been looking at its findings for a short while.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Well it was picked up off the street in NYC by a punter and it had last been seen in Boston with it's owner getting on board the plane now lodged in the wtc. Unless you've got another means of getting it from the owner on board a plane in Boston to the street in NYC 50 minutes later, I think it's fair enough to expect it travelled with it's owner.

Can you prove that he was even on the plane?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

How can you prove either?
It's hearsay....show me the evidence that either happened.

It's not hearsay - it's a physical piece of evidence, with a clear provenance, and no alternative means of getting from one point to another in the time available.

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was molten in the middle. Just by using my eye's and brain.

:pac: How do you work that one out? So the inside was molten but not the outside?? Riiiiiiiight.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you prove that he was even on the plane?

Sure - he was videoed checking in for the flight, he was on the manifest, he took the seat allocated to him, and the flight steward phoned through the details of which seats the hijackers were sitting - he was 10B.

alastair

namloc1980 wrote: »

:pac: How do you work that one out? So the inside was molten but not the outside?? Riiiiiiiight.

Maybe the poptart theory needs to be explored and not thermite?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's not hearsay - it's a physical piece of evidence, with a clear provenance, and no alternative means of getting from one point to another in the time available.

There is no doubt the passport exists.
You can neither prove it was picked up from the street or that he travelled with it. Nobody can. You are depending on somebody's account of what happened not physical evidence. Now why trust that person then choose not to trust anothers account?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is no doubt the passport exists.
You can neither prove it was picked up from the street or that he travelled with it. Nobody can. You are depending on somebody's account of what happened not physical evidence. Now why trust that person then choose not to trust anothers account?

He used the passport in Logan - there's no doubt about that.

He got on the plane - there's no doubt about that. He needed the passport to get on the plane, so we can make a leap of faith and presume he retained the passport on the plane. Maybe it was pickpocketed after he got on the plane, but that's rather unlikely for many reasons.

He took part in the hijacking, and stabbed a man to death -= that's based on the evidence of an eyewitness on the plane - but hearsay if you like.

The plane he was on lodged itself in the wtc 50 minutes later. That's not in doubt, unless you subscribe to the great hi-tech ball in the sky theory.

The passport was handed to a NYPD officer before the south tower fell - so, within the hour. The officer says this - hearsay, but I don't see any evidence that he might have lied, and why.

It was then passed on to the FBI the same day, and logged as such.

Now - that leaves 3 possibilities:

1. The passport travelled with the plane and was thrown clear, picked up and passed on to the police.

2. The passport was stolen post boarding and flown down to NYC within two hours, and passed on to the police.

3. The passport was counterfitted and the cop and Feds are party to a grand conspiracy - to no good end. The identity of the hijacker and his actions are verified unambigiously elsewhere - the passport adds nothing to the situation.

Happyman42

Let me make this theory,
Lets assume that this is a small conspiracy, in as far as somebody who stood to gain had intelligence that this attack was going to take place, it would have to be conclusively blamed on Muslim terrorists for you to gain.
How would you ensure that would happen, beyond a reasonable doubt? I am sure there where other innocent Muslim on the flights. Would you take your chances that a stewardess would be able to make a call and identify who was in the cockpit, would that be a risk you would take or would you make other arrangements?
*Remember, you the conspirator don't know what name or id he is going to use to board the plane, security is rather lax at the time, but you have to prove that a known terrorist was on board.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let me make this theory,
Lets assume that this is a small conspiracy, in as far as somebody who stood to gain had intelligence that this attack was going to take place, it would have to be conclusively blamed on Muslim terrorists for you to gain.
How would you ensure that would happen, beyond a reasonable doubt? I am sure there where other innocent Muslim on the flights. Would you take your chances that a stewardess would be able to make a call and identify who was in the cockpit, would that be a risk you would take or would you make other arrangements?

If you knew that the attack was going to take place, why would you feel the need to ascribe blame in this manner? You would expect the perpetrators to make themselves known and the reason for their action. And if you're doing it ahead of the flight steward revealling the hijackers identity, then you're doing it within a half hour of the flight taking off - so how do you get the passport to NYC in time? It just makes no sense as a strategy, or as a timeline.

Soveriegn

Explain alistair..

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Explain alistair..

If the passport is simply insurance to ascribe guilt to the guy sitting in 10B, then the passport would have to be transported prior to the air steward contacting ATC with the info - after that point it becomes redundant, so why bother?

Oh, and Satam al-Suqami was not a known terrorist at all - he hadn't been highlighted by any intelligence agency - his name meant nothing to anyone at the time.

meglome

Given the times frames, the fact it was burnt and soaked in jet fuel, there were other ID's, personal effects, life-vests and seat cushions I'd have to say no. 1 is far more likely.

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

Medal time.

You do realise that there is no evidence any thermite/thermate its ingredients or otherwise found after 9/11

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

If the passport is simply insurance to ascribe guilt to the guy sitting in 10B, then the passport would have to be transported prior to the air steward contacting ATC with the info - after that point it becomes redundant, so why bother?

Oh, and Satam al-Suqami was not a known terrorist at all - he hadn't been highlighted by any intelligence agency - his name meant nothing to anyone at the time.

Hmmm, that doesn't exactly explain it. :rolleyes:

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

You do realise that there is no evidence any thermite/thermate its ingredients or otherwise found after 9/11

Umm, I realize that there was.. It's no secret.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjtfkeSvqH8

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Umm, I realize that there was.. It's no secret.

The sorry tale of Niels Harrit - the man behind the supposed 'thermite evidence':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJy_LdHMmaM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJ_HpFro-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wbWepx1SAs

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

If the passport is simply insurance to ascribe guilt to the guy sitting in 10B, then the passport would have to be transported prior to the air steward contacting ATC with the info - after that point it becomes redundant, so why bother?

Oh, and Satam al-Suqami was not a known terrorist at all - he hadn't been highlighted by any intelligence agency - his name meant nothing to anyone at the time.

It doesn't become redundant, in fact it assumes huge importance if you (the conspirator) want to control who gets the blame, but you can only control certain things because this isn't a root and branch conspiracy. You need to put yourself in the mindset of a conspirator prior to the event. Don't use hindsight.

Have a read of below, particularily where it says 'We know now that each of these two hijackers possessed at least two passports.'
Is it 'possiible' that Satam al Suqami also had two passports?
Something else it seems immpossible to find out is what exactly is the nature of the 'doctoring' that went on.

MS. SUSAN GINSBURG: Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.
In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. To avoid getting into classified detail, we will just state that these were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda.
Since the passports of 15 of the hijackers did not survive, we cannot make firm factual statements about their documents. But from what we know about al Qaeda passport practices and other information, we believe it is possible that six more of the hijackers presented passports that had some of these same clues to their association with al Qaeda. Other kinds of passport markings can be highly suspicious. To avoid getting into the classified details, we will just call these suspicious indicators.
Two of the hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Salem al Hazmi presented passports that had such suspicious indicators. We know now that each of these two hijackers possessed at least two passports. All of their known passports had these suspicious indicators. We have evidence that three other hijackers, Nawaf al Hazmi, Ahmed al Ghamdi and Ahmed al Haznawi may have presented passports containing these suspicious indicators. But their passports did not survive the attacks so we cannot be sure.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm


A number of other things I would like to see the answers to, just to satisfy myself that the passport is a red herring. and these are things I would expect an Official Inquiry to investigate, (if you know where to find the answers please post links):

Was the commission presented with a photocopy of the passport Satam al Suqami 'actually' used to board the flight. (my passport was copied twice, (once on the flight from London- Atlanta and once boarding an internal flight) in November 2001, was this proceedure before September 11 even for known suspects?) If a copy was presented does it tally with the 'found passport' and where is that evidence?

'Coincidentally' another passport survives because it didn't make it on to the flight......who puts their passport into their check-in luggage, or is this evidence of a second passport?
Remember that some of these men where subjected to 'special' attention in the airport that morning.

Don't you find it odd that the 'man in the dark suit' has never come forward? What I mean is; you have the huge coincidence and luck that the passport survives an inferno that incinerates all traces of human flesh and ends up on the street, followed by somebody finding it (in the panic of getting away from a tower that was raining down debris and dust and was about to collapseand may be attacked again at any moment) and that somebody turns out to be one of the very few people in this world with no interest in fame or the financial reward his story would undoubtedly bring? Was an 'official' attempt made to find him?
Again post links please.

On top of all that you have to imagine the mindset of Satam al Suqami to see where my incredulity is coming from.
It would be immpossible for the passport to survive imo if it was on his person or in a bag. So this man who was about to die puts his passport some where in the open, somewhere where it can exit the plane and the building unimpeded.. Can you see him taking it out of his pocket and placing it on the dashboard, can you see him being concerned where his passport was at all?

Penn

An interest in fame and financial reward for his story? He found a passport and gave it to a policeman. Yeah, I'm sure they're going to get Tommy Lee Jones to play him in the movie about his life.

To be honest, I wouldn't come forward if I was him either. What purpose would it serve? What could he possibly tell them that could help anything? And if he did come forward, honestly, would you believe him? Would Alex Jones? He'd be subjected to having his name all over the Internet with people claiming he was was paid by the government and whatnot.