• 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.
 
I am still waiting for someone to show me proof that there was no debris found that provided S/N data for AA77. Just because the LIMITED photos available ON LINE, do not seem to show any, does not mean, in any way, that such evidence does not/did not exist.

I get really tired of some of the truthers, who feel that unless they are walked into a hangar and allowed complete access to all the evidence, than it either doesn't exist, or is fake. That is not how the REAL WORLD exists.

Note...this is not directed at anyone in particular.

TAM:)
 
synchronized failure of defense; what an insult to me and the USAF, thanks

Caustic Logic said:
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?
Click to expand...
Only patterns you have made up.
Your web site borders on the same kind of stuff that makes up the Chemtrail web sites; just total BS. You are a 9/11 truther, but you weave a tall tale, and you have no rational stuff to back up your stuff. You have BS about NORAD, and plane intercepts, you are misleading others, you are not on the fence you are a major source for truther misinformation on 9/11. Sorry, but you should not post your web pages, they are proof you are a truther, not a fence sitter, you are 9/11 truth.

But you are right about events, flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and if you think there is some way we messed up not stopping the terrorist, you can have to join the rest of us for not doing something. If you think you are smart enough to uncover some conspiracy that we let it happen, then you would be smart enough to see it coming, and you are at fault too, as I would be.

I have been warn about threats my whole life in the USAF, but I never was able to take action and find out who was behind the threat; but I was lucky, the terrorist and assassins never got me; some guys were not so lucky, they are dead on the tarmac, killed by terrorist.

To tell you the truth, I have know for over 40 years it was possible some idiots would hijack a plane I was on and I could get killed. Where have you been? It took me over 11 years of living free to figure out some people did not respect my right to live. Where have you been? Why did you not stop the terrorists? Your web sites are full of BS, like a bad show on the History Channel where the History Channel airs BS, total BS and you may be mislead to think there is something. You are misleading others; but most know the WWW is a buyer beware place.

The world is full of information, you are cherry picking it, and making a mistake posting BS on 9/11 and related topics. Northwood III, Pentagon emergency exercise; you are not a fence sitter, you are a 9/11 truth movement source of false information.

Your synchronized failure of defense is an insult to me (http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/) , I was on active duty on 9/11 and the stand down BS is an insult. Please use some knowledge and judgment and fix the 9/11 truth slant that make your web site look like biased political tripe.

I was lucky to learn enough not to fall for the 9/11 truth movement junk, but then it is such a small fringe group of nuts, no body notices until they run out of news and need a few nut case ideas to air on the news. Like the highly knowledgeable Charlie Sheen, 9/11 truth is only good at baseball or something else other than finding facts and evidence on 9/11; like your web site.
 
T.A.M. said:
I am still waiting for someone to show me proof that there was no debris found that provided S/N data for AA77. Just because the LIMITED photos available ON LINE, do not seem to show any, does not mean, in any way, that such evidence does not/did not exist.

I get really tired of some of the truthers, who feel that unless they are walked into a hangar and allowed complete access to all the evidence, than it either doesn't exist, or is fake. That is not how the REAL WORLD exists.

Note...this is not directed at anyone in particular.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
I'd like to know where that came from also. Everytime I push a "truther" on it it get's dodged or I get the "show me one".
 
Caustic Logic said:
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?
Click to expand...

You should poke around here a bit, use the search functions. You'll find the answers you're looking for.

There are disturbing patterns, but the overriding theme is a command structure that was taken by surprise by an attacker who used a method that was not considered likely to be used before 9/11.

And yes, there were warnings, but through infighting, turf protecting, bureaucracy, legal restrictions, and plain old incompetence, the warnings didn't get where they needed to. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say that this or that should have been done, but the people actually performing those jobs in the days or weeks leading up to 9/11 didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

That being said, I think it's fair to say that we won't be surprised that way again.
 
The story of the Military readiness for 911 was echoed once before; The American entry into WW-2. I refer of course to Operation Paukenschlag; Operation Drumbeat in English. The Germans sent a handful of U-boats across the Atlantic to the Eastern Seaboard, and found the doors held wide open to them!

Navigation beacons were all lit.

None of the shore towns were in blackout.

Ships were not sailing in convoy.

Ships were not (usually) zig-zagging.

Ships were displaying their lights.

The US Navy and Army Air Corps were more like the Keystone Kops than any sort of effective fighting force.

The Germans mopped the floor with us for weeks!
 
Caustic Logic said:
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?
Click to expand...


Well put bluntly, regardng the first link, yes it's all wrong.

You didn't even get the location of STRATCOM right. In 2001 it was based at Cheyenne Mountain with NORAD. It only moved to Offult with the formation of the ten unified combative commands which merged the old USSTRATCOM and Space Command together.

The Guardian Exercises (which incidentally were only CPXs) had no bearing on 9/11 other than to enhance the military's response to the attacks.

-Gumboot
 
I have been trying to figure out what I am looking at here. Could it be from an armrest on a passenger seat? Some kind of sound system component? That looks like a circuit board toward the bottom.
 
It looks like a light ballast. On Boeings, they typically have brass colored casing and are about 6x2x3 inches, have schematics on the side, and of course have the ID sticker on the top. The only other parts I can think of that are similar in size is cargo smoke detectors, other that I'm drawing a blank. :con2:

We can ask if AMTMAN could look up P/N MOD55(S?)37 and S/N 144B(8?) and see what he can find.

ETA: Seat electronic boxes are about the same size and appearance too, but they usually have lots of cooling holes in the case.
ETA2:.....or maybe they don't!
 
Last edited:
"Do you have absolute proof that this piece was not planted? Without definative evidence, it is as good as planted."

So says nutcase 9-11 Deniar.
 
Caustic Logic said:
ETA: This piece does have an odd crimped dent, indicating... what? High velocity inpact with a narrow, solid object?
Click to expand...

Just a minor point here, I'm sure, but I'm curious. What's odd about the dent? What should the dent look like? What makes you look at it and say "gee, that's odd"?

Seriously. I'd love to know.
 
FramerDave said:
Just a minor point here, I'm sure, but I'm curious. What's odd about the dent? What should the dent look like? What makes you look at it and say "gee, that's odd"?

Seriously. I'd love to know.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Odd? Odd dent? What was the dent supposed to look like and why? You must know what that object is AND what it hit and at what angle and speed, correct? Let's hear it. Otherwise it hit something, in the crash, and got a dent.
 
AA MOD5537
S/N 144? (where ? appears to be another symbiol damaged or crossed out?)

Is that what anyone else sees?

The O in MOD is questionable.
 
The dent does not look to be like an impact. More like compression from both sides. Squished, not banged.
 
BenBurch said:
The Germans sent a handful of U-boats across the Atlantic to the Eastern Seaboard, and found the doors held wide open to them!

Navigation beacons were all lit.

None of the shore towns were in blackout.

Ships were not sailing in convoy.

Ships were not (usually) zig-zagging.

Ships were displaying their lights.

The US Navy and Army Air Corps were more like the Keystone Kops than any sort of effective fighting force.

The Germans mopped the floor with us for weeks!
Click to expand...
Well, the reason for that is obvious: it was a conspiracy!
 
Hey, Beachnut, I'm sorry man. I didn't mean to offend you and your colleagues. I know it can be an emotional issue to bring back up, for you and even more for others. Consider me driven off then and I'll never bring up my beliefs or research on these things to you again unless you ask me to. peace.
 
FramerDave said:
Just a minor point here, I'm sure, but I'm curious. What's odd about the dent? What should the dent look like? What makes you look at it and say "gee, that's odd"?

Seriously. I'd love to know.
Click to expand...

I'm not too good at these things, but it looks sorta piched. It seems in my brain like snything that would pich it like vice would also tend to stop it from moving, and I was thinking it had sort of flown through the air and landed on grass, so it seemed a bit odd. But there's certainly a logical reason, just wonderin'

Maybe it was crimped with the same jaws of life that did the light poles, or maybe simple pliers. It was a 'massive operation of deception' after all. Is that what you were hoping to get the truther to say? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom