When did they ID AA77's parts?

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by hooper
You snidely infer that DNA can not survive a plane crash.

Originally posted by Lillydale
I never said or inferred any such thing.

It's not nice to fib.

You are right it is not nice to fib. It is not nice to edit weird things in either. This is what was said. Can you please tell me when it is that I said or inferred that DNA cannot survive a plane crash? Please, just show it once. Just prove me wrong on this and I will go away forever.

Can I just point out that infer doesn't mean the same thing as imply.

It seems important, because you may well not have inferred as above but it looks to me like you might have implied it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Can I just point out that infer doesn't mean the same thing as imply.

It seems important, because you may well not have inferred as above but it looks to me like you might have implied it.

LOL. Well at least some people checked their dictionary lately? I was really eager to see how anyone was going to prove how I inferred anything at all. It was stated that I plain old said it too though so lets put that with imply where it belongs so I can do this.

I never stated, hinted at, or implied that DNA cannot survive a plane crash.



[edit on 12/24/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Can I just point out that infer doesn't mean the same thing as imply.

Yes it does...

Dictionary: in·fer (ĭn-fûr')

v., -ferred, -fer·ring, -fers.

v.tr.
1.To conclude from evidence or premises.
2.To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable.
3.To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
4.To hint; imply.

reply to post by 911files


Nevermind. I can concede this one. 3 and 4 are not in my dictionary.


I see where the issue comes from here -

Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.

So it is a debatable use word. Nonetheless, I neither hinted at, implied, inferred, speculated, announced, stated, said, wrote, that DNA can not survive plane crashes.



[edit on 12/24/09 by Lillydale]

Now, back to my eariler post which seemed to be ignored.

Originally posted by 911files
Now I'll mention the NTSB...

On 9111 their role was to provide technical support to the FBI in its criminal investigation. FBI brought NTSB the recorders from UA 93 (from Shanksville, PA) and AA 77 (from Arlington, VA). NTSB helped with recovery and identified plane parts at the clean-up sites.

I was researching something else and found this. Thought I would share.

NARA

Here is a picture of them doing just that on the Pentagon lawn.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d1d2cc810b0.jpg[/atsimg]

This is from a video (8:08) made by firemen on the scene the evening of 9/11 (obtained via FOIA by yours truly). So I guess the answer to the OP question is the evening of 9/11.



Merry Christmas!

[edit on 25-12-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
Now, back to my eariler post which seemed to be ignored.

Originally posted by 911files
Now I'll mention the NTSB...

On 9111 their role was to provide technical support to the FBI in its criminal investigation. FBI brought NTSB the recorders from UA 93 (from Shanksville, PA) and AA 77 (from Arlington, VA). NTSB helped with recovery and identified plane parts at the clean-up sites.

I was researching something else and found this. Thought I would share.



Here is a picture of them doing just that on the Pentagon lawn.



This is from a video made by firemen on the scene the evening of 9/11 (obtained via FOIA by yours truly). So I guess the answer to the OP question is the evening of 9/11.



Merry Christmas!

Happy Kwanzaa but I hope you kept the receipt. I must be having trouble downloading the part of the video where they matched serial numbers to those recorded as belonging to AA77.

Want to try again?

[edit on 12/25/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale
I must be having trouble downloading the part of the video where they matched serial numbers to those recorded as belonging to AA77.

Want to try again?

[edit on 12/25/09 by Lillydale]

No, because if you don't understand the phrase, "identified plane parts", then you would not get anything else said. The OP, "When did they ID AA77's parts?". I just answered it. Now go play your mind games with someone who can't.

Originally posted by 911files
No, because if you don't understand the phrase, "identified plane parts", then you would not get anything else said. The OP, "When did they ID AA77's parts?". I just answered it. Now go play your mind games with someone who can't.

Apparently you are completely ignoring a key part of this.

When did they identify AA77's plane parts. Your video shows nothing of the sort; not even close. If asking a simple question such as this comes across as a mind game then perhaps this is not your best subject?

reply to post by Lillydale


Was rereading my copy of "FIREFIGHT: THE BATTLE TO SAVE THE PENTAGON ON 9/11"

The authors quote FBI agent Garrett McKenzie who was in charge of
photographing evidence at the Pentagon that day

McKenzie states that because of the chaos at the scene with Firefighters running in and out of the building ordered photographers to forgo
photographing every tiny scrap

"We don't need to photograph all the plane parts. only unique airplane parts
or something specific. Like the pilots 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"

(bolding mine)

Page 182-183 from FIREFIGHT

The FBI agents were specifically ordered to concentrate on pieces of debris
with serial numbers on them to preserve evidence

Originally posted by thedman
Page 182-183 from FIREFIGHT

The FBI agents were specifically ordered to concentrate on pieces of debris
with serial numbers on them to preserve evidence

Great! Thanks for that, really. Now when were those serial numbers matched to the ones that should have been installed in AA77?

reply to post by Lillydale


probably matched some of the major pieces - upcoming terrorism trials
may reveal more evidence.

Like during Moussaoui trial

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Lillydale

 

probably matched some of the major pieces - upcoming terrorism trials
may reveal more evidence.

Like during Moussaoui trial

No offense but I cannot settle for probably or may.
It is not because I am demanding either. It is because people are running rampant on ATS claiming it either already happened but cannot prove it or that it did not need to happen. I hope you see how this gets confusing.

Originally posted by Lillydale
No offense but I cannot settle for probably or may.
It is not because I am demanding either. It is because people are running rampant on ATS claiming it either already happened but cannot prove it or that it did not need to happen. I hope you see how this gets confusing.

You know, it really does not matter what you 'settle for'. This is an internet forum where people promote wacky conspiracy theories for what ever reasons suit them. No matter what evidence is presented, if it does not fit in with someone's 'belief', they won't 'settle for' it.

You asked when they id'ed the plane. I presented the statement from the NTSB that they assisted the FBI with plane part identification in the case flight 77. I then posted a video independent of that statement which showed them working on that on the evening of 9/11 on the Pentagon lawn. That is the best you are going to get. There are pending criminal cases and you are not an attorney for one of the defendants, so you have no right to the evidence logs. The last I checked, the FBI does not not respond to the whims of internet CT folks (nor should they).

[edit on 26-12-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
You know, it really does not matter what you 'settle for'. This is an internet forum where people promote wacky conspiracy theories for what ever reasons suit them. No matter what evidence is presented, if it does not fit in with someone's 'belief', they won't 'settle for' it.

Wow, chill. I was not knocking you or your answer. I was simply pointing out that in a thread where I asked when something HAS BEEN DONE... In a thread where people are arguing it was done or need not be done...I guess I just thought that "may" and other such pretty empty promises were kind of pointless. I only ask for proof or evidence. Offering me what you think might be proven in order for your OS to come together means EVEN LESS than what it is I will settle for. I asked the question so I get to voice what I will settle for for an answer. That is also how an internet forum works. If you feel that your fantasy about what 'might' happen is important to anyone, then so is what I will settle for. I hope you see how that works.

You asked when they id'ed the plane. I presented the statement from the NTSB that they assisted the FBI with plane part identification in the case flight 77.

Where in there did they show anything about matching the serial numbers they found with the ones they should have found? Need me to ask three times to point out things that are still not there?

I then posted a video independent of that statement which showed them working on that on the evening of 9/11 on the Pentagon lawn.

Which does nothing to answer the question in the OP. It was pointless and proved absolutely nothing in relation to what I asked. Getting upset be cause I reject it is a little silly. If you asked me for proof that dogs like to play fetch and I offered you a manual on setting my car stereo clock, I would expect the same.

That is the best you are going to get. There are pending criminal cases and you are not an attorney for one of the defendants, so you have no right to the evidence logs. The last I checked, the FBI does not not respond to the whims of internet CT folks (nor should they).

Then there really is no reason for this response. All it says is that you have no answer and no information. Thanks a ton. As long as you are filling up posts, how about you tell me something. Why should I believe anything in that last paragraph is a fact? Are you telling me they did match the SNs but are holding that information for trial? Are you just guessing at what you hope might help secure your OS? Please provide some sort of backup that this has been done and they are just holding the info. It seems to me that you are trying to say that I cannot know because you cannot know but you know it was done anyway. Please tell me how you know if you do not know.

By the way, chill with the PM's. They are not wanted.

Originally posted by 911files
By the way, chill with the PM's. They are not wanted.

PM's?

You mean the ONE I sent on December 20th?
That one single line a week ago?

Would that ONE be the "PM's" I need to chill with?

Sounds like someone wants people to think they get more mail than they do.

This was passed along to me. If you are one of those debunkers that wants to waist a post just insulting the source without addressing the material, you will just go ignored.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"

Ok, there we can just put that to bed now. The thread has been around long enough for anyone to prove that it was identified and the best that has been attempted is to argue it did not need to be done.

This should silence a good chunk of you who swore it was ID'd and just did not know why you might think that.

Then we have this...
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

The only other instance of undocumented FDR serial numbers following a major U.S. commercial aircraft crash within U.S. territory during this 20 year period, seems to be a little known mishap that oddly, occurred on September 11, 1991, exactly 10 years before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This report also did not list a FDR manufacturer or model number, possibly because the accident was immediately determined to be the result of negligence on the part of aircraft maintenance personnel.

The issue is that according to the OS, nothing was IMMEDIATELY apparent and that would be why the FBI would be INVESTIGATING.

Hello, watching film of the aftermath of the aircraft crash in to the Pentagon, I am baffled as to why there are no (that I can see) smears of Aluminium on any of the concrete structure, having once tried to file Aluminium with a fine file, which clogged up straight away, I do find it rather strange that the concrete structure did not scrape any Aluminium off of the 'plane.

reply to post by Lillydale

"The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question"

Yes, we can put this one to bed now.