Can anyone comment on this?
 

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html

It shows a purported page from an AA B757 AMM. It is meant to be evidence that Airfones were removed before 9/11, and that calls could not have been made from them.

There have been questions raised about the authenticity of the document shown in the link (regardless of what it proves or doesn't prove), specifically the date at the bottom boxed in red. Close examination would seem to indicate it may have been Photoshopped.

Can anyone comment? Do the dates, version, etc, look authentic?

Thanks!

Urm it could relate to a specific A/C serial number effectivity and therefore only certain airframe numbers in the fleet had the system deactivated,maybe? AA have a large 757 fleet I understand and the chances of every aircraft being identical with respect to IFE / Airphone mod state are maybe not as remote as some conspiracy theorists would like to believe? Just a thought,and it's open to challenge but look at the fleets of many operators eg Malaysian,VS , seemingly identical a/c with varying IFE / Seat types / Density configs etc.

As is indicated, it is portrayed as an AA AMM.

I am interested in the authenticity of the document rather than what it may indicate.

Thanks!

ye right. You have no ulterior motive you just want to know if a document is accurate.

Go play games elsewhere.

Authenticity
 

There is only one way to satisfactorily authenticate a document and that is to ask the originator. Whatever the reason for you wanting to know, pprune is not the place to try to obtain authentication.

To be convinced of this I would have to see both the EOs and tech log pages in the "flesh" that particular page shown can easily be a fake(and most probably is) another point to make is if the document is real and the system has been removed it is entirely possible that a newer system repalced it.

Thanks matkat - that's essentially what I thought. I had thought that someone here may be familiar with the format of the AMM in use, and commented if there was anything about it that was obviously incorrect. Our own tech pubs (military) are in a different format.

yamaha - I gave details of what it was and where it was from so that anyone commenting would be fully informed. I simply asked if it looked authentic. I did not ask for peoples opinions on 9/11, or the significance of the document; in fact I specifically said "(regardless of what it proves or doesn't prove)".

I thought - perhaps stupidly - that there might be someone in this sub-forum who was familiar with the AMM in question and could comment on it.

I do not have any "ulterior motive".

So, with the sweetest of smiles upon my face - up yours, fella.

Part of the point I was trying to make was that a corresponding airframe effectivity number may have given credibility to the theory being pushed by the website in the link but if you want my opinion yes it does look like an authentic MM excerpt without digging out a magnifying glass and using any detective skills honed through watching Columbo.....what do you think about it anyway?

As has been mentioned, you'd need to see an Engineering Change Order and the maintenance log for the aircraft to determine when it was carried out. Subsequent correspondence from AA would seem to confirm that they were still in use at that time.

The main issue was whether the document had been altered, and another person had suggested that, based on their industry / corporate knowledge, the revision numbers / dates did not match (see here for detail). A List of Effective Pages or similar would probably be able to determine that, but we haven't been able to source one as yet.

Thanks for your replies.

Evilroy go away.

Everything you link to concerns foolish conspiracy theories which are disrespectful to the unfortunate true victims of all this.

Play your dumb games somewhere else.

ps. I would return your compliment but there is no room left

Yamaha, we are all entitled to our opinions.

Just to make it clear - because I think you have misjudged me - I am one of the people who go around debunking these "foolish theories". Technically - if I judge your reply correctly - we are on the same side regarding this matter.