This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
Added the lost boxes from the two jets that crashed into the Word Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. The report is from the 9/11 Commission report, and is contradicted by various conspiracy theorists.
SkoreKeep (
talk)
06:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)reply
As far as I remember the flight recorders of the El Al flight that crashed in Amsterdam were also not recovered or at least one of them. Guess I cannot edit the article because of the new rules, so I'll just post here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.6.181.145 (
talk)
03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
According to
this document (page 23), the flight data recorder was recovered, but the cockpit voice recorder was not.
Another document provides a transcript alleged to be from the cockpit voice recorder. Apparently there were multiple questionable issues concerning this flight, including destruction of tapes made during rescue and cleanup. (
ref)
Wildbear (
talk)
04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree, I am in the aviation safety industry and this list is lacking focus. There are multitudes of recorders that are destroyed beyond data yield, this list should only list MISSING recorders. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.76.142.9 (
talk)
21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
List of unrecovered flight recorders. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
As this list includes flight recorders that were recovered but at the same time were unusable, it would make more sense if we rename this article “List of unrecovered or unusable flight recorders” Does that sound better?
Tigerdude9 (
talk)
20:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Tigerdude9: Colloquially, it could go either way (e.g. "the missing and the dead"). However, if you're into correct grammar, it's clearly a list of unrecovered *or* unusable recorders.
From what the 9/11 Commission Report said was that none of the black boxes were recovered, but I looked at the link “911truth.org” there is a video in which 2 accounts say that they found 3 of the 4 black boxes at the World Trade Center. How do we know who is lying? The official answer is that the black boxes were not recovered, but the jurisdiction of the FBI says that they were found: “Off the record, we had the boxes, you have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here.” Should we still include those black boxes or should we not? Thanks.
The person who should not be named (
talk)
14:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)reply
edit: in fact, according to
this article, none of the (4) recorders from the New York attacks were recovered, only the the ones from Flight 77 (pentagon attack) and Flight 93 (famous heroic passengers crashed in cornfield)
0w0 catt0s (
talk)
08:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
0w0 catt0s: I understand that, but what I’m saying is that “[...] how do we know who is lying?” As it is said above, (Personally I believe that those black boxes were found) and every single piece of debris was recovered from the World Trade Center, and it’s very rare for a black box to not be found.
What’s also questionable is how were they able to not find the black boxes if they found human remains, watches, banknotes, and buckets of coins?
The person who should not be named (
talk)
14:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Butting in for a moment, if I might... I'm not sure it's helpful to accuse, or even suspect, anyone of "lying" in this situation. It may be a case of misunderstanding or false/incomplete reporting. There may not even be any explicit "dispute", where one or both parties have accused the other of lying. If there is an apparent contradiction, then we could perhaps at least add the (best) sources which support both claims? In any case, I'm not sure what any evidence, from any analyses of these black boxes, would add to the understanding of what happened.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
15:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't believe that 9/11truth.org would pass the muster of
Wikipedia's acceptable sources. First and foremost the requirement of the source being free from bias. The whole purpose of 9/11truth.org is to sow seeds of distrust specifically of this nature.
CE81hc (
talk)
19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I personally believe that something doesn’t add up, 9/11truth.org is saying that there is an argument, this is not all about the WTC black boxes however, it’s about all of them, and people will start thinking about it. For more information, click
This linkThe person who should not be named (
talk)
17:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I still don't know if I agree that any of those sources are worthy of a wikipedia citation. They all had the answer that they wanted in mind before they searched for the evidence. If all we are basing this edit on is our personal beliefs, I'd like to point out that it isn't unreasonable to suggest that a plane crash, a fire, and a hundred story building collapse would be enough to destroy a few black boxes. This article itself lists much less destructive crashes that also destroyed their respective boxes. But if I'm wrong, can we at least add a citation to the 9/11 commission report because currently the only citation is 9/11truth.org on the notes column of AA11 and UA175. Thanks
CE81hc (
talk)
01:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)reply
So, I'm not sure what else needs to be said here. I've removed the "Disputed" claims and the supporting "sources". Reliable sources still required for the non-recovery.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The person who should not be named, this is Wikipedia. The official sources are treated as fact and can be cited as such - the 9/11 commission reports etc. are reliable sources and we don't need to
attribute statements made therein. Claims by Truthers may be covered as claims, but only when reality-based sources comment on them, and not at all when this would give
undue weight to a
fringe view, In any situation where there are competing claims from the official accounts and from Truthers, we assume by default that the Truthers are wrong. We do not characterise statements in the official account as "disputed" because Truthers claim otherwise, but only if there are reliable independent mainstream sources that cite genuine experts with competing views. See also
WP:RANDY. Pinging
MONGO who has tremendous experience in this area. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
08:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
What?? You're suggesting that someone will suddenly come across a Flight Data Recorder somewhere? Down the back of the sofa? Someone will one day remember that Cockpit Voice Recorder they've stashed out in the garage and think "Oh yeah. I found that in New York, that day there was all that commotion... I'd better hand that thing in."?? Yeah, could happen. You never know.....
Martinevans123 (
talk)
22:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Please forgive me. I'm suggesting that you are tending towards "fringe and unsupported theories" or, as Guy prefers to call them, "conspiracist drivel in unreliable sources". Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)reply