[apeman81]

Not wishing to lengthen argument, I wish to repeat what I believe to be a salient point in this discussion. The position of the wings in relation to the fuselage matched with the apparent lack of shadow strongly suggest to me that the wings in question are not attached to the fuselage. Rather, they have been placed directly on the ground and the fuselage placed upon them. I don’t think you’ll get a match, because they are not in the correct relative position.
If I am correct, things and fuselage may indeed come from disparate airframes.
However, as far as this relates to possible terrorist training, it is a difference that makes no difference. Failing the ability to obtain a 767 for training, almost any commercial airliner would suit their needs.
The real concern for the hijackers would have been familiarization of close quarter combat in the confined area of such a craft. Additionally, they would concentrate on the various latches, handles, controls, and projections and devices to employ as well potential weapons adaptation of the same.
Any old plane would do. It would necessarily have to be a jet, as someone keeps harping. The old DC-6 Constellation mimics the interior spaces and furnishings of a modern jetliners quite nicely.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

In the town center, to the northeast and northwest of the circle, there are one each, Saddam Hussien victory arches which are the facsimile of two swords crossed in the air.

[dinodino]

Apeman is correct in saying that it doesn't matter anyway what sort of fuselage was used for terror training; the issue is rather that it was used at all. I still think it's a Tupolev. :P

[r9etb]

The position of the wings in relation to the fuselage matched with the apparent lack of shadow strongly suggest to me that the wings in question are not attached to the fuselage.

Is this the same plane? Sure looks like it: tri-jet with no vertical stabilizer and a cockeyed wing. Time magazine calls this part of an "antiterrorist training camp in Iraq."