When did they ID AA77's parts?

page: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
The plane crashes on 9/11 are considered a crime scene, so therefore proper ID of the aircraft must be done. Basic CSI 101.


As GenRadek so clearly pointed out to you, "basic CSI 101" doesn´t apply in this case.
Nothing to investigate as far as the plane and why it crashed at the Pentagon. No accident, no mechanical failure or pilot error.
It was a well known fact that the plane was taken over by terrorists, the flying crew (pilots) had been eliminated or incapacitated, and the intent of the person at the controlls was to crash the plane into a building. As it had already happened earlier that day in NY.
The identity of the flight itself was never in question.
However, the identities of the people on board had to be confirmed so that their relatives would have something in the form of remains from their loved ones. (To carry out burials, and sevices.)





posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
So let me sum this thread up neatly for all the denunkers that seem to need their own private place to argue about it.

We have TWO distinct answers being given and both sides are certain that theirs is the right one.

1. It was identified by SN but that is being kept from us for legal reasons, trials, whatever.

2. It never needed to be identified by SN because they knew exactly what plane it was and why before an investigation could even get started.

Do any of you see the issues with these conflicting answers? You both believe the OS and yet still cannot even get this detail right. Both sides are sure they have the facts as well. I guess my biggest issue is that every excuse given so far assumes that within hours of the incident, the case was solved and there was no need to investigate. I guess if I ever want to kill someone, I just fly his plane into a building and say he was on a suicide mission and they just stop looking into it? Maybe you kids need to go work your "OS" out together and come back when there is a consensus on what the truth is.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 


OK....I admit it, I'm a sucker for a friendly woman's wiles...

Because, Parts 47 and 49 certainly aren't relevant to this discussion. Bother to read them??? 47 concerns "Aircraft Registration" requirements, NOT the parts ON the airplane.

49 is about the Titles and financial transactions in dealing with the airplane ownership.

43 is about WHO can work on airplanes (A&Ps), essentially. There are OTHER FAR Parts that also cover in more detail the certification standards for them, just like there are OTHER Parts for pilots.

This link: ecfr.gpoaccess.gov...:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.7&idno=14 (EDIT in...)Ooops, that's no good...paragraph 43.10, in case you didn't figure it out. (...EDIT out)

...concerns "life-limited" parts and YES those will usually specify a S/N. (Hint: Not all parts fall under this category of requirement...)


Hmmmmmm....so you tell me you cannot resist any wiles just before asking me for information and then telling me that you read some of what I gave you but that wasn't it so you thought you would go off on another rant.

I guess, I just have a really hard time with people who tell me they did not bother to read everything I gave them so they would like me to go through it again for them. Sometimes, it is all in how you ask.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


You "Truthers" don't even have the courage to get their statements.



Get ANY of them to back you up on the photo being part of a wing from AA77 and I will make personal amends to each and every one of them.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
1. It was identified by SN but that is being kept from us for legal reasons, trials, whatever.

2. It never needed to be identified by SN because they knew exactly what plane it was and why before an investigation could even get started.

Do any of you see the issues with these conflicting answers?


Actually they are not conflicting at all. If you took of your blinkers you would realise that

As for the OS not getting the story the same, just look at the "truthers" - invisible explosives, mini atomic bombs, pod carrying aircraft, holographic aircraft, space based beam weapons, missile firing aircraft, aliens watching it etc etc.

[edit on 3/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I have to say I agree, here, with this post, about THAT particular photo that was discussed.

However, it is common from BOTH sides to hastily type something, referring to something else by accident.

THAT is kinda sorta why it's good to air out the differences, and point out honest mistakes, and also mistakes of misconception.


So....you have never dealt with Jthomas, or the majority of drive-by debunkers on ATS? Trust me, if he wanted to admit a mistake, he could have acknowledged it in one of the many many many posts demanding my apology, right? He did now. Let J worry about J defending J. Do not get all sappy just because you had to correct one of the loons from your side of the fence. It is still a see through fence.


To that end, it swings back to the OP:

It has been an internet meme for some time, one perpetrated by MANY conspiracy sites who don't know any better, and by one in particular that SHOULD, based on how much they ballyhoo their "core member roster" of so-called 'experts'...

That meme is the belief/assertion/intimation that EVERY fragment from an airplane crash site would somehow be specifically identifiable to ONE particular airframe/engine combination. It just ain't so, but it has been adopted as a "factoid" and used as a battering ram of inanity for for too long.



uhh..........Is there a major competitor to them by any chance? If I did not know any better, I would guess you kickbacks from some PR firm that either works for an opponent of or directly for P4T. I get it, you do not like them. Go post there about that.

What did you just offer here?
Any facts about the OP?
Any answer to the OP?
Anything really adding to any discussion of the OP?
Your opinion of some other website? YES!

If you had something to add, awesome. To read your whiny ANTIP4T blog is getting tiresome and is most certainly off topic.

I did not cite anyone else. I asked a question. I asked it. Me. Just me. I wanted to see what answers I could get since trying to get this info in other threads just tossed more feathers in the air.

I did not even ever once mention that each and every part on a plane could or would suffice. I would imagine there are innumerable little knobs, latches, and various other little things that have no info about them at all aside from what they look like after a crash. I never said any of these things. I am not sure if it is just you, a few of you, or a sickness throughout the entire "OS" flock but for some reason you all add so many interesting new words to the things I write and then attack it based on this crap that only existed in your head to begin with.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Actually they are not conflicting at all. If you took of your blinkers you would realise that


Um...what?

You do not see how claiming something has happened and that it did not happen because it did not need to happen contradict each other?

Are you for real?


As for the OS not getting the story the same, just look at the


Just look at the...? So the reason that the leaders of our country, the heads of all investigative arms, all the evidence, all the intel, and the mouthpieces they sent out could not keep their story straight but that is ok because neither can...

"truthers" - invisible explosives, mini atomic bombs, pod carrying aircraft, holographic aircraft, space based beam weapons, missile firing aircraft, aliens watching it etc etc.

[edit on 3/1/10 by dereks]


LOL

So the FBI and a barely grouped collection of random strangers with no access are the same?

That is some funny funny stuff. You want to tell me you believe these people in what they tell you about terrorists and hijackers but they are no more really in the know than people who talk about mini-nukes online?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
So? How is it a stream of water can cut steel? You really need to review the Purdue simulation again. The mass of the fuel alone had enough intertia (Newton's 1st) to do the job.


Interesting since according to that same principle, the fuel would haven then ripped through the thin aluminum as they contacted the reinforced wall. The inertia would have been in the fuel pushing the aluminum and when the metal hit resistance, the fuel would have kept going on its own. Just going by your premise here.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Um...what?

You do not see how claiming something has happened and that it did not happen because it did not need to happen contradict each other?


I knew there was something wrong with your reading comprehension, and once again it shows here!

was identified by SN but that is being kept from us

It never needed to be identified by SN


Never needed to be identified does not equal not identified. All because something is not needed does not mean it is not done.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, I thought it should have been perfectly obvious.

You see, from the way I read jthomas' post, he was referring to the debris in the BACKGROUND of the photo. Y'all didn't bother to address that aspect of his direction, but kept focusing on the piece of debris in the foreground.


Aside from the fact that big boy Thommy spent several posts demanding I apologize and NONE correcting that, I would have to say you are wrong. Do you claim to know more about what he meant to say than him? He had plenty of time to fix that. He did not ear a post ban by being quiet did he?

This is not the first time he has presented this same photo and called it a wing. This is something he does, he presents lies and waits a few months and tries the same one somewhere new. It is an old trick and the best way for you to avoid having to defend a grown man to me is to not jump in, assume, and then defend someone who blatantly lies all over ATS. Not a good side of the court to play on, just my 2 cents.

Oh, and why did I keep focusing on the one item in the forground? Why did I just keep harping on that one item in the picture? Why did he keep harping on me apologizing to the victim's families? I think you will find one answer is hidden inside the other there. I thought my harp was a little less shameful and yet, fair minded as you are...you only mentioned mine so I guess I was wrong to focus on something I know that person meant and have even argued with them about before (aluminum in a picture) instead of demanding internet strangers apologize for the real deaths of people they had nothing to do with. Silly me.


Then, in a display of yet more incorrect disinfo, Lillydale stated something to the effect that American Airlines wings had no paint on them, at least that was the gist that i understood.


I am sorry but did you just start by talking about DISINFO? You are making a statement that I spread disinfo by saying something that......I NEVER EVEN SAID.

Please tell me why you deserve any credibility with anyone about anything after that.

You accuse my of spreading disinfo. Your evidence that I did so is something you THINK.

What I actually said was "THE PAINT JOB DOES NOT EVEN MATCH THE WINGS OF THE ALLEGED PLANE" but I suppose checking the facts would get in the way of you trying to discredit me by MAKING THINGS I SAID UP.



Too complicated? Sorry, but I've found that if I don't write as much detail as possible, every little misconception in certain reader's minds will get spun into something that was NOT the intent in the first place.

What is that game called, again? Does anyone know the answer to that? (I have an idea, but not sure it describes it adequately).







[edit on 31 December 2009 by weedwhacker]




HUUUUUUUGE difference between "complicated" and "unnecessarily wordy." You have used your responses to me to add very little but rant, espouse information no one asked for or would find relevant, complain about p4T and make snarky comments. What used to be an interesting debate about facts and questions has turned into a huge pile of unanswered questions and some very snarky OS loyalists. Shame.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale

Um...what?

You do not see how claiming something has happened and that it did not happen because it did not need to happen contradict each other?


I knew there was something wrong with your reading comprehension, and once again it shows here!

was identified by SN but that is being kept from us

It never needed to be identified by SN


Never needed to be identified does not equal not identified. All because something is not needed does not mean it is not done.


Ohhhh clap clap clap clap for you. You one a pointless semantics game. Does it change any facts? Anyone's minds? Anything about anything? Make you look like a troll that is here to discuss the difference between the exact words in a post and what we all know we are discussing here? Make sure you print that out and have mommy put it on the fridge.

So...now that you have the floor. Please tell us which it is. IDd? Not IDd? If you want to go on about whether or not they needed to to feel big, go for it. I see you like that. Want a star? Here.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Does it change any facts?


Just shows once again a truther is wrong!

Please tell us which it is. IDd? Not IDd?

What do you care? If it was id'd you would just claim they changed the database, as you are just not interested in the truth at all, just blaming Bush and the USA government



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Does it change any facts?


Just shows once again a truther is wrong!


Actually, it shows you are both wrong and rude and then wrong for the reason for being rude.

Look at your last post 'correcting' me. Read it carefully. Now, scroll up and read what I had already posted. This is not the first time I posted it this way in this thread but even if it was, you corrected me just a little too late. I said


You do not see how claiming something has happened and that it did not happen because it did not need to happen contradict each other?


So...since I was nice enough to offer that to you and were still wrong, I thought you might come back with some substance. Instead it is just to gloat. I am sorry that I tried to be nice because apparently it reinforced your lack of reading comprehension and solidified your anger towards those whose cognitive powers you envy.

Saying something DID happen does contradict that it DID NOT happen...because it did not need to. Either you are not really reading along, or you are just a troll looking for a grammar fight. Start a thread, I will gladly discuss the language with you anytime you like.

For now, I retract my attempt at humility to point out that if you just read above your last little gloaty dance...you will see why it is indeed contradictory and if you feel misled, read the thread from the beginning next time.



Please tell us which it is. IDd? Not IDd?


What do you care?

It is none of your concern what my investment in this answer is. Either you have it, do not have it, or have information pertinent to it. I do not have to answer to you as to my level and degree of care.

If it was id'd you would just claim they changed the database, as you are just not interested in the truth at all, just blaming Bush and the USA government


Quote me blaming Bush for anything or admit you have fallen ill to this sickness that also keeps you spreading opinions to cover for a lack of real answers.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969

Originally posted by REMISNE
Nothing to investigate as far as the plane and why it crashed at the Pentagon.


Even if they know or think they know what happened proper CSI must still be done.

www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=penttbom
Due to this being a terrorist attack, the Pentagon and its grounds are immediately declared a federal crime scene. Under the terms of a 1995 presidential directive, this makes them the exclusive responsibility of the FBI. The FBI immediately begins collecting evidence and is also responsible for recovering bodies.

FBI Special Agent Tom O’Connor is in charge of the initial evidence recovery operation at the Pentagon. His first priority is to locate and gather all the airplane parts and other pieces of evidence from the lawn on the west side of the building.

“We don’t need to photograph all the plane parts, only unique airplane parts or something specific. Like the pilot’s yoke, or anything with part of a serial number on it. If we have to prove what kind of plane this was, the serial numbers will be what we need.”

Because the Pentagon is a crime scene, it is the FBI’s job to gather and document every piece of evidence there.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek

As someone who avidly watches all the CSI tv shows and enjoys them very much, there is a big difference between that and the real world.


Then you should know that one of the first things done in a crime scene is to verify the ID of the victim/victims and whatever is invoved in the crime.

In this case it would be the planes.



Sorry, couldnt be more wrong. The "CSI's" at the Pentagon already knew the identity of the aircraft. Its backed up by radar, control tower, eyewitnesses, and pretty much every person that came in contact with the aircraft from loading at the gate, to taxiing to the runways, to take off and tracking it.

This is not the early times of air travel where if a plane vanishes or crashes, no one knows about it until they realize, "hey, that plane never showed up, where did it go?" Now, traffic control can see and track aircraft and if one should happen to "vanish" they know what aircraft and designation it was. Its not as if they have pirate aircraft or phantom aircraft with no transponders or IDs that fly around and air traffic control has no clue who it is, or where its coming from or where its going. Flight 77 was tracked from start to end, its identity known till the tragic crash. No questions.

So, instead of wasting time ID-ing a known aircraft, they went about ID-ing the victims and the terrorist a-holes, which they can then deduce who caused the crash. THAT is how CSI works. ID the basterds that caused it, not the obvious vehicle used. If I steal a car from a well-known dealership and purposely crash it into a gas-station down the block, and a hundred people saw me steal it and crash it without interruption, including being caught on security camera, the CSI's are not going to be tearing apart the car trying to find the VIN# and S# of the cupholders or whatever to know for sure THAT was the car I stole and crashed. They will first question the eyewtinesses, the dealer, and check the tapes. If the accounts all agree that I stole the car and then drove it like a madman into a gas station in full view of them, there is NO doubt of the identity of the car used. They are gonna wanna check my ID though since I am the one who did it. Are you understanding this yet?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Sorry, couldnt be more wrong. The "CSI's" at the Pentagon already knew the identity of the aircraft.


Even if they know or think they know what happened there still has to be proper ID of the aircraft done.

Just because thier are witnesses to a person being killed thier is still a proper ID of the person.

www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=penttbom
Due to this being a terrorist attack, the Pentagon and its grounds are immediately declared a federal crime scene. Under the terms of a 1995 presidential directive, this makes them the exclusive responsibility of the FBI. The FBI immediately begins collecting evidence and is also responsible for recovering bodies.

FBI Special Agent Tom O’Connor is in charge of the initial evidence recovery operation at the Pentagon. His first priority is to locate and gather all the airplane parts and other pieces of evidence from the lawn on the west side of the building.

“We don’t need to photograph all the plane parts, only unique airplane parts or something specific. Like the pilot’s yoke, or anything with part of a serial number on it. If we have to prove what kind of plane this was, the serial numbers will be what we need.”

Because the Pentagon is a crime scene, it is the FBI’s job to gather and document every piece of evidence there.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by GenRadek
Sorry, couldnt be more wrong. The "CSI's" at the Pentagon already knew the identity of the aircraft.


Even if they know or think they know what happened there still has to be proper ID of the aircraft done.

Just because thier are witnesses to a person being killed thier is still a proper ID of the person.

www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=penttbom
Due to this being a terrorist attack, the Pentagon and its grounds are immediately declared a federal crime scene. Under the terms of a 1995 presidential directive, this makes them the exclusive responsibility of the FBI. The FBI immediately begins collecting evidence and is also responsible for recovering bodies.

FBI Special Agent Tom O’Connor is in charge of the initial evidence recovery operation at the Pentagon. His first priority is to locate and gather all the airplane parts and other pieces of evidence from the lawn on the west side of the building.

“We don’t need to photograph all the plane parts, only unique airplane parts or something specific. Like the pilot’s yoke, or anything with part of a serial number on it. If we have to prove what kind of plane this was, the serial numbers will be what we need.”

Because the Pentagon is a crime scene, it is the FBI’s job to gather and document every piece of evidence there.


[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]


And they did gather evidence, and they are not letting YOU see it. Why? Well you basically have two choices there - first, the FBI is part of a huge scheme that is involved in faking the attacks of 9/11 on the orders of (?) and are witholding the lack of information because they don't want the public to get wise that no plane actually crashed into the Pentagon, it was all a magic trick and the human remains, the damage to the building and light poles and the wreckage in the public photos was all an elaboratly staged event and hoax OR - the FBI doesn't release information on active criminal investigations.

Your choice.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And they did gather evidence, and they are not letting YOU see it.


But why can't we see it. There are certain things that should be released and we also have FOIA requests to get the evidence.

We can see evidence in other planes crash crime scenes, why not this one?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
And they did gather evidence, and they are not letting YOU see it.


But why can't we see it. There are certain things that should be released and we also have FOIA requests to get the evidence.

We can see evidence in other planes crash crime scenes, why not this one?



Have you ever heard of any instance, when criminal matters are still pending, that any law enforcement agency has released all of its detailed reports?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Have you ever heard of any instance, when criminal matters are still pending, that any law enforcement agency has released all of its detailed reports?


Whats still pending about 9/11, its been over 8 years?





top topics
 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join