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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.'

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.