• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pentagon debris with numbers

Caustic Logic

Illuminator
C
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,494
Here is a photo that's been little seen yet:
aa_debris_serial.jpg

The aircraft ID number is N644AA.
I haven't got anyone to tell me if this was from the plane, what part is it from, and what does it tell? People mention no tail numbers and reports matching such to the debris, leaving questions over whether it was THE plane, even if a 757 of some type. I've always been a fence-sitter on this point but leaning towards it being Fl77. Any plane experts here to help ID this scrap?
Source: a bunch of scanns from the book "Pentagon 9/11"
http://911files.info/77/pentagon_911_book/
 
Interesting...

I await the comments of some of our aviation/aircraft experts.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Interesting...

I await the comments of some of our aviation/aircraft experts.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Every part (other than fasteners and such) on every airplane has a part number stamped, printed, engraved, or otherwise permanently affixed to the part. That is what that likely is.
Many parts also have a serial number, which is traceable through build and/or maintennence records to a particular aircraft, with a particular tail number.
 
rwguinn said:
Every part (other than fasteners and such) on every airplane has a part number stamped, printed, engraved, or otherwise permanently affixed to the part. That is what that likely is.
Many parts also have a serial number, which is traceable through build and/or maintennence records to a particular aircraft, with a particular tail number.
Click to expand...
Well agree with that but I know for a fact and another thread that some might say you are wrong.
 
rwguinn said:
Every part (other than fasteners and such) on every airplane has a part number stamped, printed, engraved, or otherwise permanently affixed to the part. That is what that likely is.
Many parts also have a serial number, which is traceable through build and/or maintennence records to a particular aircraft, with a particular tail number.
Click to expand...

Thanks! It looks prett mundane, and so if this is right, it could be anything, and there should be multiple parts like this around, if mostly inside and burnt-melted to nothing.
The serial number is partly visible too, I think, but I don't know how to go about checking how close that matches N644AA.
I'll check back later. :)
 
as well, I am not sure that the N644AA is the same as the SERIAL NUMBER, is it? I think it is simply the tail number (anyone with knowledge about this please clarify).

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
as well, I am not sure that the N644AA is the same as the SERIAL NUMBER, is it? I think it is simply the tail number (anyone with knowledge about this please clarify).

TAM:)
Click to expand...

It's the general 'aircraft number' as cited in official reports like Flight Paths Study, FDR 'Specialists' Factual Report,' etc. I'm sure it's got 50 other numbers attached to it for different reasons too, but I think this is the closes that little machine had to a personal name like "Chuck."
 
T.A.M. said:
Interesting...

I await the comments of some of our aviation/aircraft experts.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Woo hoo! Something I might actually be able to help out with. I was a manufacturing engineer at McDonnell Douglas for 10 years, so I can at least tell rivet from a lockbolt.

That part is most likely a part of the interior furnishings like a serving cart, galley, or bag rack. That looks like a property inventory tag, not a manufacturer part number. Boeing does not code the structural parts with the airlines logo. The color is not the typical green zinc chromate primer color either. It is an appearance item.
 
T.A.M. said:
as well, I am not sure that the N644AA is the same as the SERIAL NUMBER, is it? I think it is simply the tail number (anyone with knowledge about this please clarify).

TAM:)
Click to expand...
I think they're different. There are also part numbers and serial numbers to parts that are suppose to be logged by maintence so that if there is a crash they can go back a see if it was changed and when. At least that's how I understand it to work.
 
T.A.M. said:
as well, I am not sure that the N644AA is the same as the SERIAL NUMBER, is it? I think it is simply the tail number (anyone with knowledge about this please clarify).

TAM:)
Click to expand...

The tail nmber is the aircraft registration number, and is essentially the way the aircraft itself is identified.
N644AA was built with Work Orders, or the Boeing Equivalent, and inspected as it went alng. The work traveler that astays with the airplane usually has a checklist of things done to it. usually, the S/N of a part is either writen in a blank space at the instruction "Install XXXXX per procedure YYYY", or a peel-off sticker from the part wrapping is applied to the space-- and the same for maint. or replacement/upgrades. At any rate, part XXXXX S/N abc1234 is traceable to a particular aircraft, Tail No. N644AA--or to some other aircraft, if you can get the build/maint. records
 
That's a HUGE piece of debris. Must be impossible to take it from somewhere else
and place it on the Pentagon lawn, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
[/troofmode]


But more serious... good picture, just like the others that show debris. What do you mean, no evidence of AA77?
 
Caustic Logic said:
Here is a photo that's been little seen yet:

The aircraft ID number is N644AA.
I haven't got anyone to tell me if this was from the plane, what part is it from, and what does it tell? People mention no tail numbers and reports matching such to the debris, leaving questions over whether it was THE plane, even if a 757 of some type. I've always been a fence-sitter on this point but leaning towards it being Fl77. Any plane experts here to help ID this scrap?
Source: a bunch of scanns from the book "Pentagon 9/11"
http://911files.info/77/pentagon_911_book/
Click to expand...
A fence sitter. I would call ignoring thousands of pieces of evidence proving flight 77 hit the Pentagon something very different than a fence sitter. I can't understand why people would be on the fence due to hearsay junk from the 9/11 truth movement. The part is from 77, the proof is already out there for over 6 years, not one single person in the 9/11 truth movement will every give even the TV Columbo any competition with this level of incompetence in investigation.

I guess after being trained by the Air Force in accident investigation and sitting as board president and investigating officer on real life accidents; the Pentagon impact area and crash scene is what it should look like. But I am cheating, I have seen many accidents, slow and fast.

You seen the fact is after 6 years all the people looking to break the big STORY to crack any thing strange about 9/11 is becoming six sigma less likely as each day goes by. If there was some CT based on history, like WATERGATE, this would be over with all the crooks in jail. You should have paid attention to how real evidence is gathered and you could catch the bad guys.

I want to know what the facts and evidence keep you on the fence. I have found zero facts and evidence to support anything from 9/11 truth, and this is the worse one, that 77 was not at the Pentagon.

Which of the thousands of pieces of evidence do you dispute for flight 77. I only need one and the truth movement has failed to disprove any facts and evidence proving flight 77 was not there.

The facts are, there is not one single piece of evidence to show that part is not from flight 77. You need to ask not JREF, to prove the part is from 77, you need to ask 9/11 truth to prove the part is not from 77. Simple, real simple, the non fact 9/11 truth movement needs to do the work. But I will tell you again, I have seen many real accidents, hands on, and all the on purpose crashes on 9/11 were exactly what a scene of an aircraft impact looks like under those conditions.

BTW, the FDR was found in the Pentagon, it was flight 77. The FDR had 25 hours of flight activity done by flight 77. All the flights for a few days prove the FDR was from 77. Do you understand; and this was confirmed by the raw data by a 9/11 truth movement group. Sad, the truth movement proves themselves wrong. What an ironic group.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
A fence sitter. I would call ignoring thousands of pieces of evidence proving flight 77 hit the Pentagon something very different than a fence sitter. I can't understand why people would be on the fence due to hearsay junk from the 9/11 truth movement. The part is from 77, the proof is already out there for over 6 years, not one single person in the 9/11 truth movement will every give even the TV Columbo any competition with this level of incompetence in investigation.
Click to expand...

You got me tagged wrong, Beachnut. I meant only that I'd seen little proof that this was THE aircraft, from a debris perspective (in fact I'd seen none). Reports all have the right number, the FDR stuff is all tagged right, and either way I've always been pretty sure it was a 757 (at least once I started studying) but had remained open to it being some other plane, in some swap deal. As I say tho I leaned towards it being N644AA. Even if remote controlled, why use a different plane, right? (I don't want to argue the RC point right now :))

Otherwise, some good points as usual.
 
Reality Believer said:
Woo hoo! Something I might actually be able to help out with. I was a manufacturing engineer at McDonnell Douglas for 10 years, so I can at least tell rivet from a lockbolt.

That part is most likely a part of the interior furnishings like a serving cart, galley, or bag rack. That looks like a property inventory tag, not a manufacturer part number. Boeing does not code the structural parts with the airlines logo. The color is not the typical green zinc chromate primer color either. It is an appearance item.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. True there's no green primer. It does seem to say __44AA or something... So as most of the fuselage entered the buiding, part of something from inside of it flew out onto the lawn, or so it would seem. It seems kind of odd, but not really, since parts of the forward fuselage itself were also found outside, so it was clearly breeched outside the wall, right?

ETA: This piece does have an odd crimped dent, indicating... what? High velocity inpact with a narrow, solid object?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
I want to know what the facts and evidence keep you on the fence. I have found zero facts and evidence to support anything from 9/11 truth, and this is the worse one, that 77 was not at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...


Agreed this no-757 and I guess no 77 idiocy is quite absurd. It's not just simple stupidity either - only a few people are really this dumb, but also too dumb to run websites and to know how to spin their arguments so well. This is... well, I'm not gonna say the word. My message to any rational 'truthers' (depressingly few) is
1) There is no smoking gun evidence
2) Especially at the Pentagon. The official story describes what happened there almost perfect. A few glitches here and tere, some secrecy, whatever...

What evidence on 9/11 in general? historical, circumstantial. If you'd like to see where my questions point, check here:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/
and here:
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/
I've gotten too ambitious at one point, and so there's sure to be some errors in there, but just san the whole thing and tell me is it all wrong? Are there not disturbing patterns?
 
Caustic Logic said:
That's an interesting point. True there's no green primer. It does seem to say __44AA or something... So as most of the fuselage entered the buiding, part of something from inside of it flew out onto the lawn, or so it would seem. It seems kind of odd, but not really, since parts of the forward fuselage itself were also found outside, so it was clearly breeched outside the wall, right?

ETA: This piece does have an odd crimped dent, indicating... what? High velocity inpact with a narrow, solid object?
Click to expand...

A 500mph + impact is going to throw things in all directions. It is pure speculation as to the story behind this little part. It is probably safe to say that items with high inertia are going to continue on their path of travel and small items with small inertia would be more subject to scattering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom