• 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.

serial numbers?

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Gravy,

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

The Lockerbie Trial verdict, transcripts of closing arguments, daily trial summaries, and analysis, are available at:

Unfortunately for my argument, neither of these links work at this time.

According to this article, 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" 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.
 
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'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 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 (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 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.

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.
 
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?
 
Should i start to sing...

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

lol

TAM
 
Should i start to sing...

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

lol

TAM
Not yet. I can still remove some levels of complexity if need be. Let's see how Nevermore does with this level.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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" 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.
 
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?
 
Hey Nevermore, why don't you file an FOIA and see if they have compiled a parts list and are willing to release it?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom