Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hani Hanjour Reloaded - Official Myth Debunked; Loose Change vs Screw Loose Change
Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 05:21 PM (1,828 Views)
NK-44
Member Avatar

Hani Hanjour Reloaded


This is in essential a repost from the old forum.

I added some parts to the 'Maneuver'-section. More statements by pilots confirming the difficulty of
the performed maneuver, and that it requires advanced skills to do so.

I have added also some aspects to the section "Let's look into another aspect of the maneuver-scenario", including two new sub-sections: "Was there a fight going on?" and "The conflict of the official account with crash site observations". I also had a look into the claims made by an Al-Qaeda operator, that Hanjour wasn't piloting Flight 77. You could find this at the end of the article in the section "The other dead pilot - or Al-Qaida's debunking attempt."

Changes have been made in the section about Hanjour's flying skills mainly on those two entries (and the summary):

June/Juli 2001 - Caldwell Flight Academy Fairfield, New Jersey
August 2001 - Congressional Air Charters Gaithersburg, Maryland

If you are already convinced that Hanjour wasn't piloting Flight 77, then I highly recommed to spend your time on the second part "The special treament", in particular the sub-section "The living pilots".
No changes have been made in part two besides the added section at the end.

update:

-added two statements of pilots claiming that Hanjour was capable to pilot Flight 77

-added under 'What evidence do we have that Hanjour was even on Flight 77?' a short section:
'Hanjour's relatives also don't think that he was on a suicide mission'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the first part we take a look into Loose Change's claims regarding Hanjour flight skills, the maneuver of Flight 77 and the debunking of it made by Screw Loose Change. In the second part we will take a deeper look into Hanjour and his special treatment by agencies and four falsely alleged hijacker pilots.

Part One

Hanjour's flying skills

Posted Image Posted Image (Source)

However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August

He had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172.


Who says this? It’s not in the video. Hanjour did have a commercial instrument-rated pilot license. Had he flown a 172 before? How about a little research, guys? Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if takeoffs and landings were what he practiced the least on the ol’ flight simulator.

Yes, Loose Change doesn't provide the source, so I do: Source

" And consensus was , he was very quiet, " " average, or below average piloting skills, "
" English was very poor " " so, that's about the best description I can get, give you "

Now THAT was an earth-shattering inteview.

A minute and 8 seconds to hear that Hanjour was a nice guy who was instrument-rated but who wasn’t a great Cessna pilot? How hurting can you be for filler? How about at least telling us that Hanjour wasn’t able to rent the Cessna?

From the Greenbelt (Maryland) Gazette:


Quote:
 
The standard evaluation consists of one-to-one-and-a-half-hour flights east over the Chesapeake Bay area. Hanjour paid $400 cash and provided a valid pilot's license from Arizona, Bernard said. He failed because he showed problems landing the airplane and the flight instructor had to help him, Bernard said. But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001


Well, to say "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it" is an oversimplification of what actually happened. But we will go into the maneuver of Flight 77 later. And it's also important to note that Bernard didn't instruct Hanjour personally, but two of his employees have, the insturctors Baxter and Conner.

But let's look at Hani Hanjour's flying skills in a chronological timeline:

September 96 - Academy of Aeronautics

According to Hanjour's brother, Yasser, Hanis intention to visit flight schools in the USA was because he wanted to become a pilot for the Saudi national airline.

The Saudi carrier required Saudi pilots to be FAA-certified in the United States. (This, Saudi officials point out, explains why so many Saudis were in US flight schools. Since Sept. 11, the Saudi regulation has been changed.) Source

After being rejected by a Saudi flight school, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training in 1996. Source

Quote:
 
While in Oakland, he enrolled at the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics. He attended a 30-minute class on Sept. 8 and never came back. Dan Shaffer, the academy's vice president for flight operations, speculated that Hanjour was intimidated by the school's two-year training regimen and $35,000 price tag. Source


At the end of this period, Hanjour enrolls on a rigorous one-year flight training program at the renowned Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, in Oakland. However, he only attends the 30-minute orientation class, on September 8, and then never returns. CBS 5 (San Francisco), 10/10/2001San Francisco Chronicle, 10/10/2001Associated Press, 10/11/2001Associated Press, 5/10/2002

End of 96 - CRM Airline Training Center Scottsdale, Arizona

Quote:
 
Certainly, Hanjour's own piloting skills were shaky. He took lessons at a Scottsdale, Ariz., flight school four years ago, but eventually was asked to leave by instructors who said his skills were poor and his manner difficult. Source


Quote:
 
For someone suspected of steering a jetliner into the Pentagon, the 29-year-old man who used the name Hani Hanjour sure convinced a lot of people he barely knew how to fly.

Hanjour attended CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz. Duncan Hastie, the owner of CRM, said Hanjour attended the school the last three months of 1996. Then Hanjour "sort of disappeared," he said, returning in December 1997.

Hastie said Hanjour wasn't much of a pilot.

"One of the first accomplishments of someone in flight school is to fly a plane without an instructor," Hastie said. "It is a confidence-building procedure. He managed to do that. That is like being able to pull a car out and drive down the street. It is not driving on the freeway."

Hastie said that three months normally would be enough to earn a private pilot's certificate, but Hanjour "did not accomplish that at my school."

After Hanjour last took classes at the school, he called back numerous times to ask about further instruction. At least once, Hastie recalled, Hanjour said he was living in Florida. He told Hastie he had continued with his training.

"He was a pain in the rear," Hastie said. "We didn't want him back at our school because he was not serious about becoming a good pilot." Source


Quote:
 
During three months of instruction in late 1996, Duncan K.M. Hastie, CRM's owner, found Hanjour a "weak student" who "was wasting our resources." Hanjour left, then returned in December 1997 - a year later - and stayed only a few weeks. Over the next three years, Hanjour called Hastie about twice a year, asking to come back for more instruction.

"I would recognize his voice," Hastie said. "He was always talking about wanting more training. Yes, he wanted to be an airline pilot. That was his stated goal. That's why I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' Source


Quote:
 
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997," Chilton said. Newsday (12/23/01)


Quote:
 
He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source


January 1998 - Arizona Aviation Mesa, Arizona

In January 1998, Hanjour and his friend Bandar Al Hazmi, who are now renting an apartment together in Phoenix, Arizona, train together at Arizona Aviation flight school. Hanjour supposedly receives his commercial pilot rating while there. US Congress, 9/26/2002

This is based on a claim by the FBI, and no further informations have been provided. So as long as no further evidence for that is provided, we have to have completely trust in the account of FBI-Chief Robert Mueller. Given the case of Raissi alone (see later under 'The living pilots'), it's safe to say that everything the FBI states should at least being taken with a grain of salt.


1998 - Sawyer School of Aviation Phoenix, Arizona

Quote:
 
Over five years, Hanjour hopscotched among flight schools and airplane rental companies, but his instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

Wes Fults, the former manager of the flight simulator at Sawyer School of Aviation in Phoenix, gave Hanjour a one-hour orientation lesson when he arrived as a new member of the school's "sim club" in 1998. "Mr. Hanjour was, if not dour, to some degree furtive. He never looked happy," Fults recalled. "He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

.... In 1998, he joined the simulator club at Sawyer, a small Phoenix school known locally as a flight school of last resort. "It was a commonly held truth that, if you failed anywhere else, go to Sawyer Aviation. They had good instructors," said Fults, the former simulator manager there.

Sawyer's simulator is in a closet-sized room that students and pilots alike use to practice the basics of instrument flight. Fults remembers Hanjour as "a neophyte. ... The impression I got is he came and, like a lot of guys, got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." Washington Post, 10/15/2001


April 1999 - Sunbird Flight Services Tempe, Arizona

Quote:
 
Agency records show that Hanjour was certified as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot" on April 15, 1999, by Daryl Strong , a designated pilot examiner in Tempe, Ariz. It was the last of three certifications Hanjour obtained from private examiners.

Strong, 71, said his flight logs confirm that he conducted a check ride with Mr. Hanjour in 1999 in a twin-engine Piper Apache but that he remembers nothing remarkable about him. Source


Sunbird Flight Services residents at Chandler Municipal Airport.
After he got his license,
Quote:
 
"Hanjour reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected."Commission Report


So Hanjour went to the United States in 1999 and received his certificate, but came home and still couldn't land a job with the airline. Source

In a CBC-Article, dealing with Hanjour's license, it's written that one of Hanjour's instructors, an Arab-American man, came under pressure by the FBI. He told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." Source

But this instructor remains unkmown, also his company and the time when he trained Hanjour (it's only stated that it was before he got his license, April 15. 99).

Dezember 2000 - Arizona Aviation Phoenix, Arizona

Quote:
 
Hazmi and Hanjour left San Diego almost immediately and drove to Arizona. Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school, Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. Commission Report


January/February 2001 - Jet Tech International Phoenix, Arizona

Quote:
 
"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)


Quote:
 
Instructors at a flying school in Phoenix, Arizona express concern to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials about the poor English and limited flying skills of one of their students, Hani Hanjour.

They believe his pilot's license may be fraudulent.

The FAA finds it is genuine - but school administrators tell Mr. Hanjour he will not qualify for an advanced certificate." BBC (5/17/02)


Quote:
 
"Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA.

They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)


Jet Tech has closed in the meantime and was owned by Pan Am International Flight Academy.

Early 2001 - Pan Am Intern. Flight Academy Mesa, Arizona

Quote:
 
In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Commission Report


April 2001 - Air Fleet Trainings System Teterboro, New Jersey

Quote:
 
Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time, at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiving ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi. Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills. Commission Report


June/Juli 2001 - Caldwell Flight Academy Fairfield, New Jersey

Quote:
 
Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour-likely accompanied by Hazmi-rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June. Commission Report


But Cooperative Research notes:

Quote:
 
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Caldwell’s owner will confirm that several suspects sought by the FBI, reportedly including Mohamed Atta, had rented planes from him, though when they did so is unstated. A search of the Lexis Nexus database indicates there are no media accounts of any witnesses recalling Hanjour or any of the other hijackers attending these schools. Source


Indeed, if we look at the Commission footnote, no further information is delivered, besides that there is 'documentary evidence' that he was in Jersey 'most of June'. Here's the full footnote (No.135):

Quote:
 
135. FBI report, Hijackers Timeline, Dec. 5, 2003 (citing 315N-NY-280350-302, serial 7228; 315N-NY-280350-F, serial 99; 315N-NY-280350-NK, serial 263). Documents from Sawyer Aviation in Phoenix, Arizona, show Hanjour joining the flight simulator club on June 23, 2001, with Faisal al Salmi, Rayed Abdullah, and Lotfi Raissi. FBI report of investigation, interview of Jennifer Stangel, Sept. 14, 2001. But the documents are inconclusive, as there are no invoices or payment records for Hanjour, while such documents do exist for the other three. FBI memo, Penttbom investigation, Oct. 7, 2001; FBI memo, Penttbom investigation, summary of dispatch sheets, Oct. 12, 2001; Don W. and Steve B. interview (Jan. 6, 2004). One Sawyer employee identified Hanjour as being there during the time period, though she was less than 100 percent sure. FBI report of investigation, interview of Tina Arnold, Oct. 17, 2001. Another witness identified Hanjour as being with Salmi in the Phoenix area during the summer of 2001. FBI letterhead memorandum, investigation of Lotfi Raissi, Jan. 4, 2004, p. 18. Documentary evidence for Hanjour, however, shows that he was in New Jersey for most of June, and no travel records have been recovered showing that he returned to Arizona after leaving with Hazmi in March.Nevertheless, the FBI's Phoenix office believes it plausible that Hanjour returned to Arizona for additional training. FBI electronic communication, Penttbom investigation, Feb. 19, 2002.


That Hanjour together with Raissi joined the Simulator CLub is an outraged lie, as we will later learn in the section 'The living pilots'. It proves that the FBI isn't a reliable source.

Further note, this is the first time since April 1999, when Hanjour was certified as an "Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot" on April 15, 1999, by Daryl Strong, that there's no negative comment by instructors about his flying skills. There is no comment at all. If you follow the timeline of Hanjour's flying lessons closely, you will note that all (the few) positive references, besides Daryl Strong remembering 'nothing remarkable', are based not on comments by instructors or based on comments by anonymous instructors.

And when the Commission states that there is 'documentary evidence' that he was 'most of June' in Jersey, does this in reverse mean that there is no documentary evidence for his flight at Cardwell in July?
Is there in fact any positive confirmation that Hanjour did in June and July what he supossedly had done, other than vague informations given by the FBI and a vague statement by the flight school's owner?
I'm not aware that the public has seen any.

During the time in June and July, when Hanjour supposedly rented aircraft from Caldwell Flight Academy, he also failed a night-flight test:

Quote:
 
On June 19, 2001, Hanjour attempted to obtain a pilot's certification to fly at night, but was unable to do so because he failed the test. Document from the Mussaoui-trial (PDF)


Unfortunately, the document provides no further information about his failed night-flight test.

August 2001 - Freeway Aviation Bowie, Maryland

Quote:
 
Hanjour, always an uncertain pilot, showed up at flight school in Bowie, Md. Three times, he attempted to rent a plane. Each time, a different instructor took him on a test flight and deemed him incompetent to fly alone.

"We have a level of standards that we hold all our pilots to, and he couldn't meet it," said the manager of the flight school.

Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the manager said. Hanjour was also reluctant to provide his address, a standard part of the plane rental application. Source


Quote:
 
That plot was in high gear by the second week of August, when Hanjour arrived in the Washington area for what appears to have been his final preparation - this time, at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md. Instructors once again questioned his competence. After three sessions in a single-engine plane, the school decided Hanjour was not ready to rent a plane by himself. Cape Cod Times (10/21/02)


Quote:
 
"Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed.

Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience he had." Source


Quote:
 
„However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.“ Source


August 2001 - Congressional Air Charters Gaithersburg, Maryland

According to a footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report, some time in August 2001 Hanjour successfully conducts “a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.” The instructor thinks that “Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation.” 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 248 and 531

Cooperative Research states that
Quote:
 
"besides the 9/11 Commission Report, no other evidence exists of Hanjour passing this certification flight. A search of the Lexis Nexus database indicates there are no mentions of Hanjour attending this school, or any witnesses recalling him there." Source


According to the 'Chronology of Events for Hijackers, 8/16/01 - 9/11/01, Hani Hanjour' from the Moussaoui-Trial, Hanjour took this lesson on the 20th of August at 15.00h and paid in cash.

Quote:
 
A man who answered the phone at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg declined to give his name and said the company no longer gives flight instruction. On July 20, 2001, Hanjour - likely accompanied by Nawaf al-Hazmi, another member of the Flight 77 team - completed a 'challenging certification flight' supervised by an instructor from Congressional, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission. Source


The Commission-Report's statement contradicts all others and quotes an anonymous instructor who thinks that Hanjour had "training from a military pilot". As there's no way that Hanjour could have improved his skills in a few days more than in five years before, there are only two possibilities: this story is complete fraud, or it is true, but then the instructor is obviously not talking about the same person.

A third possibility comes to mind when looking at this stipulation-document (PDF) from the Moussaoui-trial:

Quote:
 
On August 20, 2001, Hanjour took and passed a check ride with a flight instructor at Congressional Air Charter, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
On August 26 and 28, 2001, Hanjour rented aircraft from Congressional Air Charter


Here's the talk of a check flight, which due to insurance demands everyone renting an aircraft has to make, not of a challenging certification flight. Why does the Commission exaggerates Hanjour's flying skills with such misleading expressions? So according to the document from the Moussaoui-trial, Hanjour was able to pass an ordinary, non-challenging check flight, which he only three days before failed to pass when trying in Bernard's flight school.

Either Hanjour improved his skills a lot in three days, or Congressional Air Charters has not the same standards and demands on people renting their aircraft. Fact remains that the flight instructor attesting Hanjour to have had training by military pilots, remains anonymous. Unlike all those instructors attesting him to have no flight skills at all. And when reporters called the company, no information was given out, the man on the phone even declined to tell his name.

It should also be noted, that the claim in the stipulation-document regarding renting aircraft on August 26 and 28, is not accurate. According to the Hanjour-chronology from the Moussaoui-trial, Hanjour took a flight lesson on August 20 and paid it in cash (109, 80$)

This was the flight lesson the Commission exaggerated to a challenging flight, and the stipulation-document just referred to as check flight.

From the entry on August 26 in the chronology we can conclude that Hanjour passed the test, as the entry states that he rented an aircraft, not that he took a lesson. No amount of costs are provided.

But uinlike the stipulation-document states that Hanjour rented also aircraft on August 28, the chronology states that Hanjour took again a flight lesson, costing him 111,71$.

It seems that Hanjour, just two weeks prior to the attacks, still felt more comfortable with an instructor by his side. Or did the instructor think that Hanjour still could not fly alone after his challenging flight with difficult approach?



Summed up:

September 1996 Aeronautic Academy: He attended a 30-minute class on Sept. 8 and never came back.

End of 1996 CRM: skills were poor - barely knew how to fly. - wasn't much of a pilot. - pain in the rear - not serious about becoming a good pilot - a pretty weak student - wasting our resources - he was not capable

January 1998 Arizona Aviation: according to FBI-Chief Mueller supposedly receives his commercial pilot rating while being there - no other evidence corroborates this

1998 Saywer School: only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do - got overwhelmed with the instruments.

before April 1999 Anonymous instructor/flight school - very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit

April 1999 Sunbird Flight Service - nothing remarkable

Dezember 2000 Arizona Aviation: instructor advised him to discontinue

January/February 2001 Jet Tech: a very bad pilot. - He could not fly at all.-express concern to Federal Aviation Administration - not qualify for an advanced certificate - flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license. " I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.

Early 2001 Pan Am International: An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.

April 2001 Air Fleet Trainings: poor piloting skills.

June/Juli 2001 Caldwell: rented aircraft - no comments by instructors on his skills exist - no public available evidence like confirmation by instructors, school's owner, etc. that he attented there - during the same time he failed night-flight test

August 2001 Freeway Aviation: incompetent to fly alone - could not handle basic air maneuvers - was not ready to rent a plane by himself. - unable to fly solo - instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience

August 01 Congressional Air Charters: a challenging certification flight with a difficult approach, like stated by the 9/11 Commission became an ordinary check flight during the Moussaoui-trial - though he passed the check-flight, he took a flight lesson again a week later - anonymous instructor attested training from a military pilot in the same exaggerated account provided by the Commission - still in question that he has ever been there - the company no longer gives flight lessons and employees decline to even give their name

So if we take Bernard's 'average, low-average' as a 'neutral' reference point, than we have only three instructors certifying Hanjour better skills. An anonymous instructor from an anonymous flight school (see April 1999), an anonymous instructor from Congressional Air Charters (a company which no longer gives flight instructions), who thought Hanjour had been trained by a military pilot (see August 2001), and Daryl Strong, who signed Hanjours multi-engine license and is a private contractor to the FAA, and remembered nothing remarkable. A FAA spokesman said:

Quote:
 
"Designees have a financial interest in certifying as many people as possible, Awsumb argued. "They receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check," she said. "If they get a reputation for being tough, they won't get any business." Source


This may explain very well why Strong "remembered nothing remarkable". On the other side we have testimonies from seven different flight-schools certifying Hanjour's low-average/poor flight skills.

Besides flying an airplane, Hanjour wasn't even competent enough to pass a driving test.

Quote:
 
After being fined for speeding the day before Hanjour fails a test to obtain a Virginia driver’s license. Hanjour already has an Arizona driving license and an international driving license. According to the Virginia police, Hanjour also has a Florida driver’s license, although the 9/11 Commission will dispute this. Source


Despite of all the reports of Hanjour's weak piloting skills, the Commission-Report concludes:

Quote:
 
"Among the five hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour was the sole individual who FAA records show completed flight training and received FAA pilot certification. Hanjour received his commercial multi-engine pilot certificate from the FAA in March 1999. He received extensive flight training in the United States including flight simulator training, and was perhaps the most experienced and highly trained pilot among the 9/11 hijackers." Commission Report


and states that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530

If he was the best, how worse the others had to be! But the Commission-Report is wrong, at least Mohamed Atta (Flight 11) had better skills than Hanjour.

Edited by NK-44, Jan 30 2008, 05:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

The Maneuver

9:38. Arlington, Virginia.

Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH


The 9/11 Commission says it was 330 degrees, most other sources I’ve seen say it was 270.

Hanjour first overflew the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. The turnaround may have been due, not to great skill, but to inexperience.


Let's start with a statement from General Schwarzkopf regarding the Pentagon-Maneuver, made in the evening of 9/11. This rare clip contains also some interesting footage of the Pentagon: WMV 18mB (Back-uped here, here and here)

Here are other reports:

Quote:
 
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."

"Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers." Washington Post (9/12/01)


Quote:
 
But on the morning of Sept. 11, as Flight 77 veered off its course to Los Angeles and streaked toward Washington and the Pentagon, Hanjour is thought to have been the one who executed what a top aviation source called "a nice, coordinated turn." Washington Post (09/30/01)


Quote:
 
"Q: How could terrorists fly these? Were they trained?

A: Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision." Detroit News (9/13/01)


Quote:
 
"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target."

"But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."CBS (9/21/01)


Quote:
 
"To pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Tuesday, the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators, a flight expert said.

By seizing four planes, diverting them from scheduled flight paths and managing to crash two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon, they must have had plenty of skill and training.

It was not known how the hijackers slipped through airport security checkpoints with their weapons.

There are no indications that any of the airline crews activated a four-digit code alerting ground controllers that a hijacking was in progress." CNN (9/12/01)


Quote:
 
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." ABC (10/24/01)


Loose Change used this quote, but without the 'it's unsafe' comment at the end. That's why Screw Loose Change claims that this statement - as a whole - debunks by itself the point here made by Loose Change. But let's look closer: experienced air traffic controllers, which have monitored the radar, thought to that time it was a military plane. The 757-statement is an interpretation made afterwards, when it was announced that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. At the moment he's talking of none of them had thought that it could be a 757. And that's the point here! And this becomes absolute clear when we follow his statement:

Quote:
 
"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.
But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver."


Quote:
 
After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Washington Post, (9/10/2002)


Markus Kirschneck, from the pilots-association "Cockpit":
Quote:
 
"The Pentagon-Maneuver was one of the most difficult maneuvers you could do with a passengers-jet at all." Source (in German)



And another one:

Quote:
 
Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”
(Source)


And another:

Quote:
 
Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them,it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. (...)

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.


Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible." (Source)


The view, that only experienced pilots could perform such a maneuver, is also shared here:

Quote:
 
Darryl Jenkins, director of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University, said that those who carried out the attack were as sophisticated as those who planned it. ''These guys knew what they were doing down to very small details,'' he said. ''Every one of them was trained in flying big planes.''

A number of aviation experts agreed, saying the hijackers must have been experienced pilots.
(...)
But John Nance, an airline pilot, author and aviation analyst, said the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers.

The smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers supports this point of view, Mr. Nance said. He added that precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill.

“There’s no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done yesterday,” Mr. Nance said (New York Times)




And from Webster Tarpleys book: 9/11 Synthetic Terror:

Quote:
 
In a CNN interview on September 15, 2001, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak commented about the 9/11 events. His testimony is of interest because he spent his military career as a fighter pilot in the Egyptian Air Force. Mubarak was also one of the world leaders who had tried to warn the US government about what was coming in the summer of 2001. Mubarak said first of all that he found the US government’s official version, which was then taking shape, technically implausible. Mubarak: “Not any intelligence in the world could have the capability in the world to say they are going to use commercial planes with passengers on board to crash the towers, to crash the Pentagon, those who did that should have flown in the area for a long time, for example. The Pentagon is not very high, a pilot could come straight to the Pentagon like this to hit, he should have flown a lot in this area to know the obstacles which could meet him when
he is flying very low with a big commercial plane to hit the Pentagon in a special place. Somebody has studied this very well, someone has flown in this area very much.”

[Not from Tarpley's book: Six weeks later Mubarak made a similiar comment:
"I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission, not someone who learned to fly for 18 months in Florida." (source) ]

Nikki Lauda, a legendary Formula One race driver, was a pilot and the founder of his
own airline. He was asked by Jauch: “Is it easy to learn, we’ve seen that a video was
found in a car near the Boston airport, and people think that the car belonged to a
kidnapper, who had used it to bone up in advance on what the inside of a cockpit looks like. Is it so simple, for example, to learn that with the help of a computer simulator?”
Lauda judged that “these gentlemen were properly trained to fly a plane like that.” In
particular, he stressed that “you have to know exactly what the turning radius of a planelike that is, if I am trying to hit the World Trade Center. That means, these had to be fully trained 767 or 757 pilots, because otherwise they would have missed. It certainly could not be the case that some half-trained pilot tries it somehow, because then he will not hit it. That’s not so easy, coming out of a curve….If he’s coming out of a curve, then he has to know precisely the turning radius that derives from the speed of the plane in order to be able to calculate it, so that he will hit right there.”
Jauch asked which was harder to hit, the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Lauda:“Well, what impressed me is the organization of this whole operation, since without good weather it would have not been possible at all, because then you can’t see anything. These were visual flights, using VFR [visual flight rules] as we call them. And so the World Trade Center is relatively easy to find, because it is stands out so tall…. The Pentagon is another matter again, because it is a building that is relatively flat. That means, they had to be trained well enough that they had flown around in the air in the New York area, I would speculate, so they could see the scene from above of where the building is located and how you could best reach it.” To hit a flat building like the Pentagon is “an even more difficult case” than the World Trade Center.
Lauda: “That means, to fly downwards out of a curve, and still hit the building in its core, I would have to be the best trained of all. I would speculate that a normal airline pilot would have a hard time with that, because you are simply not prepared for things like that. That means, they must have had some super-training to have been able to handle an airliner so precisely.”

In the days after 9/11, a private group of US military and civilian pilots held a seminar to evaluate this crucial feature of the official story – could the hijackers have flown the planes with the requisite accuracy? After 72 hours of deliberation and discussion, they issued a press release summarizing their findings: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.”

One of the organizers of the seminar, retired Colonel Donn Grandpre, said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a complicated operation, which obviously had as a prerequisite military precision of the highest order. The seminar concluded that it was likely that the hijackers were not the ones in control of the aircraft.
One participant in the seminar was a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties
during the Vietnam war. This experienced combat pilot concluded that “Those birds
either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.”
Another spokesman for the group was identified as Captain Kent Hill (USAF retired),
who was reportedly a friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Hill recalled that the US had already carried out multiple flights of an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, between Edwards Air Force base in California across the Pacific to South Australia. Hill said this plane had flown on a preprogrammed flight path under the supervision of a pilot in an outside station.
Source (PDF)


And finally, there was a discussion in the Italian TV, were professional pilots showed how difficult the Pentagon maneuver was to perform. I don't have a link to the original broadcast, but the discussion is included in the movie "Inganno Globale" ("Global deception") by Massimo Mazzucco (Go here for his website). Unfortunately, I'm not aware that there's an English version of this documentary, so I could only provide the discussion in Italian, and also in a new German synchro-version.

Watch the two clips here and here. (There's also a clip about Hanjour.)

Here's just an extract of the discussion. Alitalia commercial airline pilot Claudio Galavotti said:


Quote:
 
I would have too work really really hard because it is not an easy thing from my point of view.....I believe whoever did this understood what it it means to stay 10 or 5 metres off the ground with an aeroplane that weighs 110 or 120 tonnes going at 900kmh......it would just need a touch of the yoke ........and you would go off course....but you would go off course by a 100 metres or so.....not 10 metres....

It just needs a touch and there would be a movement of 100 metres at altitude.....on the horizontal axis...it is just ridicolouse....you would need a set of particular circumstances to remain so close to the ground....I believe that it is no easy thing.




But others disagree that much skill is needed to perform the maneuvers the hijackers made:

Quote:
 
"It doesn't take that much skill; just enough knowledge to home in on a radio station in New York or Washington, and the needle (zeroes) right in," said McNicol, referring to the automatic direction finder that steers an aircraft. "You don't have to know anything about flying, other than the wings have to be level to fly straight." McNicol noted that the suspects, some of whom attended flight schools in Florida and Arizona, "probably got all the information they needed [there]." (...)

A pilot with only a couple of hundred hours experience could have pulled off the operation, concurred Richard Theokas, chairman of the flight training department at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla. "You just need to know how to fly straight and level and keep on target," Theokas said. "These guys allowed others to take off, and they didn't have to land it." Source


But here's the talk of to 'fly straight and keep on target', which wasn't the case with Flight 77 (and also not with Flight 175, aiming at the WTC in a curve). This is the same false assumption Bernard made, when speaking of "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." But this has nothing to do with the official version: a 330 degree turn, dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

Hitting a target directly is the easy maneuver, hitting it as it was executed at the Pentagon, is the hard one.

So, if this maneuver was performed due to 'incompetence', why was Hanjour competent enough to perform a 330 degree turn (hard one), but not competent enough to hit it directly (easy one)? And if he was so incompetent, would he have recognized early enough to see that he was too high/fast to hit it directly and then make a loop in this accuracy?

Here's another pilot claiming that Hanjour was capable to pilot Flight 77:

Quote:
 
Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.(Source)


Actually, with his statement he contradicts the official version. As a suicide hijacker he would have 'just kept the nose down', then why didn't Hanjour act in this way? What Bull is saying does not reflect the actual maneuver in any way.

From the same article:

Quote:
 
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."


Yes, pretty big from above, but not from the side. Again, Williams does not reflect the actual flight path, and his objection is in fact a confirmation that the maneuver performed does not speak for a suicide hijacker with Hanjour's skills.

To summarize: All those stating that Hanjour was capable to have piloted Flight 77 don't reflect the actual flight path. Instead, some of them even back-up with their statement the notion that the performed maneuver does not speak for a suicide hijacking.

But, from the dutch TV we have the following clip showing us in a simulator, how easy it is to hit the Pentagon, even under the actaul conditions (rapid descending and flying in a curve): About 4:40 in the video

However, this experiment doesn't prove that Hanjour had the capabilities to do the maneuver. First, though it's said that the pilot from the experiment is comparable with Hanjour, aka experience only on small planes and simulators, we don't know what his actual skills are. Was he also described as a "poor pilot", "overwhelmed with the instruments", and "advised to discontinue"? That he has experience only on small planes and simulators like Hanjour, does this in any way affect the skills of Hanjour?

Second, as it's the easier way to hit it direct on, I think we can assume (presumed Hanjour piloted it) that the decision to hit it from a curve was made relatively spontaneously. The pilot from the experiment knew before he started that he had to perform such a maneuver. So he had time to prepare himself mentally, to calculate the best moment for certain movings, etc. And of course, he had not be afraid of being shot down, or passengers revolting, or to get nervous about the fact that he was going to die in a few minutes.

Third, the experiment excluded real-scenario items like flying level to the ground, including hitting light poles, g-forces, etc., making the whole maneuver more difficult.

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11 the German channel ZDF broadcasted the documentary "9/11 - Was wirklich geschah" (What really happened). Initially, this was a co-production together with the BBC about, or to say better, against conspiracy theories. But after BBC aired its hitpiece earlier that year, and was heavily critized for their apparent bias and unability to reflect the subject in a neutral way, the ZDF backpaddled and decided to overwork their production. Still a hitpiece, but without the obvious methods used by BBC to ridicule sceptics, the ZDF aired their documentary on prime time on 9/11/07 (btw, for the first time showing the collapse of WTC 7 in German television).

In their research to debunk 9/11 conspiracies, the producers wanted to show on Boeing flight simulators that it doesn't require great skills to hit the Pentagon in a way Flight 77 had. But they were denied access to Flight Simulators in the United Stated, and in Germany, too. (Source)
Interesting, it seems that no one wanted to help them out debunking conspiracy theories. Did they not want so, or could they not do so?
Edited by NK-44, Jan 23 2008, 03:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Let's look into another aspect of the maneuver-scenario:

Quote:
 
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." Source


The question is 'Why was there no fight going on'? Though this question might at first occur unreasonable, let's not forget the official version in the case of Flight 93: Passengers knew that they were on a suicide mission so they made the decision to strike back. Let's compare this with Flight 77.

At least ten of the 59 passengers had a military background and 21 of them were involved in government/defense related work, including Korea-, Vietnam-, and Gulf-war veterans. Which means that we can assume that they wouldn't go into death without resistance. ( compilation of infos about the passengers )

There were two cell-phone calls from flight 77. The first from flight attendant Renee May at 9:12, the second from Barbara Olsen at 9:16. This means they phoned AFTER the second plane hit the WTC.

Quote:
 
At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.
Commission Report


Quote:
 
"'Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft. Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses.

Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off." Commission Report


Quote:
 
"Herded to the back of the plane by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters, the passengers and crew members of American Airlines Flight 77 -- including the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson -- were ordered to call relatives to say they were about to die." Washington Post (09/12/01)


So the passengers of flight 77 were aware that they were not dealing with a normal hijacking. They were aware that they were going to die.

I think it's safe to say that every normal person would have fight for survival, and certainly the passengers (not to forget the crew!) with military background would have fought back! Many of them were confrontated with live-threating situations before! Against maximum FOUR hjackers with BOXCUTTERS!

Was there a fight going on?


We have a report that at least pilot Charles Burlingame resisted the hijackers:

Quote:
 

Senator John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, helped spearhead the campaign on Burlingame's behalf, saying he was driven in part by evidence that the pilot died fighting the hijackers, not in the crash.

"I felt very strongly that this was a meritorious case," he said yesterday. "The final cog in the wheel was the examination of his remains, which indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground." (Source)


This would not only be reasonable to expect - which pilot would give up his plane to hijackers without resistance? - but was also expected from all people knowing him.
Quote:
 

"I can assure you that Capt. Burlingame was an extraordinary individual who led an exemplary life and died a hero. While we will never know for sure what happened on that flight, the people at American Airlines who knew Captain Burlingame the best have no doubt whatsoever that he died while vigorously defending his plane and his passengers. He was, by all accounts, a courageous individual.''
"They are not giving any consideration at all to the fact that he did 25 years of service to the Navy and that he died in an unprecedented fashion. Not passively, but in what had to be hand-to-hand confrontation with one or several knife-wielding terrorist," he said.
"He always had the answers, and he always would solve the problems, but this one was bigger than him," said Mark Burlingame, who said his older brother was intensely serious about his responsibilities as a commercial pilot. "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." (Source)


From 9/11-Timeline:
Quote:
 

People who knew Charles Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, will later contend that it would have required a difficult struggle for the hijackers to gain control of the plane from him. [Washington Post, 9/11/2002] Burlingame was a military man who’d flown Navy jets for eight years, served several tours at the Navy’s elite Top Gun school, and been in the Naval Reserve for 17 years. [Associated Press, 12/6/2001] His sister, Debra Burlingame, says, “This was a guy that’s been through SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation.” [Journal News (Westchester), 12/30/2003] Admiral Timothy Keating, who was a classmate of Burlingame’s from the Navy and a flight school friend, says, “I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chick, and he pounded me.… Chick was really tough, and the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you.” [CNN, 5/16/2006] (Source)


But remember when she was in the back of the plane, Barbara Olsen asked what she should tell the captain to do. But for the captain to be in the back of the plane, there had to be a fight in the first place, as he would not gave up the controls without a fight. At least if we trust those who knew him the best. Then how did he get there, or was Olsen just mistaken, and confused Burlingame with someone other? But as she was in the first class, she would have witnessed such fight.

Let's look closer into the moments before and as the -supposed- hijacking happened.



The 9/11 Commission estimated that the flight was hijacked between 08:51 EDT and 08:54 EDT, just minutes after the first hijacked plane had struck the World Trade Center in Manhattan at 08:46 EDT. The last normal radio communications from the aircraft to air traffic control occurred at 08:50:51 EDT.

At 08:54 EDT, American Airlines Flight 77 began to deviate from its normal, assigned flight path and turned south. (Source)


This means the hijackers took over control within three minutes. The strange thing is, that there are no indications of a fight. First, unlike Flight 93 when it was hijacked, the FDR-data delivered no indications of a fight. There was no disruptive change in the flight path like drastic lost or gain of height, swinging to the left or right. Only the subsequent lost of transponder and change of course indicated a hijack, but not the plane's behaviour itself.

Watch this short clip based on the FDR-data provided by NTSB.


Another strange thing is that pilot Burlingame didn't manage to send a stress signal:

Quote:
 
And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..(Source)


Muga mentioned an interesting point about the physical stature of the hijackers. Others, too:
Quote:
 

Yet the five alleged hijackers do not appear to have been the kinds of people that would be a particularly dangerous opponent. Pilot Hani Hanjour was skinny and barely over 5 feet tall. [Washington Post, 10/15/2001] And according to the 9/11 Commission, the “so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing,” with the majority of them being between 5 feet 5 and 5 feet 7 in height, “and slender in build.” [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]
(Source)


Should we believe that this tall man with fighting experience would overhand the controls to a 5 feet tall man, slendered build, because he's threatened by him with a box cutter? Indeed, the FDR data indicates that the overhanding of the controls was a smooth process rather than a wild fight.

Another point to mention is the possibility that Flight 77 received a hijack-warning before being hijacked.


According to the Guardian Boston flight control tower notifies several air traffic control centres at 8:25 that a hijack is taking place.
Quote:
 

Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. (Source)


However, the notification was not nationwide broadcasted, and it is reported that Indianapolis flight controller monitoring Flight 77 did not know that Flight 11, and twenty minutes later Flight 175, had been hijacked.


But Indianapolis wasn't controlling Flight 77 all the time. From the Commission-report:
Quote:
 

American 77 began its takeoff roll from Dulles International Airport at 8:20. The flight was handed off routinely from Washington Center to Indianapolis Center at approximately 8:40. American 77 was acknowledged by the Indianapolis controller, who had fourteen other planes in his sector at the time. The controller instructed the aircraft to climb and, at 8:50, cleared it to its next navigational aid. American 77 acknowledged. This was the last transmission from American 77. (Source)


The hijack-warning was broadcasted about 15 minutes before Indianapolis handled Flight 77, and at that time Washington Center was responsible for Flight 77. This is remarkable when we look at this report by the New York Times:
Quote:
 

The controllers assigned to United Airlines Flight 175 on Tuesday suspected that it had been hijacked as it flew off its assigned route. But they did not learn that another plane had been hijacked and had hit the World Trade Center until a minute or two before Flight 175 struck the center, people involved in the air traffic system said.

In contrast, controllers at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center had much more warning that something was wrong. Those controllers, who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which dived into the Pentagon, knew about the hijacking of the first plane to crash, even before it hit the World Trade Center, those involved said. That was more than an hour before they watched another hijacked plane, United Flight 93, cross their radar screen on its way to the Pentagon. (Source)


Quote:
 
In addition, The New York Times this morning reports the controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed. But there apparently were no attempts at intercepting Flight 77.
(Source)


If the claims by the Commission and the NYT are true, then the controllers in Washington Centre knew of the first hijacking. So there's a high chance that also (like Flight 93 later) Flight 77 received a hijack warning, which if true, would make the official version of the hijacking even more implausible than it is already.

And let's not forget that Barbara Olsen was in the first class, but reported no fight, which she undoubtfully would have recognized if happened. Also flight attendant May reported no fight. So, were all the people knowing Burlingame wrong in their appraisment about his likely behaviour? But what evidence is there, indicating that Burlingame did indeed fight the hijackers, like Senator Warner is stating?
Are they all wrong or could it be that Olsen lied? Of course I don't mean Barbara Olsen, but her husband Ted, who reported her calls to the media and was the first one who established the thesis, that the hijackers had only boxcutters as weapons.
Remember Ted Olsen has not only "successfully represented George W. Bush at the Supreme Court last December, stopping the Florida recounts and guaranteeing Bush the White House"; but also made some remarkable comments:
Quote:
 

"The United States Government's top lawyer has said that officials have the right to lie to American citizens, telling the US Supreme Court that misleading statements are sometimes needed to protect foreign policy interests.
"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.
"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
Since the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration has made several moves to clamp down on the flow of information. For example, last November the Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, ordered closer reviews of which documents federal agencies release under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a separate effort aimed at confounding terrorists through the use of misinformation, the Administration created - then disbanded - an office within the Pentagon that was to have planted inaccurate stories in foreign media." (Source)


After 9/11 Ted Olsen changed the story of how Barbara got into contact with him when she was on Flight 77. Until today, there is no real evidence that he really spoke with her. Unless you uncritically believe the account of a confessed liar.

The conflict of the official account with crash site observations

Some observations being made at the crash site seem to be inconsistent with the official account of Flight 77.

First, there's the story about the black boxes. Let's see where and when they were found, and by whom.


Quote:
 
The two "black boxes," crucial to uncovering details about the doomed flight's last moments, were recovered at about 4 a.m., said Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance, a Pentagon spokesman.

Rhynedance said the recorders were in the possession of the FBI, and that officials from the National Transportation Safety Board were providing technical assistance in reading any data they contain.

Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Va., said the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be recovered from both.

Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into the building."
(Source)



Quote:
 

Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance said the recorders from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon were in the possession of the FBI, and officials from the National Transportation Safety Board were providing technical assistance in reading any data they contain.

Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Va., said the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be recovered from both devices.

Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into the building."

(Source)


According to Bridges, both were found near the impact site, on early Friday morning. Here's another report on that:
Quote:
 

SPENCER MICHELS: Early today, searchers probing blackened rubble at the Pentagon found key electronic flight data and voice recorder "black boxes" from the hijacked jetliner that slammed into the building Tuesday.

DICK BRIDGES, Arlington County Public Affairs: FBI Agents from the evidence response team recovered both black boxes from the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. The condition of the black box's voice recorder was described as somewhat damaged on the exterior. The data recorder was described as being charred on the exterior. I am told by those who know about these things that that really doesn't mean anything at this point, that those boxes must be downloaded and the data taken off to determine whether or not any real damage has occurred. I do not know what the status of the boxes are right now, other than the fact that they are now part of the federal investigation into this horrible incident.
(Source)


But here's a report where it is stated that firefighters found the black boxes:

Quote:
 
Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says. (Source)


As time and location match exactly, it's safe to say that they refer to the same event. Indeed, from this report we can conclude that the boxes initially were found by firefighters, who worked closely together with the FBI, so that's the reason why the reports differ about who found them, but they don't differ about the time and location:
Quote:
 

Pentagon officials said the recorders were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of rubble in the collapsed part of the building, where just a few pieces of the plane remain.
Arlington County Fire Department Deputy Chief James Schwartz said the FBI found the recorders as its agents worked side by side with rescue workers. (Source)


Another statement indicates that the black boxes had almost been trashed:

Quote:
 
But even with the relationships they'd carefully built, there was miscommunication, said Combs. When evidence gathering crews were searching for the plane's black boxes -- which were ultimately ruined by the intense heat -- the black boxes almost got trashed.

Because they're not black, said Combs. "Black boxes are actually orange," he said. "Somebody almost threw them away because they didn't know what they looked like." (source)


But Combs statement is contradictionary. Even those firefighters who didn't know that the black boxes where in fact orange, couldn't have been misguided by the colour due to the fact that the black boxes where indeed black and charred from the fire.

But the most contradictionary account comes from another person. In an attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, Popular Mechanics refused the claims that there were no plane parts at the Pentagon site:

Quote:
 
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" (Source)


This stands in great contrast to all other reports of the black boxes. Not only the time, also the location, and if he found them, why was it never stated by anyone else? Are firefighters Moravitz and Burkhammer, or deputy manager Bridge, liars? Hard to believe that they were mistaken about the black boxes. Their description matches with the pictures released of the black boxes.

Posted Image

So why does Kilsheimer claim that he found the black box? And could someone really hold a tail section in his hand? Obviously, this is an exaggeration. But what's about the black box? Why didn't PM check out other reports contrary to Kilsheimer's account? We don't have to blame PM, as Kilsheimer's version became the official version.

From the Pentagon Building Performance Report:
Quote:
 
The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure.


So firefighters Moravitz and Burkhammer, and deputy manager Bridge, are liars. At least if we believe the Pentagon report. Or could it be that the man who held a tail section in his hand is a liar? Hardly to prove, but there's more on Kilsheimer then it first meets the eye.

As we have just read, Kilsheimer was the first engineer arriving at the crash site - requested by the Pentagon. Later, he headed the "Phoenix Project":


Quote:
 
Rebuilding the Pentagon following the September 11, terrorist attack.

As the structural engineer in charge of the reconstruction, he will share his first-hand experience and unique reflections. A question and answer session will follow the presentation. (Source)


Quote:
 
Immediately following the September 11 crash the Pentagon Renovation Program Office contracted with K.C.E. Structural Engineers, P.C., to oversee the recovery, demolition, and reconstruction of the site. As part of this effort, the principal, Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E., ordered materials tests on the concrete and the reinforcing steel. (Source - PDF)


So Kilsheimer was in an exponent position regarding the work on the crash site. This was also outpointed in this article:

Quote:
 
Within an hour of the Pentagon plane crash, Kilsheimer’s phone rang for requests from both Washington and New York asking him to aid in the disaster. (...)

Within minutes of arriving, Kilsheimer was on scene advising the FBI and Secret Service as to where they could and could not safely go inside the battered building. His work extended into helping other agencies research the crime scene. He and his crew would steer personnel away from potentially dangerous areas. If defense personnel needed something inside the building, Kilsheimer preferred to handle the matter himself.

“There were Navy seals who needed access to some secret places,” he recalls. “We wouldn’t let them do that. We went in and did it for them. I’d rather it be my problem if something goes wrong.”

Kilsheimer traversed the charred corridors of the scarred structure, oftentimes unsure of what he’d find. In fact, “I stepped on the plane’s black box by accident.” (Source)


But this wasn't Kilsheimer's first encounter with the results of a terrorist attack:

Quote:
 
The bearded and outspoken Kilsheimer, president of KCE Structural Engineers of Washington, has considerable experience with building collapses, including structures in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombing. (Source)


Quote:
 
With a client list that includes the Department of Defense, the FBI, and the Secret Service, it’s no wonder he was called on Sept. 11. Since then, KCE has been responsible for designing and overseeing the Phoenix Project, the official name for the rehabilitation of the Pentagon. It’s a structure they’re familiar with, having worked with a basement addition that was built several years ago. “We have made a commitment that we will have butts in chairs on nine eleven 2002 at 9:38 in the morning,” he says.(Source)



Kilsheinmer wasn't the only one with a history related to other terrorist attacks. Paul Mlakar, who headed the Pentagon investigation team, and therefore is the main responsible for the Building Performance Report, which regarding to the black box issue, (indirectly) states that on-scene working firefighters were liars, has also a connection to the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing. Also those who investigated the WTC had a connection to the OCB-investigation. And as the OCBombing is also suspicious on itself, let's make a short excursion on that topic. I quote from my article about the obstruction of evidence in the case of the WTC:

Quote:
 

Let's look closer at Gene Corley. The BPAT team deployed to the WTC site was assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers and is headed by him. He was also the principal investigator in the FEMA study of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Office Building. This is of interest, because, according to the official story, the damage was caused by a 5000-pound fertilizer and fuel oil bomb packed into the back of a rented Ryder truck parked on the street in front of the building. But it turned out to be not as simple like that:
Police who arrived on the scene after the bombing discovered several unexploded bombs inside the building. This discovery was widely reported on local TV news broadcasts and confirmed through testimonies by others.
Explosives expert General Parton revealed in his analysis that the truck bomb alone could not have produced the damage to the building. He notes that, at the distance the truck was parked from the building, the pressure wave of the blast would have been ten times less than what is required to pulverize concrete. See his report, which was submitted to the U.S. Congress and is part of the Congressional Record, here.
His claims were ignored. Meanwhile Controlled Demolition Inc. was contracted to demolish the rest of the Murrah Building and bury its remains, thus preventing proper forensic examination.

There were also stories about a leaked report prepared by the Pentagon, stating that their two experts working independently of one another came to the same conclusions like General Parton. Source
Note also, that besides Gene Corley, the authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building, Charles Thornton (from the Thornton-Tomasseti-Group!) and Mete Sozen, were among the initial team of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. Furthermore, the fourth author on the Murrah Building report was Paul Mlakar, who headed the Pentagon investigation:
Quote:
 
"the Pentagon team is headed by Paul Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi." Source

Quoting Kevin Ryan:
Quote:
 
"Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 1.5 million engineers in the US?" Source

That's a very good question.



Back to Kilsheimer. Besides his notion about the black boxes, there's also another dubious claim in his account. Again from PM:

Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

The dubious part of this is where he states to have found them. From the German TV-Documentary "9/11-What really happened": Google Video

(if the link does not work like it should, skip to 0:19:40)

Here he claims to have found at four places remains of crew members at the A-E drive, where the fuselage left. Now let's see where the A-E drive is located:

Posted Image


And here's the exit hole, "where the fuselage left".

Posted Image

First it was said that this hole was caused by the cockpit, despite the fact that cockpits are made of lightweight material.


Quote:
 
Mr. LEE EVEY (Program Manager Pentagon Renovation Project):
Question (reporter): That seems to indicate that it came to rest in ring C, the nose cone.
Evey: Let me talk to that, because you've asked a number of questions already about the extent of penetration, et cetera. This is an overhead of the building. The point of penetration was right here, and we blocked that out to show that's the area of collapse. The plane actually penetrated through the E ring, C ring -- excuse me -- E ring, D ring, C ring. This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it's actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft.
(Source)


Mr. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And then came in about—between about the first and second floor over here.
And it went in through three rings. I’m told the nose is—is still in there,
very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away." - Good Morning America (09/13/01)

"That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific." -NFPA Journal (11/01/01)


So according to Captain Defina the nose gear was found inside and did not completely disintegrated. And someone told Rumsfeld that the nose was still there. Why should anyone lie to Rumsfeld, or did he lied himself? Or were they all mistaken?

Anyway, later the explanation of what caused the hole changed, and it is now said that the landing gear made the hole. Though never explicity stated in an official account (read again the passage above from the Performance Report), but magazines like PM claim so.

Here's another report, not speaking of the plane's nose:

Quote:
 
Sergeant First Class Maybon Pollock:
"At that point we were able to see the last part of the plane, where it stopped, basically. It was a big 8 by 10 or bigger, I’m just guessing, hole in the wall. You could see the tire, the landing gear, were just forward of it.

Specialist Kristopher Leigh Sorensen:
"I remember looking down the corridor, and you could see where part of the plane had busted through the wall, and the firefighters wouldn’t let us in. They were scared the entire wall was going to collapse. You could still see a tire and some unrecognizable little small portion of the plane."
(Source - PDF)



Indeed, if we look at this picture, we can see a tire, just behind the firefighter line to the right side of the firefighter. Compared to the line, this tire could only be from the front landing gear.

Posted Image

Now the problem is that we could not see any human remains on any footage taken in the A-E drive, which could be explained by the fact that "Out of respect to the victims, we were not to videotape body remains of any victims found," Rothschadl said. (Source)

But remember that it was said that crew members were together with the passengers in the back of the plane, at least this is the official version. If the exit hole was indeed made by the cockpit, we certainly shouldn't expect that remains of crew members could have been found there.

If the hole was caused by the front landing gear, how could the remains from people in the back of the plane being found there? Shouldn't one expect the remains of the hijackers to be found there? No, at least not if we follow the Building Performance Report. According to it, the remains of the alleged hijackers were found near the impact site.

Posted Image

Quote:
 
"The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building." (p.40, Pentagon Building Performance Report)


Now that's an explanation! I've never seen a bullet causing a hole for example in a wall and essentially disintegrating when doing so. Either it disintegrates, or it manages to make a hole, but it wouldn't disintegrate after making a hole. Of course a large airplane is not a bullet, and it 's certainly possible that the cockpit/front of a plane flying that fast disintegrates on impact. But why should it then immediatley lose momentum and not being further pushed into the structure by the succeeding mass of the plane?

And indeed, that's exactly what the report states one page later:

Quote:
 
As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building.


How does this fit together?

Also this figure and the discussion about it on page 46/47 does not indicate that the front would have been disintegrated and its parts losing all momentum and then rest near the impact site. ("The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a “fluid” consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments". (p.46))

Posted Image


The same is stated by Mete Sozen, who said that the plane crashed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. (Source)
(Remember that Sozen was also one of the four Oklahoma City Bombing investigators.)

The explanation by the Building Performance Report makes no real sense if we believe the official version, including that the crew members were in the back of the plane.

Now let's assume that Kilsheimer was right with his statement about crew members remains being found at the A-E drive. This stands in contrast to the account of firefighters and others about the black boxes being found at the impact site. Which would raise the question: how could a black box, located in the back of the plane, manufactured to resist great stress, not manage to travel deep inside the building but the remains of humans could?
But if one places the black boxes "300 feet deep" inside the building, like the Building Performance Report does, then this contradiction does not exist anymore.
But if Kilsheimer is right about his statement of crew member remains found at A-E drive, and firefighters and others were right about the black boxes being found near the impact site, then what could we conclude from that?
Most reasonable, that the crew members, or to say better, the pilots, where still in the front of the plane.
And if the hijackers remains were found at the same location where the black boxes have been found, then what could we conclude from that?
That the hijackers were, like the black boxes, in the back of the plane, at least not in front of it.
To avoid these conclusions, the Building Performance Report places the black boxes 300 feet inside the building. But there's no evidence that the accounts by firefighters and others are not true, besides one account of a man who stepped on the black boxes by accident, held the tail section in his hand and has a history of ties to Secret Service and DoD.

Let's recapitulate: it's said that the front landing gear, one of the most massive parts of the plane, the black boxes, one of the most solid parts, located in the back of the plane, and the bodies of the crew members, located in the back of the plane, managed all to penetrate the building with about the same deepness. Astounding.

Quote:
 
"The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. (p.41, Pentagon Building Performance Report)


Rapidly disintegrated and remains found at A-E drive does not fit together. There's a dilemma for the official version. If Kilsheimer's statement about the crew members remains is true, it makes the official version way more implausible. Indicating that there was in fact no hijacking, but the pilots were still in front of the plane, speaking for a remote controled hijacking, which would be in line with the observations made during the time of hijack.

If Kilsheimer's statement is a lie, then we have here a man in charge who lies to the public, and we have magazines like PM, which have no scruples to spread these lies over years.

One way or another, it does not look good. And if you prefer to believe the firefighters, and not Kilsheimer and the Building Performance Report, it looks really bad for the official version.


Bottomline: Loose Change is backed up by the facts. Screw Loose Change didn't debunk Loose Change.
Edited by NK-44, Jan 22 2008, 05:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Part two

The special treatment

Everyone of the "six men apparently formed the conspiracy's leadership" received a suspicious treatment by federal authorities which could also be interpreted as protection.

Let's start with Hanjour:

Quote:
 
Instructors at a flying school in Phoenix, Arizona express concern to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials about the poor English and limited flying skills of one of their students, Hani Hanjour.(...) They believe his pilot's license may be fraudulent.(...) The FAA finds it is genuine - but school administrators tell Mr. Hanjour he will not qualify for an advanced certificate." BBC (5/17/02)


Quote:
 
"Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA. (...) They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license. " I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."

Reacting to the alert in January 2001, an FAA inspector checked to ensure Hanjour's 1999 license was legitimate and even sat next to him in one of the Arizona classes.
But he didn't tell the FBI or take action to rescind Hanjour's license, FAA officials said.
"There was nothing about the pilot's actions to signal criminal intent at the time or that would have caused us to alert law enforcement," FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said. CBS (05/10/02)


Let's break here: it is not the job of the FAA to check if someone has a 'criminal intent'. Their job is to check if a person is skilled enough to be a pilot. And these skills were in question and that's why the FAA was alarmed. Though Hanjour had apparently great defiticites in speaking English and in flying an airplane, the FAA only confirms the legitimacy of his license, without making further tests on Hanjour. Imagine, on your test for the driving-license you take someone's right to way, you don't stop at a stoplight, etc. and then you pass the test, because your instructor couldn't find any 'criminal intent' in your behaviour!

Quote:
 
But one official said the inspector, John Anthony, did not suggest a translator and "did not observe any serious issue" with Hanjour's English, even though University of Arizona records show he failed his English classes with a 0.26 grade point average. Other Arizona flight schools he attended also questioned his abilities.

"He didn't do his homework, didn't attend on time and he would sort of come and go," said Duncan Hastie of Cockpit Resource Management.

Marilyn Ladner, the vice president of Pan Am Flight Academy in Miami – the company that owned JetTech before it closed in the aftermath of Sept. 11 – told CBS News, "We did everything we were supposed to do," in reporting Hanjour.

Hanjour attended flight schools with two other Pentagon hijackers. And in July last year, an Arizona FBI agent alerted Washington that a large number of Middle Eastern men were taking flying lessons, but he was ignored.
.....
Chevrette said Hanjour's English was so poor that it took him five hours to complete a section of a mock pilot's oral exam that is supposed to last just a couple of hours.

Chevrette said she contacted Anthony again when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license.

"I don't truly believe he should have had it and I questioned that," she said.
CBS (05/10/02)


Quote:
 
Federal Aviation Administration records show he obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. Source


We've already seen where Hanjour obtained his license, but why was the FBI so close-lipped about it three months later?

And Hanjour's English was so bad:

Quote:
 
When the school's manager Peggy Chevrette told the local FAA supervisor that Hanjour's bad English and appalling flight skills could end up hurting himself or others, the jury heard the official suggested providing him with a translator -- in contravention of his own agency's rules. Source


Quote:
 
They said that, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears that the FBI and the FAA could have responded more vigorously.

"From what I've heard, the school was clearly more alert than federal officials," Sabo said......

When Hanjour enrolled in January at Pan Am's Phoenix facility, Oberstar said, his instructor made a more critical assessment of his English.

The FAA began clamping down on U.S. flight schools in recent years to ensure that no one who cannot speak conversational English receives a flight certificate.

Oberstar and others said the Pan Am instructor questioned how Hanjour got a flight certificate with his English, felt it was inadequate to complete the firm's course and phoned the FAA. Oberstar said the instructor asked: "What do we do about this? We don't think we should continue a person in flight training whose English is so inadequate."

Pan Am officials were dissatisfied by the FAA inspector's response: suggesting he might know of an Arabic-speaking person who could assist him with his English, Oberstar and others said. That approach apparently didn't work. Hanjour "flunked out" in March, a company executive told legislators.

Oberstar said the FAA representative had no reason to believe that Hanjour was a terrorist. But, recalling that he held a subcommittee hearing a few years ago into a New York plane crash caused by the pilot's failure to understand instructions in English from air traffic controllers, he said Hanjour's language problem should have sounded "alarm bells" with the FAA.

Jerry Snyder, an FAA spokesman in Los Angeles, said he could not comment because the matter is under investigation. Source

The FAA clamped down flight schools to ensure that no one who cannot speak conversational English receives a flight certificate, but when they receive warnings from a flight school, they just made suggestions like providing a translator, or asking for an Arabic-speaking person! This was not incompetence - this was an explicit break of their own rules aka illegal!

Also note that
Quote:
 
Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam. Source


Now let's look into the case of Mohammed Atta (alleged pilot of Flight 11) and Marwan Al-Shehhi (alleged pilot of Flight 175).

Atta and Al-Shehhi stall a small plane on a Miami International Airport runway. Not able to start the plane, they just walked away. Flight controllers had to guide the waiting passenger airliners around the stalled aircraft until it was moved away 35 minutes later.

Quote:
 
On December 24th, 2000, Atta and Alshehhi rented a Warrior (N555HA) from Huffman Aviation for a flight. They landed in Miami when the engine from the aircraft stalled (shutoff) on the taxiway where they abandoned it. They called Huffman Aviation for taxi fare back to Venice but were denied by Huffman Aviation. One to two days later, Huffman received a phone call from the Miami FAA regarding the Warrior that had been unattended for a half-hour on the runway. Dekkers got in contact with Bob Martin, the Operations Manager of Huffman Aviation, who then contacted the FAA. Martin had several phone conversations with the FAA and upon their request sent all maintenance records on the Warrior to the FAA. Nothing else was reported back from the FAA to Huffman regarding the Warrior. Source

Quote:
 
On one occasion, a flying school instructor testified last week, 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta and fellow hijacker Marwan Al-Shehhi stranded a small single-engined plane on a taxiway at the busy Miami International Airport -- forcing a large jet to take avoiding action.

Their transgression earned the flight school that rented them the plane a telling off from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- but no follow on action. Source


Quote:
 
"Students do stupid things during their flight course, but this is quite stupid," Dekkers said. "They shut everything off like dumb ducks." Dekkers said the FAA told him the students would be fined. "But they can't do that any longer," he said.

The FAA did not immediately return calls for comment. Source


See also

Quote:
 
Daniel Pursell, Huffman's chief flight instructor, told the jury the FAA called him for details but did not interview the pilots.

"They might should have, but I don't think they did," Pursell said. Source


The Clearwater Airpark incident January/February 2001

Quote:
 
Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi landed a single-engine plane at least twice at the Clearwater Airpark one night in January or February 2001, according to Daniel Pursell, chief instructor for a Venice flight school that rented planes to the pair. Source


Quote:
 
It was a similar story when the pair decided to buzz a Florida airstrip to practice take-offs and landings after it was closed for the night. Source


Quote:
 
A few months later, Atta and al-Shehhi landed a small plane at a Clearwater, Florida, airport after dark, breaking the airport's curfew. Pursell admonished them, but again, there was no investigation. Source


And I thought the Al-Qaida manuals instruct to not behave in a way that could attract attentions!

Quote:
 
Why the two men chose the small Clearwater airpark 75 miles north of Venice remains a mystery.

The incident, however, is another example of how closer scrutiny of Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers might have averted the 2001 disasters.

"What were we supposed to think?" said Pursell, 47. "At that time, no one had a clue."

After the landing, the police aide left a voice message with the Venice flight school, Huffman Aviation, complaining about the incident, Pursell said.

Neither the FBI nor the Federal Aviation Administration ever was notified about the incident, officials from both agencies said.

Clearwater police and city officials on Thursday said they did not know it took place, and city logs have no record of the illegal landings. Source


Smells like a cover-up! And note the explanation why it wasn't considered as something very important:

Quote:
 
The reason the Clearwater flight is only now (<Moussaoui-Trial>) becoming known, Pursell says, is because it was overshadowed by other Florida incidents involving the two men.

Besides the blocked runway in Miami, Atta overstayed his previous visa but was allowed to reenter the United States in January. And in April, he was ticketed in Florida for driving without a license. Source

See also

And according to the Commission-Report, night-time-flights were not unusual for Atta and Al-Shehhi:

Quote:
 
"After passing this test, Atta and Shehhi were able to sign out planes. They did so on a number of occasions, often returning at 2:00 and 3:00 A.M. after logging four or five hours of flying time." Commission Report (p.239) (PDF)


The Moussaoui-case

Quote:
 
When a Twin Cities flight instructor phoned the FBI last August to alert the agency that a terrorist might be taking lessons to fly a jumbo jet, he did it in a dramatic way: "Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!" The aviation student he was talking about was Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested the following day. Source


Quote:
 
Courtroom stunned: FBI agent Harry Samit for instance, testified he had warned his bosses a stunning 70 times, after nabbing Moussaoui at a flight simulator school, that he could be a terrorist planning to hijack an airliner. Source


Finally, after 70 warnings, they arrested him, but the FBI Agents weren't even allowed to search his hard-drive!:

Quote:
 
Top Justice Department and FBI officials turned down a request by Minneapolis FBI agents early last month for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant on a suspected Islamic terrorist who officials now believe may have been part of the Sept. 11 plot to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon, NEWSWEEK has learned.

..other law enforcement officials are equally insistent that a more aggressive probe of Moussaoui—when combined with other intelligence in the possession of U.S. agencies—might have yielded sufficient clues about the impending plot. “The question being asked here is if they put two and two together, they could have gotten a lot more information about the guy—if not stopped the hijacking,” said one investigator. Source


See also

The VISA-Express

Fifteen of the 19 Hijacker's Visa were issued by the U.S. consular office in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. All of them should have been denied.

Quote:
 
If the U.S. State Department had followed the law, at least 15 of the 19 "dots" should have been denied visas - and likely wouldn't have been in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Six separate experts analyzed the simple, two-page forms (viewable only at NationalReview.com, starting today). All came to the same conclusion: Each of the 15 visa applications should have been denied on its face.

Even to the untrained eye, it's not hard to see why. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address - and that was only because his first application was refused. The rest listed such not-so-specific locations as "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel."

One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." But he still got a visa.


The experts - who scrutinized the applications of 14 of the 15 Saudis and one of the two from the United Arab Emirates - include four former consular officers, a current consular officer stationed in Latin America, and someone with extensive consular experience who is now a senior official at Consular Affairs (CA), the division within the State Department that oversees consulates and visa issuance.

All six strongly agreed that, even allowing for human error, no more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to slip through the cracks.

Nikolai Wenzel, one of the former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State's issuance of the visas "amounts to criminal negligence." Source


Quote:
 
Hani Hanjour, who also was on the plane that hit the Pentagon, had only a slight delay in acquiring his visa. A consulate employee flagged Hanjour's first application, noting that Hanjour wanted to "visit" for three years, although the legal limit is two. When Hanjour returned two weeks later, he simply changed the form to read "one year".

Mowbray, who obtained the visas, said he was shocked by what he saw. "I mean, I really was expecting al Qaeda to have trained their operatives well, to beat the system," he said. "They didn't have to beat the system, the system was rigged in their favor from the get-go."

The State Department would not allow interviews with current consular affairs employees.
Source


In another article it is stated:

Quote:
 
At the very least, the CA executive points out, "The consular officers should not have ended the interview until the forms were completed." Which begs the question: Were 11 of the 15 terrorists whose applications were reviewed actually interviewed, as the State Department claims?

The answer to the question is 'No', as it turned out two weeks later that:

At least 13 of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were never interviewed by U.S. consular officials before being granted visas to enter the United States, according to a congressional report issued yesterday. The finding contradicts previous assurances from the State Department that most of them had been thoroughly screened.

None of 18 separate visa applications by 15 of the hijackers was completed properly, the report said. Thirteen of the 15, who were from Saudi Arabia or UAE, were never interviewed before being approved for a visa, the report found. Investigators were unable to review the applications for four other hijackers, including Atta, because they were destroyed. Source


Senators Jon Kyl and Pat Roberts conluded:

Quote:
 
"the answer to the question - could 9/11 have been prevented - is yes, if State Department personnel had merely followed the law and not granted non-immigrant visas to 15 of the 19 hijackers in Saudi Arabia." Source


See also

Michael Springman, former visa officer at the U.S. consular office in Jiddah claims that he is "repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants." He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains about the practice to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He eventually is fired and the files he has kept on these applicants were destroyed.

Quote:
 
In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. I complained bitterly at the time there.... I was met with silence. What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets.

The attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 did not shake the State Department's faith in the Saudis, nor did the attack on American barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later, in which 19 Americans died. FBI agents began to feel their investigation was being obstructed. Source


Quote:
 
On another occasion, an unemployed refugee from Sudan showed up at the consulate. The person, Springmann said, had no good reason to go to the United States and only the most ephemeral ties to Saudi Arabia.

In other words, Springmann said, the Sudanese was the sort who would have no compelling reason to leave the United States once he arrived.

Springmann turned down the application but immediately encountered resistance. "I kept saying no," Springmann recalled. "But, again, the head of consular section gave him a visa. I asked why. He said national security reasons." ... He said the entire consular operation was run by the CIA. (AP, 07-17-02)


Quote:
 
SPRINGMANN: According to "The Los Angeles Times," 15 of the 19 people who flew airplanes into buildings had got their visas at the CIA's consulate at Jetta (ph) where 15 to 20 of the people who worked there were Washington- based. Nearly everybody except myself and two other people worked for the CIA or the NSA or some other intelligence service.

GIBSON: So what do you think was going on? Was this just -- the CIA didn't quite know what their own people were up to? Had they morphed into something else?

SPRINGMANN: Well, I think they did know what they were doing. I think that...

GIBSON: You're not suggesting they knew what -- that they were going to go fly airplanes into buildings in the United States, do you?

SPRINGMANN: I don't think so, but, with the secrecy the CIA has got going for it and the protection it gets, anything is possible.

GIBSON: Well, I mean, you really think it's possible. Even the CIA could have had its fingers in a terrorism directed against the United States?

SPRINGMANN: Well, who knows? I've seen it suggested that it was one way of getting the Americans involved at bases not only in the Middle East but at bases surrounding Russia. Source


On October 1st, 2001, it's reported that the US Embassy in Jeddah tightens visa rules. Source

And to Hanjour's visa:
Quote:
 
“Hani Hanjour, 29, entered the United States in December 2000 on an F-1 student visa. But he never attended the school he was admitted to in Oakland, Calif., to study English. The school did not notify authorities and, once in the country, Hanjour melted into obscurity, just another visa overstay, like Nawaf Alhazmi and Satam Al Suqami, who overstayed their B-1/B-2 visas. Source


Hani Hanjour was illegal in the country. Why did he not seek a proper visa?

Quote:
 
“He never attended the ELS Language Center in Oakland, California, the stated destination on his second visa application of September 25, 2000. His records do not indicate the length of stay the primary immigration inspector gave him.”
(Commission Report - Terrorist Travel PDF)


Under Surveillance

Atta under CIA-Surveillance: he and three other ringleader, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi were also under surveillance by a secret US Army intelligence program called Able Danger since early 2000. For more go here

See also this CNN TV CLIP and this C-SPAN CLIP

Hanjour had also an indirect connection to US-Intelligence.

And let's not forget the 'Phoenix-Memo' by FBI special agent Kenneth Williams, warning about suspect Middle Easterners training in Arizona flight school.

Two of the supspects mentioned there, Ghassan al Sharbi and Abu Zubaida, had direct connections to Hanjour. Source

Last, but not least, the FBI-Informant Aukai Collins monitored the islamic and Arab communities in Phoenix between 1996 and 1999, and in his warnings Hanjour was mentioned: "They knew everything about the guy"

Quote:
 
Collins said he believes Sept. 11 could have been prevented. Based on a deep cynicism developed during years working undercover with the FBI and the CIA, he thinks it impossible both agencies could be caught unaware by the attack. It's entirely possible, he says, that they knew very well what was coming -- and that they let it happen anyway.

For its part, the FBI has confirmed that Collins was an informant who provided valuable information on Muslim extremists -- but denies that he provided information that could have prevented Sept. 11. Source


Taking this all into consideration (and there's much more): If this is not protection, than protection has no meaning.

Edited by NK-44, Jan 22 2008, 06:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

The living pilots

How was the identity of the alleged hijackers uncovered?
This was explained under oath during a hearing of the 9/11 commission by Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection:

Quote:
 
BONNER: On the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data -- by the way, this was the passing through manifest, which U.S. Customs was able to access from the airlines -- I would say, within about an hour of 9/11 U.S. Customs Office of Intelligence had identified the 19 probable hijackers as well as the complete list of the passengers on the aircraft.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Let me ask you briefly about your statement about the day on 9/11 which I found very interesting. You say that, on the morning of 9/11, through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest of the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers within 45 minutes of the attack, Customs forwarded the passenger lists with the names of the victims and 19 probable hijackers to the FBI and the intelligence community. How are your people able to do that?

BONNER (...) by 11:00 a.m., I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out(...) to be the 19. Commission Hearing


Keep this, which was also confirmed by Richard Clarke, in mind, when it comes to the 'living pilots'. Why were they suspected when they have never been on the passenger manifests?
What reasons had the FBI to believe that the possible hijackers didn't necessarily occur on the passenger manifests? And we will also see that left rented cars played an important role in (mis-)identifying the hijackers.

One of the first suspects was Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian pilot living in Britain.

Quote:
 
U.S. authorities began extradition proceedings in a London court Friday against a British-based Algerian pilot suspected of being the flight instructor for four of the 19 hijackers who attacked U.S. landmarks Sept. 11.

Investigators consider the arrest a breakthrough in the search for living co-conspirators to the New York and Pentagon attacks.

"We believe he is by far the biggest find we have had so far. He is of crucial importance to us," an FBI source told the Times of London.

"What we say is that he was in fact a lead instructor for four of the pilots responsible for the hijackings," said the prosecutor, Arvinda Sambir. "He was in the background to facilitate training of these pilots. His job was to ensure the pilots were capable and trained." Source


Quote:
 
Today, Raissi is being held in London on a U.S. extradition warrant, accused of training Hanjour and three other hijackers. British prosecutors have said that Raissi and Hanjour attended the same flight schools and that a computer seized in Raissi's apartment in England contained a video clip of the two men. During the past two summers, they were together at the Sawyer simulator, according to various employees who worked there after Fults had left. Source


Quote:
 
One example, this man, Lotfi Raissi, entered the U.S. to begin flight training in 1996. He became a flight instructor. He's now being held in Britain. U.S. and British officials say Raissi made several trips between the U.S. and the U.K. He even flew with suspected hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour from Las Vegas to Phoenix on June 23 to oversee the flight simulator training of Hanjour and three other alleged hijack pilots. Source


Quote:
 
A British prosecutor, representing the US government, said: "We have sufficient evidence to show not just association with the pilots - it goes further than that. We have evidence of active conspiracy-proving correspondence and telecommunications with them as well as video footage of them together. We also have proof that they travelled together."(Source)


He was arrested in Britain,. and later, in April 2002:

Quote:
 
It turned out, the British court found, that the video showed Raissi with his cousin, not Mr. Hanjour, that Raissi had mistakenly filled in his air training logbook and had never flown with Hanjour, and that Raissi and the hijackers were not in Las Vegas at the same time. The US authorities never presented any phone records showing conversations between Raissi and Hanjour. Source


As U.S. athorities provided their evidence, it turned out that they have none! Maybe this is the reason why they refused to deliver evidence in the trials against Mzoudi and Motassadeq? Notice also this telling statement from the same article:

Quote:
 
Indeed, the difficulties of tracking down suspects and amassing sufficient evidence to convict them leads some experts to wonder whether it is worth it. "Is terrorism a crime or is it war?" asks Stephen Gale, a counterterrorism expert who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania. "If you think someone is going to take out your electrical grid, in a criminal investigation you arrest him. In a war you shoot first and ask questions later," he points out.


Think of it! If they had shot Riassi first, there wouldn't have been a trial. So the U.S. wouldn't have been forced to deliver evidence. So the evidence wouldn't have turned out to be non-existant. So the official version would be until today: Raissi was a lead instructor of the hijackers... See also

The story of another suspect related to Hanjour became almost forgotten. Faisal M. Al Salmi was indicted for giving false statements to the FBI about his association with Hanjour. Al Salmi hired in April 20001 for a remedial flying course in Tempe, Arizona at Sunbird Aviation
One day Al Salmi appeared with a second man who later turned out to be of interest to the FBI. Asked about this second man, Oscar Casdorph said that he did not recognize Hanjour from FBI pictures and does not know whether the second man had a connection to any of the hijackers.

Casdorph said he only knew the second man's first name, but would not disclose it, at the FBI's request. Source

This means that it was most likely not Hanjour, as the FBI would have no reason to not diclose his name. Unfortunately, we could not ask Casdorph for revealing the name as he is already dead. There's one thing Hanjour, Al Salmi and the unknown 'second man' have in common: their flying skills. Casdorph mentioned the "poor flying skills" of Al Salmi and that "he did not feel comfortable flying with the second man and did not return calls when the man sought additional lessons."

Al Salmi denied any connections to Hanjour, and therefore was convicted and found guilty of making false statements in denying knowledge of Hanjour. Source

He was not convicted for participation in the 9/11-plot, because "he took a polygraph test that shows he was not involved in the Sept. 11 attacks." Source

There were also others suspected to be hijackers, like Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, both Saudi pilots. They "were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston." CNN

But when the FBI raided Adnan Bukhari’s house it turned out that he was alive. And that Ameer Bukhari " had died in an air collision above the St. Lucie County International Airport exactly a year before the attacks”. CNN

But the Bukhari's (who were misreported as brothers) were not on the passenger manifests, so how did they became suspect within hours after the attacks? Here's the answer:

Quote:
 
“Law enforcement sources also tell CNN that the Bukhari brothers were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston, one of those two flights that wound up slamming into the World Trade Center.
Also we can report to you that a car impounded in Portland, Maine, according to law enforcement authorities, was rented at Boston Logan Airport and driven to Portland, Maine.” (CNN, 9/12/01 3:00 p. m.)


Quote:
 
"Evidence found in a rental car left in Portland, Maine, led investigators to two houses in Vero Beach, Florida. One had been rented by two brothers from Saudi Arabia." CNN


Quote:
 
Federal sources had initially identified the brothers as possible hijackers who had boarded one of the planes that originated in Boston. Their names had been tied to a car founded at an airport in Portland, Maine. But Bukhari's attorney said it appeared their identifications were stolen and said Bukhari had no role in the hijackings.

Information found in another rental car left in Boston's Logan Airport -- where two of the hijacked flights originated -- led investigators to two more men who were pilots: Mohammed Atta and Marwan Yousef Alshehhii. CNN


Quote:
 
"U.S. authorities found this letter handwritten in Arabic in the suitcase of Mohamed Atta. It includes Islamic prayers, instructions for a last night of life, and a practical checklist of reminders for the final operation. The FBI released an untranslated copy of the letter; the British newspaper The Observer published this translation. Additional copies of this letter were found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania and at a Dulles International Airport parking lot in a car registered to one of the hijackers on American Flight 77. Source


That's another one, now we have three cars left with evidence at airports. One found at Washington’s Dulles Airport registered to Nawaf Al-Hazmi Source

Another is discovered at Boston’s Logan Airport, registered to Marwan Al-Shehhi Source

And the third, with 'evidence' suggesting the Bukharis as hijackers, is the one found in Portland, Maine. Registered to Mohammed Atta.

Quote:
 
Before flying from Portland to Boston to carry out terror attacks on New York City, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Alomari rented a car at the Logan Airport Alamo and drove to Maine, police said. Source


Quote:
 
Meanwhile, another investigator was interviewing a manager of Alamo Rent A Car at the jetport. A search of the company's computer records showed Atta had rented a blue Nissan Altima Sept. 9 in Boston and that it was due back Sept. 11 by 6 p.m. It was listed as overdue. Source


The cars full of evidence were pretty comfortable for the FBI's investigation - directly presented to them on a golden plate. And don't forget the passports found at the WTC and in Shanksville (not to mention the red bandana) and at the Pentagon. And Atta's bags at the airport. An the 'confession-video' of Osama Bin Laden, supposedly found by accident in Jalalabad. And Jarrah's returned love-letter. Or they just left a box cutter together with a credit card here, or together with manuals there.

They left a Koran here and a Koran there.
(And btw., it's obvious how 'box-cutter' and 'koran' became signal-words after the attacks, associated to brandmark the traumatized minds of the people with anti-islamism. Beeing a moslem + a boxcutter is all you need to become suspicious and eventual go to prison, think of Ayub Ali Khan)

"Never in the history of modern warfare has so much been found so opportunely." Guradian

Also notice this comment from the same article:

Quote:
 
Apart from the fact that the al-Qaida network seem to have a catastrophic way with lost property, isn't it strange that these most demonised and potent of terrorists seem unable to operate any weapons without a manual?


Quote:
 
"The attacks were probably well planned, but they didn't do a good job covering their tracks," one federal agent said. Source


Giving all these 'golden plates', what would Columbo say on that? Don't know, but here's what the Miami Herald said:

Quote:
 
“In the end, they left a curiously obvious trail—from martial arts manuals, maps, a Koran, Internet and credit card fingerprints. Maybe they were sloppy, maybe they did not care, maybe it was a gesture of contempt of a culture they considered weak and corrupt.” Source


But maybe it's just what it looks like to be: planted evidence. And you don't have to be a Columbo to figure that out:

Quote:
 
„Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.“ Source


And we've just seen the proof for his statement in the case of the Bukharis. How could it be that the FBI revealed the names of the 19 hijackers five days later and furthermore "through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest of the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers within 45 minutes of the attack" , but weeks later it's stated:

Quote:
 
On Friday (<28. Sept.01>) Robert Mueller, the FBI's director, was forced to release photos of the suspected suicide hijackers and beg citizens to help his agents identify them. One hijacker, he was sure, was linked to the bin Laden network, but he wouldn't give his name. Mueller admitted that he wasn't clear about the identities of many of the rest. Guardian


The article also states:

Quote:
 
The Germans and others at the Nato meeting on Wednesday were convinced the US would arrive with a bulging dossier on bin Laden's complicity. They got so little that a desperate Lord Robertson was reduced to covering America's back by wondering aloud whether 'it is necessary for an ally to produce evidence?'


My answer would be a simple 'yes, of course'. What would be your's?

Let's go back, there was also another commercial pilot suspected to be a hijacker: Ameer Taiyb Kamfar

Quote:
 
"Amer Kamfar, also suspected by the FBI of being among the World Trade Center hijackers, had both allegedly trained at the Vero Beach pilot school Flight Safety Academy" Source


Quote:
 
Thursday night, police in Florida were searching for Kamfar, who was reported to be at large and armed with an AK-47 assault rifle. Source


But he's not listed on the passengers-manifest. Where does his name come from?

Kamfar was linked to the hijacker Alomari:

Quote:
 
“Kamfar, 41, lived at the same Vero Beach address as Abdulrahman Alomari, who is listed in FAA records as having worked in flight operations for the Saudi airline and who was sitting next to Atta in the business section of American Airlines Flight 11, according to the passenger manifest.” Source


Kamfar was also linked to Adnan Bukhari:

Quote:
 
Two alleged associates of the hijackers, Adnan Bukhari and Amer Kamfar, attended flight schools in Florida and had the Saudi Arabian Airlines post office box in the Saudi city of Jeddah, listed as their home addresses on their commercial pilots' licenses. Source


And Bukhari has links to Al Omari, too:

Quote:
 
Bukhari helped Al Omari to rent the house next door. Source


Quote:
 
“Bukhari lived in one house and Abdul Rahman Alomari, 38, in the other.”
(Sun-Sentinel, 9/14/01)


But then:
Quote:
 
“However, the FBI did say it no longer was looking for Amer Taiyb Kamfar, who lived at the same Vero Beach address as Abdul Rahman Alomari, identified as Abdulaziz Alomari on the list of suspected hijackers. The alert for Kamfar, put out to all law enforcement agencies on Wednesday, had described him as armed and extremely dangerous. FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said she couldn't comment on why the bulletin was rescinded.” (Palm Beach Post, 9/15/01)


Do you see a pattern here? We have four pilots, three of them suspected to be hijacker, one to be the 'lead instructor'. One turned out to be already dead. A second, Raissi, has been convicted with false evidence. And we have Adnan Bukhari and Kamfar, both linked to Al Omari, furthermore they've found links to Bukhari in the car rented by Atta and Al Omari. But their links turned to dust:

Quote:
 
In the interview with the FBI on September 12 Adnan Bukhari of course didn’t have to prove anymore that he wasn’t aboard an airplane on 911 but he had to answer tough questions about his close friendship to the hijacker Abdul Rahman Al Omari.
But he had luck and once again was able to present a convincing proof of his innocence:
“Just as the questions began, Bukhari's cell phone rang.
It was Alomari.
Bukhari turned to his attorney: "You're never going to believe who this is."
Bukhari handed the phone to the FBI agent.
"I think from that they started to realize I had nothing to do with it and it was just a mistake with the names." (Palm Beach Post, 9/21/01)


This means, we have now FOUR men falsely suspected to be the pilots.

And since then, the hijacker on Atta's side is called Abdulaziz Al-Omari , and not Abdul Rahman Al-Omari. Just a name-confusion it's said here.

But why is it that
Quote:
 
in the Justice Department list of hijackers released yesterday, Alomari's first name is spelled Abdulaziz. Federal investigators said they could not explain the discrepancy between the American Airlines passenger list and their list. Hijackers may have taken Saudi identities


Furthermore, how could the car have contained evidence linking to Bukhari, when he has only links to the Saudi Airlines Pilot Abdul Rahman Al-Omari and not to Abdulaziz Al-Omari?

And the confusion expands:

Quote:
 
“Abdul Aziz al-Omari [Photo No. 4] was identified as one of the hijackers and the pilot who crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Another man with the same name is an electrical engineer in Saudi Arabia. He lived in Denver after earning a degree from the University of Colorado in 1993. Coincidence? Consider this oddity. ABC News has reported that his Denver apartment was broken into and his passport and other documents stolen in 1995. In September 2001 he told the Telegraph, ‘I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this.’” (Insight the News, 7/7/03)



Sounds like stolen identity. Remember when Bukhari's attorney said "it appeared their identifications were stolen". Do you see a pattern here?

To summarize the mysterious four hijackers (three pilots/ one lead instructor):

-Lofti Raissi: from "biggest breakthrough", "cruical importance" , a "in fact lead instructor" to verdict of not guilty (and who should have better been "shot first")

-Ameer Bukhari: from a hijacker pilot to dead since a year

-Adnan Bukhari: from a hijacker pilot to still alive, then from ties to the hijackers to "helping authorities".

-Ameer Taiyb Kamfar: from a hijacker pilot to still alive, then from 'armed with an AK47' to innocent person.
Edited by NK-44, Jan 23 2008, 11:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

What evidence do we have that Hanjour was even on Flight 77?

First, he's on the passenger list, published in it's originally form in 2005. ZIP-File

But Ashcroft said on Sept.14 :" And American Airlines 77, Dulles to Los Angeles, four hijackers. That is our preliminary." Source

So maybe they had to that time no clue that there were five hijackers. But in the first published list of the hijackers by the FBI from the same day (Sept.14), five hijackers were listed. But Hanjour was missing. Instead, another hijacker was suspected to be on board of Flight 77 : Mosear Caned (note this is phonetic spelling).
Here's the transcript of the CNN-Report from 09/14/01.

There are several names misspelled, but all other names are similiar to the FBI-list of the nineteen hijackers published four hours later.
All out of one: Mosear Caned does not sound anything like Hani Hanjour. (See for comparison this blog)
How could 'Caned' occur on the CNN-list when he wasn't on the passenger-list? And why was his name never mentioned again?
And how is it possible that within four hours out from nowhere Hanjour apeared and replaced Caned, who disappeared into nowhere?


Maybe this could be the reason:

Quote:
 

"His name [Hani Hanjour] was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket." Washington Post


But later it's revealed that Hanjour purchased a ticket in cash on August 31, at Advanced Travel Service.

Quote:
 
“Hanjour and Moqed initially asked for two first class seats on a morning flight to Los Angeles, California. The agent told them a ticket cost $2,220 from Newark and $1,842 from Washington Dulles; they went with the Dulles flight. But they changed their mind and bought only one ticket--for Hanjour, requesting a front aisle seat; he got 1B. For identification, Hanjour presented a Virginia driver's license with a Falls Church address.” Source


But the confusion doesn't end here, because according to the 9/11-Commission Hanjour had only a Virginia ID, but not a Virginia driver’s licence. 9/11 Commission, 8/21/2004, pp. 32

If we believe the Commission Report, then he used a faked license. From the investigation we know that several of the hijackers used faked ID cards. But why should he use a faked license, as he obviously didn't want to hide his identity? This only results in more risk. Or does someone else used his identity to purchase the ticket? We don't know, maybe the Commission Report is just wrong on that. But if you want to look closer into the possibility that Hanjour and the other hijackers/pilots had doppelgänger (doubles), start here for Hanjour and here for the others. It's worth it!

Besides the passenger-list we have the recordings of the security-camera from Dulles Airport. It was first (mis-)reported that this man would be Hanjour, which he obviously isn't.

Posted Image (Source)

In the Moussaoui trial it was stated that this man is Hanjour:

Posted Image

(Source - TV Clip WMV)
Indeed, he does match much better than the first one. But the footage-quality is too bad to make a definite decision in either way. The more important point is: why is there no data/time-branding on the video?

Quote:
 
First ask yourself where you ever viewed airport security camera footage completely devoid of camera identification numbers, and without any date:time clocks. Just this single terminal at Dulles Airport has well over 100 such cameras, every one of them with an individual camera ident number and date:time clock of its own.

On-film data is essential of course, because it would be extremely difficult to track a target around the airport without these basic tools, and absolutely impossible to sort out the precise time and date of an event that occured more than two years before, which is exactly what the 9-11 Commission now claims to have done. Clever, huh?

Those 'experts' who might wish to claim that the ident numbers and date:time clocks were edited out of every single frame for extra clarity, had best forget it. I have personally examined every available frame blown up over twenty times, and there is not a trace of editing.
No matter where or when this footage was filmed, what you see is what you get. Source


Fact is, even if better footage would reveal that this man is indeed Hanjour, it would prove nothing without data/time and therefore could be dismissed as worthless. Even with a time/date-stamp, but without better footage quality, it wouldn't prove Hanjours presence. (The whole video is available here.)

And as third, we have the autopsy. And as we all know, all passengers had been identified through DNA-Examination.
At least thats what is being told, but in reality, until today none of the alleged Pentagon-hijackers has been identified. Read this from Pentagon-Research about the autopsy-report (have fixed the broken pdf-link):

Quote:
 
The most interesting thing about this report is the total absence of Arab names. Some people have suggested that the hijackers
were not considered "passengers". We will look at the real reason they are not there. You can view Flight 77's press release passenger manifest (the official one is restricted by the FBI) here
for comparison. Again no Arab names.

The reason there are no Arab names on the autopsy is because they were never positively identified.

"The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.

The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains." (Source for the two paragraphs above.)

"Some remains for each of the terrorists were recovered, as evidenced by five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material provided by victims’ families. No identifiable remains for five of the victims known to have been killed in the attack were recovered." (Source - This PDF is worth reading to understand all of the other speculation that went into identifying the bodies.)

So what we have here is 5 names on the list of people who were known to be missing from the Pentagon (4 Pentagon employees and one infant from Flight 77) that had no remains left to be identified. Then we have 5 sets of remains that didn't match the post-mortem DNA samples of the family members. So therefore those remains must be the hijackers. No positive ID required. Have you noticed yet that not ONE single aspect of this entire incident is straightforward and how it should be?

So why have they not produced positive identifications for the "hijackers"? They published their names so they know who they are........right?
They should then be able to locate the family members to get DNA samples and produce a positive identification. They could still do it because according to the top statement the FBI still has the remains. But they won't. The only report American citizens get from the FBI is right here.
They didn't even confirm if the five non-matching remains were Arab.


In fact, no positive identification is NO identification. The hijackers of Flight 93 were also not positive identified but passed through the "process of elimination". "The death certificates will list each as 'John Doe'." Source

So, even that Hanjour was actually on board of Flight 77 is questionable. My conclusion is, as he never turned out to be alive after Sept. 11, that he died on that day. And when he was on Flight 77, then he died, but not as pilot. As a patsy.

Hanjour's relatives also don't think that he was on a suicide mission:

His brother said they thought that Hani liked the USA. Other familiy members also shared their doubts:

Quote:
 
JEDDAH, 22 September — The family of Hani Hasan Hanjour, a suspect in the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon in Washington, have started accepting messages of condolence in the belief that their son may have died in the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Hanjour’s family has denied his involvement in the operation. “We don’t know what happened to our son on the plane. He had contacted us eight hours before the incident to inquire about our health. He was very normal,” the family told the Saudi daily Al-Watan.
(Source)


Note that here Hanjour's fore-names are stated as Hani Hasan. But the name 'Hasan' has never been given in any official account. What first looks like a mistake, seems in fact not to be one. Some media reports later also used Hani Hasan as forenames, but I have found no earlier mention than in this article, first published on arabnews (also reprinted on Sudia-Online), so this article is the source for the name 'Hasan'.

As this name never occured before, it's safe to say that the authors Jamal Khashoggi and Badr Al-Nayyef
could not have received this name other than by Hani's family itself. And it's also safe to say that Hani's parents know his name.

Indeed, on his visa-application, Hanjour stated his forenames as Hani S. H.
So H. stands for Hasan. If we look at Hanjour aliasesgiven by the FBI, we find this:

Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour

The last one is of interest here. It seems that the FBI was unable to learn what stands behind the letter 'H'. No big deal? Maybe, but at least it gives strong indications that the FBI never felt the need to get in contact with Hanjour's family. Does this speak for a thorough investigation?


And before we finally come to the end: remember the book "Masterminds of Terror" by Nick Fielding and Yosri Fouda? In it, they claim that Atta wired thousands of dollars back to Ramzi Binalshib in Pakistan. Because Atta, who was responsible for the financing of the operation in the US, said that they didn't need it anymore because they were in the final preparation. (no source as I have the book only in german language). Besides that it is unreasonable to risk attention due to international money wires in the end phase of the preparation, and speaks against rules of conspirative procedures, there's another aspect to point out.

We began with a statement of flight-instructor Bernard, we end with an (indirect) statement of him.
As we know it's said that Hanjour visited Bernard's flight school for 'final preparation' on his suicide mission.

Quote:
 
"The two last spoke on the phone a few weeks before the attacks, when Hanjour complained about an $80 no-show charge." Source


Either Hanjour was not part of Atta's operation, or he believed that even the ticket to paradise has to be paid with money!

---------------

Now this was the end of my article, but not the end of the story.

The other dead pilot - or Al-Qaida's debunking attempt

Reconsider what I wrote:

Quote:
 
Think of it! If they had shot Riassi first, there wouldn't have been a trial. So the U.S. wouldn't have been forced to deliver evidence. So the evidence wouldn't have turned out to be non-existant. So the official version would be until today: Raissi was a lead instructor of the hijackers...


The same could be said for pilot Kamfar, "armed with an Ak-47", or pilot Al Omari, both "abruptly moved out" a week before the attacks. Maybe their abrupt move out of the U.S. saved their lives. Imagine Raissi would have been in the United States on 9/11 and the subsequent days, after authorities claimed that they have evidence of 'active conspiracy-proving correspondence and telecommunications' against him, who was also called the 'lead-instructor' of the 9/11 hijackers. Safe to say, people have been declared as enemy combatants on much lower accusations, and as a lead instructor, Raissi would have been taken into a secret prison. But that he was in the UK enabled a trial, where his guilt or innocence could be proven instead of being tortured in secret prisons into 'confession' in a secret trial.

However, the first spin, that professional pilots crashed the planes into the buildings, could not be maintained. Of course this would have made the official version far more believable.
As it is now established that Hani Hanjour could not have crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, and as this realization, thanks to movies like Loose Change, spreads more and more into the masses and produces more and more dissent to the official account of events, one should not be surprised that another spin on the subject of who piloted Flight 77 would follow.

But this time the spin does not come from a government agency, but from an Al-Qaida member. Louai al-Sakka, imprisoned in Turkey for being an Al-Qaeda bomb plotter, claims that not Hanjour, but Nawaf al-Hazmi, piloted Flight 77:

Quote:
 
According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight. (Source)


But it does not seem that Hazmi was a better pilot than Hanjour, quite the opposite.


Quote:
 
Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's, said Mr. Almihdhar spoke little English but was able to communicate that he wanted to obtain a private pilot rating, one of the lowest levels of flying competence.
Mr. Garza recalled that he discussed the general plan for the lessons, but that Mr. Almihdhar and Mr. Alhamzi interrupted him to say they wanted to learn to fly larger aircraft, specifically Boeing jets.

''They had zero training before they got here, so I told them they had to learn a lot of other things first,'' Mr. Garza said. The men took lessons and training over three weeks and paid $200 to $300, with a credit card, he said. Mr. Garza said that their aptitude for flying was poor from the start, and that it never improved.

''It was like Dumb and Dumber,'' Mr. Garza said. ''I mean, they were clueless.

It was clear to me they weren't going to make it as pilots.''
(Source)


Quote:
 

The two al-Qaeda suspects made their way to San Diego. Before long they both had driver's licences, and Nawaf al Hazmi was even listed in the San Diego phone book. The two men signed up for lessons at a local flight school, but they were completely lacking in natural abilities. After a few sessions their instructor, Rick Garza, told them there was just no point in continuing, "They seemed to have a very
strong interest in flying larger aircraft and that's when they brought up the subject of flying Boeings. 'Where can we learn to fly Boeings?'
I just kind of chuckled a little bit and said -'It's a long road before you get to Boeings. Several years from now, but you have to start out in a smaller aircraft. If you can't fly the little four-seat aircraft, there is no way you are going to be able to fly a Boeing.'" (Source)


The article also mentions how Sakka's claim stands also in contrast to the testimony of Sheikh Kahled Mohammed, one of the alleged masterminds of the 9/11 plot. Let's see what he has to say about al-Hazmi and Hanjour.
Quote:
 

Sheikh Mohammed claimed that it was his idea that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi should reside in San Diego, CA, after arriving in Los Angeles,Ca, on January 15.2000. Sheikh Mohammed told al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, both of whom barely spoke English, to enroll in an English-language course and then, once their English was satisfactory, to enroll in a flight school. San Diego, according to Sheikh Mohammed's research, had several English-language and flight schools.
(...)
Sheik Mohammed discussed the preperations to deploy 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar to the U.S. Before their deployment, the two were told that they were being sent to the U.S. for flight training. Sheikh Mohammed explained to them that the flight training was in preparation for their participation in a martyr operation in which aircraft would be flown into unspecified targets.(...)

Before sending Hazmi to the U.S., Sheickh Mohammed provided him with training in basic survival skills. Sheikh Mohammed's primary concern in using Hazmi for the 9/11 operation was that Hazmi's English was very weak; however, he stated that there was not much he could do in the matter, as Hazmi had an U.S.visa, which was relatively rare among the mujahidin. Sheikh Mohammed spent a significant amount of time reviewing with Hazmi the timetables of the U.S. airlines that were eventually used in the operation. (...)

Sheikh Mohammed asked a great deal of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, in whom he had only middling confidence, because of their lack of English and exposure to the West. The only reason they were involved in the 9/11 plot was because they had visas and because Bin Laden told Sheikh Mohammed that Bin Laden wanted the two to go on operation. Because of their deficiencies, Sheikh Mohammed permitted al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, unlike the other 9/11 hijackers, to go to the local mosque to request assistance and advice on functioning in American society, and Sheikh Mohammed allowed the two, unlike the other hijackers, to contact him directly via internet chat in case they had urgent questions. (...)

Sheikh Mohammed also instructed them to enroll in English language classes before they began flight training. Hazmi and Mihdhar unsuccessfully tried to enroll in language school in California, which concerned Sheikh Mohammed. Regarding their inability to complete flight training, Sheikh Mohammed explained that, while he was surprised by this, it had no real negative effect on his operational planning. He explained that the planning for the 9/11 operation was undertaken in steps, and that the entire plan was not set from the beginning. He stated, therefore, that he simply made minor adjustments to the plan from time on.

For example, Sheikh Mohammed explained those subsequently chosen as pilots, such as Atta, Ziad Jarrah, and Marwan Al-Shehhi, had scientific and engineering backgrounds, and were, therefore, better suited for enrollment in flight school. Sheikh Mohammed addes that Hani Hanjour came to Afghanistan already having a background in flight training and that, as a result, Bin Laden sent him directly to Sheikh Mohammed for inclusion in the 9/11 project. Sheikh Mohammed stated that the early mishap with Hazmi and Midhar was a mistake in judgement on his part, based on his assumption that anyone could learn to fly with the proper training. Sheikh Mohammed decided that Hazmi would be paired with Hanjour, and based his decision on the fact that they were both from the Makkah, Saudi Arabia area, and could, therefore, be relied upon to work well together.
According to Sheikh Mohammed, Khalid al-Mihdhar, without discusssion with Sheikh Mohammed, decided to travel to Yemen to visit his family upon expiration of his U.S. visa in June 2000. Midhar was bored in the U.S., having relatively unsuccessful in fullfilling his mission and, since he had not overstayed his visa, was confident that he would be able to obtain another visa.

[Note the contrast to this statement of the same document under the headline "Deployment of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar to the U.S.":
September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-hazmi and Khalid al Mihdar were selecetd by Bin Laden to participate in the operation. They had aqquired U.S. visa(s) on their own accord in 1999 following the martyr death of their friend Hazam in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. They decided to obtain U.S. visas prior to travelling to Afghanistan to make themselves more attractive for any possible operation in the United States.]

Mihdhar stayed in Yemen with his family for approximately one month and then traveled to Afghanist and to meet with Sheikh Mohammed.
Sheikh Mohammed immediately expressed his displeasure with Mihdhar having left the U.S. without permission and that he had left Hazmi alone in the U.S. Sheikh Mohammed said he told Mihdhar that he would not likely return to the U.S. but Bin Laden interceded into the disagreement and instructed Sheikh Mohammed to allow Mihdhar to return to the U.S. to continue his work. Mihdhar also gave a general report to Sheikh Mohammed, telling him of their problem with enrolling in language schools and that they believed they were surveilled from Thailand to the U.S. Sheikh Mohammed began having doubts wether the two would be able to fulfill their mission in the U.S. (...)

Sheikh Mohammed was upset at al-Mihdhar for leaving the U.S. and was prepared to exclude al-Mihdhar from the 9/11 operation; however, Bin Laden subsequently decided to reinstate al-Mihdhar.(...)

Sheikh Mohammed met Hani Hanjour for the first time in September or October 2000, before the U.S.S.Cole bombing. Hanjour had just arrived in Afghanist and had been at the al-Faruq camp for two weeks when he was urgently directed to report to Sheikh Mohammed.
Sheikh Mohammed was in Karachi at that time and Hanjour presented a letter from Abu Hafs indicating that Hanjour was a trained pilot and should be sent to the U.S. along with the other 9/11 operatives. Sheikh Mohammed gave 2-3 days worth of training to Hanjour, including how to encode communications and apply for a visa.

[One might wonder if in the visa-apply training he also was advised to not attend the school he was admitted to...]

Hanjour was relatively easy to instruct because he already had pilot training and had already lived in the U.S. According to Sheikh Mohammed, Hanjour was one of the best-prepared operatives sent by Sheikh Mohammed to the U.S.

[Because he was one of the best-prepared, he argued about a few dollars with Bernard's flight school shortly before the attacks...]

Before Hanjour left Karachi, Sheikh Mohammed told him that he (Sheikh Mohammed) wanted Hanjour to pilot the plane that would strike the Pentagon. Sheikh Mohammed wanted the hijackers to strike the Pentagon and given that the Pentagon would be a tough target because it is not a tall building, Sheikh Mohammed figured that Hanjour would be the best qualified of the pilots. (Source - PDF)


Of course the testimony of KSM could not be portrayed as evidence, like the 9/11 Commission does. KSM was tortured, even his children were tortured, he was kept in secret prisons and had a secret trial, in which testimonies based on torture and on hearsay were accounted as evidence.
No access to him was given for lawyers, the Commissioners, relatives or any other independent people, who could have even confirmed that he is still alive. There is no evidence, like in the case of Ramzi Bin al-Shib, that KSM ever stated what he supposed to have to.

There is also no evidence that KSM and Bin al-Shib, as claimed by author Yosri Fouda in his book 'Mastermind of Terror', made any confessions to the 9/11 attacks before their capture. Fouda has to this day not produced a shred of evidence that he met them in the first place. And I bet he never will because he actually could not do so.

That being said, there's also no reason to believe that Sakka's statement bears more truth than the testimony of KSM.
If the KSM confession is true, then there is no reason to believe that Sakka could have known better than KSM about the operational details. (Of course, if KSM's testimony is not true, this creates a much bigger problem for the official version).
So what reason would Sakka have to claim to know better than operational mastermind KSM? Why would he lie or what interest would he have to try to reduce the doubts on the official account?
One reason could be his apparent connection to the CIA. (See also). Besides that, and alltogether, as a prisoner, he could easily be blackmailed or promised to get imprisonment alleviation.


But the question is not which Al-Qaeda member you prefer to believe. The question is if you believe that flight instructor Garza didn't lie when he said that they were clueless and acted like dumb and dumber.

Regarding Flight 77 it does not look really good for the official claims. If KSM's testimony is genuine, then we have here an operational mastermind who falsely thinks that Hanjour was the best of the alleged hijacker-pilots, and also falsely thinks that he was able to perform the Pentagon maneuver.

If Sakka's statement is true, then we have here an Al-Qaeda operator who falsely thinks that al-Hazmi was capable to perform the Pentagon maneuver.
Not only that we have here two operators who have not the singlest clue about the difficulty of the operation they want to accomplish and about the skills needed for that. But for Sakka to be true, this would mean that the entire official version like it is presented in the Commission report, which relies in great scale on the testimony of KSM (and Bin al-Shib), could be dismissed as unproven fairy-tale.
And that's why I'm sure the Hazmi-story will be burried and never make it into the official accounts.

They have to stick to Hani Hanjour like blow-flies have to rotten shit! I don't know which stinks more...


The official account about Flight 77 has deep conflicts, and most of the information given out to the public is not verifiable. Furthermore, a lot of the story is based on testimonies of people tortured in secret prisons. And there seem to be people lying to the public, like Kilsheimer or Ted Olsen.
A lot of evidence has yet to be provided to the public and independent investigators. From the surveillance tapes supposedly showing Flight 77's impact, up to the plane debris not accessible for investigators.

But there are parts of the story that could be verified. Hani Hanjour's fllying skills could be verified, also that the performed maneuver required advanced skills.

And this verification results in a definite conclusion: Hanjour did not pilot Flight 77.

Washington, we've got a problem here!
Edited by NK-44, Jan 30 2008, 05:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boonedoggled
Member Avatar

Here is some very helpful information concerning Hani Hanjour.
PDF
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Boonedoggled
Jan 23 2008, 11:22 PM
Here is some very helpful information concerning Hani Hanjour.
PDF
Care to point out which specific information of the document you linked is helpful regarding this thread?

Care to point out which specific information stands in contrast to the information I provided?

Care to point out which specific information is given in the document you provided which has not been given in this thread?

Do you think that when people attend a school that they already know or have to learn?


I hope you are aware that I do not claim that Hanjour never attended flight schools or simulators.

I hope that you are also aware that I do not state that those witnessing his skills were liars.

Do you think that they are liars?

Do you think that Hanjour attended flight training two weeks before 9/11 because he was so skilled?

Do you have any evidence that Hanjour was a fanatic muslim besides statements by people tortured in secret prisons?

Do you have any evidence that he began to attend flight schools to crash airliners into prominent buildings in the U.S., and not to get a license to be a pilot in his own country?

Please share your evidence with us!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Shoestring wrote an article "The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?"
which is a good completion to the implausibilities I showed in the maneuver-section.


Read Shoestring's article here in the forum, or on his blog.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neil

NK-44
Feb 2 2008, 02:39 PM
Shoestring wrote an article "The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?"
which is a good completion to the implausibilities I showed in the maneuver-section.


Read Shoestring's article here in the forum, or on his blog.
There were five hijackers armed with knives, according to the OS.

Remember, it is likely that Burlingame and Charlebois were sitting down, facing forward, strapped into their seats when the hijackers showed up.

My question is why would Burlingame, a Naval Top Gun fighter pilot and from a conservative Republican family, fly with an openly gay First Officer?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · American Flight 77 · Next Topic »
Add Reply