AA77's and UA93's FDR Report

[DC]

NTSB's AA77 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

NTSB's UA93 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

why are the Serial Numbers not mentioned?

[gumboot]

NTSB's AA77 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

NTSB's UA93 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

why are the Serial Numbers not mentioned?


Serial numbers of what?

[defaultdotxbe]

i can still see the divots in the ground from where the goalposts were moved last time i had this conversation with a truther

[DC]

Serial numbers of what?

the Serial Numbers of the FDR for example, but also the Serial number of the plane itself, or its engines.

[gumboot]

the Serial Numbers of the FDR for example, but also the Serial number of the plane itself, or its engines.


Why would the report contain any of that information?

ETA. By the way the aircraft serial number is on page one of each report.

[DC]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_10A.pdf

Also here the serial Number of the FDR is mentioned

[defaultdotxbe]

have you written the NTSB and asked about this apparent oversight?

[DC]

Why would the report contain any of that information?

cause they usualy do?

[DC]

Why would the report contain any of that information?

ETA. By the way the aircraft serial number is on page one of each report.

the aircrafts Serial number?
you ment the registration number?

[gumboot]

cause they usualy do?

Do they?

How many NTSB FDR reports have you read?

Can you identify any differences between the incident you cited and those that occurred on 9/11?

[Drs_Res]

cause they usualy do?

Do they?

[DC]

Do they?

i think so, i dont know all NTSB reports oc, but the ones i can find online.

and normaly serial numbers are mentioned, in one case, its only the part number of the FDR, and serial number is Unknown, but they atleast mention it.

[DC]

i will link some reports after work.

[gumboot]

the aircrafts Serial number?
you ment the registration number?


Yes, that is the identifying number for the aircraft.

[DC]

Yes, that is the identifying number for the aircraft.

the FAA Ragistration number is mentioned. but not the Manufacturers Serial number.

[DC]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241509.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241505.pdf

here the Serial Numbers are mentioned for example.

[Arus808]

why would the FDR need serial numbers to verify that they came from the planes that they had been in? seeing that all anyone would need is to match the data with the flights it took in the last 24 hours, all of that is recorded.

its up to you DC, to prove that the FDR did not come from those planes.

[DC]

why would the FDR need serial numbers to verify that they came from the planes that they had been in? seeing that all anyone would need is to match the data with the flights it took in the last 24 hours, all of that is recorded.

its up to you DC, to prove that the FDR did not come from those planes.

i dont claim they are not from those flights, or those aircrafts.
i just wonder why they did not mention any of the Serial Numbers.

but in other cases, they do release the serial numbers. in cases where the planes are not questioned.

[Hokulele]

i just wonder why they did not mention any of the Serial Numbers.


Have you asked them?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

This is it!
the smoking gun twoofers have been waiting for!
now if they could only "recall" ALL 5 copies of LC:FC they released to the public so they can include this piece of information.................

[DC]

This is it!
the smoking gun twoofers have been waiting for!
now if they could only "recall" ALL 5 copies of LC:FC they released to the public so they can include this piece of information.................

huh? i got told LC:FC is the full and only truth.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

huh? i got told LC:FC is the full and only truth.

You "got told" but haven't watched it yourself?
Or you refused to watch it because it sucks??
you do know that F stands for feces in LC:FC?

[DC]

You "got told" but haven't watched it yourself?
Or you refused to watch it because it sucks??
you do know that F stands for feces in LC:FC?

ok yes to be honest, i did not watch FC at all :( i lack that knowledge.

i watched 2nd cut i think, i didnt like it.
teenager "docu" with lousy music.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

ok yes to be honest, i did not watch FC at all :( i lack that knowledge.

i watched 2nd cut i think, i didnt like it.
teenager "docu" with lousy music.
So says the looser who is a big fan of looser change diapers.

[DC]

So says the looser who is a big fan of looser change diapers.

i know i know, it must be a lie of me,. im a twoofer and twoofers all love loose change, i know.

[jhunter1163]

i dont claim they are not from those flights, or those aircrafts.
i just wonder why they did not mention any of the Serial Numbers.

but in other cases, they do release the serial numbers. in cases where the planes are not questioned.

It's almost never questioned what plane crashed. Airlines certainly would like to know which of their $80 million pieces of equipment were destroyed.

[DC]

It's almost never questioned what plane crashed. Airlines certainly would like to know which of their $80 million pieces of equipment were destroyed.

was AA587 ever questioned?

the serial numbers are mentioned in the NTSB documents.

[jhunter1163]

Again, no, it was never questioned. There's never any doubt about which airliner crashed. Google "ACARS" for more information.

[Jonnyclueless]

So what did the NTSB say when you asked them? Did they mention anything about there maybe being a difference between an accident and a crime and how they have no jurisdiction in crime related crashes?

[DC]

Again, no, it was never questioned. There's never any doubt about which airliner crashed. Google "ACARS" for more information.

so why dont we know the serial numbers of the planes from 9/11?

btw, Operation northwoods.

where they planned to use a faked aircraft, would they also fake serial numbers?

[Jonnyclueless]

How did that Operation Northwoods work out BTW? Was it successful?

[DC]

How did that Operation Northwoods work out BTW? Was it successful?

it was stopped, but went up to macnamara (Defence minister) afaik.

[jhunter1163]

Have you Googled "ACARS" yet?

[beachnut]

Northwoods,

[DC]

Have you Googled "ACARS" yet?

aircraft communications addressing and reporting system?

[gumboot]

the FAA Ragistration number is mentioned. but not the Manufacturers Serial number.


I think you'll find the individual components have serial numbers, not the whole aircraft.

There's multiple issues here... because you cited numerous different serial numbers:

1. The FDR serial number
2. The Aircraft serial number
3. Component serial numbers (engines, etc)

You've provided evidence of other NTSB reports citing 1), however you have provided none for 2) or 3). I'm not even sure 2) exists (perhaps our resident avionics people can clear that up?).

Can you cite a single NTSB report that cites the aircraft or any component serial number, other than the FDR or CVR?

And once again, there is a difference between the incidents you've cited - where the FDR serial number is mentioned - and the incidents on 9/11. This difference is very important, and has a direct bearing on the NTSB's reporting on the incident. Have you worked out what it is yet?

[DC]

I think you'll find the individual components have serial numbers, not the whole aircraft.

There's multiple issues here... because you cited numerous different serial numbers:

1. The FDR serial number
2. The Aircraft serial number
3. Component serial numbers (engines, etc)

You've provided evidence of other NTSB reports citing 1), however you have provided none for 2) or 3). I'm not even sure 2) exists (perhaps our resident avionics people can clear that up?).

Can you cite a single NTSB report that cites the aircraft or any component serial number, other than the FDR or CVR?

And once again, there is a difference between the incidents you've cited - where the FDR serial number is mentioned - and the incidents on 9/11. This difference is very important, and has a direct bearing on the NTSB's reporting on the incident. Have you worked out what it is yet?

Aircraft: American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus Model A300-605R, N14053
Manufactures Serial Number (MSN) 420

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241505.pdf

[gumboot]

Aircraft: American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus Model A300-605R, N14053
Manufactures Serial Number (MSN) 420

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241505.pdf


Thanks.

Have you worked out the difference yet?

[DC]

and when you want to point out the criminal investigation, and that the FBI recovered the the FDR's, why dont you just point it out?

[gumboot]

and when you want to point out the criminal investigation, and that the FBI recovered the the FDR's, why dont you just point it out?


The purpose is to determine what you know. You've almost got it. :)

[Anti-sophist]

Let's clear some things up, so we can all stop JAQ.

Aircraft do have serial numbers from the manufacturer.
Aircraft also, almost always, are given unique designations from the owner.

^ This is mostly off-topic.

On to the issue...
FDR reports from the NTSB usually contain FDR serial numbers. (CVRs, as well)
The FDR reports from 9/11 don't.

You can probably find dozens of other things that NTSB usually does and didn't do in this investigation as well. That's proof only that this wasn't a usual investigation and nothing more. It hardly represents actual evidence of a coverup or a conspiracy. Nor does it add to some magical list of "small" things that somehow make a conspiracy more likely.

[WildCat]

i dont claim they are not from those flights, or those aircrafts.
Another no-claimer!

Just asking questions, right? :rolleyes:

[DC]

Let's clear some things up, so we can all stop JAQ.

Aircraft do have serial numbers from the manufacturer.
Aircraft also, almost always, are given unique designations from the owner.

^ This is mostly off-topic.

On to the issue...
FDR reports from the NTSB usually contain FDR serial numbers. (CVRs, as well)
The FDR reports from 9/11 don't.

You can probably find dozens of other things that NTSB usually does and didn't do in this investigation as well. That's proof only that this wasn't a usual investigation and nothing more. It hardly represents actual evidence of a coverup or a conspiracy. Nor does it add to some magical list of "small" things that somehow make a conspiracy more likely.

oh it does indeed not prove a cover up.
but i am wondering, the bigest terroratack on US soil and we miss things like that.

also no Boardmembers are mentioned in the FDR report. i dont know if that is unusual, you know that prolly alot better than i do.

[DC]

Another no-claimer!

Just asking questions, right? :rolleyes:

didnt you realise jet that i am a no claimer?

im just interested in some points i will bring up here on JREF. alot competent ppl here that do real good posts.

if you dont like it, just press that little ignore button, like alot others already did :)

if not, your welcome to read my questions :) your also welocme to laugh about them :)

[DC]

Anti-sophist

another thing. when the FDR had lag or lost data, isnt that normaly mentioned and "explained" in the FDR report?

[Totovader]

oh it does indeed not prove a cover up.
but i am wondering, the bigest terroratack on US soil and we miss things like that.

also no Boardmembers are mentioned in the FDR report. i dont know if that is unusual, you know that prolly alot better than i do.

What evidence do you have that it was "missed", as opposed to unneeded?

I am wondering, the "bigest terroratack on US soil" [sic] and you're missing things like an argument and evidence. How could you miss something so crucial?

[ElMondoHummus]

NTSB's AA77 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

NTSB's UA93 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

why are the Serial Numbers not mentioned?

That's a question for someone trained in aircraft accident investigation, like Beechnut, who posts in this forum.

Also: While he's in maintenance, perhaps AMTMAN would have some knowledge of this as well.

And Gumboot's done a fair amount of research into these aspects of 9/11. Perhaps it would pay off to answer his questions and see where his line of answers leads you.

[AMTMAN]

NTSB's AA77 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

NTSB's UA93 FDR Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

why are the Serial Numbers not mentioned?

Because obviously United and American were in on the conspiracy.

[DC]

That's a question for someone trained in aircraft accident investigation, like Beechnut, who posts in this forum.

Also: While he's in maintenance, perhaps AMTMAN would have some knowledge of this as well.

And Gumboot's done a fair amount of research into these aspects of 9/11. Perhaps it would pay off to answer his questions and see where his line of answers leads you.

after reading Anti Sophists's theory about the FDR data on flight 77 i was pretty sure he is the most competent here.

i have my doubts about beachnut :)
but who knows, maybe he knows something about it.

i am all ears

[DC]

What evidence do you have that it was "missed", as opposed to unneeded?

I am wondering, the "bigest terroratack on US soil" [sic] and you're missing things like an argument and evidence. How could you miss something so crucial?

with missing i ment, missing in the report. where you usually find that information.

i wonder if there is a good reason for that.

[gumboot]

oh it does indeed not prove a cover up.
but i am wondering, the bigest terroratack on US soil and we miss things like that.

also no Boardmembers are mentioned in the FDR report. i dont know if that is unusual, you know that prolly alot better than i do.


Another difference between the 9/11 FDR reports and the ones you have posted... c'mon, the answer's right there in front of you...

the clue is in the title of the reports...

[AMTMAN]

after reading Anti Sophists's theory about the FDR data on flight 77 i was pretty sure he is the most competent here.

i have my doubts about beachnut :)
but who knows, maybe he knows something about it.

i am all ears


He probably has his doubts about you.:)

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at although I have an idea. Have you ever heard of a system called ACARS? It's basically a data link between a commercial airliner and the airline that operates it. It gives the off an on times whenever an aircraft takes off and lands. So if you are trying to imply that it’s not the FDR from those two flights like a lot of truthers do it presents a big problem.

Anyone who tries to say that it’s not the FDR from 93 and 77 has to come to one of two conclusions. One, either the airlines were in on it because after all if anyone is going to figure out it was not Flight 77 and 93 that actually crashed it would be them. Or two, they are completely and utterly clueless.

[MRC_Hans]

so why dont we know the serial numbers of the planes from 9/11?

btw, Operation northwoods.

where they planned to use a faked aircraft, would they also fake serial numbers?Duh, they did not expect anybody to examine the wreckage, because fake planes leave no wreckage.

Hans

[Totovader]

with missing i ment, missing in the report. where you usually find that information.

i wonder if there is a good reason for that.

In order for it to be missing from the report, it would be mandatory that it be there. You didn't really answer my question- I asked how you know it's "missing" as opposed to unneeded?

Do you have any rational reason to expect that the information be mandatory? Any rules or regulations? Any industry knowledge? You are claiming that some reports have them, therefore all reports should have them. This is fallacious.

And- as others have hinted... (let's see if you can connect the dots on your own): what are some differences between these other crashes that you're citing, and this one?

Think about it... think... keep thinking...

[AMTMAN]

That's a question for someone trained in aircraft accident investigation, like Beechnut, who posts in this forum.

Also: While he's in maintenance, perhaps AMTMAN would have some knowledge of this as well.

And Gumboot's done a fair amount of research into these aspects of 9/11. Perhaps it would pay off to answer his questions and see where his line of answers leads you.

Since I don't work for the NTSB I can't really answer the question as to why the serical numbers were not included. You have to remember that this was not your typicaly aircraft crash, this was a criminal act. I'm going to guess that the people who wrote the report did think that it was going to be an issue.

[DC]

He probably has his doubts about you.:)

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at although I have an idea. Have you ever heard of a system called ACARS? It's basically a data link between a commercial airliner and the airline that operates it. It gives the off an on times whenever an aircraft takes off and lands. So if you are trying to imply that it’s not the FDR from those two flights like a lot of truthers do it presents a big problem.

Anyone who tries to say that it’s not the FDR from 93 and 77 has to come to one of two conclusions. One, either the airlines were in on it because after all if anyone is going to figure out it was not Flight 77 and 93 that actually crashed it would be them. Or two, they are completely and utterly clueless.

How much money did the airlines get after 9/11 ?

[DC]

Duh, they did not expect anybody to examine the wreckage, because fake planes leave no wreckage.

Hans

according to that plan, there would be wreckage.

[DC]

In order for it to be missing from the report, it would be mandatory that it be there. You didn't really answer my question- I asked how you know it's "missing" as opposed to unneeded?

Do you have any rational reason to expect that the information be mandatory? Any rules or regulations? Any industry knowledge? You are claiming that some reports have them, therefore all reports should have them. This is fallacious.

And- as others have hinted... (let's see if you can connect the dots on your own): what are some differences between these other crashes that you're citing, and this one?

Think about it... think... keep thinking...

ok i gonna make it simple for you.

normaly serial numbers are mentioned, on 9/11 they did not mention them.

[DC]

Since I don't work for the NTSB I can't really answer the question as to why the serical numbers were not included. You have to remember that this was not your typicaly aircraft crash, this was a criminal act. I'm going to guess that the people who wrote the report did think that it was going to be an issue.

lol?
on other investigations, they mention it. but on 9/11, an event never happened beofre, they didnt think ti will be an issue?

sorry that makes no sence to me.

[gumboot]

ok i gonna make it simple for you.

normaly serial numbers are mentioned, on 9/11 they did not mention them.


I'll make it simple for you.

The reports for the incidents on 9/11 and the reports for the incidents you have cited are different types of report. You have not provided any evidence that the type of report issued for the 9/11 incidents should, or normally does contain the information you are seeking.

[Dave Rogers]

How much money did the airlines get after 9/11 ?

United Airlines was under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from December 2002 to February 2006. American Airlines narrowly avoided going into Chapter 11 protection in March 2003. It's just a surmise, but I suspect that neither company prospered particularly as a result of 9-11. Cui bono doesn't help the conspiracist here.

Dave

[DC]

I'll make it simple for you.

The reports for the incidents on 9/11 and the reports for the incidents you have cited are different types of report. You have not provided any evidence that the type of report issued for the 9/11 incidents should, or normally does contain the information you are seeking.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241509.pdf

NTSB FDR report including part and serial number of that FDR.

[Totovader]

I'll make it simple for you.

The reports for the incidents on 9/11 and the reports for the incidents you have cited are different types of report. You have not provided any evidence that the type of report issued for the 9/11 incidents should, or normally does contain the information you are seeking.

DC, it's sad that it has to be spelled out for you- but this is it.

You're saying something should have happened, without any evidence.

You then take that lack of evidence as evidence- though you are desperately trying to shy away from any claims... it's still an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Finally, it makes no sense at all. "The Government" is going to go through all the trouble of faking a plane crash, planting all this evidence, faking documents, paying off witnesses, faking video, somehow faking the flight path damage... and then neglect to enter the serial numbers into the report?

Since you have no argument, and your expectations are irrational- this thread is pretty much done, eh?

[DC]

is it possible to fake ACARS messages?

[Totovader]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241509.pdf

NTSB FDR report including part and serial number of that FDR.

This is not a rebuttal. You aren't even addressing what gumboot said.

[Dave Rogers]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241509.pdf

NTSB FDR report including part and serial number of that FDR.

Youve been complaining that oranges aren't yellow, and producing pictures of bananas to try and prove your point. This is another banana.

Dave

[DC]

DC, it's sad that it has to be spelled out for you- but this is it.

You're saying something should have happened, without any evidence.

You then take that lack of evidence as evidence- though you are desperately trying to shy away from any claims... it's still an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Finally, it makes no sense at all. "The Government" is going to go through all the trouble of faking a plane crash, planting all this evidence, faking documents, paying off witnesses, faking video, somehow faking the flight path damage... and then neglect to enter the serial numbers into the report?

Since you have no argument, and your expectations are irrational- this thread is pretty much done, eh?

when you think that topic is done, you best stop posting here :)
it will eventually stop then :)

[DC]

Youve been complaining that oranges aren't yellow, and producing pictures of bananas to try and prove your point. This is another banana.

Dave

so you say normaly in a FDR report, the serial number of that FDR is not mentioned?

[DC]

FDR reports from the NTSB usually contain FDR serial numbers. (CVRs, as well)

from someone that has prolly alot more knowledge about FDR reports than i have :)

[gumboot]

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/241509.pdf

NTSB FDR report including part and serial number of that FDR.


As I said, they are different types of report. The clue is in the title. Compare the one above with the report for UA93's FDR.

Flight Data Recorder Group Chaiman's Factual Report
Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation

The key here is the bolded bit.

There's also some clues in the first paragraphs of each report.

[AMTMAN]

How much money did the airlines get after 9/11 ?

That's not what I asked DC. If you are incapable of answering a simple question honestly then don't bother replying.

But since we are on the subject could you would please just come out and say what you are thinking. The airlines were paid off right DC? Why else would you say what you did?

Yes the airlines, not just AA and UAL, got money after 9-11. However that money did not stop four legacy carriers, one of them being United, from declaring BK. Now when you look at the history of airlines and BK it's not a good one. Of all the airlines that have done so since deregulation only two were around ten years later. All the others have gone the way of the dodo bird. Even though AA avoided BK they added billions of dollars of debt to its balance sheet. Now would you please tell me if that "hush money" was enough? An honest answer please, no more games.

[Totovader]

from someone that has prolly alot more knowledge about FDR reports than i have :)

Yet you disagree with him...

Typical quote-mining... inadvisable since this is taken from the top of this page.

[DC]

As I said, they are different types of report. The clue is in the title. Compare the one above with the report for UA93's FDR.

Flight Data Recorder Group Chaiman's Factual Report
Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation

The key here is the bolded bit.

There's also some clues in the first paragraphs of each report.

ah i see, chairmens have to report the FDR serial number.
but specialists have not to?

why is this?

[Totovader]

ah i see, chairmens have to report the FDR serial number.
but specialists have not to?

why is this?

Not even close.

Stop trolling.

[Dave Rogers]

so you say normaly in a FDR report, the serial number of that FDR is not mentioned?

No, I didn't say anything of the sort.

Dave

[DC]

3.4. Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder
Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained
from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following
information is required to facilitate data readout:
! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

[Dave Rogers]

Stop trolling.

You might as well wish the sun to stand still.

Dave

[Totovader]

3.4. Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder
Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained
from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following
information is required to facilitate data readout:
! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf

What, specifically, is your claim- here? That there is no serial number?

This information seems to suggest that as part of protocol, the serial number be included when it's sent for analysis.

Are you claiming this did not happen?

[gumboot]

3.4. Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder
Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained
from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following
information is required to facilitate data readout:
! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf


What's your point?

I suggest you read Section 14.

[DC]

Airplane Specific Type
Registration / Serial Number

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/MajorInvestigationsManualApp.pdf

[Dumb All Over]

have you written the NTSB and asked about this apparent oversight?

Have you asked them?
Dictator Cheney, a couple of people in this thread have asked if you have contacted the NTSB for answers to your questions. You have not responded. Why? Wouldn't the NTSB be the best source for answers?

If I may, I'd like to ask the same question as the quoted posters. Dictator Cheney, have you contacted the NTSB and asked them? If not, how come?

[uruk]

Do you think that having the serial numbers would actually mean anything to a truther?

Most "no planers" think that all the remains, plane debris, and DNA found at the crash sites were faked and or planted.

Why would they not think the serials numbers would also be faked.
Not "truthers" nor "shills" can get access to the plane debri or remains to do any kind of independent verification. And even then truthers would still not accept the evidence.

What is important to truthers is that the serial numbers are not plainly listed or available. This offers truthers something to cling to and harp on. This thread is a perfect example.

So, let's say someone here gains access to the serial numbers and presents them to you here. What would you say or do? Please be honest.

[DC]

What's your point?

I suggest you read Section 14.

14 Military Investigations or Other Federal Agencies
14.1. On occasion the Safety Board is asked to assist with the recovery and read-out of an
FDR involved in a military/Federal investigation. The specific tasks requested by the
DOD or Federal agency, and the extent of participation by the Safety Board FDR
laboratory, is determined by the Directors of the Offices of Research and Engineering
and Aviation Safety.
14.2. The investigating organization may require a report of FDR-related procedures
performed.
14.3. Normally, the original and all copies of the data and reports are

they kept a copy.

they did not report the serial numbers to the investigationg agency?
is that normal ?

[gumboot]

ah i see, chairmens have to report the FDR serial number.
but specialists have not to?

why is this?


I don't believe I bolded the word "chairman".

[DC]

Do you think that having the serial numbers would actually mean anything to a truther?

Most "no planers" think that all the remains, plane debris, and DNA found at the crash sites were faked and or planted.

Why would they not think the serials numbers would also be faked.
Not "truthers" nor "shills" can get access to the plane debri or remains to do any kind of independent verification. And even then truthers would still not accept the evidence.

What is important to truthers is that the serial numbers are not plainly listed or available. This offers truthers something to cling to and harp on. This thread is a perfect example.

So, let's say someone here gains access to the serial numbers and presents them to you here. What would you say or do? Please be honest.

i would say, thx :)

[Totovader]

Airplane Specific Type
Registration / Serial Number

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/MajorInvestigationsManualApp.pdf

Argumentum Ad Google - You're posting irrelevant links which have nothing to do with your position, but you think by posting links over and over- your argument will suddenly make sense.

We can all use Google, DC- it's not an argument.

[gumboot]

14 Military Investigations or Other Federal Agencies
14.1. On occasion the Safety Board is asked to assist with the recovery and read-out of an
FDR involved in a military/Federal investigation. The specific tasks requested by the
DOD or Federal agency, and the extent of participation by the Safety Board FDR
laboratory, is determined by the Directors of the Offices of Research and Engineering
and Aviation Safety.
14.2. The investigating organization may require a report of FDR-related procedures
performed.
14.3. Normally, the original and all copies of the data and reports are

they kept a copy.

they did not report the serial numbers to the investigationg agency?
is that normal ?


Surely no one could possibly unintentionally be this dense?

[rwguinn]

14 Military Investigations or Other Federal Agencies
14.1. On occasion the Safety Board is asked to assist with the recovery and read-out of an
FDR involved in a military/Federal investigation. The specific tasks requested by the
DOD or Federal agency, and the extent of participation by the Safety Board FDR
laboratory, is determined by the Directors of the Offices of Research and Engineering
and Aviation Safety.
14.2. The investigating organization may require a report of FDR-related procedures
performed.
14.3. Normally, the original and all copies of the data and reports are

they kept a copy.

they did not report the serial numbers to the investigationg agency?
is that normal ?
WHY
Do
You
Not
Ask
The
People
Who
Would
Have
The
Answers?
Instead of us NWO operatives who are merely speculating?
(Did I type that slowly enough for you to understand? I understand English is not your primary language.
When you have questions about a design, do you ask your supervisor, or the designer? Which one would know?
ASK THE NTSB!

[Totovader]

Surely no one could possibly unintentionally be this dense?

He ignored my question on this and then simply asserted it as fact.

He's trolling for attention- he's recognized his error already and is just JAQing off to avoid his own cognitive dissonance.

[uruk]

i would say, thx :)

And then what? Would having the serial numbers change your mind about 9/11?

[DC]

And then what? Would having the serial numbers change your mind about 9/11?

dont know. we will maybe never know.

[applecorped]

Don't say WE, you may never know but that will be your choice to remain uninformed.

[ElMondoHummus]

Since I don't work for the NTSB I can't really answer the question as to why the serical numbers were not included. You have to remember that this was not your typicaly aircraft crash, this was a criminal act. I'm going to guess that the people who wrote the report did think that it was going to be an issue.

Oh well... it was worth a try. Yeah, I know that you're not with the NTSB, but rather with an airline. I was just taking a shot in the dark, just in case you happened to know. Thanks for the answer!

[DC]

Don't say WE, you may never know but that will be your choice to remain uninformed.

so you planned to get those serial numbers?

[Swing Dangler]

DC it is quite clear that no one here can answer your question hence the Ad hom attacks, accusations, etc.

RWGUINN has provided the most appropriate answer which is to ask the NTSB or perhaps a certified accident investigator. Take nothing as factual from anonymous forum posters claiming to be experts without a shred of evidence.

But based upon your other posts, and correct if I'm wrong, the fact that no FDR serial number was provided does open the door to accusations of fraud, manipulation, and or manufacturing or planting of evidence.

[DC]

DC it is quite clear that no one here can answer your question hence the Ad hom attacks, accusations, etc.

RWGUINN has provided the most appropriate answer which is to ask the NTSB or perhaps a certified accident investigator. Take nothing as factual from anonymous forum posters claiming to be experts without a shred of evidence.

But based upon your other posts, and correct if I'm wrong, the fact that no FDR serial number was provided does open the door to accusations of fraud, manipulation, and or manufacturing or planting of evidence.

i take noones word for anything :)

and i asked NTSB, didnt get an answer yet. (E-Mail)

they love when you dont claim anything^^

[applecorped]

so you planned to get those serial numbers?

Nitpick all you want DC. Having/Not having the serial numbers will not change a thing. You may think differently, obviously, but nothing you do or say will change anything. Your new nickname is Don Quixote.

[Jonnyclueless]

it was stopped, but went up to macnamara (Defence minister) afaik.


Wow, I never fully understood the extent of your dishonesty until now. I hate dishonest people.

[DC]

Nitpick all you want DC. Having/Not having the serial numbers will not change a thing. You may think differently, obviously, but nothing you do or say will change anything. Your new nickname is Don Quixote.

depends on the Serial Numbers :)

[aggle-rithm]

But based upon your other posts, and correct if I'm wrong, the fact that no FDR serial number was provided does open the door to accusations of fraud, manipulation, and or manufacturing or planting of evidence.

Or, it would if there were not such a mountain of evidence that investigators indeed had the correct plane. Airliner crashes are rare enough, even if there are four in one day, that it's difficult to get different aircraft confused when the location of the specific plane was known at the time of the crash and when the DNA of known occupants of the plane was found in the wreckage.

If you doubt this evidence, then I don't see why you wouldn't reject anything that anyone tells you.

On this note...the NWO is NOT poisoning your drinking supply. (wink, wink)

[Jonnyclueless]

DC it is quite clear that no one here can answer your question hence the Ad hom attacks, accusations, etc.

RWGUINN has provided the most appropriate answer which is to ask the NTSB or perhaps a certified accident investigator. Take nothing as factual from anonymous forum posters claiming to be experts without a shred of evidence.

But based upon your other posts, and correct if I'm wrong, the fact that no FDR serial number was provided does open the door to accusations of fraud, manipulation, and or manufacturing or planting of evidence.

Yeah swing, because these people who used space beams, remote controlled planes, holograms, magic tricks to do fly bys, carried out unheard of demolitions that defy the laws of physics etc, but can't simply put in a serial number on a report.


I think you should take the NTSB to court on this one and see how far you get.

[Dumb All Over]

and i asked NTSB, didnt get an answer yet. (E-Mail)


Dictator Cheney, would you mind posting a copy of the email you sent to the NTSB here? If not, would you mind explaining why you will not post that here?

[DC]

Dictator Cheney, would you mind posting a copy of the email you sent to the NTSB here? If not, would you mind explaining why you will not post that here?

it was an online request, i will get the answer per email and will post that :)

http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp

[DC]

Wow, I never fully understood the extent of your dishonesty until now. I hate dishonest people.

and about was i dishonest?

[Dumb All Over]

it was an online request, i will get the answer per email and will post that :)

http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp
So, I guess what you are saying is you did not keep a copy of your online request, is that correct?

Might you provide us a re-creation of your request to the NTSB from memory (knowing full well it won't be word for word)? Thanks.

[Swing Dangler]

it was an online request, i will get the answer per email and will post that :)

http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp
Be careful, if the mods catch you posting an email supporting your argument, they might delete it, or ask you to get an email from the NTsB allowing you to use the email information in a public forum.

[scissorhands]

So, I guess what you are saying is you did not keep a copy of your online request, is that correct?



Why would he, its not as if it is important to DC.
Just part of his game.
Its quite clear he didnt send anything.

[Totovader]

What, specifically, is your claim- here? That there is no serial number?

This information seems to suggest that as part of protocol, the serial number be included when it's sent for analysis.

Are you claiming this did not happen?

*bump*

[DC]

So, I guess what you are saying is you did not keep a copy of your online request, is that correct?

Might you provide us a re-creation of your request to the NTSB from memory (knowing full well it won't be word for word)? Thanks.

after filling in my personal data i wrote something like that.

Hi

i have been reeding several NTSB reports, including those from 9/11. Normally the Serial and Parts numbers (Plane, FDR, etc) are mentioned in those reports.
but the reports about the 9/11 investigations did not mention any serial nor part numbers.

i wondered why this is. Could you explain that?

with kind regards
D..... K...

[DC]

Be careful, if the mods catch you posting an email supporting your argument, they might delete it, or ask you to get an email from the NTsB allowing you to use the email information in a public forum.

oh thx for that information :)

[Totovader]

after filling in my personal data i wrote something like that.

Hi

i have been reeding several NTSB reports, including those from 9/11. Normally the Serial and Parts numbers (Plane, FDR, etc) are mentioned in those reports.
but the reports about the 9/11 investigations did not mention any serial nor part numbers.

i wondered why this is. Could you explain that?

with kind regards
D..... K...

What do you think is "normal" about the events of September 11th?

Can you list the events or occurrences which you consider "normal"?

[Jonnyclueless]

and about was i dishonest?


Claiming a rejected idea was "stopped" to imply that it was in progress. That is complete dishonesty on your part. The fact is that think groups try to come up with lots of contingency plans. Some good some bad. The point being that the bad ones get weeded out.

We have planes for nuclear attacks on all parts of the world, just to have every possibility. your dishonest methods would consider those plans to have been stopped and imply that someone intended to actually carry them out, but their attempts were foiled.

Let's stop pretending here. Yes yes you're going to claim "I never said that" because you think we're all stupid. Don't bother. And let's also keep in mind that you are as usual using conjecture as evidence of conjecture. Since your little plan to try and prove there was molten steel found blew up in your face you used more conjecture of Northwoods. THAT is complete dishonesty and THAT is why you will never be respected here. The other members here are interested in discussion, not trying to find ways to trick people or weasel through arguments.

[DC]

Why would he, its not as if it is important to DC.
Just part of his game.
Its quite clear he didnt send anything.

you got any evidence for your accusation?

[Jonnyclueless]

Be careful, if the mods catch you posting an email supporting your argument, they might delete it, or ask you to get an email from the NTsB allowing you to use the email information in a public forum.

I wonder how the mods will feel about you misrepresenting the policies of this forum.

[DC]

Claiming a rejected idea was "stopped" to imply that it was in progress. That is complete dishonesty on your part. The fact is that think groups try to come up with lots of contingency plans. Some good some bad. The point being that the bad ones get weeded out.

We have planes for nuclear attacks on all parts of the world, just to have every possibility. your dishonest methods would consider those plans to have been stopped and imply that someone intended to actually carry them out, but their attempts were foiled.

Let's stop pretending here. Yes yes you're going to claim "I never said that" because you think we're all stupid. Don't bother. And let's also keep in mind that you are as usual using conjecture as evidence of conjecture. Since your little plan to try and prove there was molten steel found blew up in your face you used more conjecture of Northwoods. THAT is complete dishonesty and THAT is why you will never be respected here. The other members here are interested in discussion, not trying to find ways to trick people or weasel through arguments.

oh, i never said it left planning stage. afaik not anything was prepared yet, just that plan. maybe stopped was not the right word. atleast they took care its not carried out. for me that stopping it. or give not green light to go from plan to action.

[DC]

btw, i dont think you are stupid :)
i think most JREFers are not stupid, quite the opposite.

[Jonnyclueless]

oh, i never said it left planning stage. afaik not anything was prepared yet, just that plan. maybe stopped was not the right word. atleast they took care its not carried out. for me that stopping it. or give not green light to go from plan to action.

It never started to begin with. It was simply an idea. You misrepresented that and bringing it up in the first place was completely out of line. You know it.

[DC]

What do you think is "normal" about the events of September 11th?

Can you list the events or occurrences which you consider "normal"?

where did i call the 9/11 events normal?

[DC]

It never started to begin with. It was simply an idea. You misrepresented that and bringing it up in the first place was completely out of line. You know it.

something like that starts with the idea. and it was not simly the idea, it was a list of staged events to get support to invade Cuba.

it is not out of line. it gives us an insight what some ppl inside the US army thaught.

[Totovader]

where did i call the 9/11 events normal?

In your supposed message to the NTSB- as well as your many unfounded and repeatedly corrected statements, here. You said that "normally" the serial numbers appear.

Your argument would, therefore, have to go something like this (although you don't give a crap about logic):

P: Normal plane crashes list the serial numbers of plane parts, including the FDR.
P2: The events of 9/11 were a normal plane crash.

C: There should have been serial numbers of the plane parts in the official report.
C2: A lack of those serial numbers (or at least a lack of knowledge of them) means a cover-up.

[Dumb All Over]

after filling in my personal data i wrote something like that.

...
Dictator Cheney, thank you for answering my questions. I'm sure you will let us know if you get a reply from the NTSB.

A couple more questions, if you please- Did you receive a reference number for your online request? If so, would you mind posting it? Also, on what date did you submit your request? Thanks.

[Totovader]

What, specifically, is your claim- here? That there is no serial number?

This information seems to suggest that as part of protocol, the serial number be included when it's sent for analysis.

Are you claiming this did not happen?

*bump^2

[DC]

Dictator Cheney, thank you for answering my questions. I'm sure you will let us know if you get a reply from the NTSB.

A couple more questions, if you please- Did you receive a reference number for your online request? If so, would you mind posting it? Also, on what date did you submit your request? Thanks.

no number was given, also not a confirmation mail.
i submited it today

[Totovader]

no number was given, also not a confirmation mail.
i submited it today

What research had you done prior to reaching your conclusion (and not even bothering to submit your question to the NTSB)?

Although no one has bothered to criticize you on this, yet- I would like to point out that you took the path least likely to garner you any sort of information. I suggest that you did that in order to not receive an answer- especially since you only submitted this question after you had reached your conclusion and after others pointed out that you did not even go to the source.

Your research skills- if nothing else- leave much to be desired.

[Jonnyclueless]

something like that starts with the idea. and it was not simly the idea, it was a list of staged events to get support to invade Cuba.

it is not out of line. it gives us an insight what some ppl inside the US army thaught.


That's as out of line as anything can possibly get. It WAS an idea. STOP being dishonest. And it's 100% complete conjecture. I repeat my remark about your complete dishonesty.

[SpitfireIX]

3.4. Recorder information shall be sent/emailed to the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder
Division and the FDR specialist, as soon as possible. This information can be obtained
from the airline and/or the airframe manufacturer. Specifically, the following
information is required to facilitate data readout:
! FDR manufacturer/model (Fairchild, Sundstrand, Allied Signal, L3, etc)
! FDR Part number and Serial Number
! FDAU (flight data acquisition unit) manufacturer/model and part number
! Parameters recorded
! Word(s) and bit location(s) of each parameter
! Conversion algorithm for each parameter
! Parameter range
! Original owner/upgraded retrofit history
! Airline, recorder maintenance/readout facility contact phone number

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/FDR_Handbook.pdf


From the Foreword:

This handbook is an NTSB staff product and is intended to provide information and guidance to NTSB employees who are involved in the flight data recorder portion of an aviation accident investigation. This handbook has not been adopted by the NTSB Board Members, is not regulatory in nature, is not a binding statement of policy, and is not all-inclusive. The recommended procedures are not intended to become obligations of the NTSB or to create any rights in any of the parties to an NTSB investigation. Deviation from the guidance offered in this handbook will at times be necessary to meet the specific needs of an investigation. However, such deviations from the guidance offered in this handbook shall be within the sole discretion of the appropriate NTSB employees and shall not be the prerogative of parties to the investigation or other individuals not employed by the NTSB. [bolding mine]


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[DC]

From the Foreword:




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

ah thx :) so they had not to. but they usualy do, but they did not on 9/11.

funny pic btw :)

[Anti-sophist]

There's alot of noise in this thread, so let me try to clear out some of it. And "we" have said alot of things that are good to question but ultimately not valid criticisms of Cheney's claims, implied or otherwise.

FDR (and CVR) s/n are usually in these reports. The difference between a "specialist" report and a "group" report is simply whether it was the report of one person or whether a group was convened. Groups wouldn't be convened in cut/dry cases.

The example Cheney gives is from a group's report. AA77 is a specialist report.

here are several examples of such reports with s/n given:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_10A.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/PhiladelphiaPA/Exhibits/350490.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_12A.pdf


If the s/n was missing, they usually state so:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/docket/d206.pdf


I know of no requirement that it must be stated. Nor do I know what role the criminal investigation by the FBI would play in the final report. Nor do I know what role the FOIA played in this. AA77 and AA93 are both unique in that they are clearly scanning of real documents and not actual releases. We have no idea what "state" the NTSB considered these documents before releasing them.

While we are on the topic of unusual differences, the reports also don't list the name of the specialist who wrote it, like usual.

As I said, these things are proof that this investigation was unusual (for at least some of the reasons I listed above).

[DC]

There's alot of noise in this thread, so let me try to clear out some of it. And "we" have said alot of things that are good to question but ultimately not valid criticisms of Cheney's claims, implied or otherwise.

FDR (and CVR) s/n are usually in these reports. The difference between a "specialist" report and a "group" report is simply whether it was the report of one person or whether a group was convened. Groups wouldn't be convened in cut/dry cases.

The example Cheney gives is from a group's report. AA77 is a specialist report.

here are several examples of such reports with s/n given:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_10A.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/PhiladelphiaPA/Exhibits/350490.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_12A.pdf


If the s/n was missing, they usually state so:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/docket/d206.pdf


I know of no requirement that it must be stated. Nor do I know what role the criminal investigation by the FBI would play in the final report. Nor do I know what role the FOIA played in this. AA77 and AA93 are both unique in that they are clearly scanning of real documents and not actual releases. We have no idea what "state" the NTSB considered these documents before releasing them.

While we are on the topic of unusual differences, the reports also don't list the name of the specialist who wrote it, like usual.

As I said, these things are proof that this investigation was unusual (for at least some of the reasons I listed above).

wow thx

that's a really good post/answer

[SpitfireIX]

ah thx :) so they had not to. but they usualy do, but they did not on 9/11.


As has been noted or alluded to several times in this thread, the NTSB did not investigate the September 11 attacks, because they were not "accidents." Rather, the FBI conducted a criminal investigation, and the NTSB "provided requested technical assistance" (see here (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00106&key=1).), including interpretation of the data from the two FDRs that were recovered.

This is just a guess, but I suspect the preparer felt the FBI didn't care what the serial numbers were, and so he didn't bother to include them in the report (and it might well have been a bother to obtain and verify them, if he didn't have the information handy). Personally I would have, just for completeness, but I'd say it's a judgment call.

funny pic btw :)


Yes; that's one that I usually use when the person to whom I'm responding has failed. I have other pics I use when commenting on someone else's failure. :D

[DC]

As has been noted or alluded to several times in this thread, the NTSB did not investigate the September 11 attacks, because they were not "accidents." Rather, the FBI conducted a criminal investigation, and the NTSB "provided requested technical assistance" (see here (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00106&key=1).), including interpretation of the data from the two FDRs that were recovered.

This is just a guess, but I suspect the preparer felt the FBI didn't care what the serial numbers were, and so he didn't bother to include them in the report (and it might well have been a bother to obtain and verify them, if he didn't have the information handy). Personally I would have, just for completeness, but I'd say it's a judgment call.




Yes; that's one that I usually use when the person to whom I'm responding has failed. I have other pics I use when commenting on someone else's failure. :D

well especially when the data readout is not done by the investigators themself, i think its important to mention the serial number, to make sure its the right one.

and out of Anti-sophist answer i conclude that its not even sure if the public avaible report is the actual report that was used for the investigation by the investigators.

[Jonnyclueless]

If the data readout was not done by the investigators, who was it done by? The Janitors union?

[DC]

If the data readout was not done by the investigators, who was it done by? The Janitors union?

the Specialist from NTSB.

but what is his name?

[Jonnyclueless]

You mean the FBI doesn't investigate crime any more? When did they stop?

[DC]

??

the FBI did do the Investigations, but to read the data in the FDR, they needed a specialist from the NTSB, who has the knowledge and equipment to do that.

or did i get that wrong?

[uruk]

There's alot of noise in this thread, so let me try to clear out some of it. And "we" have said alot of things that are good to question but ultimately not valid criticisms of Cheney's claims, implied or otherwise.

FDR (and CVR) s/n are usually in these reports. The difference between a "specialist" report and a "group" report is simply whether it was the report of one person or whether a group was convened. Groups wouldn't be convened in cut/dry cases.

The example Cheney gives is from a group's report. AA77 is a specialist report.

here are several examples of such reports with s/n given:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_10A.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/PhiladelphiaPA/Exhibits/350490.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_12A.pdf


If the s/n was missing, they usually state so:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/docket/d206.pdf


I know of no requirement that it must be stated. Nor do I know what role the criminal investigation by the FBI would play in the final report. Nor do I know what role the FOIA played in this. AA77 and AA93 are both unique in that they are clearly scanning of real documents and not actual releases. We have no idea what "state" the NTSB considered these documents before releasing them.

While we are on the topic of unusual differences, the reports also don't list the name of the specialist who wrote it, like usual.

As I said, these things are proof that this investigation was unusual (for at least some of the reasons I listed above).

One of the possible reasons that the reports are out of the norm is because the nature of the investigations. An international attack on US soil was perpetrated. Organizations such as the FBI were involved. No doubt the original reports are in possesion of the law enforcement authorities because of the criminal investigations. The NTSB investigates crash sites not crimes

If you look at the Mussoui trial link at 911lies you'll see that there are some articles of evidence listed as classified being withheld by the FBI.

The NTSB acknowledges that serial numbers may be unrecoverable at times.

These are just speculations on my part. But it seems to me that if the NTSB and other agencies were perpetrating a cover up they would not allow such anomolies on a report.

[Jonnyclueless]

??

the FBI did do the Investigations, but to read the data in the FDR, they needed a specialist from the NTSB, who has the knowledge and equipment to do that.

or did i get that wrong?

In a criminal case, the NTSB assists the FBI. You have not been able to show that they did not.

[DC]

In a criminal case, the NTSB assists the FBI. You have not been able to show that they did not.

where did i claim they did not assist?

my english must be very very bad :/

[AMTMAN]

United Airlines was under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from December 2002 to February 2006. American Airlines narrowly avoided going into Chapter 11 protection in March 2003. It's just a surmise, but I suspect that neither company prospered particularly as a result of 9-11. Cui bono doesn't help the conspiracist here.

Dave

Every employee at UAL and AA can show you their pay statements as proof that the airlines were not helped by 9-11. Just as the airlines themselves can show you their yearly financial reports showing they did not profit from it.

[AMTMAN]

is it possible to fake ACARS messages?

Each aircraft has its own unique ID, so no. Unless of course you want to believe the airlines were in on it. Care to honestly answer that question?

[AMTMAN]

How much money did the airlines get after 9/11 ?


This is an addition to post #73. In 2002 United applied for a $1.8 billion dollar loan guarantee from the ATSB. The loan request was denied. After that United's only recourse was BK. Yes DC, 9-11 was great for business.

[gumboot]

There's alot of noise in this thread, so let me try to clear out some of it. And "we" have said alot of things that are good to question but ultimately not valid criticisms of Cheney's claims, implied or otherwise.

FDR (and CVR) s/n are usually in these reports. The difference between a "specialist" report and a "group" report is simply whether it was the report of one person or whether a group was convened. Groups wouldn't be convened in cut/dry cases.

The example Cheney gives is from a group's report. AA77 is a specialist report.

here are several examples of such reports with s/n given:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_10A.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2006/PhiladelphiaPA/Exhibits/350490.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/CVR_Study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/Exhibits/AA1420_12A.pdf


If the s/n was missing, they usually state so:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/usair427/docket/d206.pdf


I know of no requirement that it must be stated. Nor do I know what role the criminal investigation by the FBI would play in the final report. Nor do I know what role the FOIA played in this. AA77 and AA93 are both unique in that they are clearly scanning of real documents and not actual releases. We have no idea what "state" the NTSB considered these documents before releasing them.

While we are on the topic of unusual differences, the reports also don't list the name of the specialist who wrote it, like usual.

As I said, these things are proof that this investigation was unusual (for at least some of the reasons I listed above).


I can't speak for the AA77 report, but the UA93 report was written by Erin M Gormley - an Aerospace Engineer in the Vehicle Recorder's Division.

Your links tend to reinforce my point somewhat - here we have the following:

AA1420 - a FDR Group Chairman's Factual Report, which cites serial number

The Solid State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR), a L3 Model FA2100 (s/n 00718), was removed from the accident aircraft and brought to the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Flight Recorder Laboratory in Washington, D.C. for readout and evaluation.

(This report was written by Sarah McComb who was chairman of the FDR Group for the incident as per the report)

UPS DC8 - A Specialist FDR Report (no Group) that cites the serial number

Recorder Manufacturer/Model: L-3 Communications Fairchild Model F1000, 64 Word Recorder
Serial Number: 00224

Pinnacle 3701 - A CVR Specialist Report (no group) that does not cite the CVR serial number.

AA1420 - a CVR Group Chairman's Factual Report that cites the CVR serial number

A Fairchild model A-100A cockpit voice recorder (CVR), s/n 53282, was brought to the audio laboratory of the National Transportation Safety Board on June 2, 1999.

Now I want to ignore the report that doesn't mention the serial number for a moment, let's look at the others:

The Solid State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR), a L3 Model FA2100 (s/n 00718), was removed from the accident aircraft and brought to the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Flight Recorder Laboratory in Washington, D.C. for readout and evaluation.
Recorder Manufacturer/Model: L-3 Communications Fairchild Model F1000, 64 Word Recorder
Serial Number: 00224
A Fairchild model A-100A cockpit voice recorder (CVR), s/n 53282, was brought to the audio laboratory of the National Transportation Safety Board on June 2, 1999.

What we see here is evidence that there is no established formula for how information is expressed in the report. It is quite obvious that each report is written it's own way.

What's of particular interest here is that the first and second reports were written by the same person, yet the layout and method of expressing the serial number is totally different.

We also have a report that doesn't mention the CVR serial number, and doesn't mention that it's missing.

Clearly there's nothing unusual about serial numbers not being included in the report.

[beachnut]

What's of particular interest here is that the first and second reports were written by the same person, yet the layout and method of expressing the serial number is totally different.

We also have a report that doesn't mention the CVR serial number, and doesn't mention that it's missing.

Clearly there's nothing unusual about serial numbers not being included in the report.
Great work. Thanks for answering the question.
Research + logical = fact based conclusion = answer to the OP

If this were a censorNAZI site, like p4tf, the thread would be closed, albeit without the correct answer as in this case. If you had posted this at a censorNAZI site, you would be banned for using logic and facts to back up your conclusion based in reality.

Will we have to endure a bunch of mindless jaqs if a new truther signs up and has no ability to assimilate knowledge?

Good job, where will the goalposts be moved next?

[DC]

Each aircraft has its own unique ID, so no. Unless of course you want to believe the airlines were in on it. Care to honestly answer that question?

are you sure that it is not fakeable?

[DC]

I can't speak for the AA77 report, but the UA93 report was written by Erin M Gormley - an Aerospace Engineer in the Vehicle Recorder's Division.

Your links tend to reinforce my point somewhat - here we have the following:

AA1420 - a FDR Group Chairman's Factual Report, which cites serial number



(This report was written by Sarah McComb who was chairman of the FDR Group for the incident as per the report)

UPS DC8 - A Specialist FDR Report (no Group) that cites the serial number



Pinnacle 3701 - A CVR Specialist Report (no group) that does not cite the CVR serial number.

AA1420 - a CVR Group Chairman's Factual Report that cites the CVR serial number



Now I want to ignore the report that doesn't mention the serial number for a moment, let's look at the others:





What we see here is evidence that there is no established formula for how information is expressed in the report. It is quite obvious that each report is written it's own way.

What's of particular interest here is that the first and second reports were written by the same person, yet the layout and method of expressing the serial number is totally different.

We also have a report that doesn't mention the CVR serial number, and doesn't mention that it's missing.

Clearly there's nothing unusual about serial numbers not being included in the report.

ah thx, so we can coclude, that mostly the SN are mentioned

[Drs_Res]

ah thx, so we can coclude, that mostly the SN are mentioned

Where did he say that?
Don't put words in his mouth.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

are you sure that it is not fakeable?
this idiot is just trolling.
notice no other animals are coming to his rescue.
Swing came shortly but left quickly.

[DC]

this idiot is just trolling.
notice no other animals are coming to his rescue.
Swing came shortly but left quickly.

namecalling?

wow, didnt expect that on JREF :)

[applecorped]

Stop lying, you trolled here long enough to know exactly how twooofers are treated. In fact, you seem to think this is some sort of game. Keep asking your inane questions and you'll keep getting the scorn you deserve.

[DC]

Stop lying, you trolled here long enough to know exactly how twooofers are treated. In fact, you seem to think this is some sort of game. Keep asking your inane questions and you'll keep getting the scorn you deserve.

where did i lie?

[applecorped]

Your speaking aren't you? That's all the evidence I need. Why hold me to higher level regarding evidence than twooofers? Your a fraud.

[DC]

Your speaking aren't you? That's all the evidence I need. Why hold me to higher level regarding evidence than twooofers? Your a fraud.

actually i am writing , or atleast i try to :)

now back to topic.

why dont you make a new topic and list all my lies?

[chillzero]

Stop bickering and address the topic please. Otherwise it's likely this thread will go to AAH.

[DC]

Stop bickering and address the topic please. Otherwise it's likely this thread will go to AAH.

i hope this is not only adressed to me.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes; that's one that I usually use when the person to whom I'm responding has failed. I have other pics I use when commenting on someone else's failure. :D


Here's another:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/514647fcb85b52fe2.jpg

[aggle-rithm]

i hope this is not only adressed to me.

Probably not, as bickering is usually not a solo activity.

[Totovader]

What, specifically, is your claim- here? That there is no serial number?

This information seems to suggest that as part of protocol, the serial number be included when it's sent for analysis.

Are you claiming this did not happen?

*bump^3

[Totovader]

I don't even understand why DC continues to post in this thread- his claims have been debunked.

[Swing Dangler]

Each aircraft has its own unique ID, so no. Unless of course you want to believe the airlines were in on it. Care to honestly answer that question?

So is that a yes or no? According to you, the data can be faked. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Totovader]

So is that a yes or no? According to you, the data can be faked. Thanks for clarifying that.

What a pointless claim. YOU could be fake for all we know or care.

The question is- how would you know the data is fake, what would be the purpose of faking it, and does wrong data necessarily mean fake data and does that necessarily mean a cover-up?

Somehow I doubt you can get beyond "it can be faked, therefore it is".

[AMTMAN]

are you sure that it is not fakeable?

I guess if you had the FULL cooperation of the airline. However the only evidence you have shown of that is all the airlines getting money from the government after 9-11. As I pointed out before 9-11 was a complete and total disaster for the airline industry. Pretty weak case you have their DC. You need to make a stronger case that the airlines in question went along with something that nearly put them under.

Unless I've misjudged you I'm going to say that you really don't care about the "truth". What you care about is whatever conspiracy theory you subscribe to. I'm guessing in your case the no-plane theory. When I pointed out that either the airlines had to be either in on it or were totally clueless you tried to imply that they were paid off. When I told you about ACARS the first thing out of your mouth was to try and find out if it was faked. Now that I have said only with the cooperation of the airline I can only wonder what you are going to try and imply now.

[AMTMAN]

So is that a yes or no? According to you, the data can be faked. Thanks for clarifying that.

Can you please tell me what possible reason an airline would have to go along with something like 9-11? Could you please give a yes or no answer on whether or not the airlines were in on it? Given the level of dishonesty you have shown in the past I suspect I will not get an answer. I'm still waiting for what you have to say about the false air phone story put out by PfT last year. You know the one you jumped all over as if it were true. And the second the facts showed otherwise you did a mime act.

[uruk]

are you sure that it is not fakeable?
Just about anything can be faked. But some things are harder to fake.

Somethings would require armies of people and huge amounts of resources to fake.

The more people involved and the more convoluted the fakery the greater the chance for the deception to be compromised.



Now you are impling that the ACARS messages are faked. You do realize that the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim. Just simply claiming themn as fake is not good enough.

The "government" has already supported it's "claim" that the data is real. Most likely in the form of the data gathering process.

If the data was used in court or a hearing, there would be a chain of custody report as the data was gathered at the scene and made its way to the court room.

These are court documents and you may have to pettion the courts to obtain them. Possibly through the FOI act.

[DC]

Just about anything can be faked. But some things are harder to fake.

Somethings would require armies of people and huge amounts of resources to fake.

The more people involved and the more convoluted the fakery the greater the chance for the deception to be compromised.



Now you are impling that the ACARS messages are faked. You do realize that the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim. Just simply claiming themn as fake is not good enough.

The "government" has already supported it's "claim" that the data is real. Most likely in the form of the data gathering process.

If the data was used in court or a hearing, there would be a chain of custody report as the data was gathered at the scene and made its way to the court room.

These are court documents and you may have to pettion the courts to obtain them. Possibly through the FOI act.

i agree, claiming they are faked is to easy, and sure not enough :)
would be Loose Change Style

no i dont know much about Acars so i asked.

when such a message is send out by the airline, it goes only to the plane they adressed it to. do they also get a message back so they know, the plane did get that message.

and are there any documentaions about the Acars between airlines and hijacked planes on 9/11?

[uruk]

ah thx, so we can coclude, that mostly the SN are mentioned

I think Gumboot has shown that it depends on who is writing the report. People are people. Some are sloppier than others.

Givin the nature of the incidents and the involvement of other agencies, I wouldn't doubt if there was a rush to put out the reports and that some of the formalities were over looked in haste.


It's interesting that you pointed out the lack of serial numbers, but I think it is far from being a "smoking gun".

[DC]

I think Gumboot has shown that it depends on who is writing the report. People are people. Some are sloppier than others.

Givin the nature of the incidents and the involvement of other agencies, I wouldn't doubt if there was a rush to put out the reports and that some of the formalities were over looked in haste.


It's interesting that you pointed out the lack of serial numbers, but I think it is far from being a "smoking gun".

it's interesting that alot ppl think , that i think this would be evidence or even a smoking gun.

i dont expect to find any evidence online :) especially not smoking guns :)


for a skeptical forum alot users do try themself in mindreading :P

[Totovader]

it's interesting that alot ppl think , that i think this would be evidence or even a smoking gun.

i dont expect to find any evidence online :) especially not smoking guns :)


for a skeptical forum alot users do try themself in mindreading :P

Apparently, it doesn't matter to you that we've all seen this tactic before. Make claims, JAQ off, rinse and repeat.

[uruk]

i agree, claiming they are faked is to easy, and sure not enough :)
would be Loose Change Style

no i dont know much about Acars so i asked.

when such a message is send out by the airline, it goes only to the plane they adressed it to. do they also get a message back so they know, the plane did get that message.

and are there any documentaions about the Acars between airlines and hijacked planes on 9/11?

Here is a good bit of info concerning ACARS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS
Yea, I know it's Wiki but you can verify the info in other sites.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-38,GGLG:en&q=ACARS

From what I can tell is that ACARS is a real-time, two way transmittion system that uses both ground based and satellite communication links depending on what phase the flight is in.

All the data is digital and therefore stored in some form of memory. Hard copies of certain parts of the data are made for maintenance records and even for payroll purposes. (interesting) So there would also be hardcopies of the data in different locations.

Also the aircraft's ID is included in all data packet transmittions. And different kinds of data can be sent to different destinations or departments depending on the nature of the data.
(For example. If the engine performance perameters are exceeded, a message and data will be sent to the engine service provider in advance of the aircraft's arrival so the engine can be serviced after the plane lands.)

I took some computer forensic investigation training (The college where I work is thinking about offering a course in computer forensic investigation)

Normally digital data that is part of an investigation is gathered by a qualified investigator. The organization that owns the devices that the data is on is not allowed to prepare or handle the data. The reason for this is so that the veracity of the data can be maintained by a chain of custody. The integrity of digital data is also maintained by having a MD5 hash generated from a bit-to-bit copy of the data file. This used to show if the data has been altered some where along the line.

Having said that, computer forensics is in it's infantcy so this proceedure may not have been followed.

The airline company may have had thier own personnel gather the data and hand it over to the authorities.
But I think that whatever agency that gathered the data (most likely the NTSB) had thier own personnel do the gathering.

This bring up an issue. One is that all the telemetry between the plane and the ground has to be generated in real time so that the data can be entered into the system.

If the data were to be faked you would have to somehow generate all the data the plane's hardware would generate, link into the system and interact in real time with the system in same way and in the same vicinity (pretty much the exact same flight path) that the aircraft involved in 9/11 would so that the data could be stored into the ACARS system.

That also means interacting with a pilot up untill the hijaking and all the interactions with the hijacker afterwards.

This would mean that the airliners are not complicit but it would require the army of personnel and hugh amounts of resources that I was talking about earlier to execute the performance for the ACARS system.

Now you could say that the whole "kit-and-kaboodle" (just the data files) were faked and some questionable facimilies were posted on the NTSB and FBI web site and distributed to various public sources. But that would mean that EVERYBODY was in on the decption.

The airlines would have to be complicit in order to cover up the fact that the data was never generated by the ACARS system and that no actual flight existed.

All the passnegers would have had to be "dispatced" so that remains and DNA could be planted. OR a huge group of actors who have to pretend that they "lost" loved ones on those flights.

Someone or a team of people would have had to generate the data files and the reports.

etc.. etc..and there is that huge army of people and resources that I talked about earlier.



Oh and to answer your question. Yes. If there is a Chain of custody record concerning the gathering of the ACARS data, there would be documentation with signiatures of who gathered it, who handled it, who decoded it, and who transported it from destination to destination.

[uruk]

it's interesting that alot ppl think , that i think this would be evidence or even a smoking gun.

i dont expect to find any evidence online :) especially not smoking guns :)


for a skeptical forum alot users do try themself in mindreading :P

My bad for jumping to conclusions. It's just been our experiance that when a person who follows the conspiracy theories (not saying that you do) brings up something like this, they go running screaming "smoking gun"!!!

I mean look at CIT. Four wittnesses who may be mistaken about what they remember they saw that day and they go off half-cocked.

[DC]

Here is a good bit of info concerning ACARS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS
Yea, I know it's Wiki but you can verify the info in other sites.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-38,GGLG:en&q=ACARS

From what I can tell is that ACARS is a real-time, two way transmittion system that uses both ground based and satellite communication links depending on what phase the flight is in.

All the data is digital and therefore stored in some form of memory. Hard copies of certain parts of the data are made for maintenance records and even for payroll purposes. (interesting) So there would also be hardcopies of the data in different locations.

Also the aircraft's ID is included in all data packet transmittions. And different kinds of data can be sent to different destinations or departments depending on the nature of the data.
(For example. If the engine performance perameters are exceeded, a message and data will be sent to the engine service in advance of the aircraft's destination arrival provider so the engine can be serviced after the plane lands.)

I took some computer forensic investigation training (The college where I work is thinking about offering a course in computer forensic investigation)

Normally digital data that is part of an investigation is gathered by a qualified investigator. The organization that owns the devices that the data is on is not allowed to prepare or handle the data. The reason for this is so that the veracity of the data can be maintained by a chain of custody. The integrity of digital data is also maintained by having a MD5 hash generated from a bit-to-bit copy of the data file. This used to show if the data has been altered some where along the line.

Having said that, computer forensics is in it's infantcy so this proceedure may not have been followed.

The airline company may have had thier own personnel gather the data and hand it over to the authorities.
But I think that whatever agency that gathered the data (most likely the NTSB) had thier own personnel do the gathering.

This bring up an issue. One is that all the telemetry between the plane and the ground has to be generated in real time so that the data can be entered into the system.

If the data were to be faked you would have to somehow generate all the data the plane's hardware would generate, link into the system and interact in real time with the system in same way and in the same vicinity (pretty much the exact same flight path) that the aircraft involved in 9/11 would so that the data could be stored into the ACARS system.

That also means interacting with a pilot up untill the hijaking and all the interactions with the hijacker afterwards.

This would mean that the airliners are not complicit but it would require the army of personnel and hugh amounts of resources that I was talking about earlier to execute the performance for the air traffic controll system.

Now you could say that the whole "kit-and-kaboodle" (just the data files) were faked and some questionable facimilies were posted on the NTSB and FBI web site and distributed to various public sources. But that would mean that EVERYBODY was in on the decption.

The airlines would have to be complicit in order to cover up the fact that the data was never generated by the ACARS system and that no actual flight existed.

All the passnegers would have had to be "dispatced" so that remains and DNA could be planted. OR a huge group of actors who have to pretend that they "lost" loved ones on those flights.

Someone or a team of people would have had to generate the data files and the reports.

etc.. etc..and there is that huge army of people and resources that I talked about earlier.



Oh and to answer your question. Yes. If there is a Chain of custody record concerning the gathering of the ACARS data, there would be documentation with signiatures of who gathered it, who handled it, who decoded it, and who transported it from destination to destination.

i was thinking more like "overriding" the ID.

and is there a feedback from the plane to the airline when it receives a message?

and was those ACARS messages part of the investigations?

does the central station store the messages?

[Jonnyclueless]

it's interesting that alot ppl think , that i think this would be evidence or even a smoking gun.

i dont expect to find any evidence online :) especially not smoking guns :)


for a skeptical forum alot users do try themself in mindreading :P


Maybe you might want to try and learn why.

[DC]

My bad for jumping to conclusions. It's just been our experiance that when a person who follows the conspiracy theories (not saying that you do) brings up something like this, they go running screaming "smoking gun"!!!

I mean look at CIT. Four wittnesses who may be mistaken about what they remember they saw that day and they go off half-cocked.

i do folow the conspiracy theorys, but i dont expect to find evidence :)
nor do i belive all CT i read :) but also not all debunkings.

but none of those "unusual things" like the serial numbers not mentioned, are not evidence.

i do see them as indications. but also not all of them.
and i also dont belive FOIA's will get us evidence.
i think investigations could find evidence if there is evidence

but about the witnesses, i can only hardly imagen that they was indeed misstaken about the flightpath.
but is the wrong flightpath evidence for a conspiracy? i think not.
but for me it is a reason to investigate it closer :)

[DC]

Maybe you might want to try and learn why.

i dont belive in mindreading, but thx for the offer.

are there no tinfoilhat smilies?

[Totovader]

What, specifically, is your claim- here? That there is no serial number?

This information seems to suggest that as part of protocol, the serial number be included when it's sent for analysis.

Are you claiming this did not happen?

*bump^4

DC- are you going to answer this or not?

[DC]

*bump^4

DC- are you going to answer this or not?

i claim that in the NTSB FDR report from UA93 and AA77 no serial numbers are mentioned.

i claim also that most NTSB reports i found did mention serial numbers.

i misstakenly indeed thaught , after quickly reading a manual in a language i never really learned, that it is indeed needed to mention them. and i got showed that this is indeed not the case.

whyle my claims stills stand :)

[Totovader]

i claim that in the NTSB FDR report from UA93 and AA77 no serial numbers are mentioned.

i claim also that most NTSB reports i found did mention serial numbers.

i misstakenly indeed thaught , after quickly reading a manual in a language i never really learned, that it is indeed needed to mention them. and i got showed that this is indeed not the case.

whyle my claims stills stand :)

How in the world can your premise be absolutely wrong, but your conclusion still be correct?

I mean- I know that's a tenet of conspiracism, but I want to see you try and explain how you can be wrong and still be right. That should be fun.

[DC]

How in the world can your premise be absolutely wrong, but your conclusion still be correct?

I mean- I know that's a tenet of conspiracism, but I want to see you try and explain how you can be wrong and still be right. That should be fun.

is my claim, that the NTSB FDR reports about AA77 and UA93 do not mention the Serial Numbers, wrong?

is my claim, that most reports i readed, did mention the serial numbers, wrong?

i even got told that usualy those serial numbers are mentioned. i dont want to claim that it is usually, because there is no way for me to backup that claim.

[Totovader]

is my claim, that the NTSB FDR reports about AA77 and UA93 do not mention the Serial Numbers, wrong?

is my claim, that most reports i readed, did mention the serial numbers, wrong?

i even got told that usualy those serial numbers are mentioned. i dont want to claim that it is usually, because there is no way for me to backup that claim.

That's not even close to an answer to my question. You're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Are you going to answer that or not?

[DC]

That's not even close to an answer to my question. You're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Are you going to answer that or not?

what is my conclusion?
and what was my premise?

[DC]

Here's another:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/514647fcb85b52fe2.jpg

lol

thats a good one.

[Totovader]

what is my conclusion?
and what was my premise?

This is not an answer to my question. You're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Are you going to answer that or not?

If you can't remember WHAT YOU JUST SAID (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3604575#post3604575), then you have problems that need help outside of that which can be given on an online message forum.

[DC]

This is not an answer to my question. You're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Are you going to answer that or not?

If you can't remember WHAT YOU JUST SAID (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3604575#post3604575), then you have problems that need help outside of that which can be given on an online message forum.

cmon pls
i dont want another warning for derail.
i think its pretty clear what i wrote. you must have misinterpreted it.
my 2 claims are fact :)
im sorry, i guess its the language barrier, do you speak other languages? we can try it in another one maybe.

and if you want more details to this answer, pls make a new topic.

[Totovader]

cmon pls
i dont want another warning for derail.
i think its pretty clear what i wrote. you must have misinterpreted it.
my 2 claims are fact :)
im sorry, i guess its the language barrier, do you speak other languages? we can try it in another one maybe.

and if you want more details to this answer, pls make a new topic.

I'm positive the moderators will not see this as a derail since it is the topic itself- and pretending like it is somehow non-sequitur is not an adequate defense.

So far you have given me plenty of excuses as to why you can't answer a simple question: pretending it's a derail, asking questions instead, pretending it's a language issue, pretending I misinterpreted your comments, and then just plain ignoring the question.

I'll ask again. Since you're clearly capable of coming up with excuses and dodging the question- it's clear it's not a language barrier. Since it IS the topic, it's not a derail. Since I am able to understand your claims- regardless of your poor English- it's not an understanding on my part.

I do not need to make a new topic- and I should not need to make a new topic to get you to answer something directly related to your claims on this issue. If the moderators feel differently, then they can certainly notify me of that- and if you disagree, then I suggest you report my post for derailment.

Since you have suggested that a new topic would get you to answer the question- yet a new topic is not necessary- I can only conclude that you are going to maintain that you can answer the question- you just refuse to.

In summary: you're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Please answer the question.

[beachnut]

I can't speak for the AA77 report, but the UA93 report was written by Erin M Gormley - an Aerospace Engineer in the Vehicle Recorder's Division.

Your links tend to reinforce my point somewhat - here we have the following:

AA1420 - a FDR Group Chairman's Factual Report, which cites serial number



(This report was written by Sarah McComb who was chairman of the FDR Group for the incident as per the report)

UPS DC8 - A Specialist FDR Report (no Group) that cites the serial number



Pinnacle 3701 - A CVR Specialist Report (no group) that does not cite the CVR serial number.

AA1420 - a CVR Group Chairman's Factual Report that cites the CVR serial number



Now I want to ignore the report that doesn't mention the serial number for a moment, let's look at the others:





What we see here is evidence that there is no established formula for how information is expressed in the report. It is quite obvious that each report is written it's own way.

What's of particular interest here is that the first and second reports were written by the same person, yet the layout and method of expressing the serial number is totally different.

We also have a report that doesn't mention the CVR serial number, and doesn't mention that it's missing.

Clearly there's nothing unusual about serial numbers not being included in the report.(best answer award with others)
As predicted, he has moved the goalposts and has no conclusions.
The answer "is for no real reason" until he talks to the FBI who was in charge of the investigation; yet there are many examples of reports with out s/n. But since we have a no action truther, the goal posts will move and he will seek true 9/11 troll of truth award of ignore.

[DC]

(best answer award with others)
As predicted, he has moved the goalposts and has no conclusions.
The answer "is for no real reason" until he talks to the FBI who was in charge of the investigation; yet there are many examples of reports with out s/n. But since we have a no action truther, the goal posts will move and he will seek true 9/11 troll of truth award of ignore.

NTSB's AA77 FDR Report

NTSB's UA93 FDR Report

why are the Serial Numbers not mentioned?

my first post that started this topic.

what was my goalposts?

[applecorped]

In your opinion what significance is it whether serial numbers are documented or not? Are you ever going to actually have a position and state it?

Who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11?

[twinstead]

my first post that started this topic.


You asked a question. You were given MANY reasons why the SNs may have been omitted. If you want this thread to go somewhere, now is the time to explain exactly why you asked the question.

In other words, DO YOU HAVE A POINT?

[DC]

In your opinion what significance is it whether serial numbers are documented or not? Are you ever going to actually have a position and state it?

Who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09shane.xlarge1.jpg

Sir, i answered your first question already.

and the second question, well honestly Sir.

I dont know.

Can i call my lawyer now? pls Sir.....

[beachnut]

Sir, i answered your first question already.

and the second question, well honestly Sir.

I dont know.

Can i call my lawyer now? pls Sir.....Your OP was answered where do you move the goal post this time? Your lack of knowledge is only exceeded by your expert jaq persistence.

The answer was, no reason. For clarification ask the FBI. Take action.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

You will have to get up to move the goal post. Action. Wow, 6 years of action and no evidence to support a single conclusion of 9/11 truth, and for some unable to make a single conclusion. Action. What was your point in the first place?

[DC]

Your OP was answered where do you move the goal post this time? Your lack of knowledge is only exceeded by your expert jaq persistence.

The answer was, no reason. For clarification ask the FBI. Take action.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

You will have to get up to move the goal post. Action. Wow, 6 years of action and no evidence to support a single conclusion of 9/11 truth, and for some unable to make a single conclusion. Action. What was your point in the first place?

rightklick brings knowledge.

the OP was indeed answered
you just have trouble accepting it :)


btw, do you have an academic degree of engineering?
or what kind of engineer are you exactly?

[AMTMAN]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09shane.xlarge1.jpg

Sir, i answered your first question already.

and the second question, well honestly Sir.

I dont know.

Can i call my lawyer now? pls Sir.....

You have implied that the airlines were paid off to play a part in 9-11. Seems like the conpsiracy is getting bigger everyday.

[uruk]

i was thinking more like "overriding" the ID.

and is there a feedback from the plane to the airline when it receives a message?

and was those ACARS messages part of the investigations?

does the central station store the messages?

The communication goes both ways. The airplane sends data to ground control and ground control sends data back to the airplane.

The data transmittions are similar to data transfere on the internet. The plane's ID is sent from the plane to the ground system with every data packet.

Also the plane's position and path can be tracked by the plane's telemetry as it passes from one trasmittion antenna to the next. Kind of how cell phone transmittion hops from one cell antenna to the next.

Another interesting thing is that all this data transfere is handled by a datalink service provider similar to internet service provider.

By "overriding" do you mean that the planes ID is altered or replaced somewhere along the way? I guess it would depend on who you think is or isn't complicit in the conspiracy. But each would have a problem.

[Bobert]

Dictator Cheney,
How old are you?
How long have you been questioning 9-11?
What prompted you to question 9-11?
What brought you to JREF?
I dont mean to get off of the OP but was curious to learn some more about you.
I promise I dont meant this in any negative way.

[uruk]

i do folow the conspiracy theorys, but i dont expect to find evidence :)
nor do i belive all CT i read :) but also not all debunkings.

but none of those "unusual things" like the serial numbers not mentioned, are not evidence.

i do see them as indications. but also not all of them. The problem with unusual events or abnormalities in evidence or events is that it is hard to determine wether they are indication of something sinister such as a conspriracy or if they are just something "innocent" like coincidence or incompetence.

and i also dont belive FOIA's will get us evidence.
i think investigations could find evidence if there is evidence Unfortunatley that evidence will be scarce and only what is available to the public.
CIT had the right idea to gather some information first hand. But they are not experianced at doing wittness interviews and they had thier minds already made up that there was a conspiracy going on.

Actual investigators do not look for evidence with thier minds already made up the event. They have to keep thier minds open when they gather that information and let the evidence speak for itself.
But CIT didn't do that. They basically found these guys who remembered the plane passing the north side of the CITGO and ignored all the other wittnesses who said otherwise. They also ignored the fact that everyone of thier wittnesses saw the airplane crash into the building. That's called cherry picking your evidence. They accepted what they wanted to hear and ignored what they didn't want to hear. That is bad investigation.

They tried to explain it away by saying thier wittnesses were fooled in to thinking the plane crashed when it actually flew over the Pentagon. But they came up with that idea without any evidence at all. They dreamed it up to explain why the wittnesse can be correct about the flight path but be wrong about the crash. It was a bad attempt to support thier idea.

but about the witnesses, i can only hardly imagen that they was indeed misstaken about the flightpath.
but is the wrong flightpath evidence for a conspiracy? i think not.
but for me it is a reason to investigate it closer :) Human memory is not perfect and it can change over time. This is a scientifically proven fact. There were many experiments to prove it. You can look it up yourself. When it comes to trust a person's memory or the laws of physics I will always choose the laws of physics.

[DC]

You have implied that the airlines were paid off to play a part in 9-11. Seems like the conpsiracy is getting bigger everyday.

no, i just asked how much they got, i didnt know :)

[DC]

Dictator Cheney,
How old are you?
How long have you been questioning 9-11?
What prompted you to question 9-11?
What brought you to JREF?
I dont mean to get off of the OP but was curious to learn some more about you.
I promise I dont meant this in any negative way.

pls open a new topic and ask it, i dont want another warning for derail, thx

[DC]

The problem with unusual events or abnormalities in evidence or events is that it is hard to determine wether they are indication of something sinister such as a conspriracy or if they are just something "innocent" like coincidence or incompetence.

Unfortunatley that evidence will be scarce and only what is available to the public.
CIT had the right idea to gather some information first hand. But they are not experianced at doing wittness interviews and they had thier minds already made up that there was a conspiracy going on.

Actual investigators do not look for evidence with thier minds already made up the event. They have to keep thier minds open when they gather that information and let the evidence speak for itself.
But CIT didn't do that. They basically found these guys who remembered the plane passing the north side of the CITGO and ignored all the other wittnesses who said otherwise. They also ignored the fact that everyone of thier wittnesses saw the airplane crash into the building. That's called cherry picking your evidence. They accepted what they wanted to hear and ignored what they didn't want to hear. That is bad investigation.

They tried to explain it away by saying thier wittnesses were fooled in to thinking the plane crashed when it actually flew over the Pentagon. But they came up with that idea without any evidence at all. They dreamed it up to explain why the wittnesse can be correct about the flight path but be wrong about the crash. It was a bad attempt to support thier idea.

Human memory is not perfect and it can change over time. This is a scientifically proven fact. There were many experiments to prove it. You can look it up yourself. When it comes to trust a person's memory or the laws of physics I will always choose the laws of physics.

thats the reason i dont call it evidence :) i still belive that coincidences are possible.

and about the memory of ppl, oc your right, but in the case of the 2 officers, its hard to imagen they was wrong, they was on a possition where you very well will know if you saw it to your right or to your left. i cannot imagen they was misstaken about it.

[Jonnyclueless]

thats the reason i dont call it evidence :) i still belive that coincidences are possible.

and about the memory of ppl, oc your right, but in the case of the 2 officers, its hard to imagen they was wrong, they was on a possition where you very well will know if you saw it to your right or to your left. i cannot imagen they was misstaken about it.

Considering that it's a phenomenon so common that it is pretty much unheard of to not happen n a traumatic event, it can hardly even be considered a coincidence. It may be hard for YOU to imagine, but to accident investigators it is so normal that they avoid at all using eyewitness testimony for this very reason. What you don't understand is that many things that YOU remember are in fact completely wrong. you don't realize it because your recollection is not taken into account and verified with other data to know this. We only see this more often because in such epic events as this one we have various accounts and data that is put together and compared, as opposed to every day events where nothing is compared.

So we ALL mis-remember things like things being on our left or right every day, but have no means to be shown we are remembering wrong, and thus you are unaware of it.

[DC]

Considering that it's a phenomenon so common that it is pretty much unheard of to not happen n a traumatic event, it can hardly even be considered a coincidence. It may be hard for YOU to imagine, but to accident investigators it is so normal that they avoid at all using eyewitness testimony for this very reason. What you don't understand is that many things that YOU remember are in fact completely wrong. you don't realize it because your recollection is not taken into account and verified with other data to know this. We only see this more often because in such epic events as this one we have various accounts and data that is put together and compared, as opposed to every day events where nothing is compared.

So we ALL mis-remember things like things being on our left or right every day, but have no means to be shown we are remembering wrong, and thus you are unaware of it.

its possible that they are wrong. but its not sure. i even doubt that they are wrong about the planes positions. they could see it to theyr left, while to theyr right, they would not have been able to see it.

[Dave Rogers]

and about the memory of ppl, oc your right, but in the case of the 2 officers, its hard to imagen they was wrong, they was on a possition where you very well will know if you saw it to your right or to your left. i cannot imagen they was misstaken about it.

Whereas whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon and exploded is something anyone would be uncertain of, right?

Wasn't one of the officers standing at a different pump on the other side of the station, according to the security video? And wouldn't that mean that he was facing the opposite way to the direction he thought he was facing? And wouldn't that mean that, when he thought he remembered the plane passing to the north, it actually passed to the south?

I'm not claiming that any of this is true, of course, I'm just asking questions.

Dave

[Totovader]

I'm positive the moderators will not see this as a derail since it is the topic itself- and pretending like it is somehow non-sequitur is not an adequate defense.

So far you have given me plenty of excuses as to why you can't answer a simple question: pretending it's a derail, asking questions instead, pretending it's a language issue, pretending I misinterpreted your comments, and then just plain ignoring the question.

I'll ask again. Since you're clearly capable of coming up with excuses and dodging the question- it's clear it's not a language barrier. Since it IS the topic, it's not a derail. Since I am able to understand your claims- regardless of your poor English- it's not an understanding on my part.

I do not need to make a new topic- and I should not need to make a new topic to get you to answer something directly related to your claims on this issue. If the moderators feel differently, then they can certainly notify me of that- and if you disagree, then I suggest you report my post for derailment.

Since you have suggested that a new topic would get you to answer the question- yet a new topic is not necessary- I can only conclude that you are going to maintain that you can answer the question- you just refuse to.

In summary: you're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Please answer the question.

*bump*

[uruk]

thats the reason i dont call it evidence :) i still belive that coincidences are possible.

and about the memory of ppl, oc your right, but in the case of the 2 officers, its hard to imagen they was wrong, they was on a possition where you very well will know if you saw it to your right or to your left. i cannot imagen they was misstaken about it.

Dispite all the training, police officers are still human beings.

If you watch CIT's video you'll see that officer Legasse was mistaken about which gas pump he was standing at when he saw the airplane. Aldo and Craig had to correct him.

You could say that what pump he was standing at was an unimportant fact compared to the unusual spectical of seeing an airliner pass very low over your head.

But you must also factor in that the officers were standing under a canopy which obstructed thier view of the sky and that the plane came up on them quite unexpectedly.

We are used to seeing airplanes at certain altitudes. we barely even notice them at times.
When something that unusual occurs in a very short amount of time there is always a moment of confusion when your brain is trying to sort out what it is seeing.

When reporters or investigators take interviews they try to get as many wittnesses as possible because they know each individual recollection will a little different. What does not vary widely between the interviews is generally reguarded as being accurate. But remember, the investigator also has to take in account the physical evidence present at the scene. That's how they can rule what is innaccurate in the wittnesses testimony.

CIT's problem is that they took the recollections that varied from the norm and used as the basis of thier whole theory. They took the word of four people over that of tens of other wittnesses and literaly a ton of physical evidence simply because it suited what they wanted to believe. That is bad investigative practice.

On top of that, they ignored the one element in all those wittnesses recollections that was the same and was supported by the physical evidence. The fact that the plane crashed into the building.

They had to come up with a rediculous hypothesis that the plane fly over the building so that thier theory could work. This idea has absolutly no shred of evidence or wittnesses testimony to support it. As a matter of fact, there is irrefutable mathmatical proof that thier theory is bunk. It has been shown that the manuovers the CIT claims the plane took are impossible for a plane to survive to make a flyover.

[Jonnyclueless]

its possible that they are wrong. but its not sure. i even doubt that they are wrong about the planes positions. they could see it to theyr left, while to theyr right, they would not have been able to see it.

This has already been explained to death. And it would be less likely that they remember correctly than for them to remember incorrectly. To the right they would definitely have been able to see it. They ALSO saw the plane hitting the building and for their recollection of the planes position to be correct would make the plane impact impossible. So either way they are definitely wrong. So either they are wrong in their recollection in the placement which contradicts ALL other evidence, or they are incorrect in their recollection of the plane hitting the building which fits perfectly with ALL other evidence.

You do the math.

[aggle-rithm]

and about the memory of ppl, oc your right, but in the case of the 2 officers, its hard to imagen they was wrong, they was on a possition where you very well will know if you saw it to your right or to your left. i cannot imagen they was misstaken about it.

Funny you should mention the officers. Police investigators have a saying:

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see."

They are well aware of the eyewitness-distortion effect.

[DC]

Funny you should mention the officers. Police investigators have a saying:

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see."

They are well aware of the eyewitness-distortion effect.

indeed they are well aware. they know that very well :)

[beachnut]

Dispite all the training, police officers are still human beings.

If you watch CIT's video you'll see that officer Legasse was mistaken about which gas pump he was standing at when he saw the airplane. Aldo and Craig had to correct him.

You could say that what pump he was standing at was an unimportant fact compared to the unusual spectical of seeing an airliner pass very low over your head.

But you must also factor in that the officers were standing under a canopy which obstructed thier view of the sky and that the plane came up on them quite unexpectedly.
Poor guy is just starting to spew 9/11 junk. If he knew CIT was making up the flight path out of ignorance and Books and Lagasse already told us 77 hit the Pentagon in 2001.

These are CIT witnesses, refuting CIT stuff.
William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks were Pentagon police officers when the American Airliner flew past. In an interview conducted in December 2001 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000152))) , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000150))), taped November 25, 2001.

Tell the poor boy to research more before making foolish comments and endless posts making no point about 9/11.

[Totovader]

I'm positive the moderators will not see this as a derail since it is the topic itself- and pretending like it is somehow non-sequitur is not an adequate defense.

So far you have given me plenty of excuses as to why you can't answer a simple question: pretending it's a derail, asking questions instead, pretending it's a language issue, pretending I misinterpreted your comments, and then just plain ignoring the question.

I'll ask again. Since you're clearly capable of coming up with excuses and dodging the question- it's clear it's not a language barrier. Since it IS the topic, it's not a derail. Since I am able to understand your claims- regardless of your poor English- it's not an understanding on my part.

I do not need to make a new topic- and I should not need to make a new topic to get you to answer something directly related to your claims on this issue. If the moderators feel differently, then they can certainly notify me of that- and if you disagree, then I suggest you report my post for derailment.

Since you have suggested that a new topic would get you to answer the question- yet a new topic is not necessary- I can only conclude that you are going to maintain that you can answer the question- you just refuse to.

In summary: you're dodging the question again.

I asked how your premise can be wrong and your conclusion still be correct. Please answer the question.

*bump* for DC, again.

[DC]

:spam5

[Totovader]

:spam5

Asking you to answer a question related to your claims is not spam, DC.

Nor is this the appropriate method to report a post. If you believe that I am guilty of spamming, then you will need to report my post to the moderators and we will let them take the appropriate action.

Until then, either answer the question or tell me you're not going to and I will no longer feel it necessary to bump the question. Avoiding it really isn't going to help your case.

[DC]

Asking you to answer a question related to your claims is not spam, DC.

Nor is this the appropriate method to report a post. If you believe that I am guilty of spamming, then you will need to report my post to the moderators and we will let them take the appropriate action.

Until then, either answer the question or tell me you're not going to and I will no longer feel it necessary to bump the question. Avoiding it really isn't going to help your case.

what precisely was my claims?
think about it :)

[Totovader]

what precisely was my claims?
think about it :)

See previous post- I've already addressed this diversion.

Either answer the question or admit that you cannot. Ignoring the question does not help your case.

[DC]

See previous post- I've already addressed this diversion.

Either answer the question or admit that you cannot. Ignoring the question does not help your case.

what exactly was my premise?

[Totovader]

what exactly was my premise?

DC, stop. I've already addressed this throughout the thread- and I've answered this question too many times now.

Either answer my question or concede that you cannot. Ignoring the question is not helping your case. Continuing this derailment will likely result in mod action since I am reporting your posts.

[DC]

DC, stop. I've already addressed this throughout the thread- and I've answered this question too many times now.

Either answer my question or concede that you cannot. Ignoring the question is not helping your case. Continuing this derailment will likely result in mod action since I am reporting your posts.

i dont understand what you think was my premise, so i asked again.
when you can clarify that , you maybe get your answer.

i claimed 2 things, both was right and is still right.

[Totovader]

i dont understand what you think was my premise, so i asked again.
when you can clarify that , you maybe get your answer.

i claimed 2 things, both was right and is still right.

As I have already pointed out far too many times, I will let your own words speak for you:

i claim that in the NTSB FDR report from UA93 and AA77 no serial numbers are mentioned.

i claim also that most NTSB reports i found did mention serial numbers.

i misstakenly indeed thaught , after quickly reading a manual in a language i never really learned, that it is indeed needed to mention them. and i got showed that this is indeed not the case.

whyle my claims stills stand :)

Again, how can your premise be wrong and your conclusion still be correct?

Either answer the question or concede that you cannot. Continuing to ignore the question is not helping your case.

[DC]

As I have already pointed out far too many times, I will let your own words speak for you:



Again, how can your premise be wrong and your conclusion still be correct?

Either answer the question or concede that you cannot. Continuing to ignore the question is not helping your case.

you are mistaken about my premise, maybe you should start to read that topic from post 1 on.

i never claimed they had to, i claimed that they usualy do, and it seems indeed that they usualy do.

:)

so my premise was not wrong.

[Totovader]

you are mistaken about my premise, maybe you should start to read that topic from post 1 on.

i never claimed they had to, i claimed that they usualy do, and it seems indeed that they usualy do.

:)

so my premise was not wrong.

As you admitted in your previous post, your premise was that they had to:
i misstakenly indeed thaught , after quickly reading a manual in a language i never really learned, that it is indeed needed to mention them. and i got showed that this is indeed not the case.

Let's see this again:
"i never claimed they had to"

2 posts above:
"i misstakenly indeed thaught [...] that it is indeed needed to mention them"

One more time just to make sure you can see your lies in your own words:

"i never claimed they had to"
versus:
"i misstakenly indeed thaught [...] that it is indeed needed to mention them"


Once again, how can your premise be wrong but your conclusion still stand?

Dance long enough and you'll dig your own grave.

[DC]

As you admitted in your previous post, your premise was that they had to:


Let's see this again:
"i never claimed they had to"

2 posts above:
"i misstakenly indeed thaught [...] that it is indeed needed to mention them"

One more time just to make sure you can see your lies in your own words:

"i never claimed they had to"
versus:
"i misstakenly indeed thaught [...] that it is indeed needed to mention them"


Once again, how can your premise be wrong but your conclusion still stand?

Dance long enough and you'll dig your own grave.

when did i thaught they had to?
and when did i start that topic?

[Totovader]

when did i thaught they had to?
and when did i start that topic?

How is that even relevant? Your claim now is that your conclusion still stands.

Either answer the question or concede that you are unable to. You have dodged this question far too long.

ETA: Plus, the posts are given in order- you claimed they had to, retracted that, and then claimed you never made that assertion. You lied. Your posts on this page alone show that.

[DC]

How is that even relevant? Your claim now is that your conclusion still stands.

Either answer the question or concede that you are unable to. You have dodged this question far too long.

what is my conclusion?

i say my claims still stand,

do you remember the claims?

[Totovader]

what is my conclusion?

i say my claims still stand,

do you remember the claims?

Enough dodging, DC. You've come full circle again, so I'm taking this as your concession.

Good luck.

[DC]

Enough dodging, DC. You've come full circle again, so I'm taking this as your concession.

Good luck.

permise = usualy NTSB reports mention Serial numbers
Conslusion = 9/11 NTSB Investigation (assisting FBI) was unusual, the Serial numbers are not mentioned in the NTSB reports.

:)

not my fault when you was misstaken.

it was during the debate here i readed the NTSB manual and missreaded it, and thaught indeed they had to, but that was wrong. they dont have to. that handbook is a guide and not a rule. so do i understand it now.

but it was never my premise that they had to. i would have claimed that in my OP. but didnt :)

btw, can you quote my post where i claim they had to?

[Jonnyclueless]

So let's just recap that there is nothing unusual about the reports on the two flights mentioned in this thread. While it may be more common to include serial numbers, there is no rule and there are other cases where they are not included as well.

So why is this thread still going? I think everyone got their answers.

[Totovader]

permise = usualy NTSB reports mention Serial numbers
Conslusion = 9/11 NTSB Investigation (assisting FBI) was unusual, the Serial numbers are not mentioned in the NTSB reports.

:)

not my fault when you was misstaken.

it was during the debate here i readed the NTSB manual and missreaded it, and thaught indeed they had to, but that was wrong. they dont have to. that handbook is a guide and not a rule. so do i understand it now.

but it was never my premise that they had to. i would have claimed that in my OP. but didnt :)

btw, can you quote my post where i claim they had to?



As you admitted in your previous post, your premise was that they had to:


Let's see this again:
"i never claimed they had to"

2 posts above:
"i misstakenly indeed thaught [...] that it is indeed needed to mention them"

One more time just to make sure you can see your lies in your own words:

"i never claimed they had to"
versus:
"i misstakenly indeed thaught [...] that it is indeed needed to mention them"


Once again, how can your premise be wrong but your conclusion still stand?

Dance long enough and you'll dig your own grave.

See above.

[DC]

So let's just recap that there is nothing unusual about the reports on the two flights mentioned in this thread. While it may be more common to include serial numbers, there is no rule and there are other cases where they are not included as well.

So why is this thread still going? I think everyone got their answers.

because Toto didnt understand it

[DC]

while i still would call it unusual. cause usualy they mention it. but to make you lucky, i think that is not evidence of switched planes, faked planes or any other cover up.

[Totovader]

So let's just recap that there is nothing unusual about the reports on the two flights mentioned in this thread. While it may be more common to include serial numbers, there is no rule and there are other cases where they are not included as well.

So why is this thread still going? I think everyone got their answers.

I guess DC is trying to maintain that- despite being wrong about everything- he's still right.

I've asked him repeatedly how that's possible, and he's just dodged the question.

[DC]

oh poor guy, he still doesnt get it.

[Totovader]

oh poor guy, he still doesnt get it.

Yeah- try that. See who will buy it.

I quoted you lying- but apparently I'm the one who doesn't get it...

[beachnut]

Yeah- try that. See who will buy it.

I quoted you lying- but apparently I'm the one who doesn't get it...
feed the troll, facts all day, then they spew illogical gibberish instead of rational thought

trolls on this subject should contact the FBI and ask for a FOIA on the s/n.

the FBI was lead

[Dog Town]

while i still would call it unusual. cause usualy they mention it.

So how many reports have you read? What percent of the time, in reports identical to the one about 911, do they mention serial numbers?
Have you read all NTSB/FBI reports?

Unusual, Pfft.....