serial numbers?

[alexg]

Would someone care to comment on the purported failure to match/find serial numbers from plane parts? I'm totaly in the dark on this one. I can show the pictures of the parts found but seems some CTs want serial numbers.

[Anti-sophist]

Serial numbers of what? They don't put serial numbers on rivets.

Furthermore, why would "them" finding serial numbers be proof of anything beyond "them" finding flight data recorders? Claiming the first piece of evidence is a plant is the hard part.. after that, it's easy to just keep throwing evidence out the window.

[Redtail]

I gotta agree with Anti. Serial numbers won't convince them anymore than the flight Data recorders, reamains, and personal effects. If they are relesed they will just claim they were planted or faked.

(I'm dealing with the same thing on another board.):D

[alexg]

Here's what the guy is saying

"Again you people prove my point. Here you are trying to deflect the argument into whether the steel was melted or just weak and whether the fire was simply petroleum fueled or how much hotter the office contents would have made it, etc, when you and I know there are much larger issues afoot. Do you think they recovered any serial numbers from any of those 3 sites? Do you really believe all 8 black boxes were destroyed? "

I see your point about having numbers not proving anything to a CTer, yet it would help to have something to tell him. And I don't know if parts are numbered or if matching the numbers is possible. If not I'll tell him that.

[Gravy]

That's hilarious. Who, exactly, are they asking for this information?

Well, why not have some fun with it. Here's an actual serial number from one of the 767s in New York. Tell them it's from the Left-Hand Skyhook.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904536f5781476d.jpg

Better yet, download a Boeing parts list, assign your own serial number to each part, and release it to them as the official list. That should keep them busy for a while.

[Anti-sophist]

Uhm, they recovered the FDR from the pentagon and from flight 93, and we have video of the other two planes hitting the buildings. Which planes is he doubting existed?

[alexg]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/thread/56157979?d=56455448#56455448

If somebody wants to come shut up a loudmouth be my guest, he's 'gattboy'. It's IMDB the movie 'World Trade Center'.

ETA He thinks were CIA agents. He's defiling 911.

[Crungy]

Which planes is he doubting existed?

Is this one of those nutters who claim that the planes were actually missiles pimped out to look like commerical air craft? I can't imagine how that project went? Were meeting minutes recorded? Was there a project number that the guy in charge of the paint job could bill his hours to?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here's what the guy is saying

"Again you people prove my point. Here you are trying to deflect the argument into whether the steel was melted or just weak and whether the fire was simply petroleum fueled or how much hotter the office contents would have made it, etc, when you and I know there are much larger issues afoot. Do you think they recovered any serial numbers from any of those 3 sites? Do you really believe all 8 black boxes were destroyed? "

I see your point about having numbers not proving anything to a CTer, yet it would help to have something to tell him. And I don't know if parts are numbered or if matching the numbers is possible. If not I'll tell him that.

A couple of them over at UM have been doing this as well. Since I didn't feel like digging, since I was already involved in enough over here, I went through explaning to them what the "god of the gaps" (argumentum ad ignoratum) is.

[Anti-sophist]

A couple of them over at UM have been doing this as well. Since I didn't feel like digging, since I was already involved in enough over here, I went through explaning to them what the "god of the gaps" (argumentum ad ignoratum) is.

Make sure you point out that it's also the core tactic used by Intelligent Design.. and throw in an off-hand comment about how similiar CT and religion is. That tends to really piss them off.

[bjb]

There are part numbers and serial numbers on pretty much every major component of an aircraft. Not just the black boxes but every electronic box and even mechanical components like hydraulic pumps, actuators, engines and engine parts, etc.

The reason the parts are marked is so they can be tracked. For example, if there's a problem with a given hydraulic pump, similar pumps from the same manufacturer can be located in other aircraft, and the pumps can be pulled and tested to make sure they're ok. Also, the entire history of that failed pump will have been tracked. When and where it was made, when it was installed, where and when it was serviced, etc., all of that information is tracked and stored in a database somewhere.

In the aerospace world, these tracking numbers are part of the traceability of the parts. Here's a company that specializes in products used to mark parts for traceability purposes:

http://www.mecco.com/aerospace_traceability.html

As you can see, pretty much every part on an aircraft can be marked. Even rivets can be marked but they're generally marked for lot traceability, not a specific number for each rivet.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There are part numbers and serial numbers on pretty much every major component of an aircraft. Not just the black boxes but every electronic box and even mechanical components like hydraulic pumps, actuators, engines and engine parts, etc.

The reason the parts are marked is so they can be tracked. For example, if there's a problem with a given hydraulic pump, similar pumps from the same manufacturer can be located in other aircraft, and the pumps can be pulled and tested to make sure they're ok. Also, the entire history of that failed pump will have been tracked. When and where it was made, when it was installed, where and when it was serviced, etc., all of that information is tracked and stored in a database somewhere.

In the aerospace world, these tracking numbers are part of the traceability of the parts. Here's a company that specializes in products used to mark parts for traceability purposes:

http://www.mecco.com/aerospace_traceability.html

As you can see, pretty much every part on an aircraft can be marked. Even rivets can be marked but they're generally marked for lot traceability, not a specific number for each rivet.

And the argument being used, at least by the posters I was dealing with, was that since the gov't has produced no aircraft parts from flight 77 that have serial numbers that can be traced to that aircraft... blah blah blah.

[Brainster]

I don't really get the point of supposedly having serial numbers on every dang part of the airplane, the way the Deniers claim. Is there any real point?

"Hey Clem, here's one of the parts of that airplane that crashed!"

"Nah, that there's from t'other plane that crashed here back in '54--see, the serial number is wrong."

[alexg]

There are part numbers and serial numbers on pretty much every major component of an aircraft. Not just the black boxes but every electronic box and even mechanical components like hydraulic pumps, actuators, engines and engine parts, etc.

The reason the parts are marked is so they can be tracked. For example, if there's a problem with a given hydraulic pump, similar pumps from the same manufacturer can be located in other aircraft, and the pumps can be pulled and tested to make sure they're ok. Also, the entire history of that failed pump will have been tracked. When and where it was made, when it was installed, where and when it was serviced, etc., all of that information is tracked and stored in a database somewhere.

In the aerospace world, these tracking numbers are part of the traceability of the parts. Here's a company that specializes in products used to mark parts for traceability purposes:

http://www.mecco.com/aerospace_traceability.html

As you can see, pretty much every part on an aircraft can be marked. Even rivets can be marked but they're generally marked for lot traceability, not a specific number for each rivet.


OK, that's good. Not unique numbers to an individual aircraft but to a type of part? Is that correct. If so a SN or part num. would only go to show what? The exact type of part? Possibly used on multiple aircraft. Might narrow it down to belonging to a Boeing, say, vs. something else?

[alexg]

bjb, rereading your post it sounds like the numbers are unique, is this correct? So a pump part on the plane that was 77 would have a unique number tying it to that plane alone?

[Crungy]

bjb, rereading your post it sounds like the numbers are unique, is this correct? So a pump part on the plane that was 77 would have a unique number tying it to that plane alone?

The purpose of a serial number is to uniquely indentify that specific piece of equipment. Using the serial number the equipment manufacturer should be able to obtain specifics of that piece of equipment. When I do a field survey, for any existing equipment, I always jot down the boilerplate info (model number, performance specs, electrical specs and serial number). If the usual boilerplate info is not available, I can call a manufacturer with the serial number, and get my needed info.

[qarnos]

It's funny someone should bring this up. There was an article in the Herald Sun newspaper today (link (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20603401-662,00.html)) about a guy who had a bolt from an overflying aircraft fall on his house. They mentioned the bolt had a serial number, but it seems it only allows them to trace it to the aircraft type.

[Crungy]

It's funny someone should bring this up. There was an article in the Herald Sun newspaper today (link (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20603401-662,00.html)) about a guy who had a bolt from an overflying aircraft fall on his house. They mentioned the bolt had a serial number, but it seems it only allows them to trace it to the aircraft type.

Hmmm. I didn't know that standard mechanical fastners and such were serial numbered for the aviation industry.

I had a friend that worked as an airline mechanic, and he used to tell me horror stories about all of his pot head co-workers who'd finish their shift with plenty of extra parts after they got done reassembling a plane.

[qarnos]

Hmmm. I didn't know that standard mechanical fastners and such were serial numbered for the aviation industry.

I re-read the article and it could be that the serial number was just the manufactorers number... the article doesn't make that part clear.

I had a friend that worked as an airline mechanic, and he used to tell me horror stories about all of his pot head co-workers who'd finish their shift with plenty of extra parts after they got done reassembling a plane.

I didn't know Ikea made aircraft! :D

[CurtC]

Uhm, they recovered the FDR from the pentagon and from flight 93
... and the Cockpit Voice Recorder from Flight 93.

[alexg]

It's funny someone should bring this up. There was an article in the Herald Sun newspaper today (link (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20603401-662,00.html)) about a guy who had a bolt from an overflying aircraft fall on his house. They mentioned the bolt had a serial number, but it seems it only allows them to trace it to the aircraft type.


hmm, if I buy say, a DVD burner from Sony, it comes with a S/N. I have always assumed that was a unique number, only MY burner has that number. But to connect it to me MY unique identifier ( name, address, CC number) would have to be tied to the burners number. As in the case when I register my product with Sony. I wonder if this is what is done with planes.

[apathoid]

OK, that's good. Not unique numbers to an individual aircraft but to a type of part? Is that correct. If so a SN or part num. would only go to show what? The exact type of part? Possibly used on multiple aircraft. Might narrow it down to belonging to a Boeing, say, vs. something else?

I have always assumed that was a unique number, only MY burner has that number. But to connect it to me MY unique identifier ( name, address, CC number) would have to be tied to the burners number. As in the case when I register my product with Sony. I wonder if this is what is done with planes.


I cant believe that CTists are even talking about this. Its just....stupid.

Anyways, yes - most aircraft parts are serialized and its not to tie them to "parent" airplanes. They are serialized for tracking/maintenance purposes. Believe it or not, every serialized part(thousands per airplane) is tracked during that parts life until it is scrapped. When you replace serialized parts for maintenance, the old and new serial numbers are entered in the ships logbook, or routine Job Card and then entered into a maintenance database. So if you find a plane part in your yard that has a dataplate with a Manufacturer Part Number(MPN) - you can find out what type of airplane it came from(ie 767-323) and the effectivity(ie 301-333). If it has a serial number, you can find out what tail number it was last installed on(ie 315).

Almost all Manufacturer Part Numbers are unique to an aircraft type. These numbers can be BACC***(Boeing) numbers or vendor part numbers. We even have company part numbers to eliminate confusion(though it just adds to the confusion). There are also dash(-) numbers that may indicate a different subtype, or effectivity. There can be dozens of dash numbers for a single part number. One of those things mechanics really have to be careful of is installing the wrong part number and its very easy to do with multiple fleet effectivities(we have 15 "types" of 757s and I lost count of the 767's - it's well over 20).

A part may also have many assemblies made of "piece parts", each having a unique part number. For instance, you can order a 767 main landing gear assembly under a single part number, which obviously comes with hundreds of individual parts - or you can order them all individually. One day we actually found the assembly part number for the whole 757 airframe and ordered it just to see what the parts expediditors would say. They had no idea what it was and printed out a "Not In Stock" slip and left it on my toolbox hours later...:D

Many parts arent serialized(such as fasteners, light bulbs, electrical connectors, insulation blankets, carpet, coffee pots, etc..) and are deemed "free issue" or "throw away". Most anything under $500 is considered throw away and isnt tracked even if its serialized.

I guess the idea is that all the wreckage found at the Pentagon doesnt belong to a 757, or an AA 757, or N644AA......because they wont release the part numbers/serial numbers. Frankly, thats one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I'm guessing this all got started because a particular denier wanted to sound smart....go figure.

[rearnakedchoke]

matching up serial numbers are rediculous we all saw the planes hit right?

thats one way of looking at it, im not a big CSI guy, but i would imagine one of the first thing you would do is identify what craft impacted where...im sure when a car is crashed and burned they take steps to identify the car, so in a court of law they can say without a shadow of a doubt...YES THIS IS THE CAR...not, we saw it crash so yes this is the car, we dont need to varify that..

[Ducky]

In the course of maintaining an aircraft many parts are replaced. What would an inconsistent serial number prove other than repairs/maintenance?

[MikeW]

Would someone care to comment on the purported failure to match/find serial numbers from plane parts?
Where is the evidence for this failure?

[eeyore1954]

I cant believe that CTists are even talking about this. Its just....stupid.


I guess the idea is that all the wreckage found at the Pentagon doesnt belong to a 757, or an AA 757, or N644AA......because they wont release the part numbers/serial numbers. Frankly, thats one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I'm guessing this all got started because a particular denier wanted to sound smart....go figure.


This has always been one of JohnDoes favorite comments. Why didn't they match up the parts. As if they would have faked the DNA evidence but not matched parts if it was important to the supposed coverup.

[rearnakedchoke]

Where is the evidence for this failure?where is the evidence of it not being a failure? this can go on forever...

[rearnakedchoke]

This has always been one of JohnDoes favorite comments. Why didn't they match up the parts. As if they would have faked the DNA evidence but not matched parts if it was important to the supposed coverup.what parts we talkin about?...flight 77?

well when you are in charge of a crime scene,lab work, evidence, you can kinda choose what is important..

[MikeW]

where is the evidence of it not being a failure? this can go on forever...
Not really. The original poster raised as possibly important a "purported failure" to identify plane components from serial numbers. I'm just asking if there's any substance to that claim, or if someone's just made it up.

So, again, is there any evidence for this failure?

[Lothian]

There are no serial numbers because there were no planes. It was all done by holograms. The real planes were flown to a secret ice cave in the arctic where the passengers had their memories wiped and reprogrammed, before being relocated to a secret town in New Mexico with CIA “husbands” and “wives.”

I know this because I am a paranoid cretin who watches too much TV and can’t diferentiate between fantasy and real life.

[rearnakedchoke]

There are no serial numbers because there were no planes. It was all done by holograms. The real planes were flown to a secret ice cave in the arctic where the passengers had their memories wiped and reprogrammed, before being relocated to a secret town in New Mexico with CIA “husbands” and “wives.”

I know this because I am a paranoid cretin who watches too much TV and can’t diferentiate between fantasy and real life.feel better now?

[rearnakedchoke]

Not really. The original poster raised as possibly important a "purported failure" to identify plane components from serial numbers. I'm just asking if there's any substance to that claim, or if someone's just made it up.

So, again, is there any evidence for this failure?

ive read much of the 9/11 report, but not cover to cover, from what i have read of it, i never heard any mention of serial #'s....

if the 9/11 report mentions a serial # match up, please share the link.

[fuelair]

There are no serial numbers because there were no planes. It was all done by holograms. The real planes were flown to a secret ice cave in the arctic where the passengers had their memories wiped and reprogrammed, before being relocated to a secret town in New Mexico with CIA “husbands” and “wives.”

I know this because I am a paranoid cretin who watches too much TV and can’t diferentiate between fantasy and real life.


At least you admit it!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :)

[Lothian]

feel better now?Better ? I always feel fine, and walk around with an inane lop sided grin,. That along with the halitosis is part of my condition.

[MikeW]

ive read much of the 9/11 report, but not cover to cover, from what i have read of it, i never heard any mention of serial #'s....

if the 9/11 report mentions a serial # match up, please share the link.
I don't believe it does, however that's not evidence for a "purported failure" as claimed in the original post. (Not knowing if a particular test took place or not is not evidence for the failure of that test.)

[rearnakedchoke]

I don't believe it does, however that's not evidence for a "purported failure" as claimed in the original post. (Not knowing if a particular test took place or not is not evidence for the failure of that test.)
well you're right about that...but lets be honest, its not like you can just call the pentagon and ask if they matched the serial #'s.

[eeyore1954]

If the NTSB matches up part numbers why do they do this? Do you think they do it to ascertain what airplane was in the crash??? Or would it be to try to uncover the cause of the accident. Flight 77 was no accident they didn't need to determine what went wrong with the plane or what mistake the pilots made to cause the crash like in a normal NTSB investigation.

[rearnakedchoke]

If the NTSB matches up part numbers why do they do this? Do you think they do it to ascertain what airplane was in the crash??? Or would it be to try to uncover the cause of the accident. Flight 77 was no accident they didn't need to determine what went wrong with the plane or what mistake the pilots made to cause the crash like in a normal NTSB investigation.
everything has a paper trail, to say investigations dont bother with such things sounds kinda odd, imo

[MikeW]

well you're right about that...but lets be honest, its not like you can just call the pentagon and ask if they matched the serial #'s.
I think Russell said he'd asked something similar and been refused, have to go check on that... I'm not sure that proves anything, though. If I were in the press office of any US Government body then I'd probably ignore such requests, either, because if you don't they'd never end.

If someone called and asked if they'd matched components, for instance, and they said yes, then it wouldn't end there. They'd just be accused of lying, asked to prove it.

Next up might come pictures of a warehouse full of wreckage. But how's anyone going to prove it's not been faked? Even if you personally visited, looked around, how could you know it really was from a particular flight?

Let's suppose you got some serial numbers, and they turned out to match parts on some audit trail that lead back to Flight 77. That audit trail would just be pieces of paper and computer records, something that I can't imagine would be difficult to fake, and so not everyone would believe those, either.

In other words, if you're someone who already believes the Government has faked/ lied about the retrieval and identification of the passengers from the sites, and the black boxes, then I think you'll probably go on making exactly the same "hoax" and "fake" and "lies" accusations against any other evidence that might appear. Doesn't mean I might not like to see it too, I just don't think any of it will end the argument, not now, not ever.

[rearnakedchoke]

I think Russell said he'd asked something similar and been refused, have to go check on that... I'm not sure that proves anything, though. If I were in the press office of any US Government body then I'd probably ignore such requests, either, because if you don't they'd never end.

If someone called and asked if they'd matched components, for instance, and they said yes, then it wouldn't end there. They'd just be accused of lying, asked to prove it.

Next up might come pictures of a warehouse full of wreckage. But how's anyone going to prove it's not been faked? Even if you personally visited, looked around, how could you know it really was from a particular flight?

Let's suppose you got some serial numbers, and they turned out to match parts on some audit trail that lead back to Flight 77. That audit trail would just be pieces of paper and computer records, something that I can't imagine would be difficult to fake, and so not everyone would believe those, either.

In other words, if you're someone who already believes the Government has faked/ lied about the retrieval and identification of the passengers from the sites, and the black boxes, then I think you'll probably go on making exactly the same "hoax" and "fake" and "lies" accusations against any other evidence that might appear. Doesn't mean I might not like to see it too, I just don't think any of it will end the argument, not now, not ever.

if ALL of the parts matched flight 77 i would start leaning more towards flight 77 hitting the pentagon, and i dont mean the FBI releaseing a report saying "oh by the way the serial #'s matched".

[Anti-sophist]

if ALL of the parts matched flight 77 i would start leaning more towards flight 77 hitting the pentagon, and i dont mean the FBI releaseing a report saying "oh by the way the serial #'s matched".


Then what do you mean? Do you want the FBI to release 1,000,000 photos of serial numbers, and all the part-log books? Or did they fake that, too? And roughly how many parts need to be identified by serial numbers before you believe 50% that it was flight 77?

[alexg]

If the NTSB matches up part numbers why do they do this? Do you think they do it to ascertain what airplane was in the crash??? Or would it be to try to uncover the cause of the accident. Flight 77 was no accident they didn't need to determine what went wrong with the plane or what mistake the pilots made to cause the crash like in a normal NTSB investigation.

Yes, if flight 77 hitting the pentagon is a given then why bother to check the numbers, of course, but
from a ct's POV its obvious that no plane hit the pentagon. I know, only 12% I think in the H/S poll. So they demand to see the serial numbers to prove that those parts that were found weren't planted.



This demand may be part of a larger effort to get the 'raw' evidence released so they can get their hands on it and see for themselves.

[rearnakedchoke]

Then what do you mean? Do you want the FBI to release 1,000,000 photos of serial numbers, and all the part-log books? Or did they fake that, too? And roughly how many parts need to be identified by serial numbers before you believe 50% that it was flight 77?
well there is just 3 pieces correct? landing gear / hub / turbine...shouldnt be to hard.. investigation? i dont know, the whole crime scene was tampered with since day one..

[alexg]

And to clarify the OP. The 'purported failure' refers not to their having checked the numbers and found them wrong but to their failure to either check at all or to releasing the info to the public, AFAIK.

[Anti-sophist]

well there is just 3 pieces correct? landing gear / hub / turbine...shouldnt be to hard.. investigation? i dont know, the whole crime scene was tampered with since day one..

It's funny that you can ask for more information and, in the same breath, already have your excuse to dismiss it once you find it.

[Ducky]

well there is just 3 pieces correct? landing gear / hub / turbine...shouldnt be to hard.. investigation? i dont know, the whole crime scene was tampered with since day one..

Hal Bidlack is a forum poster that doesn't post often here anymore, but he was working in the Pentagon when the plane hit, and he held pieces of the plane in his hands. There is more than just those three parts.

But the bigger issues is, what is the point? The DNA evidence clearly matches passengers of that flight. And before you add "well that's just small dna evidence that could be planted" I will add that Hal will confirm they were in fact full bodies or body parts. Also, there are literally thousands of serial numbers from literally hundreds of sub-contractors that go into a plane of that size. The idea that they are particularly catalogued to the extent wished by CTists is asenine. Not to mention parts replaced/serviced over the life of the plane as I mentioned earlier.

[Anti-sophist]

But the bigger issues is, what is the point?

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is. All that matters is that ALL the evidence that COULD be there ISN'T there. That proves it was an inside job.

[Ducky]

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is. All that matters is that ALL the evidence that COULD be there ISN'T there. That proves it was an inside job.

I'm assuming you're quoting the ct stance? Sorry it gets confusing who is taking what stance when it's not killtown gratuitously insulting everyone. ;)


But yeah, that's not a logical stance to take when you consider the massive effort for aid and firefighting that happened. The fact that you can conclusively link this plane to that site without every piece of the plane or every single serial number does not mean cover up or inside job. The wealth of evidence certainly outweighs what cannot be produced.

[uk_dave]

Did they check the serial numbers on the parts of the cessna which flew into the apartments in ny recently.... ?

[jsiv]

Did they check the serial numbers on the parts of the cessna which flew into the apartments in ny recently.... ?
Show me video footage of this alleged plane.

How convenient that it had no flight recorders.

Rumor has it one of the tenants smelled cordite right before the "plane crash."

Did you know that the apartment building is owned by someone with ties to Israel?

[uk_dave]

I am SHOCKED!

[CurtC]

well there is just 3 pieces correct? landing gear / hub / turbine...shouldnt be to hard.. investigation? i dont know, the whole crime scene was tampered with since day one..
Just 3 pieces?!? There were shredded airplane parts scattered all over, inside and outside the Pentagon. It seems likely to me that some of these would have been checked against the log books, but unlikely that the investigators would bother to tell anyone that. After all, what kind of retards would question whether Flight 77 was the actual one that crashed there?

And even if they had, that would satisfy you? DNA from the people on the plane doesn't satisfy you, so why would serial numbers?

[rearnakedchoke]

Just 3 pieces?!? There were shredded airplane parts scattered all over, inside and outside the Pentagon. It seems likely to me that some of these would have been checked against the log books, but unlikely that the investigators would bother to tell anyone that. After all, what kind of retards would question whether Flight 77 was the actual one that crashed there?

And even if they had, that would satisfy you? DNA from the people on the plane doesn't satisfy you, so why would serial numbers?

im a skeptic, and i dont buy it, doesnt make me insane.

[Hellbound]

matching up serial numbers are rediculous we all saw the planes hit right?

thats one way of looking at it, im not a big CSI guy, but i would imagine one of the first thing you would do is identify what craft impacted where...im sure when a car is crashed and burned they take steps to identify the car, so in a court of law they can say without a shadow of a doubt...YES THIS IS THE CAR...not, we saw it crash so yes this is the car, we dont need to varify that..

If they had dozens of video tapes of the accident, clearly showing the car impacting, I don't believe there'd be much effort (if any) at matching serial numbers.

And what you watch on CSI is not reflective of real crime labs.

[DavidJames]

im a skeptic, and i dont buy it, doesnt make me insane.This was not a random event where they happened upon a plane crash without a clue.

They were tracking the plane. They had a C130 in the area for eye witnesses. They found AA77 parts at the scene.

Seriously, wake up, life is not CSI or V for Vendetta or the Matrix.

[brettDbass]

Many parts arent serialized(such as fasteners, light bulbs, electrical connectors, insulation blankets, carpet, coffee pots, etc..) and are deemed "free issue" or "throw away". Most anything under $500 is considered throw away and isnt tracked even if its serialized.

Correct indeed.
I used to make nuts and bolts for Boeing and Rolls Royce and nothing that company produced was ever serialised.

[Lothian]

im a skeptic, and i dont buy it, doesnt make me insane.Quite right. You 'not buying it' is a by-product of being insane not the cause.

[rearnakedchoke]

Quite right. You 'not buying it' is a by-product of being insane not the cause.
oh, ok, by all means, i am now legally insane, free to comit any crime, with a get out of jail free card..

ive taken a few mental ivaluations while in the military, i guess something must have snapped, now im just a loose cannon, on a skeptic spree..

[Lothian]

oh, ok, by all means, i am now legally insane, free to comit any crime, with a get out of jail free card..

ive taken a few mental ivaluations while in the military, i guess something must have snapped, now im just a loose cannon, on a skeptic spree..I think to be legally insane you might need a bit more than my opinion but admitting you have a problem is the first step to a solution. Don’t underestimate the progress you have made by taking that first step.

[rearnakedchoke]

I think to be legally insane you might need a bit more than my opinion but admitting you have a problem is the first step to a solution. Don’t underestimate the progress you have made by taking that first step.
lol, yep, and get this, i think OJ killed his wife, even though he was found innocent....i must be a total loon..

[Lothian]

i must be a total loon..As I said acceptance is a start.

Once you get help you should be able to know when you are mixing reality with your fantasy and you will know which of you opinions are justifiable and which are stupid.

[rearnakedchoke]

As I said acceptance is a start.

Once you get help you should be able to know when you are mixing reality with your fantasy and you will know which of you opinions are justifiable and which are stupid.
ok, i just called and made an opointment to check myself into an insane asylum, i told the lady over the phone that i think the government is liying, and she said i should come check myself in asap, cause she even told me herself that the guvmint never lies...... so i need to get ready to go.

[Lothian]

ok, i just called and made an opointment to check myself into an insane asylum, i told the lady over the phone that i think the government is liying, and she said i should come check myself in asap, cause she even told me herself that the guvmint never lies...... so i need to get ready to go.Ok, hope it goes well for you.

[DavidJames]

ok, i just called and made an opointment to check myself into an insane asylum, i told the lady over the phone that i think the government is liying, and she said i should come check myself in asap, cause she even told me herself that the guvmint never lies...... so i need to get ready to go.
I don't think you're insane, but you are in dire need of basic debating skills along with a primer on logical fallacies. ;)

[Nevermore]

I haven't been able to find a direct source of this information, but 911-strike.com (http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm) summarizes the following quote from FBI spokesman Chris Murray.

...the French agency Digipress stated that FBI authorities had told them (in Meyssan's words) that FBI agents "have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing", and FBI spokesman Chris Murray told the French paper Liberation that "The pieces of the plane are stocked in a warehouse and they are marked with the serial numbers of flight 77."

One would think that the prosecutor of the case against Zacarias Moussaoui would present an index of these parts or maybe a photo of the reconstruction effort being conducted in the warehouse. Unless I'm missing something, the list only contains images taken at the Pentagon (exhibit list (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html)).

In the "Russell Pickering is coming" thread, Russell said the following:

Since the NTSB was overridden by the FBI in a jurisdictional ruling known as PDD-39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm there are no official crash investigations on any of the four aircraft.

The NTSB said:

""Please note: information regarding the investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 will be released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead investigative agency. The Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the FBI, as described in the September 13 Press Advisory." http://www.ntsb.gov/events/major.htm

If you want to see the ultimate joke just look here at the Pentagon report yourself http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm . 11 words, two numerical identifiers, 2 times, 6 pictures and 5 names. That's it. I have talked extensively with the NTSB and more than once have been through the phone banks at the FBI. I was refused in person meetings by both while in DC.

In my opinion, if the FBI has conducted a complete and thorough crash investigation and reconstruction with the technical assistance of the NTSB it seems legitimate for citizens to ask for and receive more information about the details of their findings.

Has there ever been another instance of a catastrophic incident involving an airplane where the NTSB hasn't published a report?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I haven't been able to find a direct source of this information, but 911-strike.com (http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm) summarizes the following quote from FBI spokesman Chris Murray.



One would think that the prosecutor of the case against Zacarias Moussaoui would present an index of these parts or maybe a photo of the reconstruction effort being conducted in the warehouse. Unless I'm missing something, the list only contains images taken at the Pentagon (exhibit list (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html)).

If the prosecution didn't feel it was necessary to make the case, then why wouldn't present it.
In the "Russell Pickering is coming" thread, Russell said the following:

In my opinion, if the FBI has conducted a complete and thorough crash investigation and reconstruction with the technical assistance of the NTSB it seems legitimate for citizens to ask for and receive more information about the details of their findings.

Has there ever been another instance of a catastrophic incident involving an airplane where the NTSB hasn't published a report?
[/SIZE]
The NTSB does not publish reports on criminal acts, only accidents.

[kevin]

Well, why not have some fun with it. Here's an actual serial number from one of the 767s in New York. Tell them it's from the Left-Hand Skyhook.

[CENTER]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904536f5781476d.jpg


duh, the -2 clearly indicates a foot operated skyhook, not the left-handed model. Jeez.

[Gravy]

im a skeptic, and i dont buy it, doesnt make me insane.What does ignoring all the evidence make you?

That's a serious question, by the way.

Here's a quiz for you. I've asked this of many CTs and only one has answered. I hope you'll have the courage to be the second.

An airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do we know it crashed?

[Gravy]

Sometimes governments lie.

Therefore, no airliner crashed two blocks from my home.

Do I have that correct, rearnaked?

[Gravy]

One would think that the prosecutor of the case against Zacarias Moussaoui would present an index of these parts or maybe a photo of the reconstruction effort being conducted in the warehouse.
Can you name a crime involving the destruction of an airliner, anywhere in the world, that resulted in a law enforcement agency's releasing an index of the parts recovered?

Why in the world would a reconstruction be done? That's done to determine the cause of air crashes. We know why the four planes on 9/11 crashed.

[FramerDave]

oh, ok, by all means, i am now legally insane, free to comit any crime, with a get out of jail free card..



Insane, or just raving stupid. The two, however, are not mutually exclusive.



Apologies to the mods for the gratuitous insult. Low-hanging fruit and all that...

[Nevermore]

... An airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do we know it crashed?

Did the NTSB conduct an investigation and release its findings?

[Gravy]

Did the NTSB conduct an investigation and release its findings?If you'd like to answer the question, please do. How do we know the plane crashed two blocks from my home?

This is not a trick question.

[Nevermore]

Can you name a crime involving the destruction of an airliner, anywhere in the world, that resulted in a law enforcement agency's releasing an index of the parts recovered?

Why in the world would a reconstruction be done? That's done to determine the cause of air crashes. We know why the four planes on 9/11 crashed.

The investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_10 3) (link to Wikepida) of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland?

Why should any incident be investigated? I think this summary from the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety could be applied to its U.S. counterpart:

The term "accident" can be defined as an unplanned event that interrupts the completion of an activity, and that may (or may not) include injury or property damage.
An incident usually refers to an unexpected event that did not cause injury or damage this time but had the potential. "Near miss" or "dangerous occurrence" are also terms for an event that could have caused harm but did not.
Reasons to investigate a workplace accident include:

most importantly, to find out the cause of accidents and to prevent similar accidents in the future
to fulfill any legal requirements
to determine the cost of an accident
to determine compliance with applicable safety regulations
to process workers' compensation claims
Incidents that involve no injury or property damage should still be investigated to determine the hazards that should be corrected. The same principles apply to a quick inquiry of a minor incident and to the more formal investigation of a serious event.

Would a reconstruction help determine how hijackers broke into the cockpit and siezed control of the plane? Could it help determine how much fuel was spilled during the crash and how much of an environmental clean-up was necessary? Could an investigation provide details which could help prevent a similar incident in the future or reduce the loss of life?

[Gravy]

The investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_into_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_10 3) (link to Wikepida) of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland?

Why should any incident be investigated? I think this summary from the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety could be applied to its U.S. counterpart:



Would a reconstruction help determine how hijackers broke into the cockpit and siezed control of the plane? Could it help determine how much fuel was spilled during the crash and how much of an environmental clean-up was necessary? Could an investigation provide details which could help prevent a similar incident in the future or reduce the loss of life?
If you'd like to answer any of my questions, feel free to do so.

Would a reconstruction help determine how hijackers broke into the cockpit and siezed control of the plane? Answer your own question. How would a reconstruction help determine that. Do you know that there are actually intact planes of the same models sitting out there on the tarmac? It's true!

You think the planes should have been reconstructed to determine how much fuel may have wound up on the ground?

Do explain. Also, do you live in the U.S.?

[Nevermore]

If you'd like to answer the question, please do. How do we know the plane crashed two blocks from my home?

This is not a trick question.

Sure.

Please provide the city you live in and the date of the crash. I'll try to find an NTSB report of the accident.

For example, here is a report (a bit garbled since the PDF isn't working and this is a HTML version) of a crash in Hopewell Township, PA on 09/08/1994:

Link to report (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:9kQ-RTkIfTIJ:www.ntsb.gov/events/usair427/docket/d072.pdf+plane+crash+investigation+%22part+number% 22+list&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en)

[Gravy]

Sure.

Please provide the city you live in and the date of the crash. I'll try to find an NTSB report of the accident.I'll try again. A plane crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of the plane crashing. How do we know it crashed?

This is not a trick question. Please answer it to the best of your ability.

[Nevermore]

If you'd like to answer any of my questions, feel free to do so.

Answer your own question. How would a reconstruction help determine that. Do you know that there are actually intact planes of the same models sitting out there on the tarmac? It's true!

You think the planes should have been reconstructed to determine how much fuel may have wound up on the ground?

Do explain. Also, do you live in the U.S.?

You asked for " ... a crime involving the destruction of an airliner, anywhere in the world, that resulted in a law enforcement agency's releasing an index of the parts recovered?" My response was the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. How is this not an answer to your question?

While using an exemplar vehicle is certainly one way to investigate an incident I believe the best way to determine actual cause is to examine the wreckage of the vehicle that was actually involved. Conducting a test on the force necessary to open a locked cockpit door on a similar plane is a viable experiment. Finding the actual cockpit door in the wreckage and looking for evidence of forced entry or how it was circumvented is more valuable.

I'm rather certain that in any plane crash there is an environmental impact. Based on my understanding of EPA guidelines a study would need to be performed to determine the amount of clean-up necessary. If fuel began spilling from the plane after it struck the lightpoles then the amount of soil contaminated with jet fuel and therefore requiring clean-up efforts would be expanded beyond the impact site itself.

Lastly, I do live in the U.S. I was looking for a similar synopsis on the U.S. OSHA website and did not find anything as concise.

[Nevermore]

I'll try again. A plane crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of the plane crashing. How do we know it crashed?

This is not a trick question. Please answer it to the best of your ability.

I'm a skeptic. I can do nothing but doubt your story until you provide evidence confirming what happened.

If you provide a location and date I can try to do the work for you and confirm your story via investigation (news accounts, witness statements, incident reports) and corroboration using common sense, logic and skepticism as a filter to try to validate your account. Otherwise, your claim may as well be "I saw a ghost two blocks from my home."

I do not know that you exist, where you exist, that the plane you claim crashed existed or, if it did in fact exist, that it crashed on the date or in the location you claim. The onus is on you to prove otherwise if I'm to believe your story.

[Gravy]

I'm a skeptic. I can do nothing but doubt your story until you provide evidence confirming what happened.

If you provide a location and date I can try to do the work for you and confirm your story via investigation (news accounts, witness statements, incident reports) and corroboration using common sense, logic and skepticism as a filter to try to validate your account. Otherwise, your claim may as well be "I saw a ghost two blocks from my home."

I do not know that you exist, where you exist, that the plane you claim crashed existed or, if it did in fact exist, that it crashed on the date or in the location you claim. The onus is on you to prove otherwise if I'm to believe your story.I'll make it really simple for you.

A plane crashes. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do people know it crashed?

You're up, Nevermore.

[Gravy]

You asked for " ... a crime involving the destruction of an airliner, anywhere in the world, that resulted in a law enforcement agency's releasing an index of the parts recovered?" My response was the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. How is this not an answer to your question?Um, because you didn't answer my question. See how this works? Provide the parts index, please.

While using an exemplar vehicle is certainly one way to investigate an incident I believe the best way to determine actual cause is to examine the wreckage of the vehicle that was actually involved. Conducting a test on the force necessary to open a locked cockpit door on a similar plane is a viable experiment. Finding the actual cockpit door in the wreckage and looking for evidence of forced entry or how it was circumvented is more valuable. So you believe the cockpit doors and frames were recoverable? Why? And why do you assume forced entry? The flight attendants had keys. The hijackers had weapons.

I'm rather certain that in any plane crash there is an environmental impact. Based on my understanding of EPA guidelines a study would need to be performed to determine the amount of clean-up necessary. If fuel began spilling from the plane after it struck the lightpoles then the amount of soil contaminated with jet fuel and therefore requiring clean-up efforts would be expanded beyond the impact site itself.

Lastly, I do live in the U.S. I was looking for a similar synopsis on the U.S. OSHA website and did not find anything as concise.
:jaw-dropp

[Gravy]

DEP employees John Matviya, David Bomba, Rich Thomas, John Wilk, Tom Buchan and Betsy Mallison, who were among those employees who responded after the crash, attended the ceremony in Somerset.
More than 40 DEP staff responded to the emergency. While the site was under investigation by the FBI, DEP played a key role in providing equipment and personnel support. DEP personnel provided guidance on environmental issues including protection of private water supplies, dewatering of a pond near the crash site and decontamination procedures for responders. In addition, DEP communications staff served as the Commonwealth's public information officers and briefed more than 300 media representatives at the site. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/newsletter/?varQueryType=PrintVersion&NewsletterID=226 (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/newsletter/?varQueryType=PrintVersion&NewsletterID=226)
ETA:
EPA Region III emergency responders worked with the FBI and the Defense Department from September 11 through September 29, 2001 to collect air, water, and debris samples at and around the Pentagon crash site to ensure the safety of response personnel, Pentagon employees, and nearby residents. EPA's air monitoring has not detected any pollutants from the fires and building debris that are of concern to the workers or the general public. EPA sampling also indicates that there is no threat of drinking water contamination. The following is a brief summary of the sampling and monitoring that has taken place to date:

Sampling & monitoring work/support zone air quality
Throughout the two and a half weeks following the incident, EPA sampled the air in the building work zone for asbestos, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and other chemicals, and found only trace amounts substantially below levels of concern. A total of 244 air samples were collected in the work zone and support zones: 136 asbestos samples, 78 silica samples, 23 lead samples and 7 VOC samples. Of these samples only two silica samples were slightly above the recommended levels for work areas. Since all of the workers in the affected area were wearing respirators, this level of exposure did not present a problem.

Sampling & monitoring off-site air quality
Beginning September 11, EPA sampled air in and around Washington D.C. and northern Virginia, and the perimeter of the Pentagon facility for smoke, particulate matter, VOCs, and other chemicals. EPA's sampling found contaminants at background levels or substantially below levels of concern. Samples were collected continuously from as many as three different locations for the period from September 12 through September 17. In addition, data from existing ambient monitoring stations near the Pentagon were evaluated for impacts from the fire. All data collected from these stations were at levels typical of urban air pollution, and no influence from the fire was detected.

Sampling & monitoring water quality
EPA collected three samples of runoff water generated while fighting the fire, and one sample of runoff from the North parking area (the debris sorting area). These samples were analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile organics, metals, and pesticides. Trace amounts of metals and other chemicals substantially were found in the runoff. The runoff from the response effort was routed to a sewage treatment facility whenever possible, but much of it entered storm sewers and was discharged into the Potomac River. Results from sampling the discharged water indicate that amounts of contaminants were below levels of concern for short term exposure for human health. The concentrations of contaminants in the runoff are not expected to have any negative impact on aquatic life in the surface waters of the area, most notably on the Potomac River.

Sampling crash site debris
EPA sampled debris from inside the building for asbestos, lead and other metals. A total of 8 ash/debris samples were taken inside the building and in the debris sorting area. A few relatively high concentrations of metals were reported in ash and soot- antimony (a metal) at up to 225 mg/kg and arsenic at up to 38 mg/kg. However short-term exposure and limited routes of contact have minimized any potential for harm. Most of this debris is being or has been disposed of in an approved construction waste landfill, where it will be covered and will not be able to migrate into the environment. In addition, workers handling this material were required to wear respirators and protective clothing.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/pentagon-air-sampling.htm
Total research time: 2 minutes.

[Bell]

Gravy,

Do you keep a list of all your questions that didn't get answered? If so, how long is that list?

[Gravy]

Gravy,

Do you keep a list of all your questions that didn't get answered? If so, how long is that list?When I was banned from the LC forum after 5 days, I made a list of the questions I asked – in the thread I started – that remained unanswered. It was a very long list. It's somewhere in chapter 1 of the LC thread here.

[Bell]

When I was banned from the LC forum after 5 days, I made a list of the questions I asked – in the thread I started – that remained unanswered. It was a very long list. It's somewhere in chapter 1 of the LC thread here.

Thanks, but I meant the questions you ask here :)

I'll check out the LC thread anyway.

[Gravy]

Thanks, but I meant the questions you ask here :)

I'll check out the LC thread anyway.No, I don't do that. I think it would be depressing. Nor do I recommend searching for that earlier list. It's very repetitive, mostly about how CD work could have been accomplished and remain undetected.

[Bell]

No, I don't do that. I think it would be depressing. Nor do I recommend searching for that earlier list. It's very repetitive, mostly about how CD work could have been accomplished and remain undetected.

Yes, it would be.

[WildCat]

lol, yep, and get this, i think OJ killed his wife, even though he was found innocent....i must be a total loon..
OJ was not "found innocent".

[Nevermore]

Um, because you didn't answer my question. See how this works? Provide the parts index, please...

I cannot find a parts index currently available on-line. I can only offer the following as circumstantial evidence that an index of some or all parts used for the reconstruction was introduced during the trial and made available to the public:

According to Wikipdea:
there were 1867 documentary reproductions and 621 label productions (or exhibits - the largest of which was an aircraft reconstruction)
the aircraft reconstruction was the only one not conveyed to court (it remained at the Air Accident Investigations Branch premises at Farnborough in England)According to the American Society of International Law (http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh61.htm) website:

The Lockerbie Trial verdict, transcripts of closing arguments, daily trial summaries, and analysis, are available at: <http://www.thelockerbietrial.com (http://www.thelockerbietrial.com/)>
<http://www.law.gla.ac.uk/lockerbie>
Unfortunately for my argument, neither of these links work at this time.

According to this article (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/lessons/lesoct00.htm), a restricted-access website was created by the faculty of the Syracuse Law School to help inform the families of the victims of the incident. The article states:
OVC’s statutory mandate requires that the privacy of federal crime victims be protected, which in part accounts for the security measures on the Project web-site. The Scottish Crown Office and Scottish High Court of the Justiciary view the password-protected web-site as a way to expedite the flow of confidential information about trial developments to the families.

I cannot tell if this mandate for privacy extended to the reconstruction or any parts list that may have been one of the 1867 documentary reproductions and 621 label productions.


John P. Grant's "The Lockerbie Trial: A Documentary History (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ForeignRelationsandNationalSecur/?view=usa&ci=9780379215120)" includes a section on "The Investigation and Identification of the Accused" which has been describes as containing all of the accident reports but the reviews and descriptions of the book I have found do not mention a complete parts index.

[Gravy]

Right. No evidence that any law enforcement agency has ever released a list of all the parts collected from an airliner crash.

Of course there isn't.

WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY?

[Nevermore]

I'll make it really simple for you.

A plane crashes. There are no photos or videos of it crashing. How do people know it crashed?

You're up, Nevermore.

You seem to be making a statement of fact (a plane crashes).

Just so we're on the same page (from Wikipedia since it is convenient):
A statement of fact or a factual claim is a statement that is presented as an accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurate) representation of a situation, event, or condition, and that is capable of being either proved or disproved.
If a factual claim is incorrect, then it is called a mistake or an error (if the person making the statement believed it to be correct) or a lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) (if the person making the statement did not believe it). A factual claim shown to be correct through examination is accepted as being supported. A factual claim that was believed to be true may later shown to be false (disproved), and a factual claim believed to have been disproved may later be shown to be true. A fact that was once a fact and hence becomes disproven may once again become a fact if the factual evidence supporting its validity becomes increasingly factual in light of new and, ultimately, factual evidence. Supporting evidence may become realised for a fact long after the fact itself was first established and, thus, a factual claim must be as fact once the Popperian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popperian) elements of falsification have been exhausted - a process that never ends - to end with a fact accepted in the social. A belief that cannot be proved or disproved is an opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion).

Assuming you were the only person to have witnessed the event your claim is either true, an observational error (i.e. it appeared to crash but something else happened) or a lie.

People may either accept your observation as fact or examine the supporting evidence for your claim and attempt to disprove it. If it cannot be proved or disproved then it is considered an opinion.

[Gravy]

You seem to be making a statement of fact (a plane crashes).

Just so we're on the same page (from Wikipedia since it is convenient):

Assuming you were the only person to have witnessed the event your claim is either true, an observational error (i.e. it appeared to crash but something else happened) or a lie.

People may either accept your observation as fact or examine the supporting evidence for your claim and attempt to disprove it. If it cannot be proved or disproved then it is considered an opinion.
Okay, my two previous questions were too difficult for you.

I'll simplify the problem some more.

How can people tell that a plane has crashed?

[T.A.M.]

Should i start to sing...

"If a tree...falls in the forest...does anybody hear?"

lol

TAM

[Gravy]

Should i start to sing...

"If a tree...falls in the forest...does anybody hear?"

lol

TAMNot yet. I can still remove some levels of complexity if need be. Let's see how Nevermore does with this level.

[juryjone]

Not yet. I can still remove some levels of complexity if need be. Let's see how Nevermore does with this level.

I don't see how it will make much difference. I didn't think the questions were complex to begin with. However, Nevermore and that rear guy seemed to make them more complex than they are. I was even going to give them a few hints, since they seem to be deliberately avoiding the question(s), but if they can't answer the single question you've posed them, then no amount of hints will do.

[Bell]

I don't see how it will make much difference. I didn't think the questions were complex to begin with. However, Nevermore and that rear guy seemed to make them more complex than they are. I was even going to give them a few hints, since they seem to be deliberately avoiding the question(s), but if they can't answer the single question you've posed them, then no amount of hints will do.

They realize that by answering such questions, they put themselfs with their backs against the wall. The solution is dodging and/or running away.

[Nevermore]

Right. No evidence that any law enforcement agency has ever released a list of all the parts collected from an airliner crash.

Of course there isn't.

WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY?

I admitted that the parts list for Pan Am flight 103 was no longer readily available on-line. If you are going to make the sweeping generalization that "No evidence that any law enforcement agency has ever released a list of all the parts collected from an airliner crash" then you really should back that up in some way. Please provide a link or other justification for this statement.

As to your question of "why," I believe the legal concept of "due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process)" includes the right for someone accused of a crime to know the charges and evidence against them. While the concept of due process for "terrorists" is now in question, I believe the court did afford him some of his legal rights.

Since Zacarias Moussaoui was accused of a crime he and his lawyers had the right to all (unclassified?) evidence against him. I assume this evidence would have included a list of any and all parts recovered from the Pentagon crash site. If Moussaoui's attorney(s) did not request this data during the discovery process I believe they did their client a disservice. If they requested the information and were denied it on some objection it would be an interesting thing to know.

My initial observation:
One would think that the prosecutor of the case against Zacarias Moussaoui would present an index of these parts or maybe a photo of the reconstruction effort being conducted in the warehouse.

I made this statement because, in my opinion, identifying a list of recovered parts or producing photos of parts taken under better lighting conditions in a warehouse would have supported the defense's effort to prosecute Moussaoui.

[Nevermore]

Okay, my two previous questions were too difficult for you.

I'll simplify the problem some more.

How can people tell that a plane has crashed?

Your two earlier questions were not too difficult. I did my best to answer them directly and logically. I've tried to define my terms and lay out a logical response.

If you are trying to make a point with your question please make it directly.

Otherwise I will continue to maintain that the mythical "people" in your question cannot "tell" anything about the plane or the act of it "crashing."

Or, if it is easier for you, maybe you could make your point by answering this question: How can people tell that a UFO has crashed?

[Peephole]

Hey Nevermore, why don't you file an FOIA and see if they have compiled a parts list and are willing to release it?

[apathoid]

Or, if it is easier for you, maybe you could make your point by answering this question: How can people tell that a UFO has crashed?

By reading the NTSB report and matching up serial numbers? :confused:
I give up. How?

[Bell]

Your two earlier questions were not too difficult. I did my best to answer them directly and logically. I've tried to define my terms and lay out a logical response.

If you are trying to make a point with your question please make it directly.

Otherwise I will continue to maintain that the mythical "people" in your question cannot "tell" anything about the plane or the act of it "crashing."

Or, if it is easier for you, maybe you could make your point by answering this question: How can people tell that a UFO has crashed?

They realize that by answering such questions, they put themselfs with their backs against the wall. The solution is dodging and/or running away.

Or just answer a very simple question.

[Nevermore]

Hey Nevermore, why don't you file an FOIA and see if they have compiled a parts list?

I have looked into doing that and haven't had time to follow through. I will as soon as possible.

[Nevermore]

By reading the NTSB report and matching up serial numbers? :confused:
I give up. How?

I have no idea. I don't believe in extraterrestrial visits or UFO landings. I'm just trying to guess how Gravy wants me to answer his question.

Apparently the answer has nothing to do with evidence. I proposed earlier:

If you provide a location and date I can try to do the work for you and confirm your story via investigation (news accounts, witness statements, incident reports) and corroboration using common sense, logic and skepticism as a filter to try to validate your account.But this was rejected.

I guess the answer has something to do with arcane knowledge only he is in possesion of. I look forward to the point in time when he chooses to bless me with his pearls of infinite wisdom.

[Hellbound]

Nevermore:

Actually, his question rests on the basic idea of what evidence consists of.

Don't imagine a specific airplane crash. Don't imagine your current situation. Let's assume you are in charge of all investigations of everything. You get a report of an airplane crash. No one saw it. How do you tell that a plan crashed?

[Nevermore]

I would go to the place it was reported to have crashed and look for physical evidence of a crash.

[Gravy]

I would go to the place it was reported to have crashed and look for physical evidence of a crash.Phew! I was almost out of ways to simplify the problem. That is, indeed, how we know a plane crashed two blocks from my house.

From the plane wreckage.

[Nevermore]

You said in the first iteration of your question that a plane "once" crashed near your home. I mistakenly made the assumption that the plane wreckage had since been removed and was no longer available for inspection (like the parts for Flight 77). Hence my reliance on secondary evidence:
If you provide a location and date I can try to do the work for you and confirm your story via investigation (news accounts, witness statements, incident reports) and corroboration using common sense, logic and skepticism as a filter to try to validate your account.

If the wreckage were still there I agree that examining it would be the most valuable data one could collect to determine what happened.

I thought I made this clear when I said:
While using an exemplar vehicle is certainly one way to investigate an incident I believe the best way to determine actual cause is to examine the wreckage of the vehicle that was actually involved.

[Gravy]

I thought I made this clear when I said:
While using an exemplar vehicle is certainly one way to investigate an incident I believe the best way to determine actual cause is to examine the wreckage of the vehicle that was actually involved.And what were you talking about? Wanting to examine the cockpit doors of the four demolished planes for signs of forced entry, for crying out loud.

[Nevermore]

I was offering that as an off-the-cuff example of why a reconstruction might be considered important enough to perform.

Since I am not an accident investigator nor do I have any first hand knowlege of the airplane parts recovered I have no idea what valuable information a reconstruction might provide.

However, as tax-payer with a pulse (obviously not a brain in your opinion) when I read that an FBI spokesman claims they "have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing" I ask myself how much of my tax dollars spent on the investigation of 9-11 went into this reconstruction and what they learned. When I poke around and can't find any news articles, reports or further statements from the FBI about this matter I find it curious.

As a citizen, it is my opinion that the FBI should release some kind of report that says (at a minimum) they matched all of the serial numbers found on wreckage from the Pentagon to Flight 77 and after a careful examination decided that a reconstruction would not yield any valuable information about this incident.

Is that too much to ask?

[lylfyl]

Did they check the serial numbers on the parts of the cessna which flew into the apartments in ny recently.... ?Show me video footage of this alleged plane.

How convenient that it had no flight recorders.

Rumor has it one of the tenants smelled cordite right before the "plane crash."

Did you know that the apartment building is owned by someone with ties to Israel?
More importantly, one of the apartments crashed into belonged to the same woman who was injured by a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade in 1997. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/461342p-388059c.html

Two aerial assaults on this woman. What does she know that They don't want her to tell?

Date of Manhattan plane crash. 10 / 11 /06
If you rotate it 180 degrees, 9(0)/ 11 / 01

Coincidence? :eye-poppi

[Gravy]

I was offering that as an off-the-cuff example of why a reconstruction might be considered important enough to perform.

Since I am not an accident investigator nor do I have any first hand knowlege of the airplane parts recovered I have no idea what valuable information a reconstruction might provide.

However, as tax-payer with a pulse (obviously not a brain in your opinion) when I read that an FBI spokesman claims they "have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing" I ask myself how much of my tax dollars spent on the investigation of 9-11 went into this reconstruction and what they learned. When I poke around and can't find any news articles, reports or further statements from the FBI about this matter I find it curious.

As a citizen, it is my opinion that the FBI should release some kind of report that says (at a minimum) they matched all of the serial numbers found on wreckage from the Pentagon to Flight 77 and after a careful examination decided that a reconstruction would not yield any valuable information about this incident.

Is that too much to ask?
Unless you have evidence of some other plane hitting the Pentagon, Nevermore, yes, that is far too much to ask, because it is completely unnecessary and has nothing to do with why flight 77 crashed.

(As a personal favor, can you use a larger font?)

[Nevermore]

Sorry about the font. As I cut and paste it's been mixing font styles and sizes. I've been adjusting to Ariel 1 and that looked ok at work but I see here at home that it is miniscule. I'll adjust to 2 or 3 in the future.

[Hutch]

I work mostly with helicopters, not aircraft, but I think the supply and support are similar enough to make a couple of points here (pardon if others have already covered them, I read the thread quickly).

1. You have TWO numbers to consider, (1) The Part Number, which merely identifies the item as a flangle, widget, or offog or some other specific part, the Part Number often also tells you who the manufacturer is. (2) The Serial Number, which defines the specific part itself, so you may have 100,000 Part Number HS1001-5 in circulation, but only one has the Serial Number B100775.

2. Not all serial numbers are recorded for each aircraft. If the part is fairly common or line replacable (something that gets changed on a regular basis or at certain inspection periods) and is not involved in flight safety, the serial number is probably not recorded. If the Item is a Flight Safety Part (say, the Engine Hot Section or Radar Altimeter, for example), then there will be a record.

But I doubt every tiny part that goes into the plane is recorded somewhere. Major Items and Flight Safety items are the ones that are tracked. Were some found at the crash sites and could still be identified? I do not know.

[apathoid]

I work mostly with helicopters, not aircraft, but I think the supply and support are similar enough to make a couple of points here (pardon if others have already covered them, I read the thread quickly).

1. You have TWO numbers to consider, (1) The Part Number, which merely identifies the item as a flangle, widget, or offog or some other specific part, the Part Number often also tells you who the manufacturer is. (2) The Serial Number, which defines the specific part itself, so you may have 100,000 Part Number HS1001-5 in circulation, but only one has the Serial Number B100775.

2. Not all serial numbers are recorded for each aircraft. If the part is fairly common or line replacable (something that gets changed on a regular basis or at certain inspection periods) and is not involved in flight safety, the serial number is probably not recorded. If the Item is a Flight Safety Part (say, the Engine Hot Section or Radar Altimeter, for example), then there will be a record.

But I doubt every tiny part that goes into the plane is recorded somewhere. Major Items and Flight Safety items are the ones that are tracked. Were some found at the crash sites and could still be identified? I do not know.

Pretty much. But, the FAA is big on proper work documetation. And everything accomplished on the airplane must be documented. If you see an access panel that has a few missing/stripped screws - you have to make a logbook entry, or have inspection issue a non-routine work card before you can do the work. Absolutely nothing is to be done "off the books". I thought the military was anal about work procedures, but the airlines/FAA is 10 times worse.
Believe it or not, even if you remove/install a non-airworthiness, non-inspection item - the part number and serial numbers are recorded in the logbook. If you dont record them, you'll surely be called by a work center guy/gal and asked what the numbers were and why you didnt record them.

Eventually, every log write-up and corrective action is recorded in a computer database and the original log entries are stored in filing cabinets. Also, all parts that are repairable(airworthy or not) are tracked and their histories are recorded electronically and on file, kinda like the aircrafts log history. I spend alot of my work day reading up on the history of the parts I get, as well as the log history of the ship they came from before starting work. Alot of times, you can tell mechanics are just shotgunning and that your part is probably gonna be a "check and roll".

One thing that was brought up earlier in the thread was whether or not the serial numbers are matched in "normal" accident investigations. I seriously doubt it. But I think there would special cases, like where parts deemed important to the cause of the crash would be inspected and the work procedures/documentation investigated.
I mean, seriously, very few people have any idea how many serialized parts there are on airliners - easily thousands, maybe tens of thousands. Making matches to every part found would be silly and a waste of time. In the case of AA77, there was simply no need to make any serial number matches.

[eeyore1954]

I was offering that as an off-the-cuff example of why a reconstruction might be considered important enough to perform.

Since I am not an accident investigator nor do I have any first hand knowlege of the airplane parts recovered I have no idea what valuable information a reconstruction might provide.

However, as tax-payer with a pulse (obviously not a brain in your opinion) when I read that an FBI spokesman claims they "have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing" I ask myself how much of my tax dollars spent on the investigation of 9-11 went into this reconstruction and what they learned. When I poke around and can't find any news articles, reports or further statements from the FBI about this matter I find it curious.

As a citizen, it is my opinion that the FBI should release some kind of report that says (at a minimum) they matched all of the serial numbers found on wreckage from the Pentagon to Flight 77 and after a careful examination decided that a reconstruction would not yield any valuable information about this incident.

Is that too much to ask?


I would like to find that quote about the reconstruction. But anyway they did large reconstructions of Flight 800 and the Lockerbee crash in order to try to determine the cause of the crashes not to prove what planes they were.