Al Qaeda’s Top Gun

Willful Deception by the 9/11 Commission

Hani Hanjour is the hijacker who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, according to the official account of terrorist attacks. “The lengthy and extensive flight training obtained by Hani Hanjour throughout his years in the United States makes it reasonable to believe that he was the pilot of Flight 77 on September 11,” concluded FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. ((Statement for the Record FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry, September 26, 2002.)) The story is that while Hanjour had difficulties learning to fly at first, he persevered, overcame his obstacles, and became an extraordinary enough pilot to be able to precisely hit his target after performing a difficult flight maneuver.

The New York Times, for instance, asserted that “Mr. Hanjour overcame the mediocrity of his talents as a pilot and gained enough expertise to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon.” ((Jim Yardley and Jo Thomas, “For Agent in Phoenix, the Cause of Many Frustrations Extended to His Own Office,” New York Times, June 19, 2002.)) The Washington Post similarly suggested Hanjour had the requisite skills, reporting that “Federal records show that a Hani Hanjoor obtained a commercial pilot’s license in April 1999 with a rating to fly commercial jets.” (( “FBI Names 19 Men as Hijackers,” Washington Post, September 15, 2001; Page A01.))

The 9/11 Commission expanded upon this narrative in its final report. It noted that Hanjour first came to the United States in 1991 to study English, then again in 1996 “to pursue flight training, after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia.” In 1997, after returning to Arizona, he “began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot’s license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.” (( “Working Draft Chronology of Events for Hijackers and Associates,” FBI, November 14, 2003 (hereafter “FBI Hijackers Timeline”), p. 41. The complete FBI timeline is available for download online. See: “Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that Was Ignored by 9/11 Commission”,, February 14, 2008. The timeline reads: “FAA issued Commercial Pilot certificate #2576802 to [redacted] [sic].” The “[sic]” is in the original. Why the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor” is redacted is unclear.))

Subsequently, “Hanjour reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected.” By the end of 2000, Hanjour was back in the U.S. and “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. 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. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.” ((The Final Report of the National commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. 225-227 (hereafter “9/11 Commission Report”).)) A footnote in the report asserts that Hanjour was chosen specifically for targeting the Pentagon because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” ((9/11 Commission Report, p. 530.))

John Ashcroft told reporters early in the investigation, “It is our belief and the evidence indicates that flight training was received in the United States and that their capacity to operate the aircraft was substantial. It’s very clear that these orchestrated coordinated assaults on our country were well-conducted and conducted in a technically proficient way. It is not that easy to land these kinds of aircraft at very specific locations with accuracy or to direct them with the kind of accuracy, which was deadly in this case.” ((Global Security, September 14, 2001.))

A pilot with a major carrier for over 30 years told CNN that “the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators.” (( “Hijackers ‘knew what they were doing,’” CNN, September 12, 2001. The quote is CNN’s paraphrase of what the flight expert told them.)) An air traffic controller from Dulles International Airport told ABC News, “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. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.” (( “‘Get These Planes on the Ground’: Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11,? ABC News, October 24, 2001.))

CBS News suggested that according to its sources, Flight 77, “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. 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. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.” (( “Primary Target: 189 Dead Or Missing From Pentagon Attack”, CBS News, September 21, 2001.))

The Washington Post similarly noted that the plane “was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.” Hanjour was so skilled, in fact, that “just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot” – later identified as Hanjour – “executed a pivot so tight it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.” ((Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, “On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane is Being Hijacked,’” Washington Post, September 12, 2001; Page A01)) The Post reported in another article that “After the attacks … 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.’” ((Steve Fainaru and Alia Ibrahim, “Mysterious Trip to Flight 77 Cockpit,” Washington Post, September 10, 2002. ))

According to the report of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited by the 9/11 Commission, information from the flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon crash site and radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) show that the autopilot was disengaged “as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. Slight course changes were initiated, during which variations in altitude between 6800 and 8000 feet were noted. At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.” ((“Flight Path Study – American Airlines Flight 77,” NTSB, February 19, 2002.))

The NTSB created a computer simulation of the flight from the flight data recorder information showing that the plane was actually at more than 8,100 feet and doing about 330 mph when it began its banking turn at 9:34 am. ((A copy of the NTSB video was obtained by the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth. It is available for viewing on YouTube (accessed April 8, 2010).)) At that point, the alleged pilot Hanjour could have simply decreased thrust, nosed down, and guided the plane into what would have been 29 acres, or 1,263,240 square feet of target area – the equivalent of about 22 football fields. (( “The Pentagon,” From this angle, proverbially speaking, it would have been like trying to hit the side of a barn. Hanjour could have guided the plane into the enormous roof of the building, including the side of the building where the office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was located, and where he happened to be that morning. ((Don Van Natta and Lizette Alvarez, “A Hijacked Boeing 757 Slams Into the Pentagon, Halting the Government,” New York Times, September 12, 2001.))

Instead, the plane began a steep banking descent, circling downward in a 330-degree turn while dropping more than 5,600 feet in three minutes before re-aligning with the Pentagon and increasing to maximum thrust towards the building. The nose was kept down despite the increased lift from the acceleration, while flying so close to the ground that it clipped lamp posts along the interstate highway before plowing into the building at more than 530 mph, precisely hitting a target only 71 feet high, or just 26.5 feet taller than the Boeing 757 itself. (( “The Pentagon,” Great Buildings Online (accessed March 27, 2010). Boeing 757 Technical Specifications from (accessed Marcy 27, 2010).))

In other words, by performing this maneuver, Hanjour reduced his vertical target area from a size comparable to the height of the Empire State Building to an area just 5 stories high. Instead of descending at an angle and plowing through the roof and floors of the building to cause the greatest possible number of casualties, including possibly taking out the Secretary of Defense, Hanjour hit wedge 1 of the Pentagon, opposite to Rumsfeld’s office, which happened to be under construction, and where the plane, travelling horizontally, had to penetrate through the steel- and kevlar-reinforced outer wall of the building’s southwest E-ring in addition to the numerous additional walls of the inner rings of the building. (( “DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation,” Department of Defense, September 15, 2001.))

But even more problematic than the question of why Hanjour would perform this maneuver is the question of how he performed it. Perhaps the most incredible thing about this, the official account of what happened to Flight 77, is that Hani Hanjour was in reality such a horrible pilot that he had trouble handling a light single-engine aircraft and even just one month before the attacks was rejected at two different schools because he was judged too incompetent to rent a plane and fly solo.

As the Los Angeles Times ironically put it, “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.” ((Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001.))

The Legend Unraveled

According to an FBI chronology for Hani Hanjour cited by the 9/11 Commission, Hanjour first travelled to the U.S. in 1991 on a visa issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia under the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor”, in order to attend the University of Arizona’s Center for English as a Second Language. After returning to Saudi Arabia, he was again issued a visa at Jeddah in March, 1996. Back in the U.S., he attended classes at the ELS Language Center in Oakland, California from May until August. For a week in September, he took ground training lessons at the Sierra Aeronautical Academy Airline Training Center (SAAATC). From the end of September until mid-October, he purchased flight instruction from Cockpit Resources Management (CRM) in Scottsdale, Arizona. He then returned to Saudi Arabia once more. (( “FBI Summary about Alleged Flight 77 Hijacker Hani Hanjour”, (accessed April 6, 2010; herafter “FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour”). This document was cited by the 9/11 Commission. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) possesses the Commission’s records and has released many documents to the public. See: “9/11 Commission Records,” NARA (accessed March 28, 2010). Many of the released records are available online at See: “9/11 Document Archive,” (accessed March 28, 2010).)) The Washington Post reported that according to Hanjour’s brother, Yasser, “Hanjour applied for a job at the state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines but was told that he lacked sufficient grades…. He said the company told him it would reconsider his application only if he acquired a commercial pilot’s license in the United States.” ((Washington Post, September 10, 2002.)) Yasser characterized Hanjour “as a frustrated young Saudi who wanted desperately – but never succeeded – to become a pilot for the Saudi national airline.” ((Charles M. Sennott, “Why bin Laden plot relied on Saudi hijackers,” Boston Globe, March 3, 2002.))

Hanjour made plans to return to the U.S. and was issued a third visa in Jeddah in November 1997. His visa application contained red flags that should have resulted in his visa being denied. He failed to write in the name and address of the school he would be attending and provided no proof, as required by law, that he could furnish financial support for himself. ((Joel Mowbray, “Visas that Should Have Been Denied,” National Review Online, October 9, 2002.)) With that application accepted, he reentered the U.S. and took pilot training from CRM again in December. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.))

It was at this time that, according the 9/11 Commission, Hanjour began his training “in earnest”. But in reality, while at CRM, Hanjour never finished coursework required to get his certificate to be able to fly a single-engine aircraft. ((Thomas Frank, “Tracing Trail of Hijackers,” Newsday, September 23, 2001.)) The New York Times reported that “he was a lackadaisical student who often cut class and never displayed the passion so common among budding commercial airline pilots.” ((David W. Chen, “Man Traveled Across U.S. In His Quest to Be a Pilot,” New York Times, September 18, 2001.)) ABC News reported that when he returned to CRM that December, “He was trying for his private pilot’s license”, but according to one of his instructor’s, he “was a very poor student who skipped homework and missed flights.” (( “Who Did It? FBI Links Names to Terror Attacks,” ABC News, October 4, 2001.)) The school’s attorney said that when Hanjour reapplied again later in 2000, “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.” ((Newsday, September 23, 2001.)) The school’s owner described him as a “weak student” who “was wasting our resources.” ((“Hanjour an unlikely terrorist,” Cape Cod Times, October 21, 2001.)) He said, “One of the first accomplishments of someone in flight school is to fly a plane without an instructor. 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.” Although it normally took three months for students to earn their private pilot’s certificate, Hanjour “did not accomplish that at my school.” He added, “We didn’t want him back at our school because he was not serious about becoming a good pilot.” ((Carol J. Williams, John-Thor Dahlburg, and H.G. Reza, “Mainly, They Just Waited,” Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001.)) The Chicago Tribune reported that at CRM, “A flight instructor said Hanjour left an impression by being unimpressive. ‘He was making weak progress,’ said Duncan Hastie, president of CRM.” ((V. Dion Haynes, “Algerian man didn’t try to hide, neighbors say,” Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2001.))

Hanjour switched schools, and from the end of December 1997 until April 1999, took flight lessons from Arizona Aviation in Mesa, Arizona. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) There, too, the 9/11 Commission’s own evidence contradicts the characterization that Hanjour was training “in earnest”. An FBI document cited by the Commission stated that “Hanjour often participated in flying lessons for a one to two weeks [sic] and then would disappear for weeks or months at a time.” The school “often had to call Hanjour in an effort to get Hanjour to pay his bill.” ((“FBI Summary of Information, Lofti Raissi”, January 4, 2004.))

Buried in the footnote for the paragraph suggesting Hanjour began training “in earnest”, the 9/11 Commission report acknowledged that “Hanjour initially was nervous if not fearful in flight training” and that “His instructor described him as a terrible pilot.” ((9/11 Commission Report p. 520.)) FBI documents cited by the Commission reveal that witnesses from the school told investigators that “Hanjour was a terrible pilot. Hanjour had difficulty understanding air traffic control, the methods for determining fuel management and had poor navigational skills.” The FBI was told by one witness that “the only flying skill Hanjour could perform was flying the plane straight”, and that “he did not believe Hanjour’s poor flying skills were due to a language barrier.” He was “a very poor pilot who did not react to criticism very well. Hanjour was very, very nervous inside the cockpit to the point where Hanjour was almost fearful.” ((“FBI Summary of Information, Lofti Raissi”, January 4, 2004.))

In April 1998, Hanjour applied for his private pilot certificate with a single-engine rating, but he failed his test. One of the tasks documents show he would need to be reexamined for was “coordinated turns to headings” ((Hanjour’s FAA airman documentation from the 9/11 Commission records released by NARA are available online at Scribd.)) He tried again later that same month and this time received his private pilot certificate under the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor,” with an “Airplane Single Engine Land” rating.

In an apparent attempt to bolster the misleading characterization that Hanjour began training “in earnest”, the 9/11 also stated that it took only “Several more months” to obtain his commercial pilot certificate. In fact, it took Hanjour another year of training before he managed to obtain that second certificate. On April 15, 1999, the FAA issued a commercial pilot certificate to him under the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor.” ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) The certificate was issued by Daryl M. Strong, an independent contractor for the FAA, with an “Airplane Multiengine Land” rating. To obtain the certificate, Hanjour’s records show he flew his check ride in a Piper PA 23-150 “Apache”, a four-seat twin-engine plane, which Hanjour was in command of for 14.8 hours of the 27 hours completed for the test. ((Hanjour’s FAA airman records are available online at Scribd.))

Contrary to the Washington Post’s assertion that this certificate allowed him “to fly commercial jets”, in fact it only allowed him to begin passenger jet training. Hanjour did so, only to fail the class. ((Kellie Lunney, “FAA contractors approved flight licenses for Sept. 11 suspect,” Government Executive, June 13, 2002.)) As the Associated Press reported, the “certification allowed him to begin passenger jet training at an Arizona flight school despite having what instructors later described as limited flying skills and an even more limited command of English.” (( “Report: 9/11 Hijacker Bypassed FAA,” Associated Press, September 30, 2004))

Furthermore, there remains an open question about whether Hanjour was actually qualified to receive that certificate in the first place. According to Heather Awsumb, a spokeswoman for Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS), a union that represents FAA employees, “The real problem is that regular oversight is handed over to private industry”, since private contractors “receive between $200 and $300 for each check flight. If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business.” ((Government Executive, June 13, 2002.))

To obtain a commercial pilot license, the applicant must “Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.” It seems highly dubious that Hanjour met that qualification, as the 9/11 Commission itself acknowledges that his English skills were inadequate. The certificate does not allow its holder to fly any commercial aircraft, but is issued for “the aircraft category and class rating sought”. Hanjour only trained in light propeller planes like the single-engine Cessna and twin-engine Piper, and had never flown a jet aircraft. ((The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 12. The report notes that “To our knowledge none of them [the hijackers] had ever flown an actual airliner before.”))

Additionally, commercial pilot certification is different from the Airline Transport Pilot certification held by airline captains. To obtain a commercial certificate with a multi-engine rating, Hanjour only needed to log in 250 hours of flight time, whereas to obtain an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, pilots are required to log 1,500 hours. ((Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Sections 61.123, 61.129. Present requirements in these regards are the same as they were when Hanjour obtained his certificate. See the version revised as of January 1, 1999.)) Needless to say, having the ability to control a Cessna 172 or Piper Apache propeller plane does not translate into the ability to handle a Boeing 757 jetliner – and Hanjour could barely do the former.

Anyone unfamiliar with pilot certification could easily make the mistake of thinking a “commercial pilot license” meant Hanjour was qualified to fly a jet airliner, a conclusion reinforced by the Washington Post’s false assertion that his certificate allowed him “to fly commercial jets.” The 9/11 Commission report reinforced that false impression, only vaguely hinting at the truth six paragraphs later by saying that Hanjour subsequently “wanted to train on multi-engine planes”. But the Commission then further obfuscated that truth by asserting that this was merely “refresher” training (a matter to which we will return).

Hanjour again left the country on April 28, 1999. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) As the 9/11 Commission report observed, when he returned to Saudi Arabia to apply in the civil aviation school in Jeddah, he was rejected. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) He subsequently began making preparations to return to the U.S. once again. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) In September 2000, Hanjour was denied a student visa after indicating that he wanted to remain in the U.S. for three years, and yet listed no address for where he intended to stay in Arizona. ((Joel Mowbray, “Visas that Should Have Been Denied,” National Review Online, October 9, 2002.)) But he tried again for a student visa under the name “Hani Hanjour” later that same month. This time, he wrote that he wanted to stay for one year instead of three, and listed a specific address in California, not Arizona, where he said he was going on his first application. Despite these obvious red flags, he was issued the visa. ((Joel Mowbray, “Visas that Should Have Been Denied,” National Review Online, October 9, 2002.))

He entered the U.S. in December and took more flight lessons that month at Arizona Aviation. From February until mid-March, he attended Pan Am International Flight Academy, also known as Jet Tech International, in Mesa, Arizona. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.))

It was upon his return to Arizona Aviation in 2000 that the 9/11 Commission stated he wanted “refresher” training on multi-engine planes but was advised to discontinue “because his English was not good enough.” The implications are that Hanjour was merely brushing up on skills he had already achieved through previous flight training, and that the only reason he was advised not to continue was because of his poor language skills. But turning to the report’s footnote, it reads: “For his desire to train on multi-engine planes, his language difficulties, the instructor’s advice, and his reaction, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Rodney McAlear, Apr. 10, 2002.” ((9/11 Commission Report, p. 521-522.)) That document reveals that McAlear worked not for Arizona Aviation, but rather “instructed Hani Hanjour in ground school flight training at Jet Tech in the early 2001.” (( “FBI FD-302, James Charles McRae,” April 10, 2001.)) The 9/11 Commission, by misleadingly suggesting that this occurred at Arizona Aviation, apparently intended to bolster the claim that this was “refresher” training by making it sound as though this occurred at Hanjour’s old school, when the truth is that it occurred when he was at a different school he’d never been to before.

The 9/11 Commission was also deceiving the public suggesting that the sole reason Hanjour was not able to complete his training on multi-engine planes was because his English wasn’t good enough. As already noted, an instructor at Arizona Aviation thought his earlier failings there were due primarily to his poor flight skills, and not because of his language inadequacies. More importantly, again, this training actually occurred at Jet Tech. Turning to the documentary record, as article in the New York Times entitled “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence” noted, his instructors there “found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine”. As a result, they actually reported him to the FAA and requested confirmation that his certificate was legitimate. The staff there “feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.” Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the academy, told the Times, “There was no suspicion as far as evildoing. It was more of a very typical instructional concern that ‘you really shouldn’t be in the air.’” ((Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, May 4, 2002.))

As already discussed, it remains an open question whether Hanjour was actually qualified to hold his commercial pilot certificate. It was at this time, as the Associated Press reported, that “Federal aviation authorities were alerted in early 2001 that an Arizona flight school believed one of the eventual Sept. 11 hijackers lacked the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he already held, flight school and government officials say.” (( “FAA Probed, Cleared Sept. 11 Hijacker in Early 2001,” Associated Press, May 10, 2002.)) The manager of JetTech said, “I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” ((David Hancock, “FAA Was Alerted to Sept. 11 Hijacker,” CBS News, May 10, 2002.))

Whereas the 9/11 Commission suggested that, because he “persevered”, Hanjour “completed the initial training”, thus leading the public to the conclusion that his skills had advanced accordingly, the Times offered a very different account: “Ultimately administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ‘He didn’t care about the fact that he couldn’t get through the course,’ the ex-employee said. 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.’” ((Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, May 4, 2002.))

Another Times article similarly noted that when Hanjour enrolled in February 2001 “at a Phoenix flight school for advanced simulator training to learn how to fly an airliner, a far more complicated task than he had faced in earning a commercial license”, his “instructors thought he was so bad a pilot and spoke such poor English that they contacted the Federal Aviation Administration to verify that his license was not a fake.” ((Jim Yardley and Jo Thomas, “For Agent in Phoenix, the Cause of Many Frustrations Extended to His Own Office,” New York Times, June 19, 2001))

According to FAA inspector Michael Gonzales, when Pan Am International Flight Academy contacted the FAA to verify that Hanjour’s license was valid, “There should have been a stop right then and there.” The Associated Press reported that Gonzales “said Hanjour should have been re-examined as a commercial pilot, as required by federal law.” (( “Report: 9/11 Hijacker Bypassed FAA,” Associated Press, September 30, 2004)) But that was not done. Instead, the FAA inspector who “even sat next to the hijacker, Hani Hanjour, in one of the Arizona classes” and “checked records to ensure Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license was legitimate” concluded that “no other action was warranted” and actually suggested that Hanjour get a translator to help him complete his class. “He offered a translator,” said the school’s manager, who “was surprised” by the suggestion. “Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.” ((David Hancock, “FAA Was Alerted to Sept. 11 Hijacker,” CBS News, May 10, 2002.))

As with the fact that multiple visa applications from Hanjour should have been denied, the 9/11 Commission made no mention of any of this. One would think that a commission tasked with investigating the events of 9/11 with the goal of assessing what went wrong and fixing the system to prevent any loss of life in the future would have looked into who issued Hanjour visas in Jeddah and why the red flags were ignored. One would think that misconduct from FAA officials and contractors that allowed a terrorist to improperly obtain certification to fly a plane would also not be outside of the purview of the investigation – yet the Commission’s report is absolutely silent on this.

Turning to the footnote for the claim that Hanjour “completed” training at Jet Tech, one can read (emphasis added): “For his training at Pan Am International Flight Academy and completion by March 2001, see FBI report ‘Hijackers Timeline,’ Dec. 5, 2003 (Feb. 8, 2001, entries…)”. But turning to that source, the FBI timeline does not state that Hanjour “completed” the training, only that he “ended” the course on March 16. ((FBI Hijacker’s Timeline, p.123.)) The truth is that, as the Washington Post reported, “Hanjour flunked out after a month” at Jet Tech. ((Steve Fainaru and Alia Ibrahim, “Mysterious Trip to Flight 77 Cockpit,” Washington Post, September 10, 2002. )) Offering corroboration for that account, the Associated Press similarly reported that “Hanjour did not finish his studies at JetTech and left the school.” ((Associated Press, May 10, 2002.))

The 9/11 Commission additionally noted that Hanjour had later gone to Air Fleet Training Systems in New Jersey and “requested to fly the Hudson Corridor” along the Hudson River, which passed the World Trade Center. He was permitted to fly the route once, “but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour’s poor piloting skills”, the Commission admits. However, the report continues, “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 Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.” ((9/11 Commission Report, p. 242.))

But here, the pattern of deception continues by omission of other relevant facts. The report does not explain that when Hanjour was permitted to fly the Hudson Corridor in May of 2001, unlike his subsequent rental flights, it was with an instructor on a check ride, and not a solo flight. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) By saying his instructor there “considered” Hanjour’s skills to be poor, the 9/11 Commission implied this was merely a subjective judgment, but that others considered him perfectly capable. Although it would have been a standard practice, there’s no indication from FBI records that Caldwell actually required him to go on a check ride before renting the plane. Even more significantly, the 9/11 Commission omitted altogether the fact that, while Hanjour was allowed to rent from Caldwell Flight Academy, he was rejected yet again by yet another school shortly thereafter that the record shows did require a check ride.

In August 2001, less than one month before 9/11, Hanjour took flight lessons at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. ((FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.)) As the New York Times observed, Hanjour “still seemed to lack proficiency at flying”. When he showed up “asking to rent a single-engine plane”, he attempted three flights with two different instructors, and yet “was unable to prove that he had the necessary skills” to be allowed to rent the plane. “He seemed rusty at everything,” said Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the school. ((David W. Chen, “Man Traveled Across U.S. In His Quest to Be a Pilot,” New York Times, September 18, 2001.)) The Washington Post similarly reported that to “the flight instructors at Freeway Airport in Bowie”, Hanjour “was just a bad pilot.” And “after supervising Hanjour on a series of oblong circles above the airport and Chesapeake Bay, the instructors refused to pass him because his skills were so poor, Bernard said. ‘I feel darn lucky it went the way it did,’ Bernard said, crediting his instructors for their good judgment and high standards.” ((Brooke A. Masters, Leef Smith, and Michael D. Shear, “Dulles Hijackers Made Maryland Their Base,” Washington Post, September 19, 2001; Page A01.)) The London Telegraph also reported that Hanjour claimed to have 600 hours of flight time, “but performed so poorly on test flights that instructors would not let him fly alone.” (( “Piecing together the shadowy lives of the hijackers,” Telegraph, September 20, 2001.)) Newsday reported that when flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner took Hanjour on three check rides, “they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172.” ((Thomas Frank, “Tracing Trail of Hijackers,” Newsday, November 24, 2004.)) The Los Angeles Times reported, “‘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.” ((Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001.))

The deception does not end with this rather egregious omission. As noted, the 9/11 Commission also suggested that Hanjour obtained further training in a flight simulator, again, in an apparent attempt to exaggerate his training. But a review of the records shows that the preponderance of evidence indicates Hanjour was actually in New Jersey throughout the time period in question in June. FBI records show that on May 31, 2001, after having been rejected at Air Fleet Training Systems, Hanjour rented a Cessna 172 at Caldwell Flight Academy, where he “made an error taxing [sic] the airplane upon his return.” On June 6, he rented a single-engine aircraft. The FBI placed him in Paterson, New Jersey, on June 10. Then he rented a plane again on June 11, 18, and 19. The FBI has Hanjour (along with Nawaf Al-Hazmi) obtaining a mailbox at Mailboxes, Etc. in Fort Lee, New Jersey, on June 26, and opening a bank account and making an ATM withdrawal in New Jersey on June 27. ((FBI Hijackers Timeline, p. 150, 154, 156-157, 161-162, 166-167.))

Somewhere in there, the 9/11 Commission would have the public believe that “evidence suggests” Hanjour again trained on a simulator in Arizona. To begin with, the simulator at the Sawyer School of Aviation in Phoenix was for small aircraft and was nothing like the cockpit of a Boeing 757 – another fact omitted by the Commission. ((Jacques Billeaud, “More Arizona ties to terror suspect,” Associated Press, September 20, 2001.)) But this perhaps becomes a moot point when one realizes that the evidence shows Hanjour never left New Jersey. Turning to the footnote for this claim, the Commission stated that documents from Sawyer “show Hanjour joining the flight simulator club on June 23, 2001”. But, the footnote acknowledges, “the documents are inconclusive, as there are no invoices or payment records for Hanjour, while such documents do exist for the other three” who joined the club at that time. The actual evidence thus demonstrates clearly that while Hanjour may have signed up (something which may have been possible over the phone or via the internet), he did not actually attend. The footnote further acknowledges that “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.” (( “9/11 Commission Report,” p. 529. The document cited by the 9/11 Commission was obtained by “FBI Memorandum, Sawyer Aviation records”, October 12, 2001.))

The second piece of “evidence” that “suggests” Hanjour took further flight simulator training is a Sawyer employee who “identified Hanjour as being there during that time period, though she was less than 100 percent sure.” The FBI document cited in the footnote for that claim was obtained by, but it is almost entirely redacted, so it’s impossible to verify the actual nature of this eyewitness testimony. (( “FBI FD-302, Interrogation of Tina Beth Arnold (Sawyer Aviation),” FBI, October 17, 2001.)) But another document cited further into the same footnote also refers to the eyewitness from Sawyer, who described the four men who had joined the club. The first “UNSUB” (unidentified subject) was “short and stocky”. The second was 5’9″-5’10″, 170 pounds, and “medium build”. The third was 5’8″, 170 pounds, and “medium build”. And the fourth was 5’6″-5’7″ with a beard and mustache. Other eyewitness descriptions for Hanjour offered in the same FBI document have him as being no more than 5’6″ (one witness from Arizona Aviation, the document notes, “confirmed that he was only about 5’0″ tall”), 140-150 pounds, and very slight and thin, with short, curly hair. This clearly rules out the first three subjects, leaving only the detail-lacking fourth description as being the only one possibly matching Hanjour’s description. But the details given are far too vague to suggest a positive identification, particularly given the witness’s own admission that she wasn’t sure if it was Hanjour. (( “FBI Summary of Information, Lotfi Raissi,” FBI, January 4, 2004))

Even more significantly, that same FBI document reveals that it was not during the FBI’s initial interview with the witness that she identified that fourth “unsub” as Hanjour, as the 9/11 Commission report implies by citing the report from the FBI’s initial interview for that claim in the footnote. Rather, it was later, during a second interview that occurred after the names and images of the hijackers had been shown repeatedly in the media that she picked Hanjour’s out of a photo lineup. The FBI summary of that later interview states that according to the witness, Hanjour “has the same general characteristics and is very similar appearing as the person she saw at Sawyer…. However, she could not be 100% sure.” (( “FBI Summary of Information, Lotfi Raissi,” FBI, January 4, 2004))

The third and final piece of “evidence” is another witness who identified Hanjour as being “in the Phoenix area during the summer of 2001”, citing the FBI document just discussed, which is redacted enough that this claim cannot be readily verified. But the document does show additionally that Hanjour’s membership was good only from June 23 until August 8, at which time it expired. (( “FBI Summary of Information, Lotfi Raissi,” FBI, January 4, 2004))

Thus, the 9/11 Commission would have the public believe that sometime after June 19, Hanjour went from the east coast to Arizona without leaving any paper trail (i.e. airline or car rental records, ATM withdrawals, etc.), signed up for a two-week flight simulator club on June 23 without leaving any record he ever actually paid or even showed up (whereas records did exist for other members), only to change his mind and return again to be back in New Jersey with Nawaf Al-Hazmi three days later. In other words, what the evidence actually suggests is that the eyewitness testimony is unreliable and that, contrary to the Commission’s assertion, Hanjour never left New Jersey during that time.

There is a clear pattern of misleading and untruthful statements in the 9/11 Commission’s final report that cannot be dismissed as mere error. Rather, the evidence is incontrovertible that the Commission willfully and deliberately sought to present a falsified story of the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour; not to relate the facts to the public, but rather to cement a legend in the public mind; not to investigate and draw conclusions based on the facts, but to start with a conclusion – the official account of 9/11 – and manipulate the facts to suit the government’s own conspiracy theory.

The Fiction Perpetuated

The mainstream media has dealt with the problematic nature of the official story in a number of ways. As already seen, one method has simply been to exaggerate characterizations of Hanjour’s competence. The official story as related by the New York Times that Hanjour “overcame the mediocrity of his talents” is not merely unsupportable by the evidence, but stands in stark contrast to the available known facts. The legend is also maintained by the mainstream media through false claims, such as the Washington Post’s assertion that Hanjour’s pilot certificate allowed him to fly commercial jets. While the Los Angeles Times suggested Hanjour “convinced a lot of people he barely knew how to fly”, the underlying assumption of the article was that, despite his apparent ineptitude in the cockpit, he really did know how to fly. The public is apparently supposed to believe that he was merely pretending to an incompetent pilot even though he was actually quite skillful. The mainstream media have a tendency to mock and ridicule anyone who dares even to just question the official narrative, all the while putting forth such utter absurdities as this.

As the evidence surfaced that Hanjour was not the pilot extraordinaire the public was initially told he must have been in order to carry out the attack on the Pentagon, another narrative began to emerge. While most of the mainstream media simply ignored the evidence, or, as in the case of the New York Times, drew conclusions that were contradicted by some of their own reporting. In no small part due to the 9/11 Commission report’s findings, the fiction remained firmly embedded in the minds of the public that Hanjour, through determination and perseverance, overcame all obstacles in order to acquire the skills necessary to pilot Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

There was, however, at least some acknowledgment of the major hole in that theory. A few media reports did acknowledge that Hanjour was a horrible pilot and that all evidence demonstrated that he never “overcame his mediocrity”. But rather than calling the official theory into question in doing so, these accounts simply offered a revisionist account in order to maintain the legend.

Gone was the story that the hijackers’ “capacity to operate the aircraft was substantial”, that the attacks were “conducted in a technically proficient way”, that “It is not that easy to land these kinds of aircraft at very specific locations with accuracy or to direct them with the kind of accuracy, which was deadly in this case”. No more was the expert opinion that “the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators”, that Flight 77’s final maneuver was “a difficult high-speed descending turn”. Vanished was the view that Flight 77 “was flown with extraordinary skill”, even so that it “reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver”, that this was evidence of “a great talent” in the cockpit.

In the place of that conventional wisdom, the new narrative that began to emerge in some accounts was that it really wasn’t that difficult a maneuver after all, and even a novice pilot like Hani Hanjour – or anyone who’s ever flown a small aircraft and perhaps spent some time playing a flight simulator game, for that matter – could have, with just a bit of luck, pulled it off.

The New American presented this new narrative by quoting Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, as saying, “It’s not that difficult, and certainly not impossible.” But Bull was apparently not speaking specifically with regard to the Pentagon, as he then added, “If you’re doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you’d just keep the nose down and push like the devil.” In this case, Bull seems to have had the attacks on the World Trade Center, and not the Pentagon, in mind. Moreover, even if Bull also had the Pentagon in mind, he was obviously only considering a situation where the pilot was flying in a straight line towards his target. Thus, if he was also speaking with regard to the Pentagon, he was quite apparently uninformed as to the actual flight path the plane took.

Similarly quoted was George Williams, a pilot for Northwest Airlines for 38 years, who said, “I don’t see any merit to those arguments [that Hanjour couldn’t have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon]. The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I’d say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do.” ((William F. Jasper, “9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction,” The New American, May 2, 2005.)) It’s true that the Pentagon was a very big target. But Williams was apparently similarly aware, when he was asked to comment, of the plane’s final descending maneuver; or of the fact that this maneuver put the plane on a path that reduced the margin to a mere 26.5 feet (a few feet lower, the plane crashes into the ground; a few feet higher, the plane overshoots the target); or that the plane wasn’t flying at a constant airspeed, but was rather accelerating rapidly, thus creating more lift that needed compensating for with subtle precision in order to stay within that margin for error; or that the plane wasn’t just ambling along at something near landing speed, but was screaming along at an incredible 530 mph. To put that into perspective, cruising speed for airliners is about 600 mph at 30,000 feet of altitude, where the air is less dense. At sea-level that would be equivalent to about 300 mph hour, about double safe landing speed. A velocity of 530 mph at sea-level would be supersonic speed if it were possible to maintain at cruising altitude. (( “Airplane Flight: How High? How Fast?” NASA (accessed April 17, 2010). Relative airspeed is calculated by the equation B d v2 = W, where factor B depends on the profile of a given set of wings (larger wings produce more lift), d is air density, v is velocity, and W is the airplane’s weight. At 30,000 feet, air density is about ¼ that at sea level, allowing an airliner to double its speed to produce the same amount of lift.))

In both cases, the expert pilots seem to assume that Hanjour simply lined up the hijacked plane and flew a straight line into the building at a speed at which an aircraft could more easily be controlled by an inexperienced pilot. Needless to say, neither pilot’s statements accurately reflect the actual situation with regard to Flight 77. There is no indication that the New American bothered to fill either Bull or Williams in on the specifics of what Flight 77 actually did when it sought them out to “debunk” the assertion that Hanjour wasn’t a capable enough pilot to have pulled it off.

Offering a similar revisionist account, airline pilot Patrick Smith, writing for Salon, said that it was one of “the more commonly heard myths that pertain to the airplanes and their pilots” that “the terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training to fly jetliners into their targets. This is an extremely popular topic with respect to American 77. Skyjacker Hani Hanjour, a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater, seemed to pull off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon.” Smith’s answer to this was simply to flip conventional wisdom on its head. He opined that “If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with the help from the 757’s autopilot. Striking a stationary object – even a large one like the Pentagon – at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.” Hanjour had all the skill that was required, Smith suggested, adding “You can learn it at home.” ((Patrick Smith, “Ask the pilot,” Salon, May 19, 2006. ))

So, according to this narrative, Hanjour’s “textbook” “fighter jet maneuver” in a Boeing 757 is evidence that he was a “shitty pilot” and any pilot wannabe with some rudimentary training and maybe just a little bit of luck could have done it. It was easier to hit a target merely 5 stories high at a nearly horizontal angle (“obliquely” as Smith misleadingly claims), than to simply point the nose down to hit a target the size of 22 football fields. These remarks are perhaps not so much the result of an attempt to challenge conventional wisdom as they were simply demonstrative that Smith made very little effort to actually understand the actual nature of Flight 77’s final flight path before writing that it is a “myth” that Hanjour was not a pilot capable of having performed that maneuver. His characterization of Hanjour’s final maneuver as “loops and turns and spirals” indicates that Smith was generalizing without having any real concept of what Flight 77 actually did in its final minutes. A further indication that Smith really just didn’t know what he was talking about was his suggestion that Hanjour “possibly” had “help from the 757’s autopilot” in pulling off those final maneuvers, which is both patently ridiculous and demonstrably false.

The German magazine Der Spiegel also made the rare attempt to actually address this issue, but found it sufficient enough merely to opine that “This is not difficult to accomplish” and similarly suggesting practically anyone could do it since it was “a maneuver that can be practiced with any flight simulator software.” (( “What Really Happened: The 9/11 Fact File,” Der Spiegel, December 20, 2006.)) End of discussion.

The public was originally told that attack on the Pentagon obviously required a fairly high level of sophistication in the cockpit. It was conventional wisdom that being able to maneuver a large jetliner required a certain level of training, a certain level of skill. The public was then told that Hanjour was the pilot among the 19 hijackers who had the most training and the greatest piloting skill. As the facts emerged and it became evident that Hanjour did not have the requisite level of skill, the government chose to manipulate the evidence in order to maintain its theory. The 9/11 Commission served to cement the legend of Hani Hanjour into history, and the mainstream media, for the most part, accepted and maintained that legend even when much of their own reporting revealed facts that contradicted it. In a few cases, there was acknowledgment that Hanjour was a “shitty” pilot after all, but in such cases the official account was still maintained by throwing common sense out the window and reversing the original consensus that it must have taken a skilled pilot to have performed that final, fatal maneuver.

Perhaps this revisionist retelling of the official story is the correct one. Perhaps the conventional wisdom that it would actually take a skilled pilot to competently control a large jetliner is really wrong. Perhaps it’s true that any second-rate pilot who has trouble controlling even a Cessna-172 could get into the cockpit of a Boeing 757 and do what Hani Hanjour is said to have done. Or, on the other hand, perhaps the revisionist account is just as much nonsense as the story that Hanjour “persevered” and “overcame his mediocrity”.

Whichever the case, many questions about the events of 9/11 remain to this day unanswered, despite the appointment of the 9/11 Commission ostensibly to investigate and provide answers to those questions. And whichever the case, the conclusion is inescapable that the 9/11 Commission deliberately attempted to deceive the public about the piloting capabilities of Hani Hanjour.


Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal, a website providing news, analysis, and opinion from outside the standard framework provided by government officials and the corporate media. He was among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism and is the author of The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination. You can contact him at: Read other articles by Jeremy, or visit Jeremy's website.

14 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Rehmat said on April 18th, 2010 at 9:23am #

    “The truth is there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US….” Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.

    “Al-Qaeda itself doesn’t exist, except in the fevered imagination of neocon and Likudnicks (Israeli Jew facists), some of whom, I suspect, it’s a myth, but find it exremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad….. R. T. Naylor, June 21, 2003.

    “The myth of Al-Qaeda is built on a expansive foundations of many half-truths and hidden facts. It is a CIA creation. It was shaped by the agency to serve as a substitute ‘enemy’ for America, replacing the Soviets whom the Islamist forces had driven from Afghanistan. Unknown American officials, at an indeterminate point in time, made the decision to fabricate the tale of mythical world-wide network of Islamist terrorists from the exploits of Afghan Mujahideen. The CIA already had their network of Islamic militants ‘freedom-fighters’, all that needed was a few scatered terrorist attacks against US targets and a credible heroic figurehead, to serve as the ‘great leader’….. Peter Chamberlin, January 5, 2010.

    Interesting, what the western mainstream media is affraid to report is that most of thes Al-Qaeda cell have been working for Israeli Mossad. Foe example, in 2000 Yemeni government accused Israel Al-Qaeda behind the bombing of USS Cole. In 2002, PA captured a Al-Qaeda cell working for Mossad. The Adam Yahiye Gadahan, who have been representing Al-Qaeda tape – is a Mossad agent. Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008 were also engineered by Mossad with the help of CIA and RAW. The latest one is the Nigerian underwear terrorist and the Green Revolution protests in Iran.

    Some of the other Israe’s famous False-Flag operations include attack on USS Liberty, assassination of prsident Joh Kennedy, Pan-Am 103 bombing, 9-11, London 7/7 bombing, Bali bombing, Jordan bombing, Madris train bombing, Paradise Mombassa Hotel bombing, etc. etc.

    John Kaminski in his article We are on the wrong road, wrote:

    We must not accept these lies. Our future, and the future of our children, depend upon it.

    Truth No. 1: Al Qaeda was created by Zbigniew Brzezinski (one of Obama’s early Jew mentors), and the Mossad-dominated CIA, infiltrating Israelis posing as Arabs posing as Afghanis to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. Since then, they have become the perfect enemy, blamed for this continuing string of false flag terror events, but uncatchable because they are created by those who pretend to be its victims. Blackwater and al-Qaeda are two departments of the same corporation, and both Obama and the leadership of Israel are on the board of directors of this murderous group.

    Truth No. 2: As the former FBI Director long ago admitted, there is not now nor has there ever been any hard evidence that amateur Arab hijackers engineered the building demolitions in New York City or other events of that day. The demolition of the World Trade Center towers was not implemented by people in caves in Afghanistan, and everywhere in the world, people will laugh at you if you tell them that. Yet American foreign policy continues on the basis of this deliberate lie.

    Truth No. 3: The security of the American people is very much at stake in Afghanistan, but not because of some hallucinated enemy. Wars bankrupt countries, and that’s the name of the game — bankrupt the U.S. and profit from the fire sale when it goes broke. That’s what’s happening now. Surely you have perceived it.

  2. Danny Ray said on April 18th, 2010 at 12:38pm #

    “The truth is there is no American army or terrorist group called the United States. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive Muslems to accept a unified international leadership for a war against imperialism .The country behind this propaganda is Iran

    See two can play that game.

  3. bozh said on April 18th, 2010 at 1:08pm #

    forget ab truth. it has no warships, soldiers, wmd, aircraft, etc.
    But there is an american truth, iranian, russian, chinese, et al truths.

    No human being can posses a process called truth 1 today; already by tomorrow thruth 1 today becomes truth 1 tomorrow. As for truths 2, 3, 4, 5, x, they all are manufactured.

    very interestingly, one cannot split truth 1 today into an infinite number of truths nor dichotomize people as having the truth and other people not.
    For if one does that [as hitler did], one is pairing people into humans and nonhumans.

    This i precisely what US does. Not, of course, verballing dichtomizing humans; US is simply doing it now as did thruout history and with or w.o. ‘jews’.
    One caveat, US is not an exception nor novelty in such thinking and behavior; this appears an unversal behavior! tnx

  4. Hue Longer said on April 18th, 2010 at 5:07pm #

    Hello Danny
    We could go through the exercise of putting your bad analogy to test but then it plays into the distraction preventing consideration of what was said

  5. Rehmat said on April 18th, 2010 at 8:20pm #

    Danny Boy – I always enjoy the ‘self-denial’nature of ADL’s professional propagandists. Now, why should not agree with your sense of humor by jumping to the conclusion that their is no AIPAC, ADL or AJC for that matter – and Obama’s White House Chief of Staff is neither an Israeli Jew nor son of a former Jew terrorist – or Richard Haass president of CFR and special adviser to Obama on foreign policy is not a Zionist Jew – nor are those creeps, Dennis Ross and Daniel Pipes, JEWISH.

    Oops! Dutch socialist, Gretta Duisenberg was a victim of Iranian propaganda!

  6. PAG said on April 20th, 2010 at 11:40am #

    In the Mid noon hours of June 13th 1984 a very unwise, inexperienced and very stupid 17 year old boy took a 1972 Plymouth Satellite 4 door sedan and raced it against a 1970 Dodge Challenger with a 440 CID “Six pack” engine set up for drag racing and equipped with a 210 mile-per hour speedometer.
    The race was on a little used (at the time) road on the west mesa of Albuquerque, NM and lasted all of 2 minutes covering nearly 6 miles. The top speed the two morons driving those cars hit 192 miles per hour before they started to break. The breaking lasted a full mile and some change and stopped on the other side of a major intersecting road.
    The purpose of the race was not for pink slips, but rather to see what the Plymouth was capable of with its 318 CID engine two barrel carburetor and 727 Torqueflite transmission. The end result was that the car later had to have the transmission replaced and the some wisdom pounded into the head of that stupid 17 year old. The result was simply noted that the car was capable of exceeding (greatly) its 140 mph speedometer.

    The reason I tell this tale, is because although the facts are absolutely true, and the event did in fact take place, consider this:

    That 17 year old had 1-1/2 years driving experience TOTAL! The car was NEVER designed to travel at such extreme speeds. The car was not stabilized for such ventures (body not stiffened), had standard street tires on the standard rims, and had a carburetor capable of only producing 625 (approx) CFM (cubic feet per minute) of air into the engine. The car was never equipped with safety harnesses nor with any kind of racing accoutrements.
    The driver who never went above 120 mph for any length of time was able to keep the car in control even over a pot hole ridden road without flipping it or spinning it around. The driver never experienced any heavy shutter, nor had any idea as to how the car would handle or behave under conditions it was never designed, or engineered to handle, much less produce in actuality. The driver had basic driver’s education and NM state certification. Again with only 1-1/2 years of actual driving experience, with about 8 months of solo driving under his belt. No tickets were ever issued, and in fact law enforcement was never the wiser; because it was never reported. The driver who lacked substantial experience in regular driving much less racing had in fact been stopped several times by law enforcement for minor infractions. Comments made by friends who drove with the driver were: ‘… cannot hold the car steady…”, “… why do you pump the breaks so often…” and: “…you need more drivers ed. your f*** moron!” those comments were made just weeks before the said race took place.

    To summarize this whole situation, given thefacts that the driver was 17 years old, inexperianed, in a vehicle not designed to or for the most part not suppose to be able to carry out such a feat, the the situation seem almost completely improbable, yet it occurred. The situation took place, and no one was harmed, injured or otherwise affected negatively by the situation. The intent and desire of the two drivers were to see if something could take place. There was never consideration for the technical details, nor the overall aspect for the situation, it was “just done!”
    I will not dispute the various facts stated or referenced in this piece. Nor will I try to evaluate the situation or the end game. Whoever did this is whoever did this, whoever that was.
    Regardless, I cannot bring myself beyond the inescapable fact that despite the various conditions stated in this piece, I still find myself unable to draw a conspiracy from the US government with so many obvious flaws in the reasoning.
    Without regurgitating the situation, Ill simply put this to you this way: Why waist the effort to bring us to war? Just go to war. If the war was really about oil prices, why did the not come down? Why was the profit made and reported at that time from oil sourced directly to the sale of the gasoline that was legitimately in stock? Why not create a glut? Cannot one simple create a condition of making money in the commodities market by short selling? Its done all the time? Why the effort?
    If 9-11 was genuinely such a huge and massive conspiracy, why is it then that the major players have not benefited in some huge way? Would not the republicans have circumvented the election of 2006? Would not the people who were capable of such tyranny not allow their supposed arch nemeses (Barack Obama) from being elected? Why go through all this heartache just for some unseen or unknown end.
    Yes perhaps all the sources are telling the absolute truth for the piece. Has not anyone ever heard the parable of the three blind men and the elephant? One thinks it’s a tree, one a snake and one a whip?
    All three give a different conclusion from different points of view.
    Granted that there is far more involved with the whole 9-11 situation, but so too are their still secrets of WWII that have not been released either. That was over 65 years now. What would scare the US Gov. that much to hide? I suspect that the reality is far more intrinsic that anyone understands or believes. I do not disavow the possibility of serious collusion on part of the US Government. However, it doesn’t fit correctly, nor does it scream conspiracy. I suspect more directly a conspiracy of deliberate ignorance. Not wanting to allow thing to happen but does.
    Did Hanjour have the training and was a good pilot? Perhaps not. But neither was a certain 17 year old idiot who drove a car 192 mph to prove something.

    Damn I miss that car!

  7. Jeremy R. Hammond said on April 20th, 2010 at 6:35pm #

    PAG, I fail to see the relevance of your analogy. Anyone with a bit of experience behind the wheel can get in a car and accelerate it to a very high rate of speed on a straight road. Whether that might be stupid or not is irrelevant.

    Not anyone can get into the cockpit of a Boeing 757 and fly it the way Flight 77 was flown on 9/11. That takes a skilled pilot. Hani Hanjour was not a skilled pilot.

    Also, your reading into the article and drawing conclusions that I did not with regard to a “conspiracy”. All I suggested was that the government’s conspiracy theory is seriously flawed.

    If you don’t agree, you’re welcome to present an argument to counter any of the facts or conclusions in the article.

  8. cruxpuppy said on April 21st, 2010 at 7:39pm #

    With respect for the author’s research effort and expository skill, the sense of futility I experience reading this article numbs my mind. The point is made, and well-made, too! But who’s listening? None of the Commission members, certainly. They obfuscated and they lied and they know it. No member of the commission is stupid. They were not impaneled to get at the truth, but to provide a quick official narrative to sell to the public. Over the objections of the White House, they made a pretense of looking into the matter so that the official story could be erected as a national monument. Mr. Hammond belongs to a small minority of Americans who actually read the report and an even tinier group that believes disproving its conclusions makes a difference.

    Lee Hamilton may try to disguise the fact that he’s a slimeball liar by claiming the Commission was not given access to information and blah blah, suggesting that perhaps the issue should be revisited, but he is merely trying to save his reputation by appearing to be actually concerned about the truth of 911. He did his job, but in the end, he has proved himself no more credible than Henry Kissinger, our highest profile strategic liar, for whom he was a mere stand-in.

    The facts are known to all concerning the Pentagon strike: it was not hit by a jetliner, but something else that did not leave jetliner debris and body parts scattered about. Even a casual glance at the photographs demonstrates the truth of this. The debate over Hani Hanjour’s piloting skills is completely irrelevant, unless you deny the evidence of your own eyeballs and accept the energetic assertion by authorities that it was hit by an airliner.

    Was NIST tasked with modeling the Pentagon incident to prove or disprove anything? No. They, like the Commission, were given a job to do and they did it. The job was NOT to carry out a rigorous and exhaustive study, as is normally done by the NTSB following and airline accident. Politicized science is not science at all and the 911 event was above all else political. It could not stand up to the dispassionate scrutiny of scientific method…none of it. If your job is to lie, you lie, but you don’t call it lying. In the rarefied domain of “national security”, if you have to kill your own mother because she has donned the hijab, it isn’t murder.

    Airliners had nothing to do with the hole in the Pentagon or the collapse of the skyscrapers. The video evidence is beyond dispute. Airliners do not make neat round holes in super reinforced buildings and disappear without a trace, and steel framed skyscrapers do not collapse into their own foot prints at free fall speed when airliners crash into them. That is not the way things happen in the world Newton described. But if you believe a lying authority speaking in the name of national security who claims this is what happened, in spite of the evidence of your own senses, then your grip on reality is at risk, physical and political.

    Because few among us are architects, engineers, or physicists, we are inclined to believe what authorities tell us when we witness events that have never happened before in historical memory, events on the scale of 911. We are inclined to suspend the common sense judgments that the firefighters of FDNY made when they entered the twin towers in full confidence that no collapse was imminent because no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed before from a mere fire, or for any other reason. They did not take into consideration that the buildings would shortly be demolished, with them inside. That defied common sense.

    When we can’t explain the cause of something, we are inclined to entertain a plausible lie simply because we have no alternative theory. But since that day, more plausible explanations have emerged that make Hani Hanjour and the airliner collapse theory irrelevant, even absurd. A cruise-class missile hit the Pentagon, and the WTC + Building 7, were brought down by controlled demolition.

    The 911 Commission Report is a crock of shit, and the NIST analysis is not science. But we do not know who did it or why, or even what sort of controlled demolition was used. We know only that we’ve been lied to and that many otherwise intelligent and good people, people in authority, have bought the lie and become very unreasonable when asked to answer inconvenient questions of fact.

    The 911 investigation continues and I respectfully suggest to Mr. Hammond that he ignore the red herrings, such as the question of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills in the future, liberate himself from the labyrinth of the scholastic debate, the ultimate 911 red herring, and concentrate on issues of common sense, which is where the truth is to be found.

  9. Jeremy R. Hammond said on April 22nd, 2010 at 3:13am #

    I don’t agree that no plane hit the Pentagon. In my view, that’s the real red herring. Ergo, I also disagree with the premise you offer for why this article is irrelevant.

  10. cruxpuppy said on April 22nd, 2010 at 5:48am #

    Well, given the peculiar nature of this crash, the first step is to establish that an airliner actually hit the Pentagon, then one can inquire into piloting. Where’s the evidence? Where’s the debris, the body parts, the flight recorder, the hijacker’s ID? You know what they say about assuming anything: to assume is to make an ass of u and me.

  11. Jeremy R. Hammond said on April 22nd, 2010 at 7:49am #

    I don’t think there’s any shortage of evidence. There’s a hole in the building, for one. There were pieces of plane in various photographs. Photographs from the crime scene of charred human remains were submitted as evidence by the prosecution at the Moussaoui trial. The flight data recorder was recovered. It’s what the NTSB used to put together their model, discussed above in the article. I believe the voice data recorder was also obtained for that flight. Security footage from Dulles security cameras shown at the trial showed several of the alleged hijackers, including Hanjour, passing through security. The names of each of the alleged hijackers were on the flight manifest. Etc.

  12. PAG said on April 22nd, 2010 at 9:21am #

    I can understand why you fail to see the analogy that I was drawing.
    Point number one: regardless if Hanjour had the skills or not is not the point. The fact remains that skills are required for certification. NOT to actually pilot. The skills necessary to fly the aircraft are remedial at best to keep the thing in the air. Hanjour (though perhaps not a good student) by this time probably had the needed skills and knowledge to keep it in the air.
    Ergo: the analogy of my 1-1/2 years experience when I drove the car as fast as I did. You’re correct; anyone can do that with a car. So too, if with a remedial amount of education one can fly a large aircraft. Albeit that not particularly well, and again in fact that the raider showed (correct me if I am wrong) a certain amount of erratic flying behavior just prior to impact. This would be consistent with someone with such a rudimentary level of flying experience on a suicide mission would only need. The fact that the aircraft had a nearly textbook approach is meaningless. Anyone again with a rudimentary level of understanding can do much the same, particularly if one is focused. Yet when a deliberate attempt is made to reproduce such results, it usually goes awry because one is trying to mimic results, rather than respond to conditions of the moment.

    Most of the aircraft is automated so as to get rid of the old fly by cable system. The aircraft does require a certain amount of skill in order to keep it airborne, but again that is only remedial level necessary (understanding of basic instruments, how a rudder works, etc.) Actual flight time- smooth sailing skill is not necessary for the purpose of slamming an aircraft into a building.
    In all seriousness, why do you think we DON’T have the famous Jestson’s flying cars? Do you really want people with our pathetic driving skills flying around the cities in flying cars? Imagine the situations behind that! The technology is defiantly there, but outside of the cost do you really want flying cars in NY with the driving skill set this nation has?
    Point the second: Your words: “Also, your reading into the article and drawing conclusions that I did not with regard to a “conspiracy”. All I suggested was that the government’s conspiracy theory is seriously flawed.”
    Yet, you stated in the article the following:
    “There is a clear pattern of misleading and untruthful statements in the 9/11 Commission’s final report that cannot be dismissed as mere error. Rather, the evidence is incontrovertible that the Commission willfully and deliberately sought to present a falsified story of the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour; not to relate the facts to the public, but rather to cement a legend in the public mind; not to investigate and draw conclusions based on the facts, but to start with a conclusion – the official account of 9/11 – and manipulate the facts to suit the government’s own conspiracy theory.”
    My primary argument is to say that the government’s role in all of this may be simple or possible complex. Regardless, I was trying to point out that given my own personal experience with government agencies both non-descript and some higher level, has show a pattern of behavior NOT of overall conspiracy of direct involvement, but rather a massive CYA because they knew this was coming in a form they could not define, act against nor control. There is so much in the way of evidence that showed that the Government had been warned, intelligence was clear, confirmable and actionable, and the players (The terrorists) were acting in a manner consistent with such actions.
    I do not dispute that the US Government put a white wash on the whole 9-11 commission no less than that of the Warren Commission. To say otherwise is foolish and pathetically small minded. To what end? Embarrassment for the leading heads.
    However, given the overwhelming amount of public witness to all of this, and the various pieces of information given, there is still no question in my mind that the act was in fact carried out by individuals with a rather extreme hatred for life in general and a unique hatred toward this country.
    I agree with you the fact that the US Government is very bad at cover-ups, but very good at lying. (The current and past 18 administrations) can attest to that. I also agree with you the sub-point that there is far more to 9-11 than most of us will ever know. But to say the government hid facts for an official story to create a pretext to war or nefarious legislation I believe is wrong headed.
    I.e.: The PATRIOT ACT was in fact legislation sitting on tables for years prior to 9-11 was simply re-named.
    Instead I propose that department heads saw the end result of their own pathetic”me first” approach to their various areas, and decided they would not take the fall for this. This includes many members of Congress both Republican AND Democrat, two presidents (Clinton and W), many department heads including CIA, State, and others, along with the possibility that certain individuals on the military side got caught up in this and were also complacent. But a massive Star-Chamber conspiracy in DC just doesn’t hold water. Actions taken by a Star Chamber in a tent hold the water best. Sorry, but the patterns just don’t fit.

  13. Jeremy R. Hammond said on April 22nd, 2010 at 9:41pm #


    I’m not arguing that Hanjour didn’t have the skills “to keep it in the air”. This is a strawman argument.

    You apparently didn’t actually READ the article. Might want to do that first.

  14. brianct said on April 23rd, 2010 at 1:33am #

    Did you know that, Eddie Shalev…an israeli certified Hani hanjour..and in spite of being interviewed by the 911 Commission, little was known about him till early in 2009:

    ‘It turns out that just three days after Hani Hanjour failed a flight evaluation in a Cessna 172 at Freeway airport he showed up at Congressional Air Charters, located down the road at Gaithersburg airport, also in the Washington suburbs. Once again Hanjour attempted to rent a plane, and again he was asked to go up with an instructor for a flight evaluation to confirm his flight skills. The plane was the same: a Cessna 172. Yet, on this occasion Hanjour passed with flying colors and, later, this other instructor gave testimony to the commission that turned out to be crucial. The final report mentions the instructor’s name only once in a brief endnote buried at the back of the report. The note states:

    Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charter of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview. (Apr. 9, 2004)[24]

    The note gives a name, Eddie Shalev, but no other information about him. Indeed, his identity remained a mystery until January 2009, when NARA released the 9/11 files.[25] Nonetheless, David Ray Griffin had already identified the key questions in his 2008 book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. Wrote Griffin: “How could an instructor in Gaithersburg [i.e., Shalev] have had such a radically different view of Hanjour’s abilities from that of all of the other flight instructors who worked with him? Who was this instructor? How could this report be verified?”[26]


    The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. This is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

    So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33] Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.

    But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters…[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”

    The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev?Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?

    Real people have known addresses. But the current whereabouts of Eddie Shalev is unknown. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Recent searches by Woodworth and myself indicate that an “Eddy Shalev” resided in Rockville, Maryland as recently as 2007. However, the associated phone number is no longer in service. The 9/11 memorandum raises the possibility that Shalev may have returned to Israel. Clearly, the man needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a new investigation, even if this necessitates extradition. Quinn John Tamm and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points for a new 9/11 investigation.’