5.The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
The Report makes no mention of other building collapses due to fire, either before or after 9/11. Nor does it mention that the collapse of the Twin Towers was unique.
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse.
Like the previous claim, this one is easily investigated.
Quote:
More than a quarter of a million dollars worth of hay has gone up in smoke after an arson attack in the Manawatu. The fire near Feilding thwarted the best efforts of firefighters and left one man's livelihood in ruins.
The fire on Reid Line West started at just after 2am on Sunday. At its peak, four fire appliances played a part in attempts to douse the flames. The river was pumped dry trying to deal with it. Two army water tankers from Linton were brought in to help as well as another tanker from Palmerston North. Feilding station officer Glenn Davies says the flames melted the steel shed causing it to collapse onto the bales, limiting the access for firefighters.
Dr Griffin probably didn’t have a $60,000 steel-framed hay barn in mind when he made his statement, but it illustrates an important point about this particular common Conspiracy Theory argument. The reality is steel buildings have and do collapse due to fire, and steel buildings are vulnerable to collapse from fire. This is why building codes in all western countries require that steel structural elements are either encased in concrete or coated in fireproofing material.
Conspiracy theorists will often rephrase their claim from “steel building” to “steel high rise” to “steel skyscraper”, evolving to the extreme of “steel skyscraper in North America over 100 stories” or similar.
Using the same flawed logic, one could counter this argument by pointing out that every steel-framed skyscraper that has been intentionally rammed by a Boeing 767 airliner at high speed has suffered a global collapse.
Both the design of the Twin Towers and the events that happened on 9/11 were unique in world history. Comparing these events to other dissimilar events is misleading and dishonest.
Before looking further into other high-rise fires, it is important to understand the specific events that occurred on 9/11. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was studied by a government agency called the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The study required a high degree of specialists expertise and involved extensive photo analysis, engineering testing, fire testing, and structural modelling. A study of the collapses was far outside the mandate and expertise of the 9/11 Commission.
The NIST Report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 is enormous – totally about 10,000 pages when all of the technical supporting documents are included. All of their papers, including draft reports, can be accessed from their website.
It is important to take note, for this and later claims made by Dr Griffin, that the 9/11 Commission Report was released over a year before NIST released their final report on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. NIST’s study into the collapse of WTC7 is ongoing, with a final report expected to be released in 2007.
The first important aspect to investigate is NIST’s explanation for the cause of the collapse. The NIST Report is a large and complex document to study, however they have also provided a more accessible series of frequently asked questions.
Quote:
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
When considering Dr Griffin’s claim, it is important to note the key aspects of the collapse – impact causing structural damage and dislodging fireproofing, jet fuel dispersed over multiple floors, sagging floor trusses, and inward-bowing perimeter columns.
All of these are factors specific to the aircraft impact event and the unique design of the towers. In looking at other examples of skyscraper fires, it is important to ask if these same characteristics were present. The answer, in all cases, is no.
In regard to performance of multi-story steel-framed structures in fires, it is worth investigating the worst industrial fire in history. On May 10, 1993 a small fire at the Kader Industrial (Thailand) Co. Ltd. Factory spread rapidly to engulf three four storey buildings, claiming the lives of 188 workers.
This fire is a stark demonstration of how steel structural elements perform when not protected from exposure to fire.
Quote:
The fire spread rapidly throughout Building One, and the upper floors soon became untenable. The blaze blocked the stairwell at the south end of the building, so most of the workers rushed to the north stairwell. This meant that approximately 1,100 people were trying to leave the third and fourth floors through a single stairwell.
The first fire apparatus arrived at 4:40 p.m., their response time having been extended because of the relatively remote location of the facility and the gridlock conditions typical of Bangkok traffic. Arriving fire-fighters found Building One heavily involved in flames and already beginning to collapse, with people jumping from the third and fourth floors.
Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade could effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly collapsed at 5:30 p.m., and Building Three at 6:05 p.m.
This isn’t the only example of steel structures failing due to fire, even without the addition of a 767 impact.
On January 16, 1967 a fire started in the McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago.
Quote:
The fire spread was very rapid due to the lack of compartmentalization, the large amount of fuel, and lack of means of suppression. The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire due to the same factors.
January 28, 1997 and another fire in another steel building:
Quote:
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings. The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
Conspiracy Theorists ignore these events, preferring to highlight other incidents. The most common incident cited by Conspiracy Theorists is the Windsor Tower fire which gutted the 32 storey building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. Although the building was internally destroyed by the fires it remained standing until it was manually torn down.
Most obviously, the Windsor Tower was not hit by a 767, and in fact did not suffer any structural damage prior to the fire starting. None of its fireproofing material was stripped off, and the fires started on one floor before spreading, rather than being started on multiple floors simultaneously as a result of spilled jet fuel.
The differences do not end there. Dr Griffin’s primary contention is that fire has not caused steel-framed buildings to collapse. However the Windsor Tower was not a steel framed building.
Quote:
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
Furthermore, Dr Griffin’s assertion would suggest that the elements of the Windsor Tower that were steel would not have collapsed. Not true.
Quote:
The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
As previously stated, the 9/11 Report identifies nineteen hijackers and allocates them to the four flights hijacked on 9/11. The report does not make any specific reference to the Flight Manifests.
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names.
This is perhaps one of the most straight forward claims to investigate. Put simply, the flight manifests remain the property of their respective airlines, and none of the four flight manifests have ever publicly been released by the airlines.
Although this alone is enough to reject the inherent claim, to fully investigate the claim it is necessary to understand why Dr Griffin makes this allegation.
On March 30, 2006 David Ray Griffin gave a lecture entitled The Myth And The Reality at Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, California.
Quote:
Another problem in the official account is that, although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the four flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story, of course, is that they did not force their way onto the planes but were regular, ticketed passengers. If so, their names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names.29
The footnote for this remark leads us to the following web addresses:
There’s a clue in the web address itself – these are lists of victims, not passenger manifests.
Furthermore, the portal to the victim list pages (which also include a page for the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon) states:
Quote:
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the crash of United Airlines flight 93, officials across the country are working to piece together lists of victims.
While the official number of those missing and dead will inevitably rise over the next few weeks, authorities from American Airlines, United Airlines, the Department of Defense, the New York City Medical Examiners Office and the New York City Fire Department, have released partial lists. They are linked below.
A closer inspection reveals that these lists not only exclude the hijackers (who for obvious reasons are not considered victims) but are indeed partial lists, and do not include all of the passengers.
AA77’s victim list only names 50 of the 53 passengers (excluding hijackers) onboard. UA175’s list only names 47 of 51 passengers (excluding hijackers). UA93’s list only names 26 of 33 passengers (excluding hijackers).
On July 31, 2006 the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia took the unprecedented action of publishing all of the trial exhibits from United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui online at their website.
Quote:
The following web pages link to all 1,202 exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial of U.S. v. Moussaoui, with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under seal. This is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all exhibits online. The exhibits were posted on July 31, 2006.
The exhibit is a flash animation constructed from the flight manifests which identifies the names and seat numbers of all of the crew and passengers on each of the flights hijacked on 9/11.
A .zip file can be downloaded from the site, or alternatively the animation can be watched at 911myths.com
Alternatively this page has still images produced from the flash animation.
The names and seat numbers of all nineteen hijackers are identified in this court exhibit.
It is clear to see that Dr Griffin’s assertion simply is not true, and his misrepresentation of the CNN lists is an example of the level of dishonesty Conspiracy Theorists will resort to in order to reinforce their theories.
For a more in depth look at the flight manifest claim, I recommend the excellent summary at 911myths.com.
Quote:
The inherent claim that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names is rejected.
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22). The Report addresses the four hijacker pilots’ training in Chapter 7: The Attack Looms from page 223 to 231.
Regarding Hani Hanjour it mentions:
Quote:
In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States 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, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and 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. (p225-226)
The Report further states:
Quote:
Settling in Mesa [Arizona], Hanjour began refresher training at his old school, Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. 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. (p.226-227)
At no point does the Report suggest that Hani Hanjour lacked the necessary skills to pilot AA77 into the Pentagon.
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon.
This particular claim first emerged shortly after 9/11, during an ABC News interview with air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien. O’Brien was a controller at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) Centre on September 11, and was the first controller to locate AA77 after it vanished from Indianapolis Centre’s radar screens at 0854EDT.
During the interview O’Brien comments on the way the radar contact was moving:
Quote:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
Conspiracy Theorists often use this quote as evidence that it was not AA77 that hit the Pentagon. However they are dishonest with their quoting, leaving out the important “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”
Another common person cited is Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. Hani Hanjour went to Freeway in August 2001 to rent a Cessna 172, however he showed such poor flying skills that they declined to rent him an aircraft.
The Conspiracy Theory film Loose Change has an interview with Bernard.
Quote:
BERNARD: Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him is... he showed at the airport and wanted to get checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified, he didn't come to us for flight training. Yeah, he already had a pilot's license. He already earned a - it was private, instrument, commercial at a school in Arizona - I don't remember the name of the school. He already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft.
INTERVIEWER: Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?
BERNARD: This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. 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 for his demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.
In this interview Bernard is not asked if he thought Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon – somewhat surprising given this is precisely what the filmmakers who interviewed him were proposing in their film Loose Change.
Perhaps they did ask him, and didn’t like the answer. In an interview with Newsday, Bernard gives his opinion:
Quote:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
Certainly both the 9/11 Report and David Ray Griffin seem to be in agreement that Hani Hanjour was not an especially gifted pilot – indeed the 9/11 Report indicates that he barely managed to pass any of his certifications, and that his instructors universally considered him a very poor pilot.
But Dr Griffin is claiming more than this. He is claiming that Hanjour’s skills were so poor he could not have flown AA77 into the Pentagon. Conspiracy Theorists will often make statements such as this one:
Quote:
It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!
The heart of this matter, then, is not so much determining the level of skill Hani Hanjour had, but determining just how difficult the manoeuvre made by AA77 was.
The above quote makes a mistake that Conspiracy Theorists repeatedly fall for. The alleged precision of the aircraft’s flight relies on the assumption that it was the pilot’s intention to perform precisely as actually occurred. This is, of course, nonsensical. There is no reason to assume the hijackers had any intention other than to hit The Pentagon somewhere. The location of impact and movement of the aircraft prior to impact are not important objectives. Indeed, as we will see, various aspects of the aircraft flight suggest a lack of expertise by the pilot.
The crucial stage of AA77’s approach is the final manoeuvre in which the aircraft descended from 8,500ft to ground level while making a wide circle south of the Pentagon.
At 0934EDT AA77 was approximately 10km west of the Pentagon, headed directly for it, at an altitude of 8,500ft. At 09:34:01 the FDR records the beginning of a manual flight control input to the right, banking the aircraft to starboard and beginning a slow turn. At this point the aircraft’s heading was 88.6o – almost directly east. It was travelling at 339KT (ground speed) at the time.
A full 198 seconds later, at 09:37:19EDT, AA77 levelled out at 2,200ft at a heading of about 60o, and with a ground speed of 318KT. It completed nearly an entire circle, making a circuit that covered 330o. The circle of AA77’s flight was about 8km across. The manoeuvre was performed at a fairly constant speed around the 300KT mark, and the aircraft’s average rate of descent was about 1,900ft per minute.
In contrast, AA77’s FDR records that the flight’s initial climb out of Dulles International to 29,000ft was achieved in 13 minutes with an average rate of ascent of 2,200ft per minute.
Given that a high rate of descent is much easier than a high rate of ascent, due to the benefits of gravity, it is clear that the aircraft’s rate of descent in its final turn, while rapid, could not by any standard be considered “aerobatic”. The pilot typically maintained between 20o and 30o of bank angle, with a one to two second peak of 41o of bank angle.
Certainly such a manoeuvre would not be comfortable for passengers, however given the ultimate fate of the flight, it can be assumed that whoever was at the aircraft’s controls was not concerned with passenger comfort.
Much more extreme manoeuvres can easily be performed in large airliners when passenger comfort is not a concern. For example these two videos below:
Boeing 707 (an older larger airliner than the 757) test pilot Alvin “Tex” Johnson heralds the dawn of the Jet Passenger age by performing a barrel roll at Seafair, August 6, 1955 above a stunned crowd.
A Boeing 757-200 (same model as AA77) of No.40 Squadron, Royal New Zealand Air Force performs a high speed (350KT) low level (100ft) pass followed by a 45 degree climbout to 7,500ft.
A critical component of airframe survivability while manoeuvring is how much g-force is applied. During a turn, g-force is the force that pushes you to the outside of the circle, such as how you will tend to lean to one side as you make a sharp turn in a car. The tighter and faster the turn, the higher the g-forces. 1 g is equal to the force of earth’s gravity. So at 4 gs everything will feel four times as heavy.
Aircraft designed for high-g manoeuvres such as fighter aircraft have to be made very strong, otherwise the forces acting on them can tear them apart.
The g-forces applied to AA77 during its descending turn can be calculated fairly easily using a simple formula:
A = v2 / r
Where r = the radius of the turn and v = velocity during the turn.
As previously stated, AA77’s turn was approximately 8km across, and the turn was completed at around 300KT. As the speed varied somewhat we will use a higher value of 350KT. A higher velocity will result in higher g-forces.
Converting to international units we get a velocity of 180ms-1 and a radius of 4,000m.
A = (180x180) / 4,000 A = 8.1
A represents the constant acceleration that the turning object experiences due to centripetal force.
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8ms2, thus we can determine that the average lateral g-forces experienced by AA77 during the descending turn were 0.82 gs.
In comparison, on January 22nd, 2002 Icelandair Flight 315 (a Boeing 757-208) was involved in a serious incident during approach to Oslo airport Gardermoen. During a go-around due to an unstable initial approach, the aircraft entered an extreme manoeuvre which exceeded the aircraft’s maximum g-limits. Although passengers were alarmed, the aircraft landed safely.
According to the report into the incident:
Quote:
At this time the First Officer called out “PULL UP!” - “PULL UP!”. The GPWS aural warnings of “TERRAIN” and then “TOO LOW TERRAIN” were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum “up” input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 g’s.
The final part of AA77’s approach is often described, as we saw above;
Quote:
leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level
There’s a number of problems with these sorts of summaries, however. As we know from AA77’s FDR, the aircraft did not level out of its descent near to the ground, but at 2,200ft. At this point AA77 was 7.5km from the Pentagon. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)’s AA77 Flight Path Report:
Quote:
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.
This produces a rough average descent rate of 1m for every 11m of horizontal distance covered in the final approach to the Pentagon. Or to put it another way, the aircraft descended at a rate of 22m for every second. Although this descent rate would not have been constant, it’s very clear that the aircraft did not spend any significant period of time “within inches of the ground”.
Most people would expect an inexperienced pilot to crash an airliner within moments of coming so close to the ground. On 9/11 this is precisely what happened.
Moreover, on its final seconds of approach AA77 struck multiple tall highway lamp posts and a large generator; further evidence of poor flying on behalf of the pilot.
Some have asserted that the low approach of AA77 was in fact aerodynamically impossible, due to something called “ground effect”. One such person is Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and qualified pilot.
He wrote a paper refuting the notion that the poorly trained hijackers could have pulled off the September 11 Attacks. He mentions in the paper:
Quote:
I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
Sagadevan’s paper is full of factual errors, far too many to delve into here (for example he claims those killed at the Pentagon were construction workers doing renovations, however renovations for that section had been completed, the offices were fully staffed, and a high proportion of those killed and injured by the impact were military personnel, as indicated by their rank). However a number of other aviation experts have stated that the attacks were well within the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers.
Quote:
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.
Again: lift from "the ground effect" happens at low, not high, airspeeds and high, not low, angles of attack. At high speeds, flow across a wing tends toward laminar, and spanwise flow is functionally negligible. Ground effect mitigates lift loss when the ground breaks up wing tip vortices from turbulent and spanwise flow over a wing caused by high angle of attack, low speed flight regime.
The final word is perhaps best presented visually, in the form of an animation the NTSB produced depicting the final manoeuvres of AA77.
The inter-titles and text have been added to the animation by Conspiracy Theorists. Note the unsteady movement of the aircraft, with constant control inputs, corrections, and over corrections. These are sure signs of poor flying ability.
Additionally, a number of amateurs have made attempts to replicate AA77’s flight using highly accurate commercially available flight simulator software.
The evidence strongly suggests that AA77’s final doomed flight was well within the capabilities of someone with only the most minimal flying capabilities, and well within the skill level of Hani Hanjour who just managed to scrape through an FAA Commercial Pilot’s License.
Quote:
The inherent claim that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon is rejected.
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
The report states:
Quote:
When Atta arrived in Germany, he appeared religious, but not fanatically so. This would change, especially as his tendency to assert leadership became increasingly pronounced. (pg.160)
However:
Quote:
After leaving Afghanistan, the hijackers made clear efforts to avoid appearing radical. Once back in Hamburg, they distanced themselves from conspicuous extremists like Zammar, whom they knew attracted unwanted attention from the authorities. They also changed their appearance and behaviour. Atta wore Western clothing, shaved his beard, and no longer attended extremist mosques. (pg.167)
The word “Atta” appears 293 times in the Commission Report, however there is no reference to a fondness for alcohol, pork, or lap dances.
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegation is that Mohamed Atta had a fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances.
This claim immediately poses a problem as it relies on Atta’s personal opinion. “Fondness” is entirely subjective and cannot be measured. However, for the moment I will consider the claim that Atta drank alcohol, ate pork, and received lap dances.
These claims originate from a single source – an interview with Amanda Keller – an American who claimed to be Mohammed Atta’s girlfriend in Florida. The interview was conducted by Mad Cow Productions researcher Daniel Hopsicker who alleges that Atta was running a heroin smuggling operation for Osama Bin Laden. The findings of Hopsicker’s research were published in his book Welcome To Terrorland, and this appears to be the only source for the claims made about Atta.
It’s worth noting that Ms Keller makes no reference to pork or lap dances in this interview, and recounts that “Mohamed” frowned on her for drinking alcohol in public.
Similar general claims of drinking and un-Muslim-like behaviour were made about the hijackers. Some examples include: The Telegraph
Before the validity of these claims is examined, it is important to determine their significance. Although the allegation contains the inherent claim that Mohamed Atta had a fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances, it also contains an implied claim.
This is that Mohamed was not in fact, a religious fanatic as the Commission Report claims, and therefore did not carry out the September 11 attacks.
One of the flaws in this line of reasoning is that Religious Fanatics do not necessarily follow closely the religious teachings of their religion. The Qur’an states:
Quote:
Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. (5:32)
Clearly Islamic Terrorists who indiscriminately kill hundreds of civilians are in direct violation of their religion.
We have already seen from the Report that the hijackers made a conscious effort to blend in with other westerners – dressing smartly, shaving off their beards, and distancing themselves from other Islamic extremist groups.
Such “blending in” has been a standard aspect of covert military and intelligence operations for centuries. The Romans often employed spies, who would infiltrate the communities of their enemies and live amongst them, adapting their customs.
This appears to be an idea that some Islamic Extremists have embraced:
Quote:
Atta has been associated with a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This is an extreme fundamentalist sect, however...
"A major element of Takfir religious practice is subterfuge. The threat of Takfir is that its cold, heartless killers could easily be the boy or girl next door. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.
In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their mission...
Mohammed Atta, although puritanical in his behavior, was believed to be Takfiri. He's not the only al Qaeda operative you could point the finger at. Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed went to discos, drank alcohol and dated call girls. Yousef in particular is renowned for being generally unIslamic and non-observant of prayers and fasting. Although no one has suggested openly that Yousef and KSM were Takfiri, it's hardly a stretch".
Some sources of evidence suggest it wasn’t just this particular extremist sect whom followed these principles:
Quote:
...In the mountain of documents left behind in al-Qaedas’ training camps in Afghanistan, one Yemeni, Khalid, wrote to his brother describing the people he had just joined:
I am in a whirlpool of contradictions. You cannot trust anyone here. Imagine that I might have to hide the copy of the Koran you gave me for fear it might get stolen like my watch. They train us here on how to mix with the Christians and how to emulate their life style. We have to learn how to drink alcohol and to shave off our beards.
Al-Majallh issue no. 1188, 23 November 2002, p. 24 cited page 20, Masterminds of Terror, Yousri Fouda and Nick Fielding
An Al Qaeda training manual recovered from the house of Nazih al Wadih Raghie by the Manchester Metropolitan Police on May 10, 2000 reflects the notion of “blending in”.
Quote:
An Important Question: How can a Muslim spy live among enemies if he maintains his Islamic characteristics? How can he perform his duties to Allah and not want to appear Muslim?
Concerning the issue of clothing and appearance (appearance of true religion), Ibn Taimia - may Allah have mercy on him - said, "If a Muslim is in a combat or godless area, he is not obligated to have a different appearance from [those around him ].The [Muslim] man may prefer or even be obligated to look like them, provided his action brings a religious benefit of preaching to them, learning their secrets and informing Muslims, preventing their harm, or some other beneficial goal."
Resembling the polytheist in religious appearance is a kind of "necessity permits the forbidden” even though they [forbidden acts] are basically prohibited. As for the visible duties, like fasting and praying, he can fast by using any justification not to eat with them [polytheist]. As for prayer, the book (Al-Manhaj Al-Haraki Lissira Al-Nabawiya)quotes Al-Bakhari that "he [the Moslem ]may combine the noon and afternoon [prayers], sunset and evening [prayers]. That is based on the fact that the prophet -Allah bless and keep him -combined [prayers] in Madina without fear or hesitation."
However the document adds:
Quote:
Though scholars have disagreed about the interpretation of that tradition, it is possible - though Allah knows best -that the Moslem spy combines [prayers ].It is noted, however, that it is forbidden to do the unlawful, such as drinking wine or fornicating. There is nothing that permits those.
Other high profile Islamic Terrorist plots indicate blending in may be commonplace.
Such as this article about one of the Madrid Bombers:
Quote:
Despite his reputation for fanaticism at the Madrid mosque he attended, Ahmidan also frequented discotheques and bars. He struck his Spanish neighbors as friendly and flashy. They remember him zooming by on a motorcycle with his long-haired girlfriend, a Spanish woman with a taste for revealing outfits
Even the Muslim world can find possible explanations for such behaviour.
S. Abdallah Schleifer, the publisher and senior editor of TBS Journal (www.tbsjournal.com), and al Jazeeras Yosri Fouda give their thoughts here:
Quote:
SAS: My own instinct is that just as they inhabited a psychic or psychological state that convinced them they were reliving the Prophet's experiences at the very moment they were about to violate both the very strict shari'a ("Islamic law") rules governing war and the Prophet's canonic sayings condemning the killing of civilians, so they must have assumed that the purifying nature of their approaching martyrdom gave them some sort of cosmic dispensation.
YF: Speaking of dispensation and states of mind, when I was in Karachi waiting to meet up with Ramzi and Khalid, my contact called me at the hotel I was staying at to arrange a meeting time. Since it was Friday I suggested we meet in the mosque either before or after the prayer and he said to me "No, no, no! Don't leave the hotel." And I said, "But it's Friday and there are the prayers," and he said, "No, no, no! God will forgive you." But I think their sense of dispensation was derived directly from the idea that they were engaged in jihad ("holy struggle"). Now you know, in jihad there are certain liberties allowed.
SAS: You mean like not having to pray in a congregational manner if that puts the believers in danger, or being allowed to say one's prayers on horseback if on guard or patrol and not having to dismount and pray, as one usually does, on the ground.
YF: Right. Well, I believe they took the liberty of making their own interpretation of these dispensations or liberties granted to the one making jihad.
It’s clearly not as simple as Dr Griffin presents it to be. Further investigation of the specific claims made about the hijackers suggests the argument may be weaker than it appears.
Soon after initial reports linking Amanda Keller and Atta, Ms Keller claimed that the man she had dated was another student at the flying school also called Mohamed.
Quote:
Keller said comments attributed to her in the Herald-Tribune on Saturday, saying that Atta lived in her apartment, were wrong. She said that it was this unidentified fifth man, also named Mohammed, that stayed in her home.
Keller again changed her story for her December 2002 interview with Daniel Hopsicker, however after the interview she retracted her claims.
In September 2006 the Herald Tribune reported that the FBI had confirmed Amanda Keller had not known Atta.
Quote:
But the former Venice stripper now says her boyfriend was another flight student not connected to 9/11. And, for the first time, federal investigators say she's right.
"There's nothing there to corroborate the relationship between the two," a New York-based FBI counterterrorism agent said recently after reviewing 9/11 case files.
…
Among other things, the government checked Atta's phone records and found the two had never called each other.
Other accounts suggest discrepancies in Ms Keller’s testimony. She has stated that she only ever knew Mohamed by the name “Mohamed Arajaki” – even spelling out the name in the interview. Although the 9/11 hijackers often employed aliases, there is no evidence that Atta ever used the alias “Arajaki”, and the FBI did not list it as one of his aliases in any of their press statements.
Other eye witness accounts of Ms Keller and her partner “Mohamed” further suggest it may not have been the leader of the 9/11 plot, for example Tony and Vonnie LaConca, the couple who owned the house rented by Keller and Mohamed. They were interviewed by the Sun Herald.
Quote:
An FDLE agent working in conjunction with the FBI arrived at the LaConca home around 10:30 a.m. Thursday and questioned the couple for two hours concerning a man they knew only as "Mohamed." The couple told the agent the man was about 25, 5 feet 10 inches, 160 pounds, had "dark, perfect" skin, and was clean cut and "very polite." "He was a very handsome guy," Vonnie LaConca said in an interview. "He had beautiful, unblemished skin."
Is this Mohamed the 32 year old 5 foot 8 Atta? Perhaps not. The FDLE agent showed them photographs of four suspected hijackers;
Quote:
"The first photo they showed us was the pilot who crashed into the first building," Vonnie LaConca said. "It was not Mohamed or his friend. But the last picture they showed us was very close, but I could not say 100 percent that it was him."
The article also suggests this Mohamed was training for his commercial pilot’s license in 2001 – weeks after Mohamed Atta acquired his, in December 2000.
And it appears this other Mohamed may actually exist, with evidence coming – oddly enough – from Mad Cow Productions.
Quote:
A mysterious French-Arab man resurfaced last week who authorities had dubbed the ‘5th terrorist pilot’ and a ‘Second’ Mohamed in Venice, FL. In an email, he alleged that a number of eyewitnesses, including the girl who had lived with him, had all mistaken him... for Mohamed Atta. It was he they'd known in Venice, not the terrorist ringleader, he asserted. And he suggested the confusion might owe something to their common name, "Mohamed."
There’s certainly plenty of doubt that Mohamed Atta was the man Amanda Keller knew, which would undermine accusations that he in particular enjoyed drinking, pork, and lap dances.
But what about other articles? At the head of this section we saw numerous articles recounting three of the hijackers – including Atta – enjoying alcohol and lap dances at a strip club called the Pink Pony. But what does the original article, in USA Today, say?
Quote:
MIAMI (AP) — The night before terrorists struck New York and Washington, three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed, according to a strip club manager interviewed by the FBI. John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack's Sports Bar in Daytona Beach, said the men made the claims to a bartender and a patron. "They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,"' Kap said.
There’s a number of things to note in this version of events. First, the bar manager is recounting events that other people witnessed – a bartender and another patron. This is second hand information. Secondly, in this article the bar manager makes no mention of the three men being any of the nineteen hijackers.
There are other examples of the hijackers drinking as well, such as this story from The Telegraph:
Quote:
Tony Amos, the manager of Shuckums Oyster Bar and Restaurant in Hollywood, just north of Miami, was interviewed by the FBI and he and his barman and a waitress all identified Atta and his cousin as some hard drinkers who propped up the bar last Friday.
Atta's bill for three hours of vodka drinking came to $48 (£33). When he drunkenly disputed the charge, Mr Amos intervened. "Of course I can pay the bill," Atta told him. "I'm an airline pilot."
That certainly supports the contention that Atta enjoyed alcohol, but it’s not the only version of events. The Washington Post recounted the story a little differently.
Quote:
Last Friday night, Atta, Shehhi and an unidentified man spent 3 1/2 hours at a sports bar, Shuckums, in Hollywood, Fla. While Atta played video games, the other two had about five drinks each and appeared resistant to paying the $48 tab. The manager, Tony Amos, recalled yesterday that he inquired whether they could not afford the bill. Shehhi "looked at me with an arrogant look," Amos said. "He pulled out a wad of cash and put it on the bar table and said, 'There is no money issue. I am an airline pilot.' "
The story is a little different in this version, and Atta doesn’t appear to drink at all.
We know the Commission Report didn’t mention these activities by the hijackers, but Dr Griffin’s allegation is that these things really did happen, and that by not mentioning them the Commission were lying by omission. However on closer inspection, these stories don’t seem to have much weight behind them after all.
Quote:
The inherent claim that Mohamed Atta had a fondness for alcohol, pork and lap dances is rejected.
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).
The Report claims that all of the nineteen alleged hijackers are dead, and died during the attacks. The first chapter of the Report We Have Some Planes (pg.1-46) identifies the hijackers and allocates them amongst the four hijacked flights as follows:
American Airlines Flight 11 Mohamed Atta Abdul Aziz al Omari Satam al Suqami Wail al Shehri Waleed al Shehri
United Airlines Flight 175 Marwan al Shehhi Fayez Banihammad Mohand al Shehri Ahmed al Ghamdi Hamza al Ghamdi
American Airlines Flight 77 Khalid al Mihdhar Majed Moqed Hani Hanjour Nawaf al Hazmi Salem al Hazmi
United Airlines Flight 93 Saeed al Ghamdi Ahmed al Nami Ahmad al Haznawi Ziad Jarrah
The Report further claims:
Quote:
At 8:46:40, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly. (pg.7)
Quote:
At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly. (pg.8)
Quote:
At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, travelling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed. (pg.10)
Quote:
With the sounds of the passengers counterattack continuing, the aircraft [United 93] plowed into an empty field in Shankesville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’ flying time from Washington, D.C.(pg.14)
For the purposes of this paper I have made the assumption that the Commission do not believe anyone on board United 93 survived the impact described above.
Quote:
The claim inherent in the allegations is that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive.
These claims originate in the days immediately after September 11, 2001 as the FBI began what would become the largest criminal investigation in the agency’s history.
On September 14th the FBI released a list with the names of nineteen middle-eastern men they believed were the hijackers.
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
The BBC identifies the following:
Waleed Al Shehri – A pilot from Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz Al Omari – An engineer from Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz Al Omari – A pilot from Saudi Arabia Saeed Alghamdi – Interviewed by London-based Arabic newspaper Khalid Al Midhar – May also be alive
On 27th October 2006 the BBC issued a statement in their Editors blog, stating that the initial allegations in their 2001 article were a result of mistaken identity.
A Telegraph article, also of 23rd September 2001, cites four individuals who claim the hijackers stole their identities.
This article cites the Saudi engineer from the BBC article; Abdulaziz Al-Omari. It also cites Saeed Al-Ghamdi and indicates he is also a pilot from Saudi Arabia. The article further cites two other hijackers; Salem Al-Hamzi (worker at Yanbu Industrial City, Saudi Arabia) and Ahmed Al-Nami (administrator for Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Arabia).
Momentarily ignoring variations of spelling, this gives a total of seven individuals claiming identity as six of the alleged hijackers.
It is important to note that these articles were written based on a preliminary name-only list of hijackers. An official list of the hijackers – with photographs – was released on 27th September.
On the 6th of February 2002 Saudi Arabia officially acknowledged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were their citizens, as reported by USA Today:
Quote:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions.
Eight of the nineteen hijackers have, at various times, been identified as being alive by the media. A detailed investigation of each individual claim follows.
Abdulaziz Al Omari This allegation arose from the BBC articled quoted previously. In this article the Al Omari cited is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms. He claimed his passport was lost whilst studying in Denver, USA. A second man with the same name is cited in the same BBC article. He claimed to be a pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines.
Obviously, if two individuals are claiming to be the same hijacker, there has been confusion. Either one, or both of them are in error.
Once photos were released of the hijackers it became obvious that Al Omari the engineer was an entirely different person to Al Omari the hijacker.
However that still left Al Omari the Saudi Airlines pilot. On 16th September 2001 CNN broadcast Al Omari the pilot’s photo, identifying him as the pilot of AA11. However, the FBI quickly determined that Mohamed Atta was the pilot of AA11, not Al Omari the hijacker.
The CNN have since apologised to Al Omari for this confusion, and conducted an interview with him. In the interview and from his September 16 photograph it is clear he is not the Al Omari presented in photographs issued by the FBI on 27th September.
So what about Al Omari the hijacker? According to Saudi Information Agency, Al Omari the hijacker was 23; much younger than either of the other Al Omaris. He studied religion at university, where he befriended a number of clerics. In December 2000 he left for Afghanistan where he trained in Kandahar and fought alongside the Taliban.
Ahmed Al-Nami This allegation arose from the Telegraph article, and identifies a 33yr old administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
However the profile for Al-Nami the hijacker is very different. Like Al Omari, he was young and also trained at a religious university. According to his friends and family, in 1999 he started to become highly religious, so much so that his family feared he had bipolar disorder. In December 2000 he left on a trip to Mecca. His family never saw him again, although they received a phone call from him in June 2001. It is believed that we went to Afghanistan to train in Kandahar, just like Al Omari.
Khalid Al Mihdhar This allegation arises in the BBC article, where it is speculated he “might be alive”.
A Saudi computer programmer called Khalid Al-Mihammadi claimed in September 2001 that the photo initially released by the FBI was him. However the article that released this information also revealed that the FBI initially released two alternative names - Khalid Al Mihdhar and Khalid Al-Mihammadi – with different photographs for each. Which means Al-Mihammadi the computer programmer is not Al Mihdhar the hijacker.
Indeed, Khalid Al Mihdhar the hijacker was an Al Qaeda veteran. In 1995 he travelled to Bosnia with fellow 9/11 Hijacker Nawaf al Hazmi to join the Bosnian Muslims in their war against the Bosnian Serbs. After this he travelled to Afghanistan where he joined Al Qaeda and fought against the Afghan Northern Alliance. According to his family, in 1998 he fought in Chechnya.
Mohammed Atta The allegation that Atta is still alive originates from his father. His father’s story has changed dramatically over time, making his assertions unreliable. Here’s some highlights:
In this interview Atta Senior denies his son was involved in the attacks.
Quote:
"Mohamed. Oh God! He is so decent, so shy and tender," said the father, a 65-year-old retired lawyer. "He was so gentle. I used to tell him, 'Toughen up, boy!'" Mr. Atta stood on the barren concrete doorstep of his 11th-floor Cairo apartment today, alternating between rage at the picture being painted of his son as one of the attack's ringleaders and pride that his boy had done well abroad after graduating with average marks in architecture from Cairo University's Faculty of Engineering.
Atta’s father also makes a number of other claims throughout the interview:
Quote:
-He called the USA a “Tyrant Nation”, criticising it for supporting Israel, and for moral contagions such as adultery and same-sex marriage. -He said he believed his son had gone to the USA for further education. -He said that his son may have been murdered, and his documents stolen. -He said his son had last been in Egypt a year ago (late 2000). -He said someone like Mossad had the capacity to plan the attacks, but not his son. -He said he was sure his son was still alive, and that his son was afraid of flying.
-Upon opening the door for the journalist he immediately declared that Mossad killed his son. -He then lectured on Mossad and its “ugly history”, concluding that they kidnapped his son and stole his identity. -In this interview he claims that his son called him during the day of 12 September (night of 11/12th in New York) and that at the time he knew nothing of the attacks. He asserts that Mossad forced his son to make the phone call “to cause controversy”. It is worth noting that he makes no mention of this phone call in his earlier interview with the New York Times. -Atta Senior claims in this interview that he last saw his son in October 1999 – a full year removed from what he claimed in the previous interview. He states that his son then returned to his studies in Germany, calling once a month. -In this interview he claims he always assumed Atta was calling from Germany, and that he had no knowledge his son had ever been to the USA. This also is a direct contradiction of his earlier claims.
The next interview would come from the Guardian on September 2nd 2002, reporting an interview with the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
Quote:
In this interview his story changes again. He claims that Atta is still alive, and in hiding from US Intelligence Agents so that they don’t kill him. Rather than blame 9/11 on Mossad, this time Atta Senior blames it on “American Christians”. He also expressed a fear that the US would try to poison him. He reiterated his previous claim that his son had called him on the 12th, stating that it had been around midday (0500 EDT). He also recounted his return home on the night of the 12th (midday EDT). His daughter called him, arrived at the house, and told him to turn on his television. At this point he first sees news footage of the aircraft hitting the towers and his son’s photo.
Two years later, in an Associated Press interview on the 3rd anniversary of the attacks, Atta Senior first blames Mossad for the attacks, and then God (as punishment for the USA’s evil). He proposes that a Palestinian who rams an aircraft into the White House killing President George Bush and his family will go to heaven.
This time around he declares that “without stopping to think about it” he knew 9/11 was carried out by Mossad and “American right-wing extremists the neoconservatives”. After declaring that no one has presented any facts to demonstrate that his son and Osama Bin Laden carried out the attacks, Atta Senior then proceeds to offer some “facts” of his own: -4,000 Jewish workers at the WTC did not turn up on 9/11 -101 businessmen were supposed to be on AA11 on 9/11 but did not board and did not cancel their tickets. -On 10 September the FBI recorded two US Congressmen calling two separate newspapers with the message “It’s zero-hour. The game starts tomorrow.” -On the morning of 9/11 the pilot of AA11 (John Ogonowski) handed two workers at Boston Airport a video tape explaining the plan for the attacks. -Japanese Intelligence published a report with details of the four pilots of the hijacked flights, all of whom were American, had served in the Vietnam War, and belonged to secret Christian societies. -Jewish owners of stocks of the Airlines and Insurance companies involved in 9/11 sold their stock for high prices on 1st September in Europe, repurchasing them on 17th September once prices crashed. Atta Senior points out that initially Islamic Terrorists were blamed for the Oklahoma City Bombing. He claims that Timothy McVeigh’s last words were “Revenge will come in September”. He further claims that “four or six Israelis” videotaped the crashes in Manhattan, standing in the middle of the street, singing in Hebrew, and dancing in a circle at the moment of the attack. He alleges they were videoing the aircraft when it was a mere speck in the sky, thus indicating they knew where it would be coming from.
This interview was two weeks after the July 7 bombings in London, and Atta senior expresses his desire to see more of such attacks. He predicts that 9/11 and the July Bombings are the beginning of what will be a 50 year religious war in which there will be more fighters like his son.
This is a significant divergence from earlier claims. Previously he had asserted that his son was not political and not especially religious. Now he asserts that his son was a fighter in a 50 year religious war.
He cursed Arab and Muslim leaders who condemned the London Bombings as traitors and non-Muslims, and expressed his desire to encourage more attacks. When CNN asked permission to conduct another interview he demanded $5,000 which he said he would use to fund another attack like the London Bombings.
CNN declined.
As we can see, Mohammed Atta’s father cannot be considered a reliable source. His story continuously changes, is self-contradicting, and he is clearly heavily biased in the subject matters at hand. He is also clearly poorly informed regarding 9/11 – every single one of the claims he makes in the EgyptToday interview is totally false.
Other records of Atta’s life paint a very different picture. His fellow students in Germany recall him abruptly changing after a long trip away (which video evidence indicates was a trip to Afghanistan). He came back very religious, political, and wearing a beard. As the leader of the 19 hijackers, Atta spent much longer in the USA than most of the conspirators, and records of his movements – including a traffic violation, financial transactions, and purchases with a credit card in his name, leave a very solid evidence trail that supports the official version of events.
Saeed al-Ghamdi Again it is the BBC article of 23 September that identifies al-Ghamdi as alive. According to their report a London-based Arabic newspaper called Asharq Al Awsat interviewed him after the attacks. The Telegraph article of the same day expanded on this reference.
According to their story, as with Al Omari, al-Ghamdi was a Saudi pilot. As with Al Omari, his picture was broadcast on CNN to the world. Saeed claims he was in Tunis at the time with 20 other students learning to fly the Airbus A320.
Like Al Omari, al-Ghamdi had previously studied at the same Florida flight school that some of the hijackers used. A clear pattern arises. Just as with Al Omari, the photograph released by the FBI on 27th September was not al-Ghamdi the pilot.
The Germany newspaper Der Spiegel investigated some of the hijacker-alive claims, and interviewed Mohammed Samman – the reporter who talked to al-Ghamdi the Saudi pilot. Samman was happy to confirm that the al-Ghamdi in the FBI’s suspect photographs issued on 27 September was not the pilot he had talked to.
But what of al-Ghamdi the hijacker?
According to a Boston Globe article of March 2002, al-Ghamdi and three other 9/11 Hijackers from the same area of Saudi Arabia (Wael and Walid Alshehri and Ahmed Alnami) met at the Al Farouq training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The same Al Qaeda camp where other 9/11 hijackers trained. In 2000 these four hijackers, including al-Ghamdi, dedicated themselves to Jihad in a Saudi mosque, according to local clerics and friends.
In March 2001 al-Ghamdi appeared in an Al Qaeda “farewell” video broadcast on Al Jazeera. In the video he is seen studying flight maps and training manuals, and declares the USA “the enemy”. He appears in the video with other 9/11 hijackers.
Salem Al-Hamzi Al-Hamzi is one of two sets of brothers amongst the 9/11 Hijackers. The doubt over his identity arises from the Telegraph article, where it cites a petrochemical worker from the Yanbu Industrial City in Saudi Arabia. However Al-Hamzi the worker is a different age to Al-Hamzi the alleged hijacker, has never been to the USA (the FBI cited Al-Hamzi the hijacker’s residence as in New Jersey), and perhaps most odd of all, makes no mention of the accusations laid against his presumably also innocent brother Nawaf. Could it be this particular Al-Hamzi doesn’t have a brother called Nawaf, and is, indeed, an entirely different person?
The Saudi Information Agency seems to be talking about an entirely different Al-Hamzi. According to them, the two Al-Hamzi brothers were from Makkah, and left Saudi Arabia in March 2000 to train at the same Kandahar camp where the other alleged hijackers trained. Sound familiar?
Wail and Waleed Al-Shehri There’s no less than three claims to the identity of the second pair of brothers to take part in the 9/11 hijacking. The first , Waleed Al-Shehri, appeared in the BBC article previously mentioned, and was a pilot in Casablanca. He denied having a brother called Wail, or knowing anyone in his family called Wail. His claim is that a friend saw his photo, however this story appeared before the FBI released the photographs. We can trace this photograph back to the same CNN news broadcast in which many other hijackers were displayed with photographs of entirely innocent men.
Al-Shehri the pilot also trained at the school in Florida where others such as Al-Omari trained. Further confirmation came from the investigation conducted by Der Spiegel. In their article they claim the pilot from Morocco was not called Waleed Al-Shehri at all, but Walid Al-Shri; the mistake appears to be a result of the transliteration of his Arabic name.
Another claim was that the two brothers were sons of a Saudi diplomat based in Bombay. The diplomat in question was identified as Ahmed Al-Shehri, and these claims arose in Saudi media shortly after the attacks.
''I have no idea. Maybe,'' said al-Shehri, who worked as an attache at the Saudi embassy in Washington until 1996. ''How do I know? We have a half-million Shehris in Saudi Arabia.''
A day later, in a 16 September article, the Washington Post reports that Ahmed Al-Shehri denied the two alleged hijackers were his sons.
The FBI identified Waleed as Waleed M Al-Shehri, and this single often-excluded middle initial may hold the answer. In Saudi Arabian naming tradition, the last name refers to the tribal name, sometimes including hundreds of thousands of members, as demonstrated by Al-Shehri the diplomat. The middle name for men is usually taken from the father. In the case of Ahmen Al-Shehri, a son called Waleed would have the middle initial A – for Ahmed.
In a further NBC interview a living brother of the hijackers – Saleh – stated that he felt his brothers were dead and had been brainwashed.
In a Telegraph article a cousin of the brothers claimed that after a trip to Medina in 1999 they changed, growing beards, becoming very religious, and shunning their former friends.
The Saudi Information Agency profile on the brothers indicates that they were religious, and left Saudi Arabia to train at Al Qaeda’s Kandahar camp in Afghanistan.
This certainly accounts for the claims from living people that they were the suspects named. However this doesn’t of course mean the hijackers are indeed dead.
In the wake of the attacks an extensive FBI investigation was conducted. Given the suicidal nature of the attacks, the hijackers were not especially concerned about hiding their tracks, and as such the investigation uncovered a substantial amount of evidence implicating the nineteen hijackers. The tickets for the flights were registered in their names, and video surveillance captured the hijackers of AA11, UA175, and AA77 as they passed through airport security. There was no video surveillance at the security gate for UA93.
Calls from passengers and crew on each of the four flights identified the hijackers as middle-eastern, and on some flights their seat numbers were identified. The nineteen hijackers are the only people on any of the four flights with Arabic names.
A further trail of evidence puts all of the 9/11 hijackers through Al Qaeda’s training camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan, as previously discussed.
Lastly, martyr videos for many of the hijackers exist which depict their targets behind them.
These have been assembled into a comprehensive series of videos which present compelling evidence that Al Qaeda and the nineteen hijackers did indeed carry out the attacks.
The series is titled “The Usual Suspects”
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
There is substantial evidence to support the contention that the nineteen named hijackers were indeed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and died that day. The evidence supporting the contention that they are still alive is weak, and close investigation reveals that those who came forward as the hijackers were simple cases of mistaken identity.
Quote:
The inherent claim that at least six of the hijackers are still alive is rejected.
