How did Atta's passport actually survive?

a reply to: neutronflux


Cover up of the crimes, cover up of the real perps.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Cover up of the crimes, cover up of the real perps.

Because the success of your imaged cover up hinges how on the passport? How was the passport vital to anything?

Again....

The was already witnesses to the terrorists buying tickets, and boarding the jets. Phone records, and financial records of the ticket purchases. The voices of the terrorists over radio. DNA evidence of the terrorists’ remains at the crash sites.

What was the point of the passport that was not vital to the investigation in any way. Again, just a bit of odd history. History backed by other crashes that IDs, documents, and other items survive crashes.

Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The plane crashed into the hillside of a cattle ranch at 4:16 p.m. in the Santa Lucia Mountains near Paso Robles[11] and Cayucos, exploding on impact. The plane was estimated to have crashed slightly faster than the speed of sound, at around 770 mph (1,240 km/h), disintegrating instantly. Based on the deformation of the hardened steel black box data recorder case, the aircraft experienced a deceleration of 5,000 times the force of gravity (G-force) when it hit the ground. It was traveling at an approximately 70-degree angle toward the south. The plane struck a rocky hillside, leaving a crater less than two feet (0.6 m) deep and four feet (1.2 m) across. The remains of 27 of the passengers were never identified.[citation needed]

After the crash site was located by a CBS News helicopter piloted by Bob Tur, investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were joined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After two days of digging through what was left of the plane, they found the parts of a handgun containing six spent cartridge cases and the note on the airsickness bag written by Burke, indicating that he may have been responsible for the crash. FBI investigators were able to lift a print from a fragment of finger stuck in the pistol's trigger guard, which positively identified Burke as holding the weapon when the aircraft crashed. In addition to the evidence uncovered at the crash site, other factors surfaced. Burke's coworker admitted to having lent him the gun, and Burke had also left a farewell message on his girlfriend's answering machine.[12]

a reply to: neutronflux


No, nothing at all hinges on the passport story.

The passport story is just one of hundreds or thousands of bits of evidence that work against the official story. The passport story is just one piece of the preponderance of the evidence that renders the official story invalid.

Let's just call it the first major incident of identity theft in the 21st century and call it a day

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


No, nothing at all hinges on the passport story.

The passport story is just one of hundreds or thousands of bits of evidence that work against the official story. The passport story is just one piece of the preponderance of the evidence that renders the official story invalid.

Again? How does it work against the offical store. One, it was not a key piece of evidence. Two, what was the motive to even plant the passport. Three, it has been proven by multiple people that documents do survive jet crashes, and it is rather common. Is number three false. Is it false that a note written on an airsick bag was recovered from flight 1771 that slammed into the ground traveling around the speed of sound? And they got a finger print from the gun?

a reply to: Salander

Why does the truth movement put itself into logic holes with statements hinging on absolute false impossibilities. Historically, documents and IDs are recovered from jet crashes. The passport seems unlikely, but previous crashes shows it is far from impossible. Is that false.

a reply to: Salander

To beat the figurative horse to death...

One, it was not impossible the passport survived. To say otherwise is a false argument.
Two, what is the motive for planting the passport?

a reply to: neutronflux

what is the motive for planting the passport?

To help establish the official story in the first critical hours after the disaster.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

what is the motive for planting the passport?

To help establish the official story in the first critical hours after the disaster.

How? The boarding lists were used to find the hijackers by the a process of investigation and elimination. Without the boarding lists, financial records, witness accounts, phone records, and investigation into the passengers, the passport is meaninglessness. Has no context.

Please cite how the passport was even used to determine who the hijackers were? Or key to any part of the investigation.

And I don’t think the FBI released the hijacker list unto the 14th? What do you mean by hours?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You talking about an event where large commercial jets were filmed hitting the towers, backed by witnesses, and accounts of families that lost loved ones?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

In fact, when was the existence of the passport even made public?

a reply to: neutronflux


It was included in the story for the same reason all the books, pictures and hand-written notes in that back of Atta's car in Maine were included in the story--to help persuade gullible persons.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


It was included in the story for the same reason all the books, pictures and hand-written notes in that back of Atta's car in Maine were included in the story--to help persuade gullible persons.

The comment was to establish the offical narrative with the few critical hours?

The question was when the existence of the passport was made public?

The bonus question was how was the passport used to identify the terrorists. In the context the passport was only relevant once the terrorists were identified through investigation and deduction.

The remains and DNA of the terrorists were also at the WTC. Along with other personal items and jet wreckage. Is it false the passport was not the only items from the jet in the street?

The final round question, why plant the passport when it was not key to any part of the investigation. It was not even used to identify the terrorists? Is that false!

a reply to: neutronflux


Perhaps you are not as capable of devious thoughts as I am. Your facile and trivial questions suggest that.

The story of 911 was a magnificent deception, sleight-of-hand on a very large scale. Once a person understands that fundamental truth, then to analyze those events and the story, one must learn to think like a magician, like a crook.

I say the planners did a fabulous job with the deception, but of course they had so many assets under their control that it almost looked easy.

Once you understand it was a deception, spotting the many little tricks is very easy. The passport on the sidewalk and the books in the back of the rental car are just 2. That Bernie Kerik "found" the passport blows it all wide open.

a reply to: Salander

You really are an ass aren't you change subject everytime you know your argument is BS every single thread is the same. So once and for all lets here your full theory one bullet point at a time lets see if you can manage that.

a reply to: Salander

Lets start small. Very small. List the evidence for CD implosion at the towers?

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.