Evan Burton

Tsk, tsk. Mr Lear once again exaggerates and misinforms.

Firstly - did the aircraft parts have ID marks?

Yep. So every part in all the aircraft in all the aircraft had serial numbers, right?

No. Most parts are required to have a part number, not a serial number. All of the same parts have the same part number. Certain critical parts are required to have a serial number, not all parts.

§ 45.11 General.

(a) Aircraft and aircraft engines. Aircraft covered under §21.182 of this chapter must be identified, and each person who manufacturers an aircraft engine under a type or production certificate shall identify that engine, by means of a fireproof plate that has the information specified in §45.13 of this part marked on it by etching, stamping, engraving, or other approved method of fireproof marking. The identification plate for aircraft must be secured in such a manner that it will not likely be defaced or removed during normal service, or lost or destroyed in an accident. Except as provided in paragraphs ©, (d), and (e) of this section, the aircraft identification plate must be secured to the aircraft fuselage exterior so that it is legible to a person on the ground, and must be either adjacent to and aft of the rear-most entrance door or on the fuselage surface near the tail surfaces. For aircraft engines, the identification plate must be affixed to the engine at an accessible location in such a manner that it will not likely be defaced or removed during normal service, or lost or destroyed in an accident.

.

.

.

§ 45.14 Identification of critical components.

Each person who produces a part for which a replacement time, inspection interval, or related procedure is specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness shall permanently and legibly mark that component with a part number (or equivalent) and a serial number (or equivalent).

§ 45.15 Replacement and modification parts.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( of this section, each person who produces a replacement or modification part under a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under §21.303 of this chapter shall permanently and legibly mark the part with—

(1) The letters “FAA-PMA”;

(2) The name, trademark, or symbol of the holder of the Parts Manufacturer Approval;

(3) The part number; and

(4) The name and model designation of each type certificated product on which the part is eligible for installation.

( If the Administrator finds that a part is too small or that it is otherwise impractical to mark a part with any of the information required by paragraph (a) of this section, a tag attached to the part or its container must include the information that could not be marked on the part. If the marking required by paragraph (a)(4) of this section is so extensive that to mark it on a tag is impractical, the tag attached to the part or the container may refer to a specific readily available manual or catalog for part eligibility information.

From FAA FAR Part 45 - IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKINGS.

So only some parts have a serial... but an engine would have a serial number on it.

Let me now pose a question: has Mr Lear done a FOIA request regarding the engine serial numbers?

I think that any psychology student seeking thesis material should look at either the untruth movement, or a number of Moon hoax believers. Rich ground, that.

You nailed it, Andy:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=2213

The FACT that DRG is wrong on a few things (phones not fitted, etc) never stops him spreading a good conspiracy, eh? Always another book he can sell (and there is always a sucker to buy it).

Truthers - asking questions but ignoring the answers.

http://www.911myths.com/html/barbara_olson.html

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Barbara_Olson_calls

For instance - this is my original text.

And then I added this line. You can see I have edited it because it says so... and who edited it.

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-0...attack-job.html

911 reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job

09 September, 2009, 17:50

9/11 was the day steel-framed buildings fell like sandcastles, the law of physics worked in reverse and the United States Air Force went missing in action. So what is the real story?

By Robert Bridge, RT

Why was my posting modified by moderators without saying so?

Jack

It hasn't been modified Jack. If it had been, it would say "Last modified by....". It's exactly as you posted it.

My WAG Bill, is that some people cannot accept that some of those responsible were simply incompetent in their duties WITHOUT having kind of nefarious master plan behind it. It was the day when all the latent failures in various 'defence' mechanisms synchronised, when all the holes in the swiss cheese lined up (see the Reason model).

There are also very responsible and sober researchers in the 911 Truth Movement

Like those who believe in holographic aircraft and laser beams?

See what passes for research on the train wreck that is killclown's forum:

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=7174

Those clowns say it will "...go down in history as a cornerstone of our era". Yeah - of the rampant idiocy that is the truther movement.

Gary / Matt,

I also use Firefox (Ver 3.5.3) with Adblock 1.1.1 and NoScript 1.9.8.86; as I said: occasionally having to re-login but generally okay.

Jack,

Can you confirm that you have ticked the "Remember Me" check-box on the login window? That, and I think you have to accept cookies from this site.

Also be aware that every now and again I find I have to login again. Only once every few weeks, but it does happen.

Good point. We see evidence / examples / exposure of conspiracies most every day in the paper. How should one describe the... 'larger' conspiracy claims?

I was a little surprised to hear of results of a poll regarding beliefs. I expected that belief in conspiracy theories would predispose someone towards belief in the paranormal or supernatural. Turns out it isn't so - at least in Queensland, where the poll was taken.

I would be interested, though, in the correlation of belief in one conspiracy theory to the belief in another / other conspiracy beliefs. I'm unsure if a rigorous poll has been undertaken.

Terry - you are using banned words, and a particular phrase also crossed the line. They have been deleted. Warning One.

How about we say that if Unca Fetz were advocating the government report, it'd be disinformation?

I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation.

The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof.

Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually?

How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood?

When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional.

Thus it is disinformation.

You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct.

Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda.

That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent?

I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation.

Bill, I was going to disagree but I looked up the word disinformation:

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

You're right. Perhaps I should use prevarication? The question is: does he sprout this (and other) nonsense through woeful ignorance or deliberate intent?

For someone who claims to have taught logical and critical thinking, Unca Fetz displays neither.

Another disinfo piece from Unca Fetz.

If he's a 9-11 Truther, I have no respect for him... but he shouldn't have resigned. He's entitled to his opinions, regardless of how wacky and silly they are.

Ahem.

Photoshop.

(Grabs coat and runs off down to the pub).

KILL THE HERETIC!

It's a crack up.

Two Indian papers actually reported it, thinking it was real!!!!!

LOL! Nah. They'll claim they were sent down - sans astronauts - much later, probably the 90s or something.

50 km final altitude.