F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 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 (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)(C). 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/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGEA.jpg?t=1205742688

Page 2:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGEB.jpg?t=1205742813

Page 3:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGEC.jpg?t=1205742877

Defendant's Motion

Page 1:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGE1.jpg?t=1205742184

Page 2:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGE2.jpg?t=1205742301

Page 3:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGE3.jpg?t=1205742351

Page 4:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGE4.jpg?t=1205742413

Page 5:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/PAGE5.jpg?t=1205742524

Theory: Don't Think 'Missing' Planes, Think 'Other' Planes

Everything done to and with a federally registered commercial aircraft is heavily documented.

Why has registry confirming information of the 9/11 aircraft been repeatedly withheld or omitted?

Do the recovered serially numbered components contained by the 9/11 aircraft match the FAA/airline aircraft records containing component serial number data for the allegedly involved federally registered aircraft?

Could the words "murder weapons" be used in the suit?

Could the words "murder weapons" be used in the suit? I think that would be very impactful.
Could the request be modified to ask for "identifcation of the murder weapons?" or "identification of the "planes used as murder weapons?"

Might it be useful to keep hammering on the fact, that the moment the flying objects (whatever they were) crashed, they ceased being planes or missiles and they became transformed into "murder weapons?"

It is a tougher sell to refuse to identify murder weapons than to refuse to identify airplane parts.

Good point! Language is everything!

War on terror
Axis of evil

If you invent a word for something, it exists!

WHERE are the planes?

Where is the wreckage from AA 77 and UA 93 being stored? Could a Citizens's Investigation with subpoena power (should the NYC Ballot Initiative pass, for instance) request access to the actual remains?

Could they request access to the FDR and CVR of Flight 77 and 93?

Could they demand access to the 80 or so Pentagon videos which recorded the approach and impact of whatever hit the building-- and of the confiscated security camera videos?

Additionally, they should investigate the matter of the mystery plane spotted over Washington prior and during the Pentagon attack. This has been ID'd as an E-4B, commonly known as the "Doomsday Plane". The Air Force has DENIED having any knowledge of this plane in responding to both FOIA requests and to a US Congressman.

Giving the fact that the E-4B serves as the National Airborne Operations Center for the president, Sec. of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and provides command and control communications to direct US forces, this is very significant. In my view, this mysterious plane might even answer the question:

Where was Wolfowitz? Could Wolfie have been onboard this E-4B during the morning of 9/11?

Rumor has it that UA93 and AA77 wreckage

is being stored in the highly secure and privately owned Iron Mountain storage facility in western Pennsylvania.

My question is why is this government evidence being stored in a very expensive, private vault?

Perhaps a FOIA request could confirm this rumor.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Brilliant EOM

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA

Imagine that......

Imagine that! Another contradiction DRG could examine in his latest work. I can not think of any other time in history when a plane crashed and no identification of the wreckage was performed.

This latest inaction by the FBI reeks of cover up.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

This part is a nut, and this part is a bolt - parts identified

I wouldn't be surprized if the FBI and the NTSB claim that what they meant by "help in identifiying parts" is help in telling whether a particular piece of metal was a nut or a bolt or piece of the fuselage etc.

I mean Larry Silverstein said: "We made the decision to pull, and then we watched the building go down." Then his spokespeople said that he meant: "pull the firemen (who weren't in the building) out."

The AMAZING thing is that my very talented and very bright friends (I am NOT being facetious - I am referring to people who REALLY ARE very bright and very talented) buy right into that explanation, even though it is beyond obvious that 7 was imploded with explosives, and it is beyond obvious that Silverstein's spokespeople's "explanation" is beyond absurd.

The power of the Psyops is such that the most ridiculous "explanations" are not only accepted, but EMBRACED and DEFENDED by those in denial.

That being said, I really would not be surprised if the FBI and the NTSB really do claim that what they meant was, "help in identifying the function of the parts," and NOT help in identifying the aircraft from which the parts originated.

The above originally occurred to me as a joke, but as I let the thought settle in, I REALLY would not be surprised if they go this route.

Wouldn't it be nice if the government lawyers defending against the suit will realize that they are working for the PEOPLE of the United States and NOT for government agencies? It IS possible, I suppose. These lawyers do have children they would like to see grow up in a decent world.

Great work Aidan ! Great discipline. Great Patience. Great Focus.

Thanks for bulldogging this, Aidan

Incredible. No documentation. Not a single traceable part. Not one.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

U.S. District Court of

U.S. District Court of Nevada ..... I don't know what your federal judges are like in Nevada, but you are in the Ninth Circuit and I would expect no fear of truth and justice from most of them should an appeal be necessary.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, Aidan. You may do something here that will help drive all the corrupt snakes out of the U.S.!

You are doing God's work for all mankind. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sandy in Oregon (by way of ancestors in County Kerry and County Longford).

Incredible job of keeping in the hunt, Aidan

I can't tell you how much of a debt of gratitude the body of 9/11 Truth owes to Aidan Monaghan. The relentless pursuit of this information is truly admirable. Even better, the absolutely rewarding realization that Aidan is beating them at their own game, and they know it.

They tried to bury us in meaningless answers and delays, and yet Aidain kept pressing, all the while pointing out the glaring inconsistencies and outright lies in their information of record. These aircraft are critical evidence in the worst mass murder in our history. They need to be positively identified. Period.

This is a great contribution to our effort. Long may it continue.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

In other words

either there is no evidence or if there is, the FBI couldn't be bothered to do a proper investigation.

The worst Airline Disaster in History and neither the FBI, NTSB or Boeing ever investigated the crashes and what actually happened to the planes. Just like the folks at NIST, who refuse to look below the impact zone floors to find out what caused to the collapses or if explosives were used. What an amazing amount of trust all of these agencies have in the official story, that everything was so obvious, that there was no need to question or prove anything.

Can we hang these bastards yet?

Great stuff, Aidan! Justin

Great stuff, Aidan!

Justin A. Martell
www.sst911.org
jamartell.blogspot.com

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach! Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach! My pathway led by confusion boats...mutiny from stern t

Semantics

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 . . .”

We weren't trying to identify the aircraft, because we already knew. Since we weren't trying to identify the aircraft, any records of wreckage that might exist, even if they might have been used by someone else to identify the aircraft, are not records that would reveal the process by which the wreckage was positively identified by the FBI as belonging to the aircraft. How could such records reveal a process that the FBI did not undertake? Why would records be generated for a process that did not occur?

Or has Donald Rumsfeld would say

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfeld

We spend how many billions a year for Defense and Homeland Security so that they can claim that nobody knows shit.

DYEW

Damn, that was a good summary.

There are things WE KNOW we don't want YOU to know

so we will pretend that we don't know because it's not worth knowing since we already know what we want you to know.

(Oh, and please stop all these FOIA's, Mr. Monaghan, as you're making us look like complete idiots who ignore years of standard procedures when it comes to investigating the events of 9/11/01)

How any of these Justice Department criminals sleep is beyond me.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Semantics indeed

It's obvious they're just playing word games and being excruciatingly legalistic. If you notice their answer to the Bingham/Hodes FOIA request in 2005 for all the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, they deny that any of them show Flight 77 (or any "plane") hitting the Pentagon.

FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire responds under oath that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11." Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon." Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."

Notice that the reference is always to Flight 77 or a plane. Nowhere does she say that the tapes show something else (a missile?) hitting the Pentagon, since she wasn't asked that question specifically (or more broadly). Therefore she can insist she's being truthful.

Was there any follow-up done with this? I'm afraid unless those videos are available for public inspection, the FBI will always find a way to dodge the question.
Note also that www.flight77.info seems to be a debunking site, so their motives may be suspect.

Kudos to Aidan for all the great work!

Thanks Aidan

for your continued efforts on a topic that needs to be pushed.

ID The South Tower Fake Flight 175

Keystone Cops 9/11: ID The South Tower Fake Flight 175 http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911SouthTowerID1.htm

Thanx Very Much To All

Stay tuned.

Moussaoui could have been executed

based on the premise that these aircraft were flown into buildings or the ground. Mounir el Motassadeq was convicted in Germany of accessory to murder based on his association with persons who allegedly flew two of these planes into the Twin Towers. But even if it has been proven that these planes were hijacked, it has never been proven what happened afterwards. This is akin to a murder case where the alleged killer was seen in the neighborhood waving a gun, and is convicted of murder because a victim was found shot in a house, with no evidence it was the same gun or that the defendant even entered the house. Worse, the alleged killer is dead and members of his gang are convicted for helping him get a gun or just for giving him a place to sleep in the weeks before the killing.

It's hard to judge the federal public defenders in the Moussaoui case without knowing all the facts and Hobbesian choices they may have had to make, but as a general matter, there is a huge gap in the proof that would never fly in a regular criminal case, particularly a capital case.

Actually, in Mottasadeq's case, the German court only assumed the hijackings and deaths of passengers, but not victims on the ground, so the court did not need to make a finding that the hijacked planes hit buildings, just that the planes were hijacked and the passengers are dead as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounir_El_Motassadeq

"On November 15, 2006, the German Federal Supreme Court ruled on the appeals: They considered the evidence as sufficient to prove that Motassadeq knew about and was involved in the preparation of the plan to hijack the planes and is hence guilty of accessory in 246 counts of murder. This is the number of victims that died in the planes but does not include the victims on ground. "

Example from today's paper

The U.S. Supreme Court just accepted review of this case:

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1142687

It's a drive-by shooting case:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/355380_drivebykilling18.html

The driver of the car was convicted of murder as an accomplice for being the driver of a car when a passenger pulled out a gun and shot people. It wasn't clear he had any prior knowledge of the shooter's intent. The issue is whether the jury instructions were ambiguous as to whether the accomplice had to have knowledge of the actual crime the principal intends to commit.

In this case, unlike the Moussaoui case, the principals were all tried and convicted. In Moussaoui, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was a principal as the alleged planner, but he has not been tried and convicted. Proof of the crime committed by the principal was weak, for a variety of reasons we all know.

I may be mixing Motassadeq and Moussaoui and don't fully understand federal conspiracy law, but Moussaoui was basically convicted of involvement in the September 11 attacks without underlying proof that the people who he was associated with committed the crime.

look at dates

N334AA is Deregistered

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=334AA&cmn...

American Airlines Flight 77

N644AA is Deregistered
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA&cmn...

United Airlines Flight 175

N612UA

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA&cmn...

United Airlines Flight 93
N591UA

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591UA&cmn...

WilMINGTON TRUST ring a bell?

if you have been watching the stock market it does.
bear sterns. BTW this trust also leases planes. you can ties the head guy to the Penn Fed reserve.
also
Mayer, Brown and Platt was known before as MAYER, BROWN Rowe & Maw
and they also represent much in the turkey area..its called oil. the Grand game, the Chessboard. pipelines..
how can planes fly in 2005 and be inside of the WTC?
impossible.
the images you saw on tv. what were they? covering up for what really was going on.
TV is not real.