F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Indentify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Contained within a March 14, 2008 “DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT” with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.

Defendants motion reads in part:

“Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)”

However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis.

visibility911.com...

What they havent identified the plane parts?
I know they didnt in Shanksville because no Boeing 757 crashed there.

Yeah it is very hard to identify something that didn't crash. Also if you remember that the FAA had two of the four 9/11 planes listed as "in service"

...so again hard to identify plane parts that are still intact!!!

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated

You could say that for any crash.

I call BS on this reason.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated

You could say that for any crash.

I call BS on this reason.

]


So in reality, flight 93 could of been a cruise missile and no one bothered to check if it was a boeing 757. So then it was a cruise missile they recovered and not flight 93 the boeing 757.

Originally posted by theability
Yeah it is very hard to identify something that didn't crash. Also if you remember that the FAA had two of the four 9/11 planes listed as "in service"

...so again hard to identify plane parts that are still intact!!!

On Sept 10th 2001, Flight 0078 (=N591UA) arrived in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time. However, Flight 0507, with the same tail number, 591UA departed Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time. It left from Chicago airport 45 mins after it touched down in Newark.
Sept 10th 2001
Flight 0078 (591UA) arrives in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time
Flight 0507 (591UA) departs Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time.

Boston does not have records of it arriving at Logan that day?
Newark only has it departing once at 19:40?
Anyone see a problem here ?
It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Fran before it left IN ANTOHER CITY ?
911bts.brad.com...

Also, later that day...
591UA departed ORD to EWR 10:43 (no arrival time in EWR diverted as flight 0640)
departed Newark to SFO 19:40 (5 hours late, 14:30 scheduled, as flight 0075)

Question: How can it depart Newark if it was diverted?

There are no records of it arriving in Newark.
If it did arrive in Newark why was it 5 hours late?
disc.server.com...

Read more here portland.indymedia.org...

Interesting is that 2 or 3 seperate photographer took pictures of flight 93 on the same day at the same airport 3 days before 911. www.airliners.net...
Mabey just coincidence.

So in reality, flight 93 could of been a cruise missile and no one bothered to check if it was a boeing 757. So then it was a cruise missile they recovered and not flight 93 the boeing 757.

Didn't know they started putting seats on cruise missiles? Guess that was
for passenger to experience that once in a lifetime thrill ride.



Fasten those seats belts it going to be a bumpy ride



Be sure to get a window seat

Why did you post the same photo twice? Neither one shows a seat that we were led to believe by your wording.
It's interesting on the anomalies of flight 93, www.thoughtcrimenews.com... lays it out pretty well.

United Flight 93 was apparently scheduled to fly from Newark Airport (EWR) to San Francisco (SFO) on Tuesday 11th September 2001. However a search of the BTS database, the federal government's own records, indicates that the first `United Flight 93' from Newark to San Francisco on a Tuesday was on the day of 9-11.

So, for a plane making scheduled Tue. flights on that route, it was the first Tue. flight for that air craft and it had just started flying that route 6 days earlier? Interesting.

For example in the period from 1st January 2001 until 9-11, United Flight 81 from Newark to San Francisco flew 14 times on a Tuesday. The stats indicate that of those 14 flights, 7 were diverted. Yet for Flight 93 and its sole Tuesday flight on 11th September 2001, 9 diversions are listed in the table. This is clearly impossible.

How is it possible for that first Tuesday flight to be diverted 9 times?

Furthermore, the scheduled arrival time of Flight 93 was 11.14 am, yet the records state that it actually landed at 12.00 am. Another impossibility.

More anomalies and inconsistencies? What are the statistical probabilities of all the things to happen as they did with just this flight, let alone all the other improbabilities on that day?

I find it incredible that people would accept that single piece as proof of Flight 93s existence.

I'm sure there is a typo in here, so let me run through this again...

Flight 0078 (591UA) arrives in Newark from SFO (San Fransisco) at 6:54 wheel on time
Flight 0507 (591UA) departs Boston Logan for ORD (Chicago) at 7:39 wheel off time.

Boston does not have records of it arriving at Logan that day?
Newark only has it departing once at 19:40?
Anyone see a problem here ?
It had 45 mins from touchdown in San Fran before it left IN ANTOHER CITY ?
911bts.brad.com...

I think that should read Newark.

Also, later that day...
591UA departed ORD to EWR 10:43 (no arrival time in EWR diverted as flight 0640)
departed Newark to SFO 19:40 (5 hours late, 14:30 scheduled, as flight 0075)

Question: How can it depart Newark if it was diverted?

Ferry flights wouldn't be listed with a flight number. They could fly it empty to position the aircraft for the next flight. There are NO records AT ALL for it arriving/departing?

There are no records of it arriving in Newark.
If it did arrive in Newark why was it 5 hours late?

If it did arrive at Newark as a ferry flight, then the 655 hour delay could easily be explained by the diversion. Divert, get's repaired, then flies to Newark ready for the next flight.

Usually the flight that is affected though is either canceled, or another aircraft made available.

1) Should it have operated another flight out of Newark at some point during the 5 hours time frame it wasn't at Newark?

2) Do we know which flight that was?

3) Was it delayed, canceled, or was another aircraft assigned to it?

Anyone put in a FOIA request to the FAA for September 10th for all flight movements out of KEWR, KORD, KSFO and KBOS? Check KIAD and KJFK, too - could be the missing diversionary airfield.

KEWR = Newark Intl.
KORD = Chicago O'Hare
KSFO = San Francisco Intl.
KBOS = Boston Logan Intl.
KIAD = Washington Dulles Intl.
KJFK = John F. Kennedy Intl.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Why did you post the same photo twice? Neither one shows a seat that we were led to believe by your wording.
It's interesting on the anomalies of flight 93, www.thoughtcrimenews.com... lays it out pretty well.

Ok - messed up and posted wrong picture

Here is correct one



So whats the problem about Flight 93 being hijacked shortly after
establishing that route?

Its not like hijackers were out to enjoy pleasnt little trip from Newark to
Frisco - hijackers were looking for transcontinent flights using Boeing
757/767 from east coast airports leaving early morning 7-9 am
All you needed was copy of OFFICAL AIRLINE GUIDE to look up flights
or do online searches with that criteria

Originally posted by thedman
Ok - messed up and posted wrong picture

Here is correct one

Sorry, but what does that prove or even show? You keep posting the same photos over and over like it's proof of something, but I'm not sure what you're getting so worked up about that you're being given official warnings. Would it shatter your existence to realize that 9/11 was an inside job?

Speaking of airline guides, have you ever seen the BTS database that says Flights 11 and 77 weren't even scheduled on 9/11? (but the other two flights departed and were "terminated.") What's up with that?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


What is shows is a seat belt from an airplane. His point was that as far as he knows, missiles do not have seat belts.

IvanZana....


My apologies for the lack of support of what I was talking about, I thought I had incorperated links I planned to use, obviously I forgot to add them.

It was a few years ago that I had come across some articles that FLIGHT 77 and FLIGHT 175 were still listed as ACTIVE Aircraft.

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list on Sept. 28. 2005 with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'

Article snipped here...
www.rense.com...

I find it rather difficult ofr anyone to not file the right paper work to have the registration numbers listed correctly, I mean wouldn't INSURANCE require this for payment and etc?


strange to say the least...




[edit on 26-7-2008 by theability]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by theability]

reply to post by theability


I really wouldnt rely on the registry number database from the FAA. Registry numbers are not cancelled immeadiately upon the crash of an airliner, it may take months or in some cases, years, before the number gets cancelled.

reply to post by theability


I really wouldnt rely on the registry number database from the FAA. Registry numbers are not cancelled immeadiately upon the crash of an airliner, it may take months or in some cases, years, before the number gets cancelled.

there seems to be issues with the "reply to" link....

anyway, if it had been that way with all the 9/11 aircraft I would agree, yet the registry numbers for Flight 11 and Flight 77 were listed as destroyed immediately after the incident. This is required under FAR and is considered voilations of applicable laws not to do so immediately.

reply to post by theability


Then go here...

www.airdisaster.com...

Get into the reports, write down registry numbers and check to see when they were deregistered. You will find that crashed/destroyed aircraft aren't always quickly removed.

How does one go about to find broken plane parts from a head-on crash when there was no crash. This crash was an animated crash, even a child who watches animated movies can tell you this, you do not need a nuclear scientist to tell you this.

Ask yourself, I mean truly ask yourself, How can an Aluminum Plane go through a solid Concrete & Steel Structure, like going through Butter, unless it's a plane that belongs to the Ghostbusters. Watch these Images and decide for yourself

Proof That Computer Technology Was Used to Fake the 2nd Plane

Notice also that the plane goes into four floors of over 3000 tons of concrete and steel like they are butter. Some have claimed that the outer beams were thin at this level so they were merely like "mosquito netting". The laws of physics are based on relative motion. A grain of sand moving at high speed in space will punch right through a space craft as it is vaporized. The point is that both objects are subject to the same force. When a truck hits a motorcycle at high speed, the truck's front end is greatly damaged (see side panel below). Moreover, if you look at the hole that was made, the planes hit 4 or more floors. Each floor was a giant, thick, concrete, steel rimed pan having significant mass. The floor systems were approximately 31,000 square feet and had a composite construction with steel beams of 50 ksi yield strength supporting concrete slabs on metal deck, with a floor thickness of 5.5 in. (NIST executive summary, page 4). There was approximately 900 tons of concrete per floor (Morgan Reynolds gave me the concrete numbers. He is working on the total per floor, which is far greater, and he will be presenting his case soon). The aircraft weighed approximately 140 tons. This means that 140 tons hit over 3,600 tons of concrete plus all the steel in the pans and exterior columns! Furthermore, the majority of the airplanes mass is in the wing struts, the engines, the main landing gear (in the wings), and the engine mounts. The nose of the 767 aircraft is thin. The leading edge of the wings are thin. When they hit the concrete pans on the 4 or more floors, they should have been severely deformed, possibly bounced off, not gone in as if the building was made of butter.

www.reopen911.org...

reply to post by Dubyakadubla


My question to you then is, how did the "bad guys" get the images of the jet onto all the still cameras and home video cameras that recorded it as well?

reply to post by theability



Aircraft tail numbers are like personalized license plates, they can be transferred from plane to plane. The tail number has nothing to do with whether or not the airframe was destroyed. The tail number belongs to an individual or company and then it is assigned to an aircraft with its own unique serial number that no other aircraft has or has had or ever will have.


I personally know a guy who has had three separate aircraft with the exact same tail number. The tail number is registered to him and then he has it assigned to the current aircraft he owns.