Untitled p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px Times} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px Times; min-height: 14.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; font: 10.0px Times} p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 54.0px; text-align: justify; font: 10.0px Times; min-height: 13.0px} p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 27.2px; text-indent: -27.2px; font: 10.0px Times} span.s1 {font: 12.0px Times} span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}

File BPBquelle06

On May 28, 2008, I sent a FOIA application to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), requesting “all documents regarding the identification of aircraft parts of the four aircraft that crashed on September 11, 2001.”  Melba D. Moye, FOIA Officer at the NTSB, answered shortly thereafter, that “the only records that the Safety Board possesses that are within the scope of your request are photographs taken shortly after the crashes at the World Trade Center and the at the Pentagon, a Video Data Impact Speed Study report, and a Debris Trajectory Study report for United Airlines flight 175.”1  Yet, in a copy of a letter from Ronald S. Battocchi, General Counsel, NTSB, of April 23, 2002 to the US Department of Justice, attached to NTSB’s response, Battocchi wrote that NTSB personnel “assisted the FBI and local authorities, on-scene and at the Fresh Kill landfill on Staten Island, locate and identify parts of the four aircraft involved.”2 No documentary evidence was apparently held by the NTSB about their participation in these identification efforts.

Citizen investigator Aidan Monaghan requested in 2007 from the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) “documentation pertaining to any formally and positively identified debris” from the aircraft used in Operation 9/11.3  In its first response of November 26, 2007, the FBI denied the request arguing that “these records in their entireties (…) are protected from disclosure” because their release “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”  This was actually a lie. For after Monaghan challenged in 2008 the FBI in court, Assistant US Attorney Patrick A. Rose admitted that the FBI did not at all possess such documentation. Here is how he explained this omission:  

Federal Defendant [the FBI] has determined that there are no responsive records [to the FOIA request].. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was (sic) 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.)”4

We note at first the convoluted language used to acknowledge that the FBI did not undertake a formal identification of the wreckage. By deconstructing this statement, its contrived nature can be revealed. Actually, this short statement contains several lies, as will be demonstrated henceforth.

The first lie – and possibly the least remarkable – is that airplanes were “hijacked in the September 11 attacks”.  That this claim is a lie follows from the fact that the US authorities (and particularly the FBI itself) did not prove that the 19 alleged hijackers had actually boarded the airliners used in the mass-murder.

The second lie – or more accurately a deceptive formulation – is that the identities of the “hijacked” airplanes “was (sic) never in question.”  The statement may be understood in two ways, both of them deceptive. 

According to the first interpretation, the FBI tried to imply that this statement was prompted by a FOIA request for records identifying the hijacked aircraft. The FBI would have simply believed that there is no difference between the identities of the hijacked aircraft and the identities of the wreckage and formulated its answer in accordance with its misunderstanding.

According to the second interpretation, the FBI tried to create the impression that it actually meant that the identities of the wreckage were not in question, but had formulated its answer negligently. 

To believe that Counsel for the FBI would be negligent in formulating an answer to a court of law would, however, defy belief. It is safe to bet that language used in FBI’s statement to a court of law would be formulated with great care by legal counsel.

The third, and most outrageous, lie was to claim that the identities of the aircraft (hijacked or crashed) were “never in question”. Ample evidence exists that air traffic controllers, the FAA and even the US military were so confused about the identities and the locations of suspect aircraft, that up to 29 aircraft were at one time suspected to have been hijacked. There was actually a huge confusion on 9/11 and no one could know which aircraft had crashed.

The failure to forensically identify the debris of the crashed aircraft – a relatively trivial procedure – could only be plausibly explained by the intent of the FBI to suppress their real identities. 

1  NTSB letter to Mr. Davidsson, June 12, 2008, #920

2  Ibid.

3 Aidan Monaghan, “FBI Refuses To Confirm Identity of 9/11 Planes”, RINF News, December 2, 2007, #1082

4 Aidan Monaghan, “F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Indentify 9/11 Plane Wreckage Publically Known Information Suggests Otherwise”, Visibility911.com, March 28, 2008, #1083