Fire does not burn Paper

After 9-11, they found a passport from one of the hijackers.

"ABCNEWS sources identify another hijacker as Satan Suqami, a Saudi national on American Airlines Flight 11, whose passport was recovered in the rubble."

Ok, so we have 2 possible scenarios as to how this happened:

1. Terrorist named Satan rolled down the Boeing 747 window to smoke a cigarette and by accident his passport fell out of his pocket unto the streets of New York.

2. Terrorist named Satan needed to take a piss, opened the Boeing 747 door to take a leak and in the moment decided to throw his passport unto the streets of New York just for fun of it.

Ok, people, i know you think everything the officials tell you is true..............but really, come on, this is just The Elite making fun of us being ignorant and gullible!
🤣

Steel columns melted, burned for weeks after but paper passports stay unharmed!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!! LMAO!

I would propose a counter argument, but after reading your last few posts, I believe it would be rather pointless.

dont forget the guy whos passport it was is still alive lol.

so its obvious you have the government planting fake evidence but where is this info in the media? why would the government have to plant fake evidence if bin laden was really responsible?

Originally posted by Deano
dont forget the guy whos passport it was is still alive lol.

"The guy" you are talking about is Satam al-Suqami, and please post the evidence behind your above statement.

As for the misleasding title of the thread and the simplistic cobservation behind it ...

Of course paper burns you simpleton, but massive explosions and collisions on the scale that took place that day scatter debris, not instantly insinerate it.

Paper can burst into flames if it is hot enough. I do think it was hot enough.
Also how does a paper passport survive but the black box's or voice recorders were destroyed or too much damaged.

Originally posted by Furion
Paper can burst into flames if it is hot enough.

Exactly, but if upon a major impact and utter destruction of an object and the expulsion of its contents across a massive area occurs and those ejected items do not land in a fire...they will not burn.

Originally posted by Furion
Also how does a paper passport survive but the black box's or voice recorders were destroyed or too much damaged.

See above circumstance. You are thinking pretty simplistically about a complex event. The resulting location and conditions of materials of a debris field from an impact and explosion of a plane into a building and the consequent collapse of that building has to take into consideration the location of the item on the plane at time of impact, the speed of the impact, the manner in which the plane ripped apart, the effect of the structure on the destruction of the plane, the prevailing winds of the day including the force of air movement upon and post impact as well as the air movement resulting from the rapid heating cause from the explosion of impact along with many other variables.

Those who look for simple answers or explanations in order to support their argument or who pose simple questions to try and prove a their misguided points should be dismissed.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Bla Bla Expensive Words Bla

Funny theory you cooked up mate. You will surely be able to convince some people with all those big words. In the end, its just your theory. Where is the proof that you are right?

They didnt find any of the corpes but they did find a passport.

Only a fool would believe that.

You are right Karmadog, fire does not burn paper only people, steel columns and Boeing 747s.

You do realize never before has one of those black boxes gone missing.
The chances of the passport not being burned while everything else is destroyed is just stupid. It didn't even need to be near the fire, it would of combusted because it was so hot.

Originally posted by Furion
You do realize never before has one of those black boxes gone missing.

That's rubbish, black boxes have gone missing a number of times.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That's rubbish, black boxes have gone missing a number of times.

Of course that's a minor point that will be chosen to be ignored.

As for the comments about my "expensive words" and the ramblings that followed that didn't amke any sense or address what was said...all I have to say is that your ignorance is almost overwhelming.

Words aren't expensive, they're quite free. If you are unable to understand them or their meaning, then instead of criticizing when they are used properly you should take the time to educate yourself.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
That's rubbish, black boxes have gone missing a number of times.

if these terrorists are still alive...,where is the proof?

The BBC and the Daily Telegraph reported on September 23 that some of the people named as the hijackers by the FBI were actually "alive and well".[90][91] One of them was Waleed al-Shehri, who they said they had found in Casablanca, Morocco. Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were all said to be living in the Middle East. On September 19, the FDIC even distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive (the Justice Department later said this was a typographical error). These reports have led to claims that the names of the hijackers may be incorrect, or that the hijacking scenarios outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report may not be the truth.

All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the publications involved and by other news organisations such as the New York Times.[92][93][94] The BBC said that confusion may have arisen because the FBI names were common Arabic and Islamic names.[95] In 2002, Saudi Arabia asserted that the names of the hijackers were correct.[96]

Attention has also been given to news reports that might indicate that the named hijackers were not typical Islamic extremists, nor typical suicide terrorists. For example, Mohammad Atta reportedly ate pork, drank alcohol, gambled in casinos and went to strip clubs
pulled from wikipedia.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
if these terrorists are still alive...,where is the proof?

I saw a guy who looked like one of the terrorists the other day.

Musta been him.

Originally posted by Furion

Also how does a paper passport survive but the black box's or voice recorders were destroyed or too much damaged.

mmm...what's harder....ceramic or paper (as an example)...clearly ceramic...now what happens if i hit both with a hammer...the ceramic objecy breaks...the paper stays undamaged....shazam...its magic

Originally posted by Furion
The BBC and the Daily Telegraph reported on September 23 that some of the people named as the hijackers by the FBI were actually "alive and well".[90][91] One of them was Waleed al-Shehri, who they said they had found in Casablanca, Morocco. Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and Khalid al-Midhar, three other hijackers, were all said to be living in the Middle East. On September 19, the FDIC even distributed a "special alert" which listed al-Mihdhar as alive (the Justice Department later said this was a typographical error). These reports have led to claims that the names of the hijackers may be incorrect, or that the hijacking scenarios outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report may not be the truth.

All of the reports have since been acknowledged as cases of mistaken identity by the publications involved and by other news organisations such as the New York Times.[92][93][94] The BBC said that confusion may have arisen because the FBI names were common Arabic and Islamic names.[95] In 2002, Saudi Arabia asserted that the names of the hijackers were correct.[96]

Attention has also been given to news reports that might indicate that the named hijackers were not typical Islamic extremists, nor typical suicide terrorists. For example, Mohammad Atta reportedly ate pork, drank alcohol, gambled in casinos and went to strip clubs
pulled from wikipedia.

but..but...the mainstream media is evil and all it does is broadcast and print lies

Originally posted by KharmaDog
bla

Please, tell me Educated One Who Knows All.

Where is your proof? Where is your proof? Stop talking about big words and other unrelated stuff trying to divert this conversation.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? I WANT PROOF. PROVE TO ME THAT FIRE DOES NOT BURN PAPER ONLY STEEL COLUMN BUILDINGS, PEOPLE AND BOEINGS?

You dont have any proof, only gullible theories. Your next reply will evade my questions. You will not be able to prove anything.

Please, show the people, how you are once again going to evade my questions.

My tip Kharmadog, take your passport, throw in it in a fire and see what happens. Its called The Laws of Physics! 😆

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
if these terrorists are still alive...,where is the proof?

absolute classic quote.

government says bin laden and his men did it and i dont ask for proof. (there is none). i'll just take there word for it.

but anyone that goes against the official line must be asked for proof.

brilliant

It's funny how the public and media are quite willing to accept lies pedalled by the politicians without any demand for 'proof' and yet they insist on proof from anyone challenging the official version of reality. The
official 'truth' of September 11th is one such case. A schoolboy could take the story apart. But when faced with other explanations for these events, and for life itself, the same people who accept this crap without question scream: "Where's the proof?" "That's all very well, mate, but how can you convince me if you don't have the evidence to prove it? I can't believe what hasn't been proved, can I?" Oh, but people do; and they go on doing so all their lives. Some points to make here. First, why can't we
'feel' and 'know' our reality instead of insisting that the conditioned and manipulated mind must be the only arbiter of 'truth' through the production of evidence that it believes to be 'proof'? What is 'proof', anyway?
Proof is only that which the conditioned mind accepts to be so. Billions are convinced that the official version of 9/11 is true because of the 'proof' revealed by the United States government. After all, didn't they
find a passport from one of the hijackers that had miraculously survived the fireball to be found in the street? Well, actually, no they didn't because that was a ·lie. But the FBI named the 19 hijackers didn't they?
No, they gave us 19 names, at least seven of which were found to be still alive. But they proved Bin Laden did it, surely? I heard them say that. Yes, exactly, we heard them say it and nothing more. They produced
no 'proof' of anything, only the repetition of their fairy tale that billions accepted as 'proof'. It was those using their 'hearts', their intuition, who knew something was very wrong with the official version even
before any further investigation had begun. Does what I reported in the last chapter 'feel' right intuitively even without 'scientific' support? Only you know if it feels right to you or not; you don't need some guy
with a fancy title and letters after his name to tell you what to think. What does your heart say? That's all that matters. Second, the last thing I am trying to do is convince anyone of anything, that's not my intention
or desire at all. So why bother doing what I do? I want to understand what is going on and I believe it is right that everyone should have access to all information available and not just the version that suits those in power. What people make of it is their business, not mine. Third, even for those who still demand 'proof' for everything, there is an increasingly enormous amount of scientific support for the themes of the last chapter,
fantastic as they may have appeared to be at first hearing

Of course, explosions create shockwaves before flames. As for the guy being alive, that's not evidence of governmental action and coverup, that could just as easily mean the passport was stolen.

Originally posted by jaden101
but..but...the mainstream media is evil and all it does is broadcast and print lies