Matt Cooper and the 9/11 Litmus Test

[michael1965]

No, that's not good enough. If you think that a passport couldn't survive the disaster, then you need some kind of argument as to why, or at the very least, a plausible motivation for why someone would want to plant it among the wreckage (and an explanation for how they would have done it).

If you can't then most people will just accept these details as "strange but probably true".

Thats not how theories work. If a theory is falsified by conflicting evidence, then the theory is thrown out, even if there is no other theory to replace it.

If a paper passport couldn't have survived an explosion which destroyed a metal plane, then the theory that it did is rejected.

As soon as it becomes clear that a theory cannot explain the observed data then it is rejected as useless.

So, where is the evidence that a passport couldn't possibly survive? There are plenty of examples of passports surviving plane crashes,

Seabhcan,
I think it was argued rightly or wrongly that the passport could have survived the crash.
This link has some info:
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html
It's possible I suppose the blast wave blew/shredded the clothes off the bodies and the passport was travelling at the front of this.

Good page that. Makes a lot of sense...

[Asi-Irish]

Eh... did you happen to SEE the impact?

[seabhcan]

So, where is the evidence that a passport couldn't possibly survive? There are plenty of examples of passports surviving plane crashes,

Funny how the only passport to have survived these 4 plane crashes were of the hijackers.

[khavakoz]

So, where is the evidence that a passport couldn't possibly survive? There are plenty of examples of passports surviving plane crashes,

Funny how the only passport to have survived these 4 plane crashes were of the hijackers.

Do you have a source on this? Yes, the 9/11 Commission referred to passports of the attackers being found at crash sites, but I am unaware of any reports that no other documentation was found belonging to anyone else on the planes.

By the way, your skepticism about such items surviving crashes is wholly misplaced. The destruction caused by any explosion is very poorly understood by most people. Anyone who has ever seen an airplane crash debris field can easily tell you that the survivability of items from the plane is seemingly random - cups and plates surviving unscathed while metal is shredded for example.

[michael1965]

So, where is the evidence that a passport couldn't possibly survive? There are plenty of examples of passports surviving plane crashes,

Funny how the only passport to have survived these 4 plane crashes were of the hijackers.

Two hijacker passports were recovered. I've no idea how many passports of passengers were recovered, and I bet you don't either,

[Destiny's Soldier]

Here's an interesting online article about the We Are Change brigade, and what they believe in.

The writer seems balanced enough, but doesn't come to very positive conclusions about them

That article is rather typical. Nice prose but the writer sidesteps the DNA at the crime scene.


Building 7 coming down in 6 secs is the DNA at the crimescene.

Microspheres of molten metal found in the dust is DNA at the crimescene.

It's like the prosecution coming to court with a case against the accused but the DNA at the crimescene belongs to the judge.

[Conor the Bold]

So just what exactly is part of the official narrative is coming apart at the seams?

1. That 7 WTC is still being investigated by NIST? Wow sure evidence of something up there. Its not as if Structural Engineering, coupled with Fire Investigation and the like is exactly hard... I would say the fact that 7 WTC is still being investigated to find the mechanism of failure is quite comforting.

2. 7 WTC did not fall in 6 seconds. The Penthouse of 7 WTC collapses some seconds before the rest of the collapse, which would indicate the internal structures already failing inside.

3. That a passport survived the crash? Well given A4 paper managed to survive the towering inferno, I've got no doubt that a passport, or indeed several could indeed survive. Ever tried to burn a passport incidently? tear one up? they do happen to be relatively robust items.

Most of the arguments against the offical narrative is soley from incredulity. Not from reason, not from fact, not from exprience. Just that some nobody's with no relevant knowledge trying to analyse the masses of data in the vain hope of finding something which supports in some way their assertions and disregarding every other piece of evidence which proves it to be wrong.

[Destiny's Soldier]

So just what exactly is part of the official narrative is coming apart at the seams?

1. That 7 WTC is still being investigated by NIST? Wow sure evidence of something up there. Its not as if Structural Engineering, coupled with Fire Investigation and the like is exactly hard... I would say the fact that 7 WTC is still being investigated to find the mechanism of failure is quite comforting.

2. 7 WTC did not fall in 6 seconds. The Penthouse of 7 WTC collapses some seconds before the rest of the collapse, which would indicate the internal structures already failing inside.

3. That a passport survived the crash? Well given A4 paper managed to survive the towering inferno, I've got no doubt that a passport, or indeed several could indeed survive. Ever tried to burn a passport incidently? tear one up? they do happen to be relatively robust items.

Most of the arguments against the offical narrative is soley from incredulity. Not from reason, not from fact, not from exprience. Just that some nobody's with no relevant knowledge trying to analyse the masses of data in the vain hope of finding something which supports in some way their assertions and disregarding every other piece of evidence which proves it to be wrong.

Conor you are not a credible person. You resurrect yourself on the subject of 9/11 and the USS Liberty. I suspect you are an alter ego of another pseudonym here.

And on the subject of WTC 7: The bulk of the structure fell in 6 secs. True a portion of the penthouse fell within the building which was one event in itself.

The 2nd event is the 95% portion of the building which hit the ground in 6 secs. To the uninitiated see "Pull it revisited" on Google Video

But like a lot of people on 9/11 ye are chickensh1t to say what is obvious to the naked eye. As long as you can go on in denial you can live your own reality. I've come to realise people don't want to engage and face the hard reality that 9/11 was an inside job. I suspect the planners pretty much knew about human behaviour enough that a secret such as this would be kept hidden by it's incredulity.

[Conor the Bold]

Conor you are not a credible person. You resurrect yourself on the subject of 9/11 and the USS Liberty. I suspect you are an alter ego of another pseudonym here.

Resurrect myself? Alter ego of another Pseudonym. . Hardly. I'd wish I had that much time to actually waste on being two seperate posters on the same board. If you feel this is the Case Destiny's Soldier then I suggest you go to the adminstrators and ask them to compare IP's from myself and whoever you suspect. I'm sure there must be something in the T&C's against multiple accounts. Apart from having 2 IP's (posting in two different locations, ) You'll be told, quite bluntly I presume, that your suspiscion is wrong.

So I'll either accept your silence on the matter as a restraction. If you wish to continue your accusation, then I wouldn't suppose it would be too much to ask if you actually had any evidence? I know its silly given how you haven't managed to post any evidence insofar as this thread is concerned, but one can always hope.

However it is interesting to see that the first thing you try to do, is first undermine the poster themself before actually dealing with their points (when indeed you do actually deal with the points).

As for not being Credible? Why, because as soon as you start talking about Baltant falsehoods about 9/11 or the USS Liberty, two subjects I know a little about, I contradict you? Ahah... Sure example of not being credible there.

And on the subject of WTC 7: The bulk of the structure fell in 6 secs. True a portion of the penthouse fell within the building which was one event in itself.

One event in itself? Are you saying the Penthose was supported by its own load bearing structure, which transmited the load from the Penthouse (and associated structural framework) to the ground? If that is the case then you are quite correct. But since the Penthouse was supported with the very same structure as the rest of the building, you're not.

Indeed its disingenous and irrational at best, to disregard the first indication of collapse and indeed the first portion of the collapse as being 'one event in itself', simply because it does not factor in with your opinion that 7 WTC was demolished. When the Penthouse collapsed, thats indicative of internal failure. Just because it happened a few seconds before the rest of the building, doesn't change that the building itself would be classed as collapsing. Would you go into a building in which you know the penthose has collapsed back into the building? Which you think its structurally sound enough to potter around of the ground floor? The NYFD didn't think so. What makes you know better?

The 2nd event is the 95% portion of the building which hit the ground in 6 secs. To the uninitiated see "Pull it revisited" on Google Video

Excuse me. We need validation. When you say '95% portion of the building' I assume you have some evidence to back this up. Indeed, that you can clarify? Do you 95% of the exterior surface? Or 95% of the building by Volume or Mass for example. Because quite simply, wheredo you think the collapsing Penthouse went? For certain it took out a bit more than 5% of the building in its collapse (If we are to assume that somehow it was 'one event in itself'.) But even then, you certainly aren't in any position to even speculate that the internal structure wasn't critically failing.

As for the rest, thats called Gravity. Once some load bearing members go, and F=ma comes into account, you've got other load bearing members faces forces which they just weren't specced to match and in effect are about as much use as matchsticks.

But like a lot of people on 9/11 ye are chickensh1t to say what is obvious to the naked eye.

Right... What exactly is brave about coming on the internet and saying 'I believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy committed by the CIA, FBI, Mossad, Kang, Ming' et al ad nauseum? And to call me chicken************************ because I don't believe what you say?

As for what is quite obvious to the Naked Eye. Isn't. lets say for example the NYFD. Are they 'Chicken************************'. The people who run into burning buildings, save lives etc. You know the same people who lost brothers, friends & colleages that day? Same for the PAPD, NYPD? Yeah, they must be chicken************************. Especially since where is the massive uproar? Doesn't come from them. Despite what Loose Change and others do with their hatchet jobs with taking quotes out of context and misrepresenting views, they still have not managed to get a single member of the Emergency serivces to come forward and actually say "I think this whole thing was a conspiracy by the USG, and after careful consideration I believe the Buildings were demolished). Not managed that strangely. They must be too chicken************************...

Not like Dylan Avery and co... man those are true hero's...

Every structural engineer, who can't see what is obvious to the naked eye must be chicken************************. No Structural Engineer has even been cited to the best of my knowledge, let alone formed a paper to contradict 1&2 WTC or even propose an alternate hypothesis to what is thought to be a fire induced collapse? No... all the Structural engineers in the world are to chicken************************.

Luckily we've got a bunch of unqualified people to tell us what the people who should know, aren't.

Isn't it lucky that we have people like you to shine the torch of truth?

As long as you can go on in denial you can live your own reality.

Why thank you. It's nice to see that whilst I talk about evidence, you talk about denial...

I've come to realise people don't want to engage and face the hard reality that 9/11 was an inside job.

Can you answer me this one question. Do you think that it is possible that 9/11 wasn't an inside job? because what I find it telling, is despite the small fact that you don't sem to have any applicable knowledge in the areas which you spek. Yet you claim that because 7 WTC came down in 6 seconds it must have been a Controlled demolition...

Which begs a few questions.

1. Does that mean you think 1&2 WTC were Demolished?

2. If not, then what would you have thought would have happened had 1&2 WTC not collapsed?

3. How did they manage to rig for demolition 7 WTC and possibe 1&2 WTC without anybody noticing? When would they have had to have started etc?

I suspect the planners pretty much knew about human behaviour enough that a secret such as this would be kept hidden by it's incredulity

Roll... and not the small issue that people like you cant accept that little over 20 men managed to kill over 3000 people, caused billions of pounds worth of damage. You dont realise that I'm on the side with the evidence. Not because what I think what happened. Because the evidence and Occams razor supports this side. :mrgreen:

[I_robert]

Anyone who claims there was nothing odd about 9/11, has to explain how a hijacker's passport could survive the explosion and impact, fly out of the pocket of a hijacker before he was incinerated, out through the metal of the plane, before it was vapourised, out through the building, and fly backwards (reverse to the direction of the plane) and end up in perfect condition in the street below.

I read a book called "Flat Earth News" written by a Guardian reporter. It never mentioned 9/11 or conspiracies, but interviewed Mi6 officers on planted news stories such as WMD tales and the like. It did have the following passage, however.

I spoke to senior British sources who said they believed that the discovery of Mohammed Atta's passport in the rubble of the Twin Towers in September 2001 had been 'a throwdown', i.e. it was placed there by somebody official. Similarily, they said, they did not believe that Atta's will, which had allegedly been found in a suitcase which had accidentally failed to make it to his plane, was anything other than misinformation.

We also don't even know how it was found or who's passport it is. It's Atta's passport and it was found by an extensive search by the NYPD. Or its Satam Al Suqami passport found by a passer by.

Or perhaps several passports were found, and it was decided afterwards that that would be just too odd.

Looks like the Guardian is still trying to retain its cred at convincing the masses that it's legitimate opposition instead of part of the controlled NWO opposition.



Especially for the Guardian disciples at P.ie here's Nick 'NWO' Cohen squirming as he's put on the spot by wearechange Uk.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dnyGYkij-W4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dnyGYkij-W4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnyGYkij-W4