9/11 Attacks

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.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.?

I'm not using hindsight - I'm pointing out that the passport is un-needed once the hijackers are identified by the air steward. If the proposition is that the passport is an insurance policy in case they are not identified - then it must have gone to NYC ahead of the actual flight - because it was known within 30 minutes (by the FAA) that the hijackers included the guy sitting in 10B.

Happyman42 wrote: »

'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..

What's the co-incidence? Most of the hijackers didn't need to use their passports because they had state driving licences - a form of ID that the airlines were happy to accept. There's no need for a second passport, and no mystery about why someone might put their passport in hold luggage. Two more of the hijackers passports were recovered from flight 93 btw.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

Not really. Some people just don't want the attention going public would bring - particularly given some of the truther antics regarding witnesses.
Conversely - if there was a grand conspiracy - how difficult would it be to produce a convincing man in suit to say he was the guy?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Was an 'official' attempt made to find him?

No idea.

Happyman42 wrote: »

On top of all that you have to imagine the mindset of Satam al Suqami to see where I am 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?

All sorts of stuff - in bags, in peoples pockets, from inside hold luggage, etc was found after the crashes - no reason to think a passport would be any different.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'm not using hindsight - 1. I'm pointing out that the passport is un-needed once the hijackers are identified by the air steward. If the proposition is that the passport is an insurance policy in case they are not identified - 2. then it must have gone to NYC ahead of the actual flight - because it was known within 30 minutes (by the FAA) that 3.the hijackers included the guy sitting in 10B.

1. Hindsight, you couldn't have been sure that the AS was going to make that call.
2. Not neccessary if you have a second passport. Was that investigated? Was a copy of the passport used presented? Very simple to rule out. Evidence please?
3. Only because the AS said that the guy sitting in 10b is now in the cockpit presumably.


What's the co-incidence? Most of the hijackers didn't need to use their passports because they had state driving licences - a form of ID that the airlines were happy to accept. There's no need for a second passport, and no mystery about why someone might put their passport in hold luggage. Two more of the hijackers passports were recovered from flight 93 btw.

Again, what did Satam al Suqami use to transit and do we have proof?



Not really. 1. Some people just don't want the attention going public would bring - particularly given some of the truther antics regarding witnesses.
2. Conversely - if there was a grand conspiracy - how difficult would it be to produce a convincing man in suit to say he was the guy?

1. So a guy in the most extreme of circumstances, spots, amid all the debris and is concerned enough about the importance of a passport, picks it up, hands it to a NYPD officer (he doesn't bring it home, he seeks out a NYPD officer) but he is not concerned enough about the ensuing controversy and his ability to help to put the story to rest? Possible but odd all the same.
2. Maybe the confusion is suiting the conspirators, who knows.


No idea.



All sorts of stuff - in bags, in peoples pockets, from inside hold luggage, etc was found after the crashes - no reason to think a passport would be any different.

Correct, but given the circumstances and who the passport belonged to, don't you think it required the most intense investigation? Can you in all conscience rule this out a red herring? If this was a simple single murder inquiry, would these circumstances be investigated and a judgement made without serious attempts being made to verify where the passport was found and by whom (and if in fact it was the same one used at the airport,) How can you be satisfied with what was presented and judged at the inquiry about this one small instance, if you have, as you say, an inquiring independent mind?

........

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

1. Hindsight, you couldn't have been sure that the AS was going to make that call.

That's my point - if you are running a conspiracy and need insurance in case the steward doesn't get the details through - then you need to get the passport out to NYC within 30 minutes of the plane taking off - because that's the only window of ambiguity about the hijacker's identity being revealed.

Happyman42 wrote: »

what did Satam al Suqami use to transit and do we have proof?

As the hijackers boarded four flights, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, at least six used U.S. identification documents acquired in the previous months, three of which were fraudulently obtained in northern Virginia.* Suqami, the only hijacker who did not have a state-issued identification, used his Saudi passport as check-in identification for American Airlines Flight 11.**

* FBI records of airline personnel indicate that some recall specific hijackers presenting U.S. identification documents with their airline tickets. The American Airlines ticket agent at Logan Airport recalls the al Shehri brothers presenting drivers’ licenses at check-in. FBI report of investigation, Elvia C., Sept. 13, 2001. When Hamza al Ghamdi and Ahmed al Ghamdi checked in at Logan Airport in Boston,
Hamza al Ghamdi used his Florida driver’s license and Ahmed al Ghamdi used his fraudulently obtained Virginia identification card. FBI report of investigation, interview of Gail J., Sept. 21, 2001. At Dulles, Khalid al Mihdhar and Majed Moqed provided their fraudulently obtained Virginia identification cards at the ticket counter. FBI report of investigation, interview of Susan S., American Airline ticketing agent, Sept. 13, 2001. A “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card” was found in the rubble at the Pentagon with Moqed’s name on it. Forensic examination indicated that it may have been fraudulent. United States Secret Service Forensic Services report for the FBI PENTTBOM investigation regarding the physical examination of forensic science research request, Oct. 10, 2001. Hijackers Omari, Wail al Shehri and Hanjour also had international driver licenses and Jarrah had an international student identification card.
**FBI report of investigation, interview of Caprice C., Sept. 13, 2001. She was employed as a ticket agent by American Airlines at Logan Airport on September 11, 2001.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf

Suqami didn't go into the cockpit - he stayed within first class and his seat was very close to the steward's (they all were), so there's no real ambiguity about who the steward was referring to:

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf

Don't have the time now to read all of that, but this jumps straight off the page in relation to my questions about the possible existence of a second passport.
Two Saudis were carrying passports that might have been provided to them by a family
member working in the Saudi passport ministry. The Saudi passport authority was rife
with patronage and security weaknesses known by then to the State Department and CIA,
but they were not the subject of intelligence analysis, diplomatic or security policy, or
countermeasures.



As I say, it's gonna take me some time to read that, thanks for posting it, fascinating stuff.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't have the time now to read all of that, but this jumps straight off the page in relation to my questions about the possible existence of a second passport.
Two Saudis were carrying passports that might have been provided to them by a family
member working in the Saudi passport ministry. The Saudi passport authority was rife
with patronage and security weaknesses known by then to the State Department and CIA,
but they were not the subject of intelligence analysis, diplomatic or security policy, or
countermeasures.



As I say, it's gonna take me some time to read that, thanks for posting it, fascinating stuff.

Suqami's passport had been manipulated to hide his Afghan entry stamp - so it's pretty unlikely he had any other passport - otherwise why take the risk of using this one for entering the US and getting on the Boston flight?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

so it's pretty unlikely he had any other passport -

Even a cursory glance at the report means that it is dangerous to conclude that.

He was denied entry to the Bahamas in May in a 'suspected' attempt to extend his visa.......that event alone may have made him seek a new forged passport or more importantly other means of identification.
There is also the confusion about his American ID that this article points to:

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=satam_al_suqami


According to the St. Petersburg Times, 9/11 hijacker Satam Al Suqami obtains a Florida ID card on this day. URL="http://www.sptimes.com/News/091601/State/Hijackers_got_state_I.shtml"]St. Petersburg Times, 9/16/2001[/URLAfter 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001). The Commission will give this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found. URL="http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf"]9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 8, 33 [IMG]http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png[/IMG][/URL The article in the St. Petersburg Times saying that Al Suqami gets the ID card on this day will contain some errors regarding some of the other hijackers. For example, it will evidently confuse hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari with a man with a similar name who also lived in Florida. However, even though it will be published only five days after 9/11, the article will contain details which indicate the information it contains about Al Suqami may well be correct:
However, the 9/11 Commission will make no mention of this card and will say that Al Suqami was the sole hijacker not to obtain US identification. Al Suqami’s passport will be found on the day of 9/11 near the World Trade Center, before it collapses (see

It gives Al Suqami’s middle initials as “MA,” and this is correct: his middle names were Mohamed al-Rahman;
It says his previous driver’s license was issued in Saudi Arabia and he is a Saudi;
It says the ID card was issued around the same time several of the other Florida-based hijackers obtained similar cards. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/16/2001; US District for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006] For example, Wail Alshehri obtained a Florida ID card on the same day, and two days previously Hamza Alghamdi obtained a Florida driver’s license and Mohand Alshehri obtained a Florida ID card (see April 12-September 7, 2001). URL="http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf"]9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 27 [IMG]http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png[/IMG][/URL


The paper publishes this on 16/9/2001 yet

'However, the 9/11 Commission will make no mention of this card'

'The Commission will give this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found.'

Curiouser and curiouser.

alastair

Does it really matter if Suqami had or hadn't an alternative method of ID for checking in? The person who checked him in says he used his Saudi passport, and there's no evidence to suggest he had more than the one - and given that he used a manipulated one for entering the US (no doubt about that), and the Bahamas trip (no doubt about that), why would he be concerned about using it for an intenal flight out of Logan?

Some of the hijackers used their passports, some didn't. If they had a firm strategy on using driving licences or whatnot - they didn't bother adhering to it.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Does it really matter if Suqami had or hadn't an alternative method of ID for checking in? The person who checked him in says he used his Saudi passport, and there's no evidence to suggest he had more than the one - and given that he used a manipulated one for entering the US (no doubt about that), and the Bahamas trip (no doubt about that), why would he be concerned about using it for an intenal flight out of Logan?

Some of the hijackers used their passports, some didn't. If they had a firm strategy on using driving licences or whatnot - they didn't bother adhering to it.

Jesus H, did you just type that? The man of rigourous mind.
Of course it's important. The flight from Logan was the whole reason he was in the US.
Why did the commission not address the the possible existence of an ID card for him as revealed by a credible newspaper (quoting from and in possession of source material) yet they felt it important to point out that this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found.' (found by an unknown person in the most unlikely of circumstances)
Can you, who trusts this Commission's report address that at all? without the need to 'suppose anything', but with facts & hard evidence (the same rigour you expect when somebody proposes an alternate theory btw) Forget about themite, collapses etc etc. for the moment, pretend that the whole case for or against a 'conspiracy' rests on this.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Jesus H, did you just type that? The man of rigourous mind.
Of course it's important. The flight from Logan was the whole reason he was in the US.
Why did the commission not address the the possible existence of an ID card for him as revealed by a credible newspaper (quoting from and in possession of source material) yet they felt it important to point out that this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found.' (found by an unknown person in the most unlikely of circumstances)
Can you, who trusts this Commission's report address that at all? without the need to 'suppose anything', but with facts & hard evidence (the same rigour you expect when somebody proposes an alternate theory btw) Forget about themite, collapses etc etc. for the moment, pretend that the whole case for or against a 'conspiracy' rests on this.

The passport wasn't found in the most unlikely of circumstances - a variety of personal artifacts were seen following the crashes and a number were thrown clear of the subsequent fires and building collapses. Would it have mattered if the ID found in NYC was a driving licence instead of a passport? Not one bit.

The fact is that Suqami used his passport to check in in Boston, and that the passport that ended up in NYC was the one he had entered to US with, and the one that he had brought to the Bahamas in an attempt to extend his tourist visa - so we know he was using it regularly. The 'conspiracy' isn't impacted one way or another with which form of ID he chose to use - all that really matters is that the ID type we know he used in Logan is the one that ended up in NYC.

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

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



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 wrote: »

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

Alastair beat me to it. Not to clever this Niels Harrit bloke.

Happyman42

Your quote from a number of posts previously

Quote:
As the hijackers boarded four flights, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175, at least six used U.S. identification documents acquired in the previous months, three of which were fraudulently obtained in northern Virginia.* Suqami, the only hijacker who did not have a state-issued identification, used his Saudi passport as check-in identification for American Airlines Flight 11.**

* FBI records of airline personnel indicate that some recall specific hijackers presenting U.S. identification documents with their airline tickets. The American Airlines ticket agent at Logan Airport recalls the al Shehri brothers presenting drivers’ licenses at check-in. FBI report of investigation, Elvia C., Sept. 13, 2001. When Hamza al Ghamdi and Ahmed al Ghamdi checked in at Logan Airport in Boston,
Hamza al Ghamdi used his Florida driver’s license and Ahmed al Ghamdi used his fraudulently obtained Virginia identification card. FBI report of investigation, interview of Gail J., Sept. 21, 2001. At Dulles, Khalid al Mihdhar and Majed Moqed provided their fraudulently obtained Virginia identification cards at the ticket counter. FBI report of investigation, interview of Susan S., American Airline ticketing agent, Sept. 13, 2001. A “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card” was found in the rubble at the Pentagon with Moqed’s name on it. Forensic examination indicated that it may have been fraudulent. United States Secret Service Forensic Services report for the FBI PENTTBOM investigation regarding the physical examination of forensic science research request, Oct. 10, 2001. Hijackers Omari, Wail al Shehri and Hanjour also had international driver licenses and Jarrah had an international student identification card.
**FBI report of investigation, interview of Caprice C., Sept. 13, 2001. She was employed as a ticket agent by American Airlines at Logan Airport on September 11, 2001.

How can you or the FBI prove Caprice C wasn't looking at a 2nd passport? Is there a photocopy?Link please.
All we can say for certain is Caprice C accepted 'a passport' in his nameand we know that Saudi officials were known for issuing fraudulent documents.


And

Why did the commission not address the the possible existence of an ID card for him as revealed by a credible newspaper (quoting from and in possession of source material) yet they felt it important to point out that this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found.' (found by an unknown person in the most unlikely of circumstances)

I'm still waiting for an answer to that.

DublinWriter

alastair wrote: »

The seismic recording don't show anything of note prior to the collapse of the buildings. The peak seismic activity coincides with the rubble hitting the ground:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcc_Bwh4uTE

Hmmm...putting up some randomer from the world of youtube doesn't exactly counter my argument. Who is this guy? What are his qualifications?

I'll see your youtube randomer and raise with French geophysicist Doctor André Rousseau. Rousseau is a leading academic with many peer-reviewed papers to his name.

Rousseau released a paper in June of this year in which he concludes that explosives were used to demonlish all three buildings.

Link to Rousseau's paper, CV and list of previous academic papers here.

meglome

Happyman42 wrote: »

[/I]How can you or the FBI prove Caprice C wasn't looking at a 2nd passport? Is there a photocopy?Link please.
All we can say for certain is Caprice C accepted 'a passport' in his nameand we know that Saudi officials were known for issuing fraudulent documents.

It's up to the people making the claim to prove it. It's the same passport he used to get into the US and the Bahamas. There's no reason that he wouldn't use it again. If you can't prove he had a second one then the only evidence that exists is the one that was found. Then we have to explain how he used it on the plane but it then got to New York by another means.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why did the commission not address the the possible existence of an ID card for him as revealed by a credible newspaper (quoting from and in possession of source material) yet they felt it important to point out that this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found.' (found by an unknown person in the most unlikely of circumstances)

Where is the evidence he had another passport. Just because a newspaper says he had doesn't mean there is any proof he actually did. There no evidence of him actually using one. What newspaper btw?

You keep saying the passport was found in the most unlikely of circumstances but it really wasn't. A number of items were blown clear or found in the rubble. ID's, personal effects, seat cushions, mail and life vests. Were they all planted? A smouldering passport would stand out on the ground after the initial crash. A seat cushion would too but it's unlikely that anyone would pick it up at that point. And as Alistair says if this was such a big conspiracy then it would be easy to get a guy to say he found it.
Considering how people who survived 911 or were involved in producing the reports have been treated I seriously doubt he'd come forward. People have been harassed, death threats have been sent to them and their family's, quite nasty stuff really.

meglome

DublinWriter wrote: »

Hmmm...putting up some randomer from the world of youtube doesn't exactly counter my argument. Who is this guy? What are his qualifications?

I'll see your youtube randomer and raise with French geophysicist Doctor André Rousseau. Rousseau is a leading academic with many peer-reviewed papers to his name.

Rousseau released a paper in June of this year in which he concludes that explosives were used to demonlish all three buildings.

Link to Rousseau's paper, CV and list of previous academic papers here.

There is no seismic record of explosions. There are a number of places this info can be taken from. Though I thought the CT was that the seismic record was faked as well?

Happyman42

meglome wrote: »

It's up to the people making the claim to prove it. It's the same passport he used to get into the US and the Bahamas. There's no reason that he wouldn't use it again. If you can't prove he had a second one then the only evidence that exists is the one that was found. Then we have to explain how he used it on the plane but it then got to New York by another means.

It's up to the Commission (tasked with finding the 'truth' ) to consider ALL of the evidence, wouldn't you say? Or would you?. Like you, I personally don't have the resources to investigate this but that doesn't mean I will roll over blaring inconsistencies either without asking why.



1. Where is the evidence he had another passport. Just because a newspaper says he had doesn't mean there is any proof he actually did. There no evidence of him actually using one. What newspaper btw?

I never said there was evidence of another passport, that was a speculation. There is, however reports that he had other ID and I quoted the newspaper source for that earlier. Try to keep up!
If he did have other ID one would have to ask why did he go to the bother?
And that leads directly to the veracity of the testimony of Caprice C. Any decent prosecutor would certainly want to question her don't you think?

You keep saying the passport was found in the most unlikely of circumstances but it really wasn't.
Two planes crash into the Twin Towers in a massive inferno, incinerating all on board, it is highly unlikely that anything survived at all, but yes, stuff did. Let me ask you this, do we know what other stuff was handed to NYPD officers shortly before the tower collapsed? If I was an investigator I would want to know.


A number of items were blown clear or found in the rubble. ID's, personal effects, seat cushions, mail and life vests. Were they all planted? A smouldering passport

How do you know it was smouldering? My research shows it as hardly damaged.


would stand out on the ground after the initial crash. A seat cushion would too but it's unlikely that anyone would pick it up at that point. And as Alistair says if this was such a big conspiracy then it would be easy to get a guy to say he found it.
Considering how people who survived 911 or were involved in producing the reports have been treated I seriously doubt he'd come forward. People have been harassed, death threats have been sent to them and their family's, quite nasty stuff really.

Like Alastair, you are doing a lot of supposing and your unquestioning attitude to the commission's findings continue to confound.

Soveriegn

alastair wrote: »

The buildings didn't collapse at free-fall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcc_Bwh4uTE

This video is such a load of bull. Just like with most other 9/11 bull, we are expected to not believe our own eyes.


Here are just 2 of hundreds of examples where you can count along. The collapses last 10-12 seconds each, not 20 seconds as stated in this freaky video lol . So we have on both occasions, 8 seconds of "shaking and moving" unaccounted for.

Thanks again alistair, you make my job so much easier.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2e8OlUwnVE

gizmo

Why are people still going on about thermite? After the Jennings thread I assumed people had agreed that he heard explosions and since thermite doesn't explode, how is that relevant anymore?

Soveriegn

gizmo wrote: »

Why are people still going on about thermite? After the Jennings thread I assumed people had agreed that he heard explosions and since thermite doesn't explode, how is that relevant anymore?

Coz thermite could be the culprit for the molten steel found at the base of the towers weeks after 9/11.

And it does kinda explode.

Plus it was a military grade, advanced thermate, how would you really know what it does ?

namloc1980

Soveriegn wrote: »

Coz thermite could be the culprit for the molten steel found at the base of the towers weeks after 9/11.

And it does kinda explode.

Plus it was a military grade, advanced thermate, how would you really know what it does ?

Thermite/Thermate reactions are very intense but very short lived. How could it be responsible for molten steel weeks after the event?? Is it possible that the molten substance was something other than steel?

gizmo

Soveriegn wrote: »

Coz thermite could be the culprit for the molten steel found at the base of the towers weeks after 9/11.

And it does kinda explode.

Plus it was a military grade, advanced thermate, how would you really know what it does ?

But...

"Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time."

Which is contrary to what you said above? Also, why bother using it if you're going to bring the building down with a controlled explosion?

As for knowing what it does, military guides for weaponry like this exists in the public domain so it's behavior is well documented.

Di0genes

Soveriegn wrote: »

Coz thermite could be the culprit for the molten steel found at the base of the towers weeks after 9/11.

And it does kinda explode.

Plus it was a military grade, advanced thermate, how would you really know what it does ?

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that there are no proven instance of thermate or thermate ever being used in controlled demolition?

Happyman42

'Who will rid me of this troublesome Lt.Col.?':D

From today's Washington Post. Interesting final chapter:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090907747.html

As is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

Quote:
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached its conclusion that Lt. Colonel Shaffer's claims are false without, apparently, interviewing all witnesses under oath, without explaining why it chose to believe some witnesses and their testimony and not to believe others, without explaining why.

Now, who does that remind you of? :rolleyes:

meglome

Happyman42 wrote: »

Like Alastair, you are doing a lot of supposing and your unquestioning attitude to the commission's findings continue to confound.

I'm taking what we have evidence for and saying it fit's the official report. I'm assuming very very little.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's up to the Commission (tasked with finding the 'truth' ) to consider ALL of the evidence, wouldn't you say? Or would you?. Like you, I personally don't have the resources to investigate this but that doesn't mean I will roll over blaring inconsistencies either without asking why.

Okay i'll try and explain this... If we assume there is a conspiracy and keep looking for that conspiracy it's easy to second guess what the 911 commission did or didn't do. However in a court of law or the official reports they look(ed) at the available evidence and made judgements based on it. In these reports they don't assume anything.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said there was evidence of another passport, that was a speculation. There is, however reports that he had other ID and I quoted the newspaper source for that earlier. Try to keep up!
If he did have other ID one would have to ask why did he go to the bother?
And that leads directly to the veracity of the testimony of Caprice C. Any decent prosecutor would certainly want to question her don't you think?

The fact he may or may not have another ID is irrelevant to this. He used his passport to get into the country, he used it to try to get into the Bahamas, he used to to board the flight. There is no evidence to say otherwise. That same passport was found at the WTC, how did it get there?
I really am confused as to why you think the commission or a court of law would investigate something that has no relevance.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two planes crash into the Twin Towers in a massive inferno, incinerating all on board, it is highly unlikely that anything survived at all, but yes, stuff did. Let me ask you this, do we know what other stuff was handed to NYPD officers shortly before the tower collapsed? If I was an investigator I would want to know.

I've already shown that in Dublin in 1922 after a massive explosion of ammunition there was paper everywhere. So it's not usual in any way, shape or form for light objects to be blown clear. I have no idea if any other stuff was handed to NYPD, why is that relevant? Again if we assume that the NYPD were in on it, even though a number of their colleagues were killed. Objects got blown clear, this is a fact. It's not suspicious that other ID's got blown clear but is suspicious that one of the few passports on the plane did. Why is that?

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you know it was smouldering? My research shows it as hardly damaged.

Sorry it was soaked in jet fuel so i did assume some singeing. Still not odd that someone might pick and hand it to a cop, over a seat cushion or life vest.

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

Coz thermite could be the culprit for the molten steel found at the base of the towers weeks after 9/11.

And it does kinda explode.

Plus it was a military grade, advanced thermate, how would you really know what it does ?

It wasnt though how could thermate have beeen anywhere near the WTC site if its key ingredient wasnt found in Neils Harrits report. There was no barium nitrate found so there was no thermate.

Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

Here is a link to Harrits report to download:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

demonspawn

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

It wasnt though how could thermate have beeen anywhere near the WTC site if its key ingredient wasnt found in Neils Harrits report. There was no barium nitrate found so there was no thermate.

Why would they find barium nitrate? Was barium oxide found at all?

At elevated temperatures, barium nitrate decomposes to barium oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and oxygen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_nitrate#Reactions

Divorce Referendum

demonspawn wrote: »

Why would they find barium nitrate? Was barium oxide found at all?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_nitrate#Reactions

Did you not read the report yourself? No they didnt find barium oxide if you want to be smart.

we have shown that the red material contains both elemental aluminum and iron oxide

Hmmm wonder where the aluminium and iron oxide came from:rolleyes:

Happyman42

meglome wrote: »

I'm taking what we have evidence for and saying it fit's the official report. I'm assuming very very little.

But they ignored evidence that he had a national ID and said instead that:
'this lack of US identification as the reason Al Suqami took his passport on his final flight, enabling it to be found.'

If he had National ID then it is not the reason he took it. Are you getting a hint here?
Does your mind not ask.....What if Caprice C was lying or was simply wrong and he actually used his National ID?
Would you, 'looking for the truth' at least investigate the newspapers findings and report? Can you see how it casts doubt on their finding in this instance?



Okay i'll try and explain this... If we assume there is a conspiracy and keep looking for that conspiracy it's easy to second guess what the 911 commission did or didn't do. However in a court of law or the official reports they look(ed) at the available evidence and made judgements based on it. In these reports they don't assume anything.

If I was investigating a crime of course I WOULD assume there was a conspiracy, that's my job ffs. Then the next step is to find out who was involved in that conspiracy. They simply didn't look at all the evidence.



The fact he may or may not have another ID is irrelevant to this.

Yes it is, see above

He used his passport to get into the country, he used it to try to get into the Bahamas, he used to to board the flight.
Transcripts of the interviews with Caprice C? Photocopy taken at check -in?


There is no evidence to say otherwise.
Yes there is.

That same passport was found at the WTC, how did it get there?
Speculation, see above.
How do you know it was the same passport?

I really am confused as to why you think the commission or a court of law would investigate something that has no relevance.
It is relevant, see above


I've already shown that in Dublin in 1922 after a massive explosion of ammunition there was paper everywhere. So it's not usual in any way, shape or form for light objects to be blown clear.
Irrelevant considering the circumstances.

I have no idea if any other stuff was handed to NYPD, why is that relevant?
If it was just a passport wouldn't that strike you as odd?

Again if we assume that the NYPD were in on it, even though a number of their colleagues were killed.
Speculation, No need for the NYPD to be involved, the officer was just doing his job.

Objects got blown clear, this is a fact. It's not suspicious that other ID's got blown clear but is suspicious that one of the few passports on the plane did. Why is that?

Why did he apply for an National ID, was it because his passport was compromised? He is reputed to be the leader of that cell, was he going to risk the operation with a dodgy passport that had failed to get him into Bahamas?



Sorry it was soaked in jet fuel so i did assume some singeing. Still not odd that someone might pick and hand it to a cop, over a seat cushion or life vest.
Makes it's survival even more highly unlikely imo. Soaked in jet fuel??? so it managed to escape a hideous fireball soaked in incredibly combustible fuel and didn't light? Have you ever sprinkled ordinary petrol and set it alight?

......

gbee

Soveriegn wrote: »

Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes: The jet fuel would have burned out in the initial impact/explosion. Fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel girders. .

And two FDNY crews said it was knocked down already and two lines would finish it.

alastair

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'll see your youtube randomer and raise with French geophysicist Doctor André Rousseau. Rousseau is a leading academic with many peer-reviewed papers to his name.

Rousseau released a paper in June of this year in which he concludes that explosives were used to demonlish all three buildings.

Link to Rousseau's paper, CV and list of previous academic papers here.

Well the head-honcho seismologist man at Columbia's Palisades seismology lab, which recorded the seismic data that Rousseau based his (unquantified) theory on, St. Arthur Lerner-Lam, seems to believe otherwise:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Like Alastair, you are doing a lot of supposing and your unquestioning attitude to the commission's findings continue to confound.

I'm doing no supposing - that would be you. There is only evidence of the use of a single passport - ample evidence. The complete lack of any evidence for a second passport would be the obvious reason why the 911 Commission didn't investigate 'it'. If he had a state ID as well it wouldn't matter - we know he used his passport to check in at Logan.