View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby Scepcop » 14 Oct 2009, 07:29

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government’s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Oct 2009, 11:21

Who is this Colonel? Why don't you provide credentials? I looked him up, but others may be interested.

For those who may not know this name, this guy is a no-planer. That's right he insists that the thousands of people that saw planes hit the buildings did not.
He claims that the plane that crashed into the Pennsylvania farm field is still in operation. That's right. It is in use. Wow!

Col. Nelson started this whole serial number malarky. The purpose of which is to claim that there was a problem in the
investigation. He refers to the USAF GUIDE TO AVIATION SAFETY INVESTIGATION. This document mentions serial numbers once.
It is not a mandatory part of the procedure as he would like you to believe.

Serial numbers are used to identify planes. In this case the planes were known. The planes were seen to hit the targets. The people on board those planes were pulled out of the wreckage. The planes could be identified so serial numbers are the sort of red herring used by those intent on deceiving people that are pseudoskeptics.

Why is it a red herring? Because the planes were known and the NTSB was not trying to figure out what accident brought
down the 4 planes.

Markings on the planes were recovered. Luggage was recovered. Bodies were recovered.

The flight data recorders were recovered at least from the plane that hit the Pentagon. It shows a track from the planes origin to its impact point.

Lots of bodies were identified from the wreckage. An instance of a passenger:
Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon... Rescue crews were able to pull Calley’s body from Flight 77’s wreckage.


Here's a place to get FDR info:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

The following as been said of Nelson's statements.
Nelson's opinion is in part due to his Vietnam experience in which some aircraft were only identified by part serial numbers. These would include those aircraft not in formation, with a single pilot, or a case in which all crew members were killed. Frequently, there was no other way to identify the aircraft because most of the flying was in a non-radar environment, most AF combat aircraft do not have an FDR on board, and DNA identification did not exist.


So what we have here is another claim of no value from a no-planer.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 14 Oct 2009, 21:35

Nostradamus wrote:
So what we have here is another claim of no value from a no-planer.

Gee, shocking that a 9/11 conspiracy claim is of no value. ;-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby Nostradamus » 15 Oct 2009, 10:19

Shocking isn't it ProfWag.

For those that don't believe a commercial plane hit the WTC, like Col. Nelson, take a look at these photos:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 00:15

Nostradamus wrote:Shocking isn't it ProfWag.

For those that don't believe a commercial plane hit the WTC, like Col. Nelson, take a look at these photos:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911

Awe, C'mon NostraDude, those aircraft parts were all planted there or done in a studio a thousand miles away...
Actually, I probably shouldn't say that. Someone out there may take that thought and run with it like I didn't make that completely up.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Oct 2009, 00:56

Gee, ProfWag... I just saw you quoted on another 911 forum on the Internet. You have stirred up quite a buzz with your new revelation and credentials. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 01:40

NinjaPuppy wrote:Gee, ProfWag... I just saw you quoted on another 911 forum on the Internet. You have stirred up quite a buzz with your new revelation and credentials. :lol:

I have? Can I ask which one?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Oct 2009, 01:49

It was a joke ProfWag. But it can be arranged :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 01:56

NinjaPuppy wrote:It was a joke ProfWag. But it can be arranged :lol:

Oh. Sorry. You had my hopes up there for a minute.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Oct 2009, 02:14

Oh wait! I found one-

Image

Imagine that.... :D
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 02:18

NinjaPuppy wrote:Oh wait! I found one-

Image

Imagine that.... :D

OMG I just pee'd my pants from laughing! Thanks for making my day!!!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Oct 2009, 02:57

You see... I do have a wicked sense of humor and a few geek talents. Glad you enjoyed it.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 03:00

NinjaPuppy wrote:You see... I do have a wicked sense of humor and a few geek talents. Glad you enjoyed it.

I kind of had that feeling about you. Thanks again! Unfortunately, I'm off to the big city to get a flu shot and a pizza. Talk to ya'll tomorrow!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 15:14

NinjaPuppy wrote:Oh wait! I found one-

Image

Imagine that.... :D


LOL... I guess you are quite the famous debunker ProfWag. Maybe you can be the next James Randi. j/k

BTW, if that Colonel really is a no-planer, so what? Most people have a mixture of false beliefs and true beliefs. Some people are totally sane and rational in one area of life, but nutty in others. That doesn't disqualify every good point they make.

I'm sure you have flaws too ProfWag. But does that mean that nothing you say is credible?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 21:41

Scepcop wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Oh wait! I found one-

Image

Imagine that.... :D


LOL... I guess you are quite the famous debunker ProfWag. Maybe you can be the next James Randi. j/k

BTW, if that Colonel really is a no-planer, so what? Most people have a mixture of false beliefs and true beliefs. Some people are totally sane and rational in one area of life, but nutty in others. That doesn't disqualify every good point they make.

I'm sure you have flaws too ProfWag. But does that mean that nothing you say is credible?

Oh yes, I am quite flawed. No argument from me there. However, unless I am trying to make a joke of something, everything I say I BELIEVE is credible. My statements may not always end up that way, but when I say something, I do believe it to be true and try to back my statements up with solid references if needed.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests