|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Loose Change Forum > Investigate 9/11 > Flight 77 Maneuver/hanjour Flying Skills Debunked!|
|Posted by: NK-44 Feb 8 2007, 01:57 AM|
| In the first part we take a look into Loose Change's claims regarding Hanjour flight skills, the maneuver of Flight 77 and the debunking of it made by Screw Loose Change. In the second part we will take a deeper look into Hanjour and his special treatment by agencies and four falsely alleged hijacker pilots.
Hanjour's flying skills
However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August
He had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172.
Who says this? It’s not in the video. Hanjour did have a commercial instrument-rated pilot license. Had he flown a 172 before? How about a little research, guys? Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if takeoffs and landings were what he practiced the least on the ol’ flight simulator.
Yes, Loose Change doesn't provide the source, so I do: http://web.archive.org/web/20041208221914/http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story//
" And consensus was , he was very quiet, " " average, or below average piloting skills, "
" English was very poor " " so, that's about the best description I can get, give you "
Now THAT was an earth-shattering inteview.
A minute and 8 seconds to hear that Hanjour was a nice guy who was instrument-rated but who wasn’t a great Cessna pilot? How hurting can you be for filler? How about at least telling us that Hanjour wasn’t able to rent the Cessna?
From the Greenbelt (Maryland) Gazette:
Well, to say "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it" is an oversimplification of what actually happened. But we will go into the maneuver of Flight 77 later. And it's also important to note that Bernard didn't instruct Hanjour personaly, but two of his employess have, the insturctors Baxter and Conner.
But let's look at Hani Hanjour's flying skills in a chronological timeline:
September 96 - Academy of Aeronautics
According to Hanjour's brother, Yasser, Hanis intention to visit flight schools in the USA was because he wanted to become a pilot for the Saudi national airline.
The Saudi carrier required Saudi pilots to be FAA-certified in the United States. (This, Saudi officials point out, explains why so many Saudis were in US flight schools. Since Sept. 11, the Saudi regulation has been changed.) http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1.shtml
After being rejected by a Saudi flight school, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training in 1996. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
At the end of this period, Hanjour enrolls on a rigorous one-year flight training program at the renowned Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, in Oakland. However, he only attends the 30-minute orientation class, on September 8, and then never returns. http://web.archive.org/web/20041125143322/http://cbs5.com/news/local/2001/10/10/Hijacker_Went_to_Bay_Area_School.htmlhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/10/10/MN74829.DTLhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36310,00.htmlhttp://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html
End of 96 - CRM Airline Training Center Scottsdale, Arizona
January 1998 - Arizona Aviation Mesa, Arizona
1998 - Sawyer School of Aviation Phoenix, Arizona
April 1999 - Sunbird Flight Services Tempe, Arizona
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=315856107&page_url=%2f%2fwww.chandleraz.org%2fairport%2fservice1.htm&page_last_updated=8%2f21%2f2002+10%3a46%3a37+PM&firstName=Daryl&lastName=Strong residents at Chandler Municipal Airport.
After he got his license,
So Hanjour went to the United States in 1999 and received his certificate, but came home and still couldn't land a job with the airline. http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1.shtml
In a CBC-Article, dealing with Hanjour's license, it's written that one of Hanjour's instructors, an Arab-American man, came under pressure by the FBI. He told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
But this instructor remains unkmown, also his company and the time when he trained Hanjour (it's only stated that it was before he got his license, April 15. 99).
Dezember 2000 - Arizona Aviation Phoenix, Arizona
January/February 2001 - Jet Tech International Phoenix, Arizona
Jet Tech has closed in the meantime and was owned by Pan Am International Flight Academy.
Early 2001 - Pan Am Intern. Flight Academy Mesa, Arizona
April 2001 - Air Fleet Trainings System Teterboro, New Jersey
June/Juli 2001 - Caldwell Flight Academy Fairfield, New Jersey[u/]
[u]But Cooperative Research notes:
August 2001 - http://www.freewayaviation.com/index.html, Maryland
August 2001 - Congressional Air Charters Gaithersburg, Maryland
According to a footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report, some time in August 2001 Hanjour successfully conducts “a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.” The instructor thinks that “Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation.” http://web.archive.org/web/20041020144854/http://www.decloah.com/mirrors/9-11/911_Report.txt
Cooperative Research states that
According to the http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00020-09.pdf from the Moussaoui-Trial, Hanjour took this lesson on the 20th of August at 15.00h and paid in cash.
The Commission-Report's statement contradicts all others. And as we've seen there's no evidence that this certification flight ever happened. The Commission-report quotes an anonymous instructor who thinks that Hanjour had "training from a military pilot". As there's no way that Hanjour could improve his skills in a few days more than in five years before, there are only two possibilities: this story is complete fraud, or it is true but then the instructor is obviously not talking about the same Hanjour.
September 1996 Aeronautic Academy: He attended a 30-minute class on Sept. 8 and never came back.
End of 1996 CRM: skills were poor - barely knew how to fly. - wasn't much of a pilot. - pain in the rear - not serious about becoming a good pilot - a pretty weak student - wasting our resources - he was not capable
January 1998 Arizona Aviation: supposedly receives his commercial pilot rating while there.
1998 Saywer School: only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do - got overwhelmed with the instruments.
before April 1999 Anonymous instructor/flight school - very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit
April 1999 Sunbird Flight Service - nothing remarkable
Dezember 2000 Arizona Aviation: instructor advised him to discontinue
January/February 2001 Jet Tech: a very bad pilot. - He could not fly at all.-express concern to Federal Aviation Administration - not qualify for an advanced certificate - flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license. " I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.
Early 2001 Pan Am International: An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.
April 2001 Air Fleet Trainings: poor piloting skills.
June/Juli 2001 Caldwell: still in question that he ever been there
August 2001 Freeway Aviation: incompetent to fly alone. - could not handle basic air maneuvers - was not ready to rent a plane by himself. - unable to fly solo - instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience
August 01 Congressional Air Charters: challenging certification flight - with a difficult approach - training from a military pilot - still in question that he ever been there
So if we take Bernard's 'average, low-average' as a 'neutral' reference point, than we have only three sources certifying Hanjour better skills. An anonymous instructor from an anonymous flight school (see April 1999), an anonymous instructor from Congressional Air Charters (a company which no longer gives flight instructions), who thought Hanjour had been trained by a military pilot (see August 2001), and Daryl Strong, who signed Hanjours multi-engine license and is a private contractor to the FAA. A FAA spokesman said:
This may explain very well why Strong "remembered nothing remarkable". On the other side we have testimonies from seven different flight-schools certifying Hanjour's low-average/poor flight skills.
Besides flying an airplane, Hanjour wasn't even competent enough to pass a driving test.
Despite of all the reports of Hanjour's weak piloting skills, the Commission-Report concludes:
and state that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.” http://web.archive.org/web/20041020144854/http://www.decloah.com/mirrors/9-11/911_Report.txt
If he was the best, how worse the others had to be! But the Commission-Report is wrong, at least Mohamed Atta (Flight 11) had better skills than Hanjour.
9:38. Arlington, Virginia.
Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH
The 9/11 Commission says it was 330 degrees, most other sources I’ve seen say it was 270.
Hanjour first overflew the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. The turnaround may have been due, not to great skill, but to inexperience.
Let's start with a statement from General Schwarzkopf regarding the Pentagon-Maneuver, made in the evening of 9/11. This rare clip contains also some interesting footage of the Pentagon: http://www.file-upload.net/download-290173/Title_01-Vol002-1-joined.wmv.html
Here are other reports:
Loose Change used this quote, but without the 'it's unsafe' comment at the end. That's why Screw Loose Change claims that this statement - as a whole - debunks by itself the point here made by Loose Change. But let's look closer: experienced air traffic controllers, which have monitored the radar, thought to that time it was a military plane. The 757-statement is an interpretation made afterwards, when it was announced that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. At the moment he's talking of none of them had thought that it could be a 757. And that's the point here! And this becomes absolute clear if we follow his statement:
Markus Kirschneck, from the pilots-association "Cockpit":
And from Webster Tarpleys book: 9/11 Synthetic Terror:
But others disagree that much skill is needed to perform the maneuvers the hijackers made:
But here's the talk of 'fly straight and keep on target' which wasn't the case with Flight 77 (and also Flight 175, aiming at the WTC in a curve). This is the same false asumption Bernard made when he talked of "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." and not of a 330 degree turn and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
Hitting a target directly is the easy maneuver, hitting as it was executed at the Pentagon, is the hard one.
So, if this maneuver was due to 'incompetence', why was he competent enough to perform a 330 degree turn (hard one), but not competent enough to hit it directly (easy one)? And if he was so incompetent, would he have recognized early enough to see that he was too high/fast to hit it directly and then make a loop in this accuracy?
But, from the dutch TV we have the following clip showing us in a simulator, how easy it is to hit the Pentagon, even under the actaul conditions (rapid descending and flying in a curve): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ts9lSnghLgA
However, this experiment doesn't proof that Hanjour had the capabilities to do the maneuver. First, though it's said that the pilot from the experiment is comparable with Hanjour, i.e.experience only on small planes and simulators, we don't know what his actual skills are. Was he also described as a "poor pilot", "overhelmed with the instruments", and "advised to discontinue"? That he has experience only on small planes and simulators like Hanjour, does this in any way affect the skills of Hanjour?
Second, as it's the easier way to hit it direct on, I think we can asume that the decision to hit it from a curve was made relatively spontaneously. The pilot from the experiment knew before he started that he had to perform such a maneuver. So he had time to think of, to calculate when would be the best moment to perform, etc. And of course, he had not be afraid of being shot down or passengers revolting or to get nervous about going to die in a few minutes.
Third, the experiment excluded real-scenario items like flying level to the ground including hitting light poles, g-forces, etc making the whole maneuver more difficult.
Let's look into another aspect of the maneuver-scenario:
The question is 'Why was there no fight going on'? Though this question might at first occur unreasonable, let's not forget the official version in the case of Flight 93: Passengers knew that they were on a suicide mission so they made the decision to strike back. Let's compare this with Flight 77.
At least ten of the 59 passengers had a military background and 21 of them were involved in government/defense related work, including Korea-, Vietnam-, and Gulf-war veterans. Which means that we can assume that they wouldn't go into death without resistance. ( http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/passengers.html )
There were two cell-phone calls from flight 77. The first from flight attendant Renee May at 9:12, the second from Barbara Olsen at 9:16. This means they phoned AFTER the second plane hit the WTC.
So the passengers of flight 77 were aware that they were not dealing with a normal hijacking. They were aware that they were going to die.
I think it's safe to say that every normal person would have fight for survival, and certainly the passengers (not to forget the crew!) with military background would have fought back! Many of them were confrontated with live-threating situations before! Against maximum FOUR hjackers with BOXCUTTERS!
Bottomline: Loose Change is backed up by the facts. Screw Loose Change didn't debunk Loose Change.
|Posted by: NK-44 Feb 8 2007, 01:59 AM|
| Part two
The special treatment
Everyone of the http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46892-2001Sep29¬Found=true received a suspicious treatment by federal authorities which could also be interpreted as protection.
Let's start with Hanjour:
Let's break here: it is not the job of the FAA to check if someone has a 'criminal intent'. Their job is to check if a person is skilled to be a pilot. And these skills were in question and that's why the FAA was alarmed. Though, Hanjour had obvisously great defiticites in speaking English and in flying an airplane, the FAA only explains his license as legitim, without making further tests on Hanjour. Imagine, on your test for the driving-license you take someone's right to way, you don't stop at a stoplight, etc. and then you pass the test, because your instructor couldn't find any 'criminal intent' in your behaviour!
We've already seen where Hanjour obtained his license, but why was the FBI so close-lipped about it three months later?
And Hanjour's English was so bad:
The FAA clamped down flight schools to ensure that no one who cannot speak conversational English receives a flight certificate, but when they receive warnings from a flight school, they just made suggestions like providing with a translator, or asking for an arabic-speaking person! This was not incompetence - this was an explicit break of their own rules aka illegal!
Also note that
Now let's look into the case of Mohammed Atta (alleged pilot of Flight 11) and Marwan Al-Shehhi (alleged pilot of Flight 175).
Atta and Alshehhi stall a small plane on a Miami International Airport runway. Not able to start the plane, they just walked away. Flight controllers had to guide the waiting passenger airliners around the stalled aircraft until it was moved away 35 minutes later.
The Clearwater Airpark incident January/February 2001
And I thought, the Al-Caida manuals claim not to behave in a way that could http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/698145/posts
Smells like a cover-up! And note the explanation why it wasn't considered as something very important:
And according to the Commission-Report, night-time-flights were not unusual for Atta and Alshehhi:
Finally, after 70 warnings, they arrested him, but the FBI Agents weren't allowed even to search his hard-drive!:
Fifteen of the 19 Hijacker's Visa were issued by the U.S. consular office in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. All of them should have been denied.
The article also states:
Senators Jon Kyl and Pat Roberts conluded:
Michael Springman, former visa officer at the U.S. consular office in Jiddah claims that he is "repeatedly told to issue visas to unqualified applicants." He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. Springmann loudly complains about the practice to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He eventually is fired and the files he has kept on these applicants are destroyed.
On October 1st 2001 it's reported, that the US Embassy in Jeddah tightens visa rules. http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=9505&d=1&m=10&y=2001
And to Hanjour's visa:
Hani Hanjour was illegal in the country. Why did he not seek a proper visa?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0100ciaatta he and three other ringleader, Marwan Alshehhi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Nawaf Alhazmi were also under surveillance by a secret US Army intelligence program called Able Danger since early 2000. For more http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=able_danger
See also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLKu8VtfIc and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtTaFeJN0Mc
Hanjour had also an http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=200#a1096hanjourfriends
And let's not forget the http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/phoenix-memo/01.htm by FBI special agent Kenneth Williams, warning about suspect Middle Easterners training in Arizona flight schools:
Two of the supspects mentioned there, Ghassan al Sharbi and Abu Zubaida, had direct connections to Hanjour. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a071001williams#a071001williams
Last but not least, the FBI-Informant Aukai Collins monitored the Islamic and Arab communities in Phoenix between 1996 and 1999, and in his warnings Hanjour is mentioned:"They knew everything about the guy," http://web.archive.org/web/20021009223014/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/FBI_informant020523.html
Taking this all into consideration (and there's much more): If this is not protection, than protection has no meaning.
The living pilots
How was the identity of the alleged hijackers uncovered?
This was explained under oath during a hearing of the 9/11 commission by Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection:
Keep this, which was also confirmed by Richard Clarke, in mind, when it comes to the 'mysterious hijackers'. Why were they suspected when they've never been on the passenger manifests? And we will also see that left cars played an important role in (mis-)identifying the hijackers.
One of the first suspects was Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian pilot living in Britain.
He was arrested in Britain,. and later, in April 2002:
As the US delivered their evidence, it turned out they have none! Maybe this is the reason why they refused to deliver evidence in the trails against Mzoudi and Motassadeq? Notice also this telling statement from the same article:
Think of it! If they had shot Riassi first, there wouldn't have been a trial. So the US wouldn't be forced to deliver evidence. So the evidence wouldn't have turned out to be non-existant. So the official version would be until today: Raissi was a lead instructor of the hijackers... http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1578714,00.html
The story of another suspect related to Hanjour became almost forgotten. Faisal M. Al Salmi was indicted for giving false statements to the FBI about his association with Hanjour. Al Salmi hired in April 20001 for a remedial flying course in Tempe, Arizona at http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=113049779&cs=QGGvQCzIE
One day Al Salmi appeared with a second man who later turned out to be of interest to the FBI. Asked about this second man, http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=507688357
he did not recognize Hanjour from FBI pictures and does not know whether the second man...had a connection to any of the hijackers.
Casdorph said he only knew the second man's first name, but would not disclose it, at the FBI's request. http://breakingnews.morris.com/terrorism/stories/101301/pilot.shtml
So it's not Hani Hanjour as the FBI would have no reason to not diclose his name. Unfortunately, we could not ask Casdorph for revealing this name as he is already dead. There's one thing Hanjour, Al Salmi and the unknown 'second man' have in common: their flying skills. Casdorph mentions the "poor flying skills" of Al Salmi and that "he did not feel comfortable flying with the second man and did not return calls when the man sought additional lessons."
Al Salmi denied any connections to Hanjour, and therefore was http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/web/ocelibra.nsf/6f418f0d826f30d8882563a30076ab09/4d2158b56531150c88256c5d006308f6?OpenDocument and found guilty of making false statements in denying knowledge of Hanjour. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9804E3DE103FF935A25751C0A9649C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fF%2fFederal%20Bureau%20of%20Investigation%20
He was not convicted for 9/11, "he took a polygraph test that shows he was not involved in the Sept. 11 attacks." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,181578-2,00.html
There were also others suspected to be hijackers, like Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, both Saudi pilots. They "were believed to have been on of the two flights out of Boston." http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.terrorism/
But when the FBI raided Adnan Bukhari’s house it turned out that he was alive. And that Ameer Bukhari " had died in an air collision above the St. Lucie County International Airport exactly a year before the attacks”. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.terrorism/
As the Bukhari's (who were misreported as brothers) were not on the passenger manifests. How did they became suspect within hours after the attacks? Here's the answer:
That's another one, now we have three cars left with evidence at airports. One found at Washington’s Dulles Airport registered to Nawaf Alhazmi http://web.archive.org/web/20020328091001/http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/10928TERRORISTMUGGRAPHIC.html
Another is discovered at Boston’s Logan Airport, registered to Marwan Alshehhi http://web.archive.org/web/20030212055507/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091301terror,0,2306641.story
And the third, with 'evidence' suggesting the Bukharis as hijackers, is the one found in Portland, Maine. Registered to Mohammed Atta.
The cars full of evidence were pretty comfortable for the FBI's investigation - directly presented to them on a golden plate. And don't forget the found passports at the WTC and in Shanksville (not to mention the red bandana and the boxcutter 'Made in China') and at the Pentagon. And Atta's bags at the airport. An the 'confirmation-video' of Osama Bin Laden coincidentally found in Jalalabad. And http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1664161.stm. Or they just left a box cutter together with a credit card http://web.archive.org/web/20011024161527/http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/16reconstructingt.html or together with manuals http://web.archive.org/web/20011109154854/www.miami.com/herald/special/news/worldtrade/digdocs/085478.htm
They left a Koran http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=APAB&p_theme=apab&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=men%20spewed&p_field_label-0=Topics&s_dispstring=men%20spewed%20AND%20date(9/13/2001%20to%209/15/2001)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=9/13/2001%20to%209/15/2001)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=noand a Koran there.
(And btw., it's obvious how 'box-cutter' and 'koran' became signal-words after the attacks, associated to brandmark the traumatized minds of the people with anti-islamism. Beeing a moslem + a boxcutter is all you need to go to prison, think of http://web.archive.org/web/20030207040603/http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1009)
"Never in the history of modern warfare has so much been found so opportunely." http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html
Also notice this comment from the same article:
Giving all these 'golden plates', what would Columbo say on that? Don't know, but here's what the Miami Herald said:
But maybe it's just that what it looks like: planted evidence. And you don't have to be a Columbo to figure that out:
And we've just seen the proof for his statement in the case of the Bukharis. How could it be that the FBI revealed the names of the 19 hijackers five days later and furthermore "through an evaluation of data related to the passenger manifest of the four terrorist hijacked aircraft, Customs Office of Intelligence was able to identify the likely terrorist hijackers within 45 minutes of the attack" , but weeks later it's stated:
The article also states:
My answer would be a simple 'yes, of course'. What would be your's?
Let's go back, there was also another commercial pilot suspected to be a hijacker: Ameer Taiyb Kamfar
But he's not listed on the passengers-manifest. Where does his name come from?
Kamfar was linked to the hijacker Alomari:
Kamfar was also linked to Adnan Bukhari:
And Bukhari has links to Al Omari, too:
Do you see a pattern here? We have four pilots, three of them suspected to be hijacker, one to be the 'lead instructor'. One turned out to be already dead. A second, Raissi, has been convicted with false evidence. And we have Adnan Bukhari and Kamfar, both linked to Al Omari, furthermore they've found links to Bukhari in the car rented by Atta and Al Omari. But their links turned to dust:
This means, we have now FOUR men falsely suspected to be the pilots.
And since then the hijacker on Atta's side is named as Abdulaziz Alomari , and not as Abdul Rahman Al-Omari. Just a name-confusion it's said http://www.wanttoknow.info/010915nytimes
But why is it, that
Furthermore, how could the car have contained evidence linking to Bukhari, when he has only links to the Saudi Airlines Pilot Abdul Rahman Al-Omari and not to Abdulaziz Alomari?
And the confusion expands:
|Posted by: NK-44 Feb 8 2007, 02:02 AM|
| Sounds like stolen identity. Remember when Bukhari's attorney said "it appeared their identifications were stolen". Do you see a pattern here?
To summarize the mysterious four hijackers (three pilots/ one lead instructor):
-Lofti Raissi: from "biggest breakthrough", "cruical importance" , a "in fact lead instructor" to verdict of not guilty (and who should have better been "shot first")
-Ameer Bukhari: from a hijacker pilot to dead since a year
-Adnan Bukhari: from a hijacker pilot to still alive, then from ties to the hijackers to "helping authorities".
-Ameer Taiyb Kamfar: from a hijacker pilot to still alive, then from armed with an AK47 to innocent person.
What evidence do we have that Hanjour was even on Flight 77?
First, he's on the passenger list, published in it's originally form in 2005. http://911myths.com/911_Manifests.zip
But Ashcroft said on Sept.14 :" And American Airlines 77, Dulles to Los Angeles, four hijackers. That is our preliminary." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/09/mil-010913-usia18.htm
So maybe they had to that time no clue, that there were five hijackers. But in the first published list of the hijackers by the FBI from the same day (Sept.14), there were five hijackers. But Hanjour was missing. Instead, another hijacker was suspected to be on board of Flight 77 : Mosear Caned (note this is phonetic spelling). http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html of the CNN-Report from 09/14/01.
There are several names misspelled, but all other names are similiar to the http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/091401hj.htm published four hours later. All out of one: "Mosear Caned" does not sound anything like "Hani Hanjour. (See for comparison http://awood.blogspot.com/2005/06/which-flight-77-hijacker-is-mosear.html) How could 'Caned' occur on the CNN-list when he wasn't on the passenger-list? And why was his name never mentioned again? And how is it possible that within four hours out from nowhere Hanjour apeared and replaced Caned, who disappeared into nowhere? Maybe this could be the reason:
But later it's revealed that Hanjour purchased a ticket in cash on August 31, at Advanced Travel Service.
But the confusion doesn't stop, because according to the Commission Hanjour only had a Virginia ID, but not a Virginia driver’s licence. http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf
If we believe the Commission Report, then he used a faked license. From the investigation we know that several of the hijackers used faked ID cards. But why should he use a faked license, as he obviously didn't want to hide his identity? This only results in more risk. Or does someone else used his identity to purchase the ticket? We don't know, maybe the Commission Report is just wrong on that. But if you want to look closer into the possibility that Hanjour and the other hijackers/pilots had doppelgänger (doubles), start http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2474 for Hanjour and http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?23 for the others. It's worth it!
Besides the passenger-list we have the recordings of the security-camera from Dulles Airport. It was first (mis-)reported that http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/nyc-hijackers-gallery,0,7162333.photogallery?coll=chi-news-hed&index=4 would be Hanjour, which he obviously not is.
In the Moussaoui trial it was stated that http://www.911myths.com/HanjourDullesNBC.wmv is Hanjour.
Indeed, he does match much better than the first one. But the footage-quality is too bad to make a decision in either way. The more important point is: why is there no data/time-branding on the video?
Fact is, even if a better footage quality would reveal that this man is Hanjour, it would prove nothing without data/time and therefore it's worthless. Even with a time/date-stamp but without better quality it wouldn't prove Hanjours presence. (The whole video is available http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/NT00211.html)
And as third, we have the autopsy. And as we all know, all passengers had been identified through DNA-Examination. That's what is told, but in reality none of the hijackers has been identified until today. Read this from http://www.pentagonresearch.com/093.html about the autopsy-report (have fixed the broken pdf-link):
In fact, no positive identification is NO identification. The hijackers of Flight 93 were also not positive identified but passed through the "process of elimination". "The death certificates will list each as 'John Doe'." http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp
So, even that Hanjour was actually on board of Flight 77 is questionable. My conclusion is, as he never turned out to be alive after Sept. 11, that he died on that day. And when he was on Flight 77, then he died not as pilot. As a patsy.
And before we finally come to the end: remember the book "Masterminds of Terror" by Nick Fielding and Yosri Fouda? In it, they claim that Atta wired thousands of dollars back to Ramzi Binalshib in Pakistan. Because Atta, who was responsible for the financing of the operation in the US, said that they didn't need it anymore because they were in the final preparation. (no source as I have the book only in german language).
Well, we began with a statement of flight-instructor Bernard, we end with an (indirect) statement of him. As we know it's said that Hanjour visited Bernard's flight school for 'final preparation' on his suicide mission.
Either Hanjour was not part of Atta's operation, or he believed that even the ticket to paradise has to be paid with money!
|Posted by: NK-44 Feb 8 2007, 02:33 AM|
For more on Loose Change vs Screw Loose Change see also here:
|Posted by: abcd Feb 8 2007, 04:42 AM|
|wow NK-44 Keep up the excellent work|
|Posted by: Killtown Feb 8 2007, 05:06 AM|
|NK-44, you should get a blog for your great work!|
|Posted by: -Raven- Feb 8 2007, 05:07 AM|
Yeah, that's a funny statement to say the least.
Nice work NK-44!!!
|Posted by: dylan avery Feb 8 2007, 11:33 AM|
|NK's posts always floor me.|
|Posted by: Starbelly Feb 8 2007, 11:47 AM|
|NK - youve really got to make a debunking the debunkers film. Dylan, you should employ this guy haha|
|Posted by: dylan avery Feb 8 2007, 11:52 AM|
Griffin's got a great book coming out. And I am working on one. It's called Loose Change Final Cut.
I might have to give this guy the script.
|Posted by: Starbelly Feb 8 2007, 12:08 PM|
DRG has a book coming out on it? Excellent.
You know, sometimes i think its almost impossible to truly debunk the Official Theory and likewise the Conspiracy Theory. You can only offer people what makes more sense to them. Who had the ability etc.
Mainly, most points are not really debunked but merely given another "possible" explanation which is then passed off as a comprehensive debunk.
EG - people stating the molten metal was aluminium and not steel. Despite the darker orange colour suggesting it is more likely steel it simply isnt and cant be and thus, is aluminium. Well, thats not a debunking at all. Yet, this is the kinda shit they pass off in SLC or S911Mysteries. Going at every little facet and providing any possible explantion (eg its really molten aluminium under building 7) to each thing individually is not a debunking. But really another possibility and you can gauge its likeliness when in conjuction with EVERYTHING together.
but YES - you should give NK the script. With his freakishly well-layed out posts im convinced he is some kind of Truth-Bot
|Posted by: Reggie_perrin Feb 8 2007, 03:38 PM|
|great post nk.|
|Posted by: heiho1 Feb 8 2007, 06:16 PM|
|Fantastic set of research.|
|Posted by: honway Feb 8 2007, 06:44 PM|
Nice work. One reading is not enough. I'll be bookmarking and referring to your excellent work frequently.
We need an internet Pulitzer. I would nominate NK-44.
|Posted by: seek_the_truth Feb 8 2007, 07:06 PM|
| Wow, thank you so much for that, it just shows the BS lies of our government.
That sim stuff was BS, he was a trained pilot with probably alot more time in any aircraft, let alone probably rated in a 757. And that was not a 757 simulator either.
I have been in FTD class D simulators and it is harder than it looks!
Really great post, I'm in awe all over again.
|Posted by: NK-44 Feb 8 2007, 07:14 PM|
| Thank you all
Today just a short one: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3581
|Posted by: Arrowhead Feb 9 2007, 04:01 AM|
| The guy's amazing. His research is just fantastic!
What he needs I think, would be a blog on the new website featuring Loose Change Final Cut, where he'd debunk any and all debunking attempts, piece by piece. Call it the Loose Change Final Cut "Guide" or something like that. And it WOULD be well worth hiring him, in order to lock in his time on the project. The debunkers would be debunked, and it could become like a historical work in progress, a 9/11 historical wikipedia of sorts, similar to Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline. Once the movie is released, people will be pouring in in DROVES with all kinds of questions, and attempted debunks of the film. A Q&A response section of the LCFC Website would also be helpful. I'd definitely be setting this guy up as an asset. People are going to have questions which will demand answers, and we'll need to keep the JREFers working OVERTIME, and in absolute desperation. They would NOT be able to keep up with this man! Every item he handles could be distilled to an individual link, and those links could also form trackbacks in the blogosphere, addressing any and all questions, and debunking all attempted debunks.
The Sceptics are in trouble, BIG TIME!
NK-44, do you possess a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST and FEMA Reports, along with David Ray Griffin's works?
You see, the ONLY official story record of the event, is contained in the 9/11 Omission Report, and the NIST report (and to a lessor degree the FEMA Report). That's IT! Combined with Paul Thompsons 9/11 Timeline, and all of Dylan's work, and to a lessor degree, the 9/11 Archive at prinsonplanet.com, and we've got the whole thing wrapped up in a nutshell - everything there is to know, about the truth and lies, and missing pieces of the 9/11 puzzle. It's historically imporant, and significant, that everything get's gathered up, and BACKED UP, and reflected across the "noosphere" of the Internet. It's like a historical record for all future generations, and a one stop shop for would be 9/11 researchers, to gather up info, and disseminate it, far and wide.
|Posted by: jamartellxiv Feb 9 2007, 04:35 PM|
|This is fantastic. NK-44 needs as much exposure as Mark Roberts. You should email this stuff to David Ray Griffin. It could probably help him with his "Debunking the Debunkers" work.|
|Posted by: NK-44 Feb 9 2007, 06:41 PM|
| Thanks again. Yes we should something get started. But I think this is not the place to go in detail (relaunch ready room?). Dylan, I'll contact you after the weekend.
|Posted by: Reggie_perrin Feb 9 2007, 07:17 PM|
| So basically at sometime between august 01 to sept 01 Hanjour went from someone who "could not handle basic air maneuvers" in a cessna, to something akin to Tom Cruise in Top Gun and was able to fly a boeing so accuratly into the second floor of the pentagon, that he did'nt even damage the lawn, and was able to fly a few feet off the ground at 400+mph ?.
And they call us nutty conspiricy theorists ?
|Posted by: OohChit Feb 10 2007, 03:42 AM|
| Well this "smoked" me out from the lurkers lounge..
Thank you NK for your work on this.. Xcellant info.
|Posted by: Arrowhead Feb 10 2007, 04:17 AM|
Yeah really, and it wasn't the second floor, but the first floor, no mark on the lawn, and no impact damage from the tail section, or, if it somehow fell off, no tail section debris there. No wing damage, and no large engine damage. Just a 14-16 foot hole, pre-outer wall collapse. And no videos of the plane, where the Pentagon was surrounded by cameras from all angles. No Boeing hit there. To suggest otherwise is the height of absurdity. Sad that Steven Jones' new website promotes the idea of flight 77 hitting there. Oh well. Everyone has their own piece of the 9/11 puzzle.
|Posted by: -Raven- Feb 10 2007, 04:23 AM|
|Posted by: NK-44 May 31 2007, 07:28 PM|
|BUMP - just fixed some broken links|
|Posted by: alive and still talking May 31 2007, 08:44 PM|
| you dont need to know how to fly to highjack a plane, those things fly themselves
besides, some of the names released were part of a cover story anyway
|Posted by: industrock Jun 3 2007, 10:06 PM|
| 1) Put the plane in autopilot
2) Turn the dial for the heading you want
3) Move a knob for the elevation you want
4) Sitback while the plane turns and descends by itself.
I've been in the cockpit of a quad engine cargo jet during an approach to landing and everything but the actual landing (autopilot was switched off at 1500 feet while the plane was facing nearly dead on to the strip) on the tarmac is done by the above steps. You could easily set the program to say... 10 feet.
All you would need to do is simple math to figure out which heading you want to go.
I'm not saying that this is what happend, but just as the OP is stating possiblities, i'm stating a possibility for how a lousy pilot could have made a difficult turn/descent. After watching the pilots in the plane i was in do it, or reading about certain computer controls on the internet, i'm pretty sure i could do this.
They say "military precision" i suggest "computerized precision"
EDIT: in addition, with the autopilot system, you can also enter coordinates into the GPS system on the plane. If they didn't know how to do this, the real pilots could have done it for them without knowing what they were dooming themselves with. Except for actual take off and landing, flying in these size planes are done using autopilot with coordinates/waypoints for the trip.
They could have gotten exact coordinates a number of ways. In Iraq, some local nationals who work on the camps are being paid by insurgent groups to get coordinates of certain key locations using GPS capable watches or cellphones. A terrorist in the states could get more accurate readings using an actual GPS device.
|Posted by: industrock Jun 4 2007, 12:01 AM|
***For the Pentagon, it seems the pilot flew past it, then circled around (interesting maneuver for a computer, would you agree?) -
The very skilled maneuver they were talking about was the circle to go back after they had passed the Pentagon. This circle could be very easily done... and with two fingers. It's the circling around that i was talking about using the autopilot system for. We are not using autopilot go to from point A to point B here - I don't know how to explain what i saw in the cockpit... Maybe more of a manual autopilot? The pilots didn't use the flight controls to steer the plane, they turned a dial for heading and turned another for altitude. At this point, the plane banked and reduced it's altitude automatically and w/o the pilots' intervention.
Terrorist 1: Shoot, we just passed it!
Terrorist 2: Damn, let me turn these 2 dials to automatically turn the plane around and reduce elevation.
Terrorist 1: Nice work, the plane did a great maneuver by itself and everyone will think it was to the work of a skilled fighter pilot!
After dropping in altitude and changing heading, they could have taken back controll manually.
My point is that this "extreme maneuver that can only be done with military precision" can in fact be done by anyone.
***why not save time and force them to fly into it? Or ..
If someone said fly this plane into the ground or we'll slit your throat, what would you do? My guess is that at this point the pilots were already dead or at the back of the plane with the other passengers.
Would it be safe to assume that after the plane had changed heading and dropped in altitude that it was pretty much pointing relatively straight at the Pentagon? At this point, all you would have to do is change a little bit with the rudder controls at the feet and point the wheel down to drop more in altitude - easily keeping control of the craft if this is all you had to do - including dropping low enough to hit poles but not the ground.
THe only thing i remember reading that was truly exceptional about the flight was the banking of the plane while descending in altitude. Of which, i have showed you that it could be done easily with computer controls.
|Posted by: kupci Jun 4 2007, 12:52 AM|
Hmm, I'm not following. Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?
I see - use the autopilot to make the amazing turn, then switch it off for the "landing"? But I think this thing would've had to be autopiloted the whole way, Hani simply didn't have the skills for even the easiest maneuvers. Thus my point about circling back, that is, someone was in control of the plane, and knew very well, how to control it, when to use auto, when not. Yes, perhaps you could figure out the coordinates and punch it in, and it's a few steps, but that's a tiny subset, at least it seems, from all the work required.
From a more abstract level, it seems too critical, to leave anything to chance here, and especially someone with questionable skills.
|Posted by: industrock Jun 4 2007, 01:02 AM|
you don't seem to be comprehending the fact that you don't need coordinates to make a turn like that. I should have left anything about coordinates out of my original post so i wouldn't confuse anyone. My fault.
Say you're flying at 280 degrees at 15,000 feet. You just flew over your target. To make this amazing turn, and to get back on target, you turn a dial to 100 degrees (280-180) to turn completely around. Then the little dial next to the one you just entered the heading on, you set to 500 feet. Hit enter.
You just made your amazing turn.
At this point there would be no more amazing maneuvers to make. All you'd have to do now is keep the plane close to the ground and go STRAIGHT.
***Hmm, I'm not following. Wouldn't they want it to look like a flight school flunkie?
I don't think the terrorists cared at all to make it look like whatever. My "terrorist 1" comment about a fighter pilot turn was sarcastic.
Are my posts really that hard to follow? Where is "alive and still talking" i need serious input. Not this rubbish.
|Posted by: kupci Jun 4 2007, 06:58 PM|
Not to confuse people? Or not for people to poke holes in? By saying you should've left it out, are you withdrawing that argument?
You presented two "theories", I commented on the second, quoted below, to refresh your memory. I view these theories as essentially similar anyway, the "flunkies used autopilot" theory, and IMO, the coordinate idea is you're better argument anyway.
Anyway, back to "flunkies used autopilot, theory #1".
See, you haven't thought this through at all. You've just changed course, like changing the autopilot on a sailboat, with additional variable of height. What you've forgotten is other variables - speed and original location. Sure, you've executed a turn - do you have any clue where you are now? To help you imagine this a bit, you're flying at 400mph. Did you just blow past the Pentagon again, and now you've got to turn again? Great way to turn, setting a new course for a distant location, but a terrible way to direct a jumbo to a pinpoint location. This is why they turn *off* this stuff - as you even admit - when they takeoff or land these jumbos. This is even more implausible than "flunky uses manual control to execute fighter jet acrobatics".
Seriously, *read* the material in the OP. The witnesses and experts quoted describe this as the work of a highly skilled pilot, executing fighter jet maneauvers. What you're suggesting is the typical denier argument - they admit Hani could barely fly (I love the article about them leaving their Cessna right on the tarmac and walking away - are these folks capable of the myriad of decisions required to fly a plane?), so they try the argument that flying nowadays is easy, anybody can execute these maneuvers. And I think it's well described in the OP that this is not the evidence, not the observations.
LOL. I see the lightbulb flickering. Good - go with that. Here's another, along similar lines. Why did WTC1,2,7 collapse such that it looks like a textbook controlled demolition? Perfect. Very skilled work. Not almost - but absolutely too perfect.
|Posted by: kupci Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM|
Minor issue, but you missed the point here. I'm simply pointing out that it was likely there was a pilot flying manually, since they flew *past* the Pentagon, perhaps to get visual id, then turned around. If they were on autopilot, and had it configured correctly (and now completely assuming no acrobatics were required), computers are infallible and would not fly past the target. That was a real pilot at the controls, skillfully switching between autopilot and manual where required, something I highly doubt an unskilled pilot could do. Otherwise, you must have some serious contempt (and I say ignorance) of the skills of your average jetliner pilot.
|Posted by: industrock Jun 5 2007, 12:53 AM|
Talk to a jet liner pilot and ask him how easy it is to use manual mode on the computer to execute a turn and descent. At that point, come talk to me about ignorance about how it's done, ok?
Your mind sees what you want and expect it to see, nothing less, nothing more. It's that simple. I'm not going to explain what i'm talking about for a third time, since obviously the first two went right over your heads.
|Posted by: industrock Jun 5 2007, 12:56 AM|
the object your're suggesting i retract was not an argument i was using at all, i was merely pointing out the fact of how easily these planes fly themselves once in the air and flaps set accordingly.
Read the above post. You're wasting my time.
|Posted by: industrock Jun 5 2007, 01:02 AM|
When's the last time you've been to NYC and stood inside the deconstruction area? I think never. Rewind 6 years, sit there and look around. When you see all the collateral damage from your "textbook" implosion, come talk to me about that, ok?
In the mean time, continue to read news articles and watch videos.
|Posted by: dfrankl4 Jun 5 2007, 02:34 PM|
| I would think that to even find the pentagon, you would need the help of ATC's wouldn't you. Come on, to even turn the plane around and go towards DC would take a Air Traffic Controller to give you the correct information and to hit a tiny spec such as the pentagon, you would have to have someone on the outside telling you where to go.
|Posted by: UKperspective Jun 5 2007, 04:21 PM|
You missed one possiblility here.
Maybe another man with military flying skills and a similar appearence took this test in his name to help him become properly certified. When you mention that another man accompanied him on this flight, how about if the companion was actually Hanjour and the pilot was in reality a simpathetic military trained friend who wanted to help him out?
After all this challenge is far more severe than anything he has achived previously according to your information.
|Posted by: peterabbit Jun 5 2007, 06:33 PM|
Easy? Two fingers?
Only if you have experience flying such aircraft my friend.
It's not the "circle to go back" that's hard; it's turning while descending 7000' at high speed and hitting the first floor is why it's not an easy task.
|Posted by: seek_the_truth Jun 5 2007, 08:26 PM|
Yeah, a JET LINER PILOT. He has been trained how to use a flight director and FMS. I have yet to see a report of how they knew what to do in a 757 cockpit. Sure flying it can be as easy as a 172, but a 757 has A LOT more systems and alot more going on. People say how "they didn't need to know how to land it" but really, they basically were. It is hard for an inexperienced pilot in such a complex aircraft to descend that fast with perfect results, and as shown above, his skill level wouldn't allow him to do that. And I have still seen nothing showing how they trained for a 757 cockpit. Cockpit posters wont tell you too much, they wont tell you how to but a descent rate in and do the turn. Htey needed to know how to use a flight director, no report shows they did. When people say that they knew what they were oding, they were trained are lying. They were not. simple. if you cant fly a 172 you cant fly a 757.
|Posted by: seek_the_truth Jun 5 2007, 08:27 PM|
|Posted by: NK-44 Jun 6 2007, 09:34 AM|
autopilot was not engaged when approaching the pentagon - at least this is the official version: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
when one defends the official version it would be good to even know the official version.
according to the official version (based on passenger calls) the pilots were in the back of the plane.
it should be noted that:
-the hijackers broke into the cockpit without a stress signal activated by the pilots
-friends, relatives and colleagues go conform that pilot Burlinghame would not give up the cockpit without a fight
-this all happened in under three minutes (last radio contact/flight 77 turn)
again, this is highly unlikely. and your contradicting yourself. on one hand they couldn't even enter GPS coordinates, on the other hand, after 'shooting over' the pentagon they were able to enter new altitude + direction within seconds, in (besides the entering of the cockpit) most stressful part of the maneuver.
(not to forget we're talking about someone who was 'overhelmed by the instruments').
to be fair, that the pilots entered gps-data for them is something you consider as a possibility, you don't say this is what happened. but i think it's safe to say that they did not received help from the pilots.
Burlinghame wouldn't give up his cockpit to someone who couldn't even enter gps-code without a fight.
|Posted by: NK-44 Jun 6 2007, 09:37 AM|
i didn't know that planes fly for themselves without being on autopilot.
maybe you can explain to us how this would be possible.
and, actually, ALL names released were part of a cover story, including Hani Hanjour.
|Posted by: NK-44 Jun 6 2007, 10:06 AM|
what you say is a possibility which should be considered.
i actually did so when i wrote:
"but then the instructor is obviously not talking about the same Hanjour."
so i already took into account that the pilot was someone who pretended to be Hanjour.
but you're right, it could be that the real Hanjour was there, but that his companion was on the controls.
if so, then it's unlikely (to say better impossible) that his companion was Nawaf AL-Hamzi, like the Commission states. he never received flight-training so was even worse than Hanjour (though according to neighbour accounts Al-Hamzi sometimes played flight simulator games. maybe the US should sue Microsoft for providing terrorist infrastructure... )