The 9/11 Forum

While one can jump through hoops to find a way that such an item could survive such a plane crash... the probability is remarkably low I would think. And then we would like to examine all the other items from that plane crash and to my knowledge there was not a single piece of the plane found with any identifying serial number which could tell us what the plane actually was.

Further the evidence that these men even boarded those flights is rather thin. And if it existed, such as security camera at the airports... then why was this not provided?

The wind that day at that elevation was a good 20 knots from the NW and would send most light weight debris off to the south west. it's highly unlikely that a passport could make any northern motion falling from that height. If you think so drop a passport from the 93rd floor of the Empire State Building when the winds are 20+ knots from the NW and see where it lands. Unless it finds some down drafts and turbulence it will likely find it's way to the south and east. A simple experiment.

I suppose that if there was an explosion some of the planes contents would be projected north as the exploding gas would be expanding. But then one has to consider the huge fireball which was associated with that expanding case and how it as possible for a flammable passport to be unaffected by the conflagration.

I find the passport evidence highly suspect and conveniently seems to confirm the identity of the alleged hijackers. Have you seen their tickets even? If so please cite the reference. If not, why are there no tickets? You know those copies... they take when you check in...

SanderO wrote:While one can jump through hoops to find a way that such an item could survive such a plane crash... the probability is remarkably low I would think.

Ex ante - yes. But ex post - no. Some remarkably improbable events happen regardless, and once they happen, probability rises to 100%.
Basically, you are arguing from incredulity. You claim the passport was not found, when all documentary evidence shows it WAS found. That is no argument.

SanderO wrote:And then we would like to examine all the other items from that plane crash and to my knowledge there was not a single piece of the plane found with any identifying serial number which could tell us what the plane actually was.

Further the evidence that these men even boarded those flights is rather thin. And if it existed, such as security camera at the airports... then why was this not provided?

Goal post moved
But seriously - what alternative scenario are you thinking of here? Are you a no-planer? A remote-controller? A plane-swapper? Or a Mossad-agents-dunnit type of person? Frankly, what do you think is more likely that Arab terrorists hijacking the planes?

SanderO wrote:The wind that day at that elevation was a good 20 knots from the NW and would send most light weight debris off to the south west. it's highly unlike that a passport could make any northern motion falling from that height. If you think so drop a passport from the 93rd floor of the Empire State Building when the winds are 20+ knots from the NW and see where it lands. Unless it finds some down drafts and turbulence it will likely find it's way to the south and east. A simple experiment.

To clarify (did I maybe mistype something?):
I am claiming that the wind from NW carried the passport towards SE. If you look at a map of downtown Manhattan, locate Vesey Street, move 3 blocks east (ESE really) on Vesey from the former location of WTC, and then go about 1 block south (SSW), you find yourself "three blocks from the crash site in the vicinity of Vesey St", and also SE of the north face of WTC1. That's why I say what we know about the location where the passport was found is compatible with a scenario where the wind from carried the passport from the impact point towards SE.

SanderO wrote:I suppose that if there was an explosion some of the planes contents would be projected north as the exploding gas would be expanding. But then one has to consider the huge fireball which was associated with that expanding case and how it as possible for a flammable passport to be unaffected by the conflagration.

Again, you are basically just incredulous. But the fireball tended to rise. If the passport was pushed out below the rising fireball, it had a chance. Again, it is not at all unusual to find surviving paperwork and documents after plane crashes where lots of the fuel and other plane content burnded.

SanderO wrote:I find the passport evidence highly suspect and conveniently seems to confirm the identity of the alleged hijackers. Have you seen their tickets even? If so please cite the reference. If not, why are there no tickets? You know those copies... they take when you check in...

Again, you are moving goal posts. If there were no Arab terrorists aboard, who else flew the plane into the towers, and how, or do you claim that no airliners crashed into the towers?

I am not disputing that someone produced a passport. Your logic is built on several unproven assumptions or assertions.

But I don't think that it could possibly have originated inside a plane striking the 94th floor and land north of tower 1. Vesey Street is about 300' to the north and the prevailing winds would carry something like a passport to the SE. Observe the winds as observable by the smoke plumes coming from tower 1. After the fire ball clear the north face is quite clean and wind swept.

I don't know what the planes were and whether they were the planes alleged. Can you cite a log showing the serial numbered parts identifying the planes.

Let's begin there.

Yes, the Atta identification papers were certainly an unusual circumstance, on a day full of extremely unusual circumstances.

They rather remind me of the trove of "evidence" found in the "rental car" at the airport in Maine. Just so very convenient.

But as far as drone aircraft technology mentioned by Oystein, the USAF has been flying drone aircraft since about 1948.

Oystein wrote:

SanderO wrote:While one can jump through hoops to find a way that such an item could survive such a plane crash... the probability is remarkably low I would think.

Ex ante - yes. But ex post - no. Some remarkably improbable events happen regardless, and once they happen, probability rises to 100%.
Basically, you are arguing from incredulity. You claim the passport was not found, when all documentary evidence shows it WAS found. That is no argument.

What you say is true. Unfortunately, the same logic can be applied to virtually any event which is alleged to have occurred, giving the same result: the posterior probability is 100%, if you assume the event actually occurred!

The issue under test is whether the event occurred or not, and this line of reasoning provides no means to resolve the question. Following this logic, I may claim any number of highly improbable events have occurred and, so long as my word is accepted by the audience, the posterior probability is assigned a value of 1. But there is no means in this process to distinguish if I am truthful in my assertions that all of the events have happened.

If I salt my list with a lie, how do you detect it?

While I believe what you say of SanderO's statements are unconditionally true, I believe you've overlooked the provisionality of the central premise: one can not (solely) use the assumption of a predicate's truth to prove the truth of the predicate, it's circular logic.

To me, both sides of the argument say nothing of consequence. One side is incredulity, the other is uncritical acceptance. Nothing of significance can be demonstrated either way. The entire subject amounts to hearsay unless the sources are to be taken as unimpeachable.

Well said OWE.... which is why we try to limit ourselves to observations, engineering and science. Even something like DNA evidence is basically unreliable in this discussion as it can be so easily fabricated and fiddled with... no controls whatsoever. He said she said.

Well said.

SanderO, OWE,

no, I am not being uncritical. I checked all the availaible evidence for plausibility and found it is all at least consistent and not contradictory, and nothing of what we know falsifies the hypothesis that Suqami's passport landed downwind fromn the North Tower, somewhat south of Vesey street. I need precisely zero additional assumptions to make my theory work. See, here are some facts thatI hope you will all accept as uncontroversial:
- Suqami owned a passport that he used to enter the USA
- American Airlines has submitted into evidence that Suqami was a first-class passenger of Flight 11
- Radar and again AA confirm that AA11 crashed in lower Manhattan
- The Naudet video shows a large plane smashing into the North Tower
So far, all the evidence, with zero additional assumptions, indicates that Suqami was aboard a plane that crashed into the North Tower, and it is entirely reasonable that his passport was, too (that's what foreigners generally do in a foreign land: carry a passport when travelling)
Let's go on:
- The Naudet video shows that some material of that plane exitet the north wall
- The Naudet video shows that the dynamics of the crash also opened an exit path in the east wall
- Other items from the planes were later found on the ground or on roofs around the towers
- It is a matter of frequent experience that even fragile items like papers and ID card can survive severe plane crashes and subsequent fires
So now we know it is possible for items from the planes to exit through the north or east wall, and we know that it was possible for items to escape and remain identifiable. I need no additional assumption to establish that a passport could possibly have escaped.
And on:
- Vesey Street runs from WNW to ESE, at angle of about 20° from true west-east
- The wind was blowing nearly from NW to SE, as documented for example by photos of the smoke plume from the ISS. Some momentary deviation is always possible, as every person's daily experience shows.
- A trajectory from the North Tower about 3 blocks SE will bring an item to an area that can reasonably described as "in the vicinity of Vesey St"
- The passport was reported to have been found by a passerby, and later handed to a detective, "in the vicinity of Vesey St" and "about 3 blocks from the crash site". Given the imprecision of how the find is documented, we must concede that the exact location of where the passport landed is unknow, but that the report of the find is not contradicted by what we know about possible escape routes and prevailing wind direction
This closes my case: Nothing about what we know falsifies the hypothesis that the plane was AA11, Suqami was on the plane, Suqami brought his passport aboard, the plane crashed into the North Tower, the passport exited the north or east face, fluttered in the prevailing wind, and landed south of Vesey St, where it was picked up by a passerb. I needed absolutely zero unproven entities to make that happen.

It's the other way round: You have no alternative theory, and must assume deliberate fraud and must assume that some of the evidence is faulty.


SanderO, if you would like to doubt that AA11 crashed into the tower, I think the onus is squarely and heavily on you to make at least a plausible prima-facie case. But I see you don't know, you have no idea, what your prima facie case is.


OWE, in science, a theory can be rejected in one of two ways:
- Falsify it - prove that it is impossible
- Introduce a new theory, that explains the available observations better, without introducing more unproven entities

I see that no one has falsified the hypothesis that the passport was found.
And no one has a theory that better fits the evidence. Your alternative theory requires you to discard one piece of evidence (the police report about the find) and replace it with the unproven assumption of tampering. I find that I have nothing more to show and prove. The ball is in your field.


@ Heretic: Inform yourself on what the subject matter is before offering opinions. I am not talking about Atta's identification papers.
Also, while no one denies the existence of drones, it requires a lot of manipulation and development work to make a 767 remote controlled, and there is no way on earth that such modifications would go unnoticed. Plus we have direct evidence of a hijack from ATC voice recordings and the phone calls of several people aboard. If you want to claim drone, you have a LOT of explaining to do, but probably not in this thread.

like this?

Oystein wrote:SanderO, OWE,

- Suqami owned a passport that he used to enter the USA

Was that the actual passport he owned?

Oystein wrote:- American Airlines has submitted into evidence that Suqami was a first-class passenger of Flight 11

Easily fabricated...where are the ticket stubs? Where is the boarding videos?

Oystein wrote:- Radar and again AA confirm that AA11 crashed in lower Manhattan

Radar is digital data, it can be created and inserted onto ATC controller screens. In fact there was some controllers who were recorded asking if the radar targets were "real world or exercise inserted targets" or something to this effect. We don't have the ATC tapes... apparently they were destroyed... why would that be?[/quote]

Oystein wrote:- The Naudet video shows a large plane smashing into the North Tower

This cannot be visually identified from that film as the AA11 plane.

Oystein wrote:- The Naudet video shows that some material of that plane exitet the north wall

You can't see material of the scale of the passport in the Naudet video. You would expect some plan material not to have pentrated the facade. What part of the plane would likely bounce off? You tell us

Oystein wrote:- The Naudet video shows that the dynamics of the crash also opened an exit path in the east wall

Seems to bee the plane entered the north face normal to it and the "entry" wound was considerably smaller than the width of the towers.. and the plane traveling in a normal (90°) angle to the north facade. Anything emerging from the east facade was the result of a collision inside the structure or an explosion caused by or at the time of the collision. No?

Oystein wrote:- Other items from the planes were later found on the ground or on roofs around the towers

Has any plane parts been identified with serial numbers from AA11. Any AA11 parts north of the towers?

Oystein wrote:- It is a matter of frequent experience that even fragile items like papers and ID card can survive severe plane crashes and subsequent fires

So what... because X happened before is not proof that it happened in THAT plane crash.

Oystein wrote:- Vesey Street runs from WNW to ESE, at angle of about 20° from true west-east
- The wind was blowing nearly from NW to SE, as documented for example by photos of the smoke plume from the ISS. Some momentary deviation is always possible, as every person's daily experience shows.

The winds direction was very much north of west and blowing south of east. Let's not forget the Brenoullli effect of the winds interacting with the towers and the turbulent air and eddies. It is highly unlikely that something as light and with the configuration of a passport would travel several hundred feet north of the towers falling from 1100 feet elevation in those wind conditions. If you think it possible... go to the Empire State building and test your theory.

Oystein wrote:- A trajectory from the North Tower about 3 blocks SE will bring an item to an area that can reasonably described as "in the vicinity of Vesey St"

No, not really... more likely Fulton, Dey, Cortlandt or Liberty Streets would be more accurate to describe a SSE vicinity.

Oystein wrote:- The passport was reported to have been found by a passerby, and later handed to a detective, "in the vicinity of Vesey St" and "about 3 blocks from the crash site". Given the imprecision of how the find is documented, we must concede that the exact location of where the passport landed is unknow, but that the report of the find is not contradicted by what we know about possible escape routes and prevailing wind direction

Who cares where the reported handover took place... rather irrelevant to locating where it fell.

Oystein wrote:SanderO, if you would like to doubt that AA11 crashed into the tower, I think the onus is squarely and heavily on you to make at least a plausible prima-facie case. But I see you don't know, you have no idea, what your prima facie case is.

That sort of condescension and dismissive attitude is not appreciated here. I am perfectly aware of what a prima facia case is. We have visual evidence of a plane hitting the towers. We have witness testimony as well. We have physical evidence of something hitting the towers and various plane parts for which no serial numbers have been supplied (as far as I know). We have no evidence of whether the planes were AA11 and and UA175. No vids where you can even see the plane's markings

Oystein wrote:OWE, in science, a theory can be rejected in one of two ways:
- Falsify it - prove that it is impossible
- Introduce a new theory, that explains the available observations better, without introducing more unproven entities

Kindly don't lecture and condescend to the site administrator who is well aware of how science and logic work.

Oystein wrote:I see that no one has falsified the hypothesis that the passport was found.
And no one has a theory that better fits the evidence. Your alternative theory requires you to discard one piece of evidence (the police report about the find) and replace it with the unproven assumption of tampering. I find that I have nothing more to show and prove. The ball is in your field.

I don't have a theory about this. I am not convinced that the evidence you cite is evidence at all. It sounds more like wishful thinking to me and an attempt to identify aspects of the plane story which are pretty thin.

Oystein wrote:@ Heretic: Inform yourself on what the subject matter is before offering opinions. I am not talking about Atta's identification papers.
Also, while no one denies the existence of drones, it requires a lot of manipulation and development work to make a 767 remote controlled, and there is no way on earth that such modifications would go unnoticed. Plus we have direct evidence of a hijack from ATC voice recordings and the phone calls of several people aboard. If you want to claim drone, you have a LOT of explaining to do, but probably not in this thread.

'

You don't need a drone... all you need is input of GPS waypoints into a route and the plane's autopilot system will steer itself.

Anyone with the radio frequencies can call ATC and have a conversation... how can one tell the origin of the radio contact? Was that triangulated and proven to have originated from any plane in motion?

Oystein

Sander has fairly well answered your big points in your line of reasoning.

There is no proof that those men boarded the airplane in Boston, and there has been controversy since Day 1 about just which gate boarded AA11. So the crux of your argument is essentially speculation.

Drone technology is very old now, as I'm sure you agree. There is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting plane swaps. Staging telephone conversations is very easy.

Oystein wrote:SanderO, OWE,

no, I am not being uncritical. I checked all the availaible evidence for plausibility and found it is all at least consistent and not contradictory, and nothing of what we know falsifies the hypothesis that Suqami's passport landed downwind fromn the North Tower, somewhat south of Vesey street.
...

All of those things do indeed bolster your case, perhaps tremendously, but they were not (at the time explicitly) attached to the argument you were making, which was the argument I was addressing.

It's the other way round: You have no alternative theory, and must assume deliberate fraud and must assume that some of the evidence is faulty.

Correct. I have no alternative theory. I need not assume anything because, ultimately, I don't care!

OWE, in science, a theory can be rejected in one of two ways:
- Falsify it - prove that it is impossible
- Introduce a new theory, that explains the available observations better, without introducing more unproven entities

Yeah, I know. I also know a circular argument when I see it.

Your alternative theory requires you...

Just in case I'm included in that statment, or there's any doubt, I don't have a theory. Never gave it much thought at all. This probably represents my single biggest expenditure on the subject.

I happily see that no one has found any facts that falsify my theory, and everybody admits they don't have a better theory.

I hope the OP will one day notice the answer I provided to one of his questions.

Good night.

Theories are a dime a dozen. Let's work with facts and evidence that can be vetted.

SanderO wrote:Theories are a dime a dozen. Let's work with facts and evidence that can be vetted.

Without theory guiding you, all your research is idle.

But hey, I am all for facts! Maybe you want to start by stripping your last post of all non-fact (just asking questions, insinuation, speculation, ...) and repost it with just facts left? Thanks.

You see, I really dig it when people have a good enough grasp on their facts and what the relevance of these facts is, that they'd be willing to concentrate on their favorite fact and are ready to debate whether a) the fact is in fact a fact and b) it means what they think it means. So if you have any facts regarding the passport that you think disproves my theory, or if you have any fact that you think proves deceptional planting of the same (or whatever it is you think your facts mean - you aren't telling, are you?), then by all means let's work with these facts!

Oystein wrote:

SanderO wrote:Without theory guiding you, all your research is idle.

I don't know if this is the correct approach... it is one approach to solving a mystery. Another would be assemble the facts and look for a connection.

If you take the destruction of the twin towers, for example, I see that those with a theory seem to look at the evidence through a filter in support of their theory. They tend to cherry pick and exclude evidence or facts which don't support their theory. On the the other hand examining the towers, their structure, the visual evidence of how they came down/apart, the actual debris, its distribution and motion and applying engineering principals, physics and so forth one might come to a reasonable explanation which describes the destruction. You don't need a theory to do this. You need accurate observations, and a thorough knowledge of the characteristics of the object(s) being destroyed and the forces which could produce the observation.

As far as the passport information. It's not especially interesting to me in understanding the destruction of the towers. The planes did damage the structure and how they did is important. So it would be important to establish what the planes were, their weight, speed, profile, mass distribution and so forth. A found passport doesn't seem to be an important consideration to understanding the destruction of the towers.

No?