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.’”[55]
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”.[56]
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.”[57] 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.”[58]
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.[59] The truth is that, as the Washington Post reported, “Hanjour flunked out after a month” at Jet Tech.[60] Offering corroboration for that account, the Associated Press similarly reported that “Hanjour did not finish his studies at JetTech and left the school.”[61]
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.”[62]
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.[63] 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.[64] 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.[65] 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.”[66] 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.”[67] 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.”[68] 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.”[69]
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.[70]
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.[71] 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.”[72]
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 Intelwire.com, but it is almost entirely redacted, so it’s impossible to verify the actual nature of this eyewitness testimony.[73] 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.[74]
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.”[75]
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.[76]
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.
to view a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 1500 pages long see
forums.signonsandiego. com/showthread.php?t=59139
to view a partial list of FBI agents arrested for pedophilia see
campusactivism. org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=29
also see
ctka. net/pr500-king.html
Jeremy, excellent research and writing. Saw you also wrote recently re: 9/11 hijackers on manifests–which was good. I appreciate your cautious/sober, objective, and well-sourced investigations.
Have you investigated other aspects of 9/11?
Anything re: how the 3 towers (incl. WTC7) in NYC collapsed?
Hope you will if you haven’t yet. It’s most curious how the FEMA report & NIST report each based the Twin Tower collapses on opposite judgments re: the strength of the floor-truss connections to the exterior columns.
FEMA essentially claimed the floor truss connections were so weak that they failed easily, leading to a progressive pancake collapse–while NIST claims the floor-truss connections were so incredibly strong they actually bowed in (& even broke) the much, much larger exterior columns.. columns everyone agrees were designed to provide All the horizontal load support (from high winds, etc) and a portion (perhaps 30~40%) of the vertical (gravitational) load.
NIST is widely considered to be the ‘gold standard’ and yet when you look at their own illustrations/explanations, it’s painfully clear those relatively light truss connections (a couple of bolts, & possibly small welds) could never have exerted enough force (without breaking) to bend in or break the much more massive exterior columns. It would be like bending/breaking a tree by tugging on a twig.
Don’t mean to suggest the FEMA report is more accurate because it’s obvious there was no actual ‘pancaking’ but rather it’s curious how the 2 official reports rely on opposite assessments of those floor-truss connections.
If you’re interested, please see PBS / NOVA’s slideshow narrated by NIST’s lead investigator Sunder–and notice the relative size of the truss connections vs. size of the exterior columns. It all hinges on these magical connections.
NOVA link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc
To their slideshow detailing NIST’s version of collapse:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
Thanks for your superb work.
Yeah, I’ve followed it pretty closely. The bolt-breaking theory was officially scrapped.
Funny how the “conspiracy theorists” are ridiculed for saying the official story makes no sense, only to have the official story keep changing and acknowledgments made that, yeah, the official explanation was wrong after all. This has happened repeatedly. First they claimed fuel lines fed the WTC7 fire. Then they admitted that wasn’t true. Then they claimed damage to the building from the tower 1 and 2 collapses significantly weakened the structure. Now NIST acknowledges that that damage had no significant impact on the collapse. On point after point, first they offer some claim to support the official theory, only to be refuted and later have to admit that they were wrong.
The most telling thing about the NIST report on WTC 7 are its computer models of the collapse. They look NOTHING like the real collapse. The computer models are of a progressive collapse — which they claim it was. They do not in any way resemble the actual collapse, in which it is clear from all videos available that all major load-bearing columns gave out nearly simultaneously. Fire just can’t explain that. That’s the bottom line.
I also find the suggestion that the buildings could have been brought down in a controlled demolition to be incredible. And yet, I also have to trust what I can see with my own eyes happening before me, and have faith that the laws of physics still apply here on planet Earth.
Great points, Jeremy. Glad to hear you’re more than up on the plethora of details–and how contradictory so many are. How much of this is F.U.D. by design vs. FUD by…organic/natural processes? (like asking to what extent the Tea Party is a genuine grass-roots org) Of course, a few highly intelligent power-players can leverage organic processes by understanding human psychology & sociology.. just knowing how power tends to work and how major/corporate media is likely to portray events. Fear-mongering seems to help by simplifying the control efforts.
More specifically, my guess is that folks at NIST are not knowingly part of any inside-job conspiracy, but rather they were given a mandate to focus on explaining how the towers fell–and not to waste time/resources by investigating any ‘wild’ claims, so Sunder & others likely just did their jobs as best they could.. perhaps half-realizing along the way that their own analysis doesn’t really hold up well, but now their reps (& jobs) are staked to it so they must stand by it. Whistle-blowing doesn’t exactly pay the bills or endear you to your bosses, co-workers and neighbors.
Perhaps easy to understand why NIST doesn’t want to release their computer models (including exact inputs, etc) for public scrutiny.
To your points re: WTC7.. yeah, if NIST continued to claim that damage (from collapsing WTC1 &/or 2) played a significant role, then surely WTC7 would have fallen Over–in the direction of the damage. -which happens to be on the ‘short’ + thin side of the trapezoid-shaped building, thus easiest by far for the building to have toppled in that direction–and all the more with damage especially to the lower portion. And yet, it comes straight down most of the way, and only begins to slowly ‘topple’ (in direction of lower damage) near the end of collapse, so the debris field is pretty well (nearly) contained in the building’s footprint. Can’t explain that with any so-called progressive collapse sequence based on fire–as you said–or anything else other than some form of controlled demolition. All the more considering WTC7 had some asymmetrical structural elements, and yet came mostly straight down at near free-fall velocity.
And yeah, for various reasons, it’s not easy to accept controlled demolition and its implications. But so far, the C.D. theory seems to have the most merit in terms of the raw evidence & analysis. And NIST can’t really argue against it because they simply ruled it out summarily for all 3 towers–though with a token nod for WTC7. And they refuse to test their own dust samples for any evidence of incendiaries/explosives, so they can’t really refute the Harrit?, Jones, Ryan, et al paper showing evidence of super/nano-thermite in multiple dust samples.
But the larger question is this: how do we get mainstream, corporate-owned media to find it in Their self-interest to report what could be the biggest ‘scoop’ in recent history? Who do we approach..and how? -reporters? editors? publishers? owners? advertisers?
How do We leverage the massive corporate media?
There is so much verbal which clouds the fundamentals of true journalism. Is there one solid detailed offical commission report on any of the incident s of 9-11 which is the basic official government report. and for all to see.
Authority fails to see the implications and repercussions of this diabolic official investigation. A list naming all those responsible for the enquiries and subsequent decisions must be promulgated for future generations to pursue!.
Mr. Hammond’s point about the ever-changing nature of the official story is especially relevant to the question of why there were no interceptions. On that issue we’ve been handed three different stories.
The first story was that the military failed to intercept the airliners because the military failed to scramble any fighters–no scrambles until after the Pentagon had been hit. That was the account given during the week of 9/11, although it started to unravel in a few days.
The second story, made official on 9/18/2001, was that the military DID issue scramble orders in response to all four airliners. But the FAA had been so late in notifying NORAD (among other complications) that the fighters just couldn’t get to their targets in time to intercept them, in the case of the first three flights. They claimed they were finally in position to shoot down the fourth plane, Flight 93, but the passengers took matters into their own hands.
This version of the story collapsed by virtue of simple arithmetic. David Ray Griffin and other researchers (who know to add and subtract) were easily able to show that NORAD–assuming the reported notification times were correct–could certainly have intercepted these first three planes, especially Flight 77. This is now a non-controversial point, acknowledged even by the 9/11 Commission.
So, inevitably, the Commission gave us story #3. The gist of this third and current version is that military actually didn’t know the last three flights had even been hijacked until after each had crashed. Griffin has marshaled an impressive amount of evidence to show that this is an outright LIE. In fact, based on the evidence we now have, we can conclude that the military knew about these airliners being in trouble even earlier than they had claimed in story #2.
So that puts us back to square 1–nay, even further back than that. We have the 9/11 Commission’s admission that planes should have been intercepted if NORAD had known about them at least as early as originally claimed. Story #3 represents a last-ditch effort to refute the charge of a stand-down order. With the collapse of this story, that’s about all there is left to explain why these planes weren’t stopped.
Nice summary of the non-interceptions, Joel.
One of the first aspects that got me rethinking the official version(s) was wondering how on earth a commercial plane could just fly right into the Pentagon–presumably one of the most heavily protected areas on the planet as The nerve center of all U.S. military operations. Not to mention the Pentagon houses around 25,000 people.
Since 2 other planes had already smashed into the Twin Towers, you might assume our military/Pentagon would be on extremely high alert. And indeed, Mineta’s testimony clearly indicates the military was closely following Flight 77.. and yet it was allowed? to just fly right into the Pentagon… with all the military bases around the D.C. area, and you’d think the Pentagon would have some sort of defensive capabilities–anti-aircraft guns or something. Even multiple lines of defense.
All the more considering there were numerous documents re: the potential use of airplanes as weapons. And on 9/11, Gen. Schwarzkopf mentioned a famous Tom Clancy novel wherein a plane was used as a weapon–so not exactly a novel idea, though Bush & Rice & others later claimed, “uh, no one could have imagined using a plane as a weapon.”
Didn’t Michael Moore make a ref to the Pentagon having anti-aircraft weapons? -possibly in an interview.
Keep hoping he’ll do a follow-up doc to Fahrenheit 9/11.. there’s a bit more evidence & analysis since then.
Jeremy, not sure the flight ability of the pilot is as relvant as your effort and research implies. As even with little training I’m 100% sure anyone at the controls is going to hit some point very accurately. The pentagone has numerous sides, each very large. I appluade you on questioning the integrity of the reports and high lighting the possible conflicts. But your yield for truth maybe more rewarding if looking into the 5th flight that never took off or the crash in queens a month after 911. If a tail fell off a plane due to turbulence I think there would have been structural safety changes to that model plane or more crashes after 8 years. The 5th plane on 911 just dropped of into investigation with out conclusion. Were the four arabic men ever id from the luggae they left behind, all the other hijackers left Korans and final statements what happened to the luggage of those four unknown passanger that day? I find these questions very intriguing yet the goverment has been silent on the conclusion of these investigations.
I don’t know how it is you think a person with as poor piloting skills as Hanjour could have controlled Flight 77 in the manner it was. It’s a logical improbability, if not impossibility. The guy could barely handle a Cessna 172. I don’t know what “5th flight” you’re referring to.
Your assessment of the poor piloting skills of Hani Hanjour is based on the assumption that he was not flying the plane that hit the Pentagon. If he was flying the plane that hit the Pentagon then he was capable of flying the plane that hit the Pentagon. The 911 Commission looked at the facts and tried to come to a logical and reasonable conclusions about what happened, about who was flying the plane and assessed his background and the evidence of his piloting skills, both positive and negative. They then tried to arrive at logical conclusions based on those facts. That is what the process of investigation is about. Fortunately for those who try to denigrate and libel them by accusing them of deliberate deception and manipulation of the facts, because they reached conclusions, there is no such obligation. They don’t have to suggest any alternative reasonable or logical conclusions themselves. They have the same evidence. Tell us what your conclusions are. Those conclusions though have to be more logical and reasonable than those that are pejoratively labelled the ‘official narrative’.
What you mean to say is that my conclusion Hani Hanjour was likely not piloting the plane is based on his documented poor piloting skills.
Your conclusion that Hani Hanjour was likely not piloting the plane is based on his documented poor piloting skills , the distortion and exaggeration of the flying skills involved, and ignoring the evidence that he was likely the person flying the plane. Your failure to even try and suggest a more likely candidate for who was flying the plane is not a great basis for accusing people in the 911 Commission of trying to deceive people and distort evidence for reaching a conclusion about who was most likely flying the plane. Do you think the two AA pilots flew the plane into the Pentagon? If the conclusion about who was flying the plane that hit the Pentagon is to be reached based on the question of flying skills then the two pilots on the plane would be the conclusion. If you don’t know who was flying the plane then you can’t say Hani Hanjour wasn’t and therefore can’t say Hani Hanjour couldn’t. Either he did it, and was therefore able to,or he never tried, and his ability was never tested.
What a puzzling argument, given that the entirety of the lengthy article addresses the evidence cited to support the claim that he was piloting the plane.
The article is about the poor piloting skills of Hani Hanjour and and your conclusion is based on it.
quote “What you mean to say is that my conclusion Hani Hanjour was likely not piloting the plane is based on his documented poor piloting skills.”
That is only one part of the evidence. The lengthy article address the evidence cited to support the claim that he had the skills to fly the plane not all the evidence that he was likely the one flying it. It provides not more likely suspect. If the question was just who had the skills to fly the plane then the two AA pilots would be the conclusion. Do you think they were flying the plane? – I don’t.
You aren’t making any sense. I defer to my previous comments.