Deep Politics Forum

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Weren't the "booms" noted before the collapse of 7 began?

So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

I slept in a bit only to be dismayed at the confusion around the timing of the Ashley Banfield sequential charges with the collapse of individual floors. Where did that come from? Which is the exact question Charles raised. Right on.

The answer of course is that it was introduced Orling in #'s 88 and 90. Nice try, Orling. That was pathetic. You know full well that the analysis of the Ashley Banfield segment is devastating to your argument about WTC7. 'Time to do the rope-a-dope. Change the subject. They'll wear down. They always do.'

The sequential charges were intended to take away the support structure of a building, as you pointed out, that did not have much support because of its being built over the substation.

In the following video by AE911T, from about 2:00 on there are a number of witnesses who give evidence in favor of controlled demolition. One of them talks about the bottom floor caving in followed by the rest of the building.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Weren't the "booms" noted before the collapse of 7 began?

So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

I slept in a bit only to be dismayed at the confusion around the timing of the Ashley Banfield sequential charges with the collapse of individual floors. Where did that come from? Which is the exact question Charles raised. Right on.

The answer of course is that it was introduced Orling in #'s 88 and 90. Nice try, Orling. That was pathetic. You know full well that the analysis of the Ashley Banfield segment is devastating to your argument about WTC7. 'Time to do the rope-a-dope. Change the subject. They'll wear down. They always do.'

The sequential charges were intended to take away the support structure of a building, as you pointed out, that did not have much support because of its being built over the substation.

In the following video by AE911T, from about 2:00 on there are a number of witnesses who give evidence in favor of controlled demolition. One of them talks about the bottom floor caving in followed by the rest of the building.

Thank you Peter, Lauren and CD. But I don't think you are going to change his mind with the facts.
Just my opinion of course.

Dawn

What is causing the growing dark dust cloud seen in the background in the Banfield video before the booms? I don't think that video is honest. Go back and watch it. All it is is a narrator telling you that is the correct timing, however what he shows is just smoke and mirrors shown in the video with no confirmed or credible scientific gauging of the timing to indicate what he is showing you is accurate. It's just the narrator saying so.

In his analysis why did he only show the 7 evenly-spaced "booms" and omit the progressively more frequent ones that followed?


There's a lot of cheerleading going on in here without answering serious points.

Albert Doyle Wrote:I think the post was clear enough. If you watch the department store video in this thread the demolition charges go off with a distinct crack that isn't seen in the oscilloscope booms. If WTC 7 was a controlled demolition why didn't its charges 'crack' like those in the department store video? That isn't so difficult to understand.

Closer than Ashley Banfield.

Albert, I added the Hudson video only to show that in CD, a number charges are set before the building does anything. The absence of a cracking sound could be explained by a couple of things: Ashley Banfield's mic is directional. If you have ever heard a speaker at a podium who moved around away from the mic, you notice how much the position of the speaker affects the sound.

Second, we don't know what kind of charges were used. The squibs seen in the following video suggest other charges were placed. Warning: annoying music alert.

Peter, your pm box is full. Needs to be emptied.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

Weren't the "booms" noted before the collapse of 7 began?

So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

I slept in a bit only to be dismayed at the confusion around the timing of the Ashley Banfield sequential charges with the collapse of individual floors. Where did that come from? Which is the exact question Charles raised. Right on.

The answer of course is that it was introduced Orling in #'s 88 and 90. Nice try, Orling. That was pathetic. You know full well that the analysis of the Ashley Banfield segment is devastating to your argument about WTC7. 'Time to do the rope-a-dope. Change the subject. They'll wear down. They always do.'

The sequential charges were intended to take away the support structure of a building, as you pointed out, that did not have much support because of its being built over the substation.

In the following video by AE911T, from about 2:00 on there are a number of witnesses who give evidence in favor of controlled demolition. One of them talks about the bottom floor caving in followed by the rest of the building.

Thank you Peter, Lauren and CD. But I don't think you are going to change his mind with the facts.
Just my opinion of course.

Dawn

No, he is not reacting to facts, evidence, logic, physics or thermodynamics. He has an agenda and he is here to promote it...one of doubt, and non-movement of others trying to analyze and understand the events of 911. Reminds me a lot of an entity known as Colby somewhere else.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:<br>
BY the way... what do you think it would sound like if some huge mass came crashing down hitting one floor after the next? boom boom boom boom? No? If not what would it sound like?

<br>
<br>
Weren't the "booms" noted <em>before</em> the collapse of 7 began?<br>
<br>
So too the large single explosion captured on tape?

<br>
<br>
I slept in a bit only to be dismayed at the confusion around the timing of the Ashley Banfield sequential charges with the collapse of individual floors. Where did that come from? Which is the exact question Charles raised. Right on.<br>
<br>
The answer of course is that it was introduced Orling in #'s 88 and 90. Nice try, Orling. That was pathetic. You know full well that the analysis of the Ashley Banfield segment is devastating to your argument about WTC7. 'Time to do the rope-a-dope. Change the subject. They'll wear down. They always do.'<br>
<br>
The sequential charges were intended to take away the support structure of a building, as you pointed out, that did not have much support because of its being built over the substation. <br>
<br>
In the following video by AE911T, from about 2:00 on there are a number of witnesses who give evidence in favor of controlled demolition. One of them talks about the bottom floor caving in followed by the rest of the building.<br>
<br>

<br>
<br>
Thank you Peter, Lauren and CD. But I don't think you are going to change his mind with the facts. <br>
Just my opinion of course.<br>
<br>
Dawn

No, agreed, he is not reacting to facts, evidence, logic, physics or thermodynamics. He has an agenda and he is here to promote it...one of doubt to any who don't buy the official version, and attempts to stop any forward movement of others who try to analyze and understand the events of 911. Reminds me a lot of an entity known as Colby somewhere else. Same allegiance IMHO. Some of the same M.O., and the same effects on the Forum, generally. He does, however, get honorable mention on the 'amazing Randi's' forum...says a lot by the company that keeps him. angryfire

FAA Manager Destroys Tape

by Matthew L. Wald,
The New York Times, May 6, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 6 -- At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that same day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said in a report today.

The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, on Long Island, where about 16 people met in a basement conference room known as "the Bat Cave" and passed around a microphone, each recalling his or her version of the events a few hours earlier.

But officials at the center never told higher-ups of the tape's existence, and it was later destroyed by an F.A.A. official described in the report as a quality-assurance manager there. That manager crushed the cassette in his hand, shredded the tape and dropped the pieces into different trash cans around the building, according to a report made public today by the inspector general of the Transportation Department.

Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001

I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter". (Exaggeration added for size of Hani, he was tiny, lets just put it that way). We at pilotsfor911truth.org feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN.
"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."
CNN - September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)


The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11.

To those pilots out there. Think about the old Common Strategy... we know it was to cooperate.. but was it to give up your ship to anyone with a knife? No! What the press doesnt tell the public is that there is alot more to the old Common Strategy than "complete, full cooperation".

__________________________________________________________________

Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44
08/20/06

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time. The screenshot shows the very last frame of the recorded data. It stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet.


This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings. For detailed presentation and analysis, please see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77.



Analysis of Flight Path Animation Provided by NTSB

(short clips) Flight Path Animation supplied and plotted by by National Transportation Safety Board.
Phone call to NTSB regarding above conflicts. A Must see! 10/26/06.
Animation of full 330 degree turn until end of recording.


For a more in depth analysis on altimeter settings, please see right margin.

First Phone Call To NTSB and FBI, 08/30/06 (4.6mb mp3)

Link to Flight Data Recorder Download and NTSB Cover Letter

Altimeter lag issues addressed

Airdata Calibration and Measurement Methods



Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information
The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?

_________________________________________________

07/20/06

Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder

First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Summary.
"The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. " Full report here. NTSB report.

All reports from the NTSB for all 4 planes on Sept 11 are identical.

Ok, sounds reasonable. So lets check with the FBI reports.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm
Thats all i can find from the FBI.

So, lets go to the 9/11 Commission report.
"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 ....

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60...

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed."

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The footnote "59, 60, 61" refers to The Flight Path Study of American 77 provided by the NTSB, which no one can find. One person claims to have called the NTSB and the NTSB says they havent done any reports/analysis for any of the aircraft of Sept 11. NTSB phone in DC (202)-314-6000. I tried, but i hit brick walls. Update: 8/11/06 NTSB Flight Path Study released.

So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the final impact speed was 530 mph. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.

So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...

Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...


For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Mon, 03/17/2008 - 5:00am
aa11 Aidan Monaghan American Airlines Flight 77 FBI NTSB United 93 United Airlines Flight 175

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 (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to compel the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the four 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, were not located. Such wreckage includes the Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) of American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, for which no inventory control serial numbers were publically assigned.

Defendant's 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 conflicts with 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.

"I ... assured FBI Director Mueller that we would assist in any way we could ... he called and said, "Could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts."

http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/carmody/cc020227.htm

"Over 60 Safety Board employees worked around the clock in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and at our headquarters in Washington, D. C., assisting with aircraft parts identification"

http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/blakey/mcb020625.htm

By document labeled "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder" (American Airlines flight 77 - N644AA), it is revealed that FDR inventory control serial number identification information is absent.

http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

By document labeled "Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation Digital Flight Data Recorder" (United Airlines flight 93 - N591UA) it is revealed that FDR inventory control serial number identification information is absent.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf

The FBI's motion continues:

"As Federal Defendant has been focused on the search for records and the preparation of an explanatory letter to Plaintiff, it has not yet prepared a formal response to the Amended Complaint."

Documents for 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF can be accessed at The PACER Service Center.

"The PACER Service Center is the Federal Judiciary's centralized registration, billing, and technical support center for electronic access to U.S. District, Bankruptcy, and Appellate court records."

http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to order the production of agency records, concerning documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant (with the aid of the National Transportation Safety Board), as belonging to the said aircraft, presumably through the use of unique serial number identifying information contained by the said aircraft's wreckage, that was collected by defendant and which defendant has improperly withheld from plaintiff.

The data sought by plaintiff is the basis for the F.B.I's. current public position, that the following 4 flights were those that were involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:

- American Airlines flight 11, United Airlines flight 175, American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93.

The data sought by plaintiff was obtained by the F.B.I., which publicly lists the following Federal Aviation Administration then registered aircraft, as those that were involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:

- American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA), United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA) and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA)

The data sought by plaintiff cannot "interfere with enforcement proceedings" (per Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)), as it is the basis for the F.B.I's. already publicly known opinion regarding the identities of the said aircraft, the publication of which was not predicted by the F.B.I., to "interfere with enforcement proceedings", as alleged (per Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)).

2. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

3. Plaintiff, Aidan Monaghan, is a private individual and is the requestor of the records which defendant is now withholding. Plaintiff has requested this information for non-commercial use and prompt release of the information is important because of the immediate public interest in this information.

4. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) is an agency of the United States and has possession of the documents that plaintiff seeks.

5. By undated attached letter facsimile, plaintiff requested access to documentation revealing the process by which recovered debris from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified as belonging to the said aircraft. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 1.

6. By letter facsimile dated September 24, 2007, plaintiff was denied access to the requested information on the grounds that it was exempt from disclosure under Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A). A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 2.

7. By undated attached letter facsimile, plaintiff appealed the denial of this request. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 3.

8. By letter facsimile dated November 26, 2007, plaintiffs appeal of request denial was denied. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 4.

9. By document labeled "Remarks of Carol Carmody Vice-Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board Leadership in Times of Crisis Seminar", it is indicated that the director of the F.B.I. requested that the N.T.S.B. "help identify aircraft parts" belonging to the said aircraft. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 5.

10. By document labeled "Testimony of Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation United States Senate", it is indicated that the N.T.S.B. assisted the F.B.I. with the process of "aircraft parts identification" regarding the said aircraft. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 6.

11. By document identified as "RE: serial number component", e-mail reply provided by N.T.S.B. to a public correspondence e-mail inquiry, it is indicated that the aircraft identification assistance provided by the N.T.S.B. to defendant F.B.I., involved documenting "serial numbers of major components" contained by wreckage recovered by defendant F.B.I.. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 7.

12. By N.T.S.B. documents identified as DCA01MA060, DCA01MA063, DCA01MA064 and DCA01MA065, it is indicated that the N.T.S.B. is of the opinion that the above noted aircraft that were federally registered as of September 11, 2001, were positively identified as those involved in the terrorist attacks of that day and did provide "requested technical assistance to the F.B.I.", as indicated above. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 8.

13. By documents labeled U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Part 45, it is indicated that all U.S. commercial civil aircraft are required to contain numerous components (described within as "parts") indicating unique serial number data "secured in such a manner that it will not likely be ... lost or destroyed in an accident". Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 9.

14. By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 10.

15. By documents labeled "NOTES TO CHAPTER 1", page 456, of the "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (2004), it is indicated that "the CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found" and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent data. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 11.

16. By photographs identified as "A"-"G", it is indicated that the above noted aircraft wreckage was:

- recovered by the FBI, with the assistance of the N.T.S.B..
- presented for public examination, the display of which was deemed by defendant as not harmful to "enforcement proceedings".

Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit 12.

17. Plaintiff has a right of access to the requested information under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), and there is no legal basis for defendants denial of such access.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests this Court:

(1) Order defendant to provide access to the requested documents;

(2) Expedite this proceeding as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1657;

(3) Award plaintiff costs and reasonable attorneys fees in this action, as provided in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and

(4) Grant such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Aidan Monaghan
Dated: 2/1/2008

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and LR 6-1, Federal Defendant respectfully requests that the Court provide Defendant with a thirty-day enlargement of time, to April 14, 2007, within which to file a response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief (#15). This motion is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below and all papers and pleadings on file.

DATED: March 14, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY A. BROWER

United States Attorney

P A/TRs/I CKP AAT.R ICRKO SAE. ROSE

Assistant United States Attorney

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (the "FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. Plaintiff seeks records "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.) Under the FOIA, the defendant has thirty days to respond to a complaint unless the Court directs otherwise for good cause shown. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)©. The Federal Defendant was served with the Summons and Amended Complaint on February 13, 2008, which would correspond to a responsive date of March 14, 2008. However, the Summons (#17) served on Federal Defendant by Plaintiff states that a response to the Amended Complaint is due in sixty days of service, which would correspond to a responsive date of April 14, 2008. With this motion, Federal Defendant seeks merely to establish a clear responsive deadline of April 14, 2008. To the extent an enlargement of time from March 14 to April 14, 2008 is necessary, Federal Defendant requests such enlargement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and LR 6-1.

With Plaintiff's initial request, Federal Defendant believed that any potentially responsive documents would qualify under the investigative records exemption to production, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a searched 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.)

Federal Defendant has recently sent a letter to Plaintiff explaining all of this. Federal Defendant wishes to give Plaintiff time to consider its explanatory letter. Should Plaintiff wish to nevertheless pursue this action, then Federal Defendant will plan, with the Court's approval, to file a formal response to the Amended Complaint by April 14, 2008. As Federal Defendant has been focused on the search for records and the preparation of an explanatory letter to Plaintiff, it has not yet prepared a formal response to the Amended Complaint. And again, there was some confusion created with the Summons (#17) calling for a response in sixty days, which would be April 14, 2008, rather than thirty days.

For these reasons, Federal Defendant seeks an extension and/or clarification such that Federal Defendant will have until April 14, 2008 to file, if necessary, a formal response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

DATED: March 14, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY A. BROWER

United States Attorney

/s/ PATRICK A. ROSE

PATRICK A. ROSE

Assistant United States Attorney

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Patrick A. Rose, certify that the following individuals were served on this date by the below identified method of service:

FEDERAL EXPRESS

Aidan Monaghan

(REDACTED)

Las Vegas, NV (REDACTED)

DATED March 14, 2008.

/s/ PATRICK A. ROSE

Patrick A. Rose

AUSA

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Minus Exhibits)

Page 1:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Page 2:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Page 3:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Defendant's Motion

Page 1:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Page 2:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Page 3:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Page 4:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...

Page 5:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121...jpg?t=1205...