Which black boxes were discovered and were in good condition?

[FannySS]

The whole thing with the black boxes is a little confusing for me. Does anybody have links / information which of the black boxes were discovered in functioning condition? I am specially looking for early reports about black box discovering.

Thank you, Fanny

[DulceDecorum]

1. Ummm

have you encountered the search engine known as GOOGLE?
A LOT of your questions
can be answered in a few seconds
if you simply punch in key words
into the blank space near the top of the GOOGLE page
and then hit enter.

If you need more help, Google has its own researchers.

Hope this helps you.
DU is more a DISCUSSION board,
as opposed to a homework service.

[MercutioATC]

2. Nice response...no need to help a newbie here...

Yes, Google works, but can't we be a little more helpful?

Answer:

UAL93's boxes were allegedly found (no data released).

AAL77's boxes were found scorched (unknown if they were readable).

The last I saw, three of the four boxes were found at the WTC. (again, condition unknown).

[FannySS]

3. UAL93 and AA77 boxes were in good condition!

"The four recorders from the other two hijacked planes - American Airlines Flight 77, which was flown into the Pentagon, and United Flight 93, which crashed near Somerset, Pa. - were recovered within days.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. He declined to say what was gleaned from recorders on Flight 93, whose passengers evidently fought the hijackers before the Boeing 757 went down in a field, killing all aboard. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

And concerning the black box of UA 93: isn´t the "voice recorder" a black box? Didn´t they allow the families to listen to it?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/04/18/rec.flight.93/

Fanny

[RH]

4. Not exactly in good condition.

It was at first thought that the Flight 77 information was not recoverable. The apparatus went back to the maker.

Then when the news came out that information was recovered the "No Boeing" propaganda campaign arose with a vengeance.

Coincidence?

Perverse, and unfortuantely distracting to say the least!

Is there something that they'd rather distract attention from?

"nothing useful"? Nothing useful to who?

Was anything recorded from the cockpit or was it not?

[John Doe II]

6. "Nothing useful"

That's what Robert Mueller III said was on the recorders of AA 77. So nothing is released. This is pretty unfortunate because all discussion about this flight would immediately stop then: It would show the flight path and expert could judge the capacity of the pilot.
Concerning the CVR of UA93 I allow myself to point at the thread "Flight 93:Too many contradictions". I think it's very unlikely that the CVR the family members listend to and the one the Independent Commission analysed and quoted are exactly the same.

[tngledwebb]

10. You are free to believe your sources,

CBS news, CNN, whichever. But it pays (or maybe it doesn't?) to be less credulous -remember how Dan Rather got the wrong information on Shrub's glorious military career? Remember how MSM networks mistakenly predicted Gore and Kerry victories, and when the NYT apologized -albeit too little and too late- for getting the WMD story wrong?

Most of all, recall the lying evil s***t-head, f***k-faced repugli-cavemen (and one smart and sexy cave-woman with an eponymous oil-tanker) who've been fast-tracking the planet into a bloody premature Armageddon probably just because they know they won't live long enough to see global warming do the trick- and they really must love the sight of blood, barring on MSM, CNN, Fox, or in any proximity to their aged but well-fed bodies.

And don't you recall how the same reptilian troll-f***ing cavechimps allowed dozens of suspicious looking ME yoof past our borders to fly planes straight into some of our tallest and most oddly shaped buildings, killing thousands of civilians, then steadfastly thwarted any serious investigation of the world's worst mass murder, while simultaneously declaring war on the wrong countries, resulting in the daily and endless slaughter of young American soldiers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghani and Iraqi men women and children, via the most incompetent and barbaric war since Vietnam?
(Or is the incompetence intentional?)

For those who don't or can't remember all of this, don't fret, one day, and soon, you will...

[RH]

17. so your criteria would be ....?

In view of a continuing aversion to the normal principles of jusisprudence re. hearsay, the provenace of evidence, and any person's right to be entitled to be believed, what exactly is your preferred method of assessement?

[John Doe II]

5. The boxes of AA11 and UA175

They were considered lost in the WTC crash.
ONly recently due to a statement of a fire fighter was the suspicion raised that the FBI recovered a few of them (which of course haven't been released).

[FannySS]

7. voice recorder

Hi ;-),

I was told that the US-association of pilots prevented the release of the recorders. They even threatened to sue for not releasing (may be bad english: I mean they told they will go to Court to prevent the release, if officials intend to release the recorders).

I wonder why? What interest does the pilots association have to prevent the release?

What interest could ANYBODY have not to release the recorders?

I cannot imagine. Can anybody else?

Fanny

[John Doe II]

8. There is always A reason not to release!

At first the FBI didn't want the fmily members to listen to it. Then it wouldn't be released because of the Moussouai case (why??), then when family members listened on April 18, 2002 the US-association of pilot wasn't happy because they feared lawsuits.
Reason?
What's the reason for not releasing data from AA 77?
What's the reason for not releasing flight manifests?
What's the reason for not releasing the complete communication between tower and the hijacked planes?
What's the reason for not releasing satellite images of 911?
What's the reason for not matching the DNA of the hijackers?
Why are the video stills of the lobby of the Comfort Inn hotel in Portland from 910 not released?
To be continued.

I don't know for sure.
But one can only wonder.

[FannySS]

9. Could they have a *good* reason for not release the black boxes?

Let´s assume for a second the perpetrators were indeed 19 arabs.

How specically could the release of the boxes affect the Moussaoui case?

I also would like to know about the pilots associations obstruction corncerning the release of the boxes. Is there any clear source about that aspect?

Fanny

[FannySS]

13. MercutioATC, what do you think about it?

Mercutio, once again I would like to ask you for your opinion concerning my post #9.

In case you can say anything about this: thank you in advance!

Fanny

[MercutioATC]

14. Unfortunately, that's outside my area of expertise.

Depending on what's contained in the data and voice recorders, I'd imagine it COULD have an effect on the Moussaoui case, but without knowing what's on them, it's impossible to know.

I hadn't seen anything about the pilots' association in regard to obstruction. I have no idea why they wouldn't want the data released.

[Abe Linkman]

11. Releasing all that would put a whole bunch of folks out of work

Until we get "9/11: The Sequel", there would be an awful lot of people out of work...unless they could be reassigned to help suppress the truth about something else. Napalm in Fallujah? GW's wire? "Funny Things That Happened On The Way To The Election Results"?

[RH]

12. If anybody were to suggest

that the FBI should own an absolute right to seize whatever property to do what it likes with it at any time, what the reaction be on DU?

What about the Fourth Amendment?

A Flight Recorder is presumably private property, hence an owner's natural right to assert a legimate interest.

For further details I suggest to google for "seizure of evidence".

[MercutioATC]

15. It's private property, but it's evidence.

I'm pretty sure they can seize and hold it for however long they'd like.

[DulceDecorum]

16. Now name the owners

RH says:
A Flight Recorder is presumably private property, hence an owner's natural right to assert a legitimate interest.

United Airlines is currently up in bankruptcy court suing to find the identity of the owner of the two planes of September 11, 2001.

The two American Airlines planes were held in trust by Delaware Corporations.

NOBODY knows the identity of owners of ANY of the 911 planes.
And EFF them anyway.

What about all those people who you keep insisting died?
3,000 corpses v four sets of black boxes seized by the Boston FBI.
Naturally,
RH&Co decide that it is the 3,000 corpses that should remained EFFED.
And Osama should therefore go free.

[RH]

19. The freeholds

of different parts of aircraft are routinely owned by different interests, nothing unusually sinister about it. The arrangement works out cheaper in terms of various liabilities, tax, insurance, that sort of thing.

I would imagine that the flight recorders per se are owned by the actual airline or the original maufacturer. Whichever the case rights are presumably implied or subject to contract.

[DulceDecorum]

20. Does MercutioATC dare to weigh in on that?

I am offering a two-the price-of-one debunking.

Your imagination has taken you very far, RH.
What else do you imagine -- oh never mind, we know the answer to that already.

[MercutioATC]

23. MercutioATC is an air traffic controller, not an airline exec.

I know that some airlines (Northwest comes immediately to mind) actually own quite a few of their aircraft while many are leased from holding companies. I have no idea who owns what as far as different parts of the plane are concerned.

[RH]

24. I just happen to have heard

some gossip about this because Lord Razzall, the long standing treasurer of the UK Liberal Democrat Party, is known to have made his fortune as a solictor by cooking up multiple ownership-leaseholding deals for aircraft. While not too sure of all the details, the fiddle seems to be that if an aircraft is owned by one person, the credentials of that person would then be clear, while if different parts of an aircraft are owned by different interests there is nothing to stop them hiding offshore.

The scam is therefore unlikely to be significantly relevant to 9/11/2001.

[DulceDecorum]

28. RE: An owner's natural right

First and foremost,
the owner of the plane has an obligation to those who travel upon it, ESPECIALLY when they pay for that privilege.

One of the greatest safety inventions for the commercial airline industry has been the crash protected flight recorder, more commonly called the “Black Box.” Today, flight recorders for accident investigation are mandatory pieces of equipment in civil aircraft. Flight recorders have changed in design and airline usefulness over the past 40 years.
http://www.l-3ar.com/html/history.html

FLIGHT RECORDERS ARE MANDATORY PIECES OF EQUIPMENT IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT.

Sec. 135.152 - Flight recorders.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (k) of this section, no person may operate under this part a multi-engine, turbine-engine powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats, that was either brought onto the U.S. register after, or was registered outside the United States and added to the operator's U.S. operations specifications after, October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The parameters specified in either Appendix B or C of this part, as applicable must be recorded within the range, accuracy, resolution, and recording intervals as specified. The recorder shall retain no less than 25 hours of aircraft operation.
<snip>
(3) For aircraft manufactured after October 11, 1991, all of the parameters listed in appendix D or E of this part, as applicable, must be recorded.
(c) Whenever a flight recorder required by this section is installed, it must be operated continuously from the instant the airplane begins the takeoff roll or the rotorcraft begins the lift-off until the airplane has completed the landing roll or the rotorcraft has landed at its destination.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-152-FAR.shtml

RH, you know that this section is one of the
Federal Aviation Regulations
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/135-index.shtml
and you also know that these Federal Aviation Regulations are NOT something that was made up by risingup.com.
The FAA Regulations are readily available at the FAA website.

Now, if you read the regulations
(yes MercutioATC,
we all know just how much you despise FAA regulations)
you will see that they say bluntly
that the flight recorder is to be removed and studied
by the NSTB in the event of a crash.

Owner be damned.
The flight recorders are to be removed and examined.
This very reasonable and is also in keeping with the Fourth Amendment.

RH,
you appear to "imagine"
that examining the flight recorder of a plane that has crashed
constitutes
"unreasonable searches and seizures."

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, a
nd particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.

As far as the rest of us are concerned,
a plane crash provides "probable cause"
and no warrant is needed to determine that
the flight recorder should be examined.

Incidentally, since you dragged in the Constitution,
what of the Sixth Amendment and the detainees?

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

And what say you about Abu Ghraib in the light of the Eighth Amendment?

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[RH]

29. Imagine what you will

I said nothing at all to the effect that any examination is unreasonable.

The cause is no more than that an owner has a right to express an interest.

What is then reasonable is a matter for the law to decide, not for me.

[AZCat]

32. You are quoting the wrong section of the FARs

Part 135 is for Commuter and On-Demand Operations. The section you want is Part 121 - Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations. Specifically, flight recorders are covered under 121.343 and 121.344

Here is the relevant text:
Title 14 CFR Part 121.343
Flight recorders.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section, no person may operate a large airplane that is certificated for operations above 25,000 feet altitude or is turbine-engine powered unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that record data from which the following may be determined within the ranges, accuracies, and recording intervals specified in appendix B of this part:

(1) Time;

(2) Altitude;

(3) Airspeed;

(4) Vertical acceleration;

(5) Heading; and

(6) Time of each radio transmission either to or from air traffic control.
<snip> More of the section follows, but I didn't want to paste all of it. It is mostly exceptions to the rule, but you can read all the text at the above link.

Title 14 CFR Part 121.344
Digital flight data recorders for transport category airplanes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, no person may operate under this part a turbine-engine-powered transport category airplane unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The operational parameters required to be recorded by digital flight data recorders required by this section are as follows: The phrase “when an information source is installed” following a parameter indicates that recording of that parameter is not intended to require a change in installed equipment:


(1) Time;

(2) Pressure altitude;

<snip> A long list (88 items total) follows, and I didn't want to copy it. There are exception sections to both 121.343 and 121.344, but I didn't copy those either. All the text can be read at the above links, but here is a link to section 121 if you want to look for more information there.

[FannySS]

18. The secret of Non-release of UAL93´s voice recorder

I´m still wondering, if there could be a "good" reason for not releasing the voice recorder of flight 93.

If there were arabs on board, then their conversation was recorded. Can we imagine that this conversations uncovers details about the background of the attacks and Al Quaidas involvment? Can we imagine that the FBI refuses to release the voive recorder, because it shows details of fellow-conspirators and accomplices, which are not arrested yet?

In my opinion this could be the only "good" and "unsuspicious" reason for the non-release of that tape.

Fanny

[RH]

21. How

would a tape show details of fellow-conspirators not yet arrested?

Who do you have in mind?

[FannySS]

22. Would it be absurd ...?

Would it be absurd to imagine, that there were autonom acting arabic terrorists in UAL 93 and their recorded conversation uncoveres details like names, places (meeting points), structures of the group, which should not yet become public?

Fanny

[RH]

25. unreasonable rather than absurd,

at least until I see a reason to think so.

Cover ups usually cover weaknesses, not strengths, and idle chit chat about the conspiratorial circumstance is not the sort of thing I'd expect to hear anyway.

More likely that some sort of specific demand or claim was expressed. There would then be a case for not releasing information to betray any particular policy when dealing with a hijacker threat.

What would you do if in command of an aircraft with the intention of getting to New York illegitimately but unhindered? I would simply feign an intention to land at a local airport. Why arouse any further alarm by messing about furtively with transponders?

[DulceDecorum]

26. No wonder Cheney is afeared

If them thar voice recorders ever get public
he will be forced out of his undisclosed location.

[WoodrowFan]

27. I don't think so

Since they took flight school they knew their words would be recorded. What would they say "Hey, before we crash, how goes the plot to blow up (pick a target), you know, the one that (insert name here) is working on in Hamburg!"

I think a more likely reason for the non-release is so the families of the victims on the planes don't have to hear the victims'killer's voices over and over again on the news. You know the networks and CNN and the other cable news stations would play them over and over again if they were released. As it is, the families of the flight that crashed in Penn were given a choice on whether or not to hear it.

[John Doe II]

30. Respect for the families

Hm.
Remember that the FBI also refused for long that family members had the right to listen to the CVR?

“The FBI is
refusing to release the cockpit voice recording from United Airlines flight 93 which crashed September 11 in Pennsylvania after being hijacked by terrorists, declining a request from at least one victim's family. <...>
‘While we empathize with the grieving families, we do not believe
that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will
console them in any way,’
FBI Assistant Director John Collingwood wrote.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/21/inv.flight.93.tape/index.html

And remember that many family members were outraged when after 2 (!) years the FBI changed the story and stated that on the CVR one could hear that the hijackers decided to crash the plane.
Family members immediately pointed out that this was in no way to be heard on the CVR.

“Families of passengers who rebelled against hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 said Friday the FBI theory (...) was based on
‘limited and questionable interpretations’ of the cockpit recording.”
(AP, 8/8/03)

So, I don't really think family members will agree with your position because they simply don't share the analysis of the CVR made by the FBI.

See also my comparison of these two positions in "Flight 93: Too many contradictions).
And in view of the complete secrecy surrounding the investigation of 911, staffer at Pizza Hut in Portland don't even have the right to tell what kind of pizza Atta and Al Omari went for on 910....
The list of withhold proofs are endless.

Then it very much looks like a general attitude.

[RH]

31. "general attitude"

is pretty mch muy understanding of it.

From whence comes any presumption that evidence ought to be a public spectacle? When before did the FBI treat criminal evidence in such a fashion?

The general rule would surely be to guard any evidence until such time that a trial is mounted, for any public display of evidence is likely to be prejudicial to the course of natural justice.

Seeing then that the very purpose of so many observers would appear to be to appoint themselves as Judge and Jury, the FBI would thus be absolutely correct to keep crucial items of evidence to themselves.