Loose Change 9/11

WTC - The Basement Explosions

2007-11-08T13:39:00.000-08:00

At the time as the first plane impact the World Trade Center North Tower, explosions occured in the basement, killing and injuring people, destroying walls over several levels. The official explanation for this is that fireballs from the jet-fuel came down elevator-shafts and caused the damage.

But despite that some eyewitnesses state that an explosions occured shortly before the plane impact, the physical damage and the arrangement of the elevators refuse the official explanation.

Furthermore, at the same time an explosion occured on the 22nd floor, where the SCC (Security Command Center) was located. The explosions resulted in lost of control over the elevators, the HVCA (Heat, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) system, produced additional chaos to emergency responses, destroyed water lines and made the MER (Mechanical Equipment Rooms) unaccessable, hence pumps providing water for firefighting efforts could not have been activated.

For that, firefighters were prevented from existinguishing the fires even if they had reached the firezones, like firefighter Chief Palmer did.

Another aspect is the suspicious behaviour of the Secret Service on that day and its relation to the basement explosions.

Read the full article here.

(Note you have to register if you want that all pictures are directly visible).

From the article:

Conclusions

If one concedes that the Twin Towers were demolished, than it's safe to say that it wasn't a Controlled Demolition (CD) in the common manner. It was a Secret Controlled Demolition (SCD). A SCD requires a cover legend to make it not look like a demolition. This legend is that the impact damage of the planes and the subsequent fires brought down the towers.

This legend made it necessary to bring down the building from the top (impact zone) to the bottom - unlike most other, non-secret, Controlled Demolitions. To carry out this SCD successfully, it was also necessary that the fires could not have been exstinguished. Exstinguished fires would have destroyed the cover for the Secret Controlled Demolition. The explosions in the basement levels and on floor 22 secured the cover for the whole operation. And therefore were a necessary part of the SCD.

And this answers two questions raised in relation to the basement explosions. First, it's often asked, if the basement explosions were result of devices, why should they detonate them an hour before the actual demolition? The basement and 22nd floor explosions were not part of a Controlled Demolition (if, then it would inideed make little sense), but part of a Secret Controlled Demolition.

Second, if the towers were demolished, why take additional risks with detonating devices just before/as the plane hit? Because it was done to lower the risk, as it would have been much more risky to carry out the demolition if the fire-legend would have been destroyed by the firefighters. The basement explosions secured the legend:

-the basement explosions hampered and divided the rescue and firefighting efforts in general, and specific in:

-loss of elevator-control prevented firefighters from reaching the impact zones (with the exception of a marathon runner), and produced more chaos and further splitted the rescue efforts by binding forces.

-loss of the Security Control Center confused the emergency efforts and interferred the communication, and additionally resulted in:

-loss of control over the HVAC system, resulting in smoke-spread over almost every floor, complicating the emergency efforts

-loss of control over the access to the roof and MER, preventing the operation of the water pumps

Another difficulty to carry out a SCD is of course the fact that the access to building infrastructure might be limited, at least every preparation has to be carried out in secret, with a cover. This difficulty would of course be reduced if preparations could be done unnoticed because the areas in question were closed for others, i.e. not accessible. This could be a clue:

QUOTE

Elevators 6A and 7A were out of service for modernization. (NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p.43)

In the year before 9/11 there was an elevator modernization program which according to NIST was still in operation on 9/11. And we know that on 9/11 at least elevators 6,7, 22 and 23 were out of service.

Though this is speculative, maybe that program served as disguise to get access to structural key elements in the core of the tower to plant explosive devices unnoticed from office workers or security guards, who would certainly not look into elevator shafts to see if the maintenance work going on there is in fact a pretext for planting devices. And the case of Sakher Hammad adds a lot of suspicion of what was going on there before 9/11. However, the Hammad-case alone is worth a full article, so I won't go more in here.

And maybe there's a deeper sense in the phrase "out of service for modernization". To demolish a building and build a new one on its ground could also be called modernization. Were elevators 6 and 7 out of service for such a modernization?

Or were they out of service to execute the basement explosions? Imagine elevators 6 and 7 were in operation on 9/11. Imagine its occupants would have survived like Arthuro Griffith and Marlene Cruz in elevator 50. What would then be the plausible explanation for all the basement damage if all the occupants using the only elevators reaching the impact zone would have survived?

Fact is that NIST didn't adress the damage in the basement in an appropriate manner. Fact is, if they would do so, the official jet-fuel/fireball theory would have been compromised as implausible and improbable.

As NIST or any other agency hasn't investigated the basement explosions in an appropiate manner, it's time for a new, independent investigation!

Hanjour - Part 2

2007-02-12T18:05:00.000-08:00

The special treatment

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

Let's start with Hanjour:

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

Let's break here: it is not the job of the FAA to check if someone has a 'criminal intent'. Their job is to check if a person is skilled 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!

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

And Hanjour's English was so bad:

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA clamped down flight schools to ensure that no one who cannot speak conversational English receives a flight certificate, but when they receive warnings from a flight school, they just made suggestions like providing 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

QUOTE

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

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

Atta and 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.

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

The FAA did not immediately return calls for comment. Source

See also

QUOTE

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

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

The Clearwater Airpark incident January/February 2001

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

And I thought, the Al-Caida manuals claim not to behave in a way that could attract attentions!

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

The reason the Clearwater flight is only now () becoming known, Pursell says, is because it was overshadowed by other Florida incidents involving the two men.

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

See also

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

QUOTE

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

The Moussaoui-case

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

See also

The VISA-Express

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

The article also states:

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

Senators Jon Kyl and Pat Roberts conluded:

QUOTE

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

See also

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to Hanjour's visa:

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

Under Surveillance

Atta under CIA-Surveillance: he and three other ringleader, Marwan 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 go here

See also this CNN TV CLIP

Hanjour had also an indirect connection to US-Intelligence.

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

The living pilots

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

Keep this, which was also confirmed by Richard Clarke, in mind, when it comes to the '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.

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

As 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:

QUOTE

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

Think of it! If they had shot Riassi first, there wouldn't have been a trial. So the 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... See also

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

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

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 convicted and found guilty of making false statements in denying knowledge of Hanjour. Source

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

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

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

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:

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

Another is discovered at Boston’s Logan Airport, registered to Marwan Alshehhi Source

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

The cars full of evidence were pretty comfortable for the FBI's investigation - directly presented to them on a golden plate. And don't forget the 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 Jarrah's returned love-letter. Or they just left a box cutter together with a credit card here or together with manuals there.

They left a Koran hereand 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 Ayub Ali Khan)

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

Also notice this comment from the same article:

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

The article also notes:

QUOTE

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

Kamfar was linked to the hijacker Alomari:

QUOTE

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

Kamfar was also linked to Adnan Bukhari:

QUOTE

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

And Bukhari has links to Al Omari, too:

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

But then:

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

This means, we have now FOUR men, three of them falsely suspected to be the pilots, one to be the 'lead instructor'.

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 here.

But why is it, that

QUOTE

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

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

And the confusion expands:

QUOTE

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

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

To summarize the mysterious four hijackers:

-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. ZIP-File

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

So maybe they had to that time no clue, that there were five hijackers. But in the first published list of the hijackers by the FBI from the same day (Sept.14), 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). Here's the transcript of the CNN-Report from 09/14/01.

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

In the Moussaoui trial it was stated that this man 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?

QUOTE

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

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

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

Fact is, even if 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 here.)

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 Pentagon-Research about the autopsy-report (have fixed the broken pdf-link):

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, even that Hanjour was actually on board of Flight 77 is questionable. My conclusion is, as he never turned out to be alive after Sept. 11, that he died on that day. And when he was on Flight 77, then he died 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.

QUOTE

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

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

Hanjour - Part 1

2007-02-12T18:03:00.000-08:00

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

From Loose Change:

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

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

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

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

" And consensus was , he was very quiet, " " average, or below average piloting skills, "
" English was very poor " " so, that's about the best description I can get, give you "
Now THAT was an earth-shattering inteview.

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

From the Greenbelt (Maryland) Gazette:

QUOTE

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

End of 96 - CRM Airline Training Center Scottsdale, Arizona

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

Hastie said Hanjour wasn't much of a pilot.

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

January 1998 - Arizona Aviation Mesa, Arizona

QUOTE

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

1998 - Sawyer School of Aviation Phoenix, Arizona

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

April 1999 - Sunbird Flight Services Tempe, Arizona

QUOTE

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

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

Sunbird Flight Services residents at Chandler Municipal Airport. After he got his license,

QUOTE

"Hanjour reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected."Commission Report

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

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

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

Dezember 2000 - Arizona Aviation Phoenix, Arizona

QUOTE

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

January/February 2001 - Jet Tech International Phoenix, Arizona

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

They believe his pilot's license may be fraudulent.

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

April 2001 - Air Fleet Trainings System Teterboro, New Jersey

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

But Cooperative Research notes:

QUOTE

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

August 2001 - Freeway Aviation Bowie, Maryland

QUOTE

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

August 2001 - Congressional Air Charters Gaithersburg, Maryland

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

Cooperative Research states that

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

The Commission-Report's statement contradicts all others. And 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.

Summed up:

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

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

January 1998 Arizona Aviation: 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:

QUOTE

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

The Maneuver

9:38. Arlington, Virginia.

Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH

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

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

Let's start with a statement from General Schwarzkopf regarding the Pentagon-Maneuver, made in the evening of 9/11. This rare clip contains also some interesting footage of the Pentagon: WMV 18mB
Here are other reports:

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

A: Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision." Detroit News (09/13/01)

QUOTE

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

QUOTE

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

Markus Kirschneck, from the pilots-association "Cockpit":

QUOTE

"The Pentagon-Maneuver was one of the most difficult maneuvers you could do with a passengers-jet at all." Source (in German)

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

But here's the talk of '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): Youtube

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:

QUOTE

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

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

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

QUOTE

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

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

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

Bottom Line: Loose Change is backed up by the facts. Screw Loose Change has not debunked Loose Change.

Mayor Brown Forwarnings

2007-02-12T18:02:00.000-08:00

Loose Change VS Screw Loose Change

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a phone call warning him not to fly the next morning.

Brown said the call was not alarming in nature, it was normal. His flight was scheduled at 8 a.m., and he took it then.

Though he didn't canceled the fly, he didn't take it. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

QUOTE

„For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement." In fact, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind.

"It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."

Mike McCarron, assistant deputy director at SFO, said the Federal Aviation Administration "routinely" issues security notices about possible threats. He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months, but none in recent days.

Whatever the case, Brown didn't think about it again until he was up, dressed and waiting for his ride to the airport for an 8 a.m. flight to New York, where he was to attend a state retirement board meeting. That was when he turned on the TV, and like millions of other Americans, saw the twin towers of the World Trade Center crumble and the Pentagon go up in smoke.“ ( San Francisco Chronicle, 12. September 2001 )

So he denies to give a specific source and speaks in terms of „his airport security“. Who is that? Where did they get the information from, when the FAA didn't issued security notices the recent days?

Think of this: "he got a call a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attack". This means it was very late in the evening! And he describes it as "not an abnormal call."

Loose Change doesn't claim that Brown is part of a conspiracy. The claim is that he received a phone call with a warning not to fly. And this is not only true but remains still suspicious. If the warning is 9/11 related then it indicates that someone had foreknowledge and warned Brown. No more. No less. And there are other indications of foreknowledge Loose Change mentions, that are much stronger than the Brown-issue. And in the case of Insider-trading I would say not only indications but evidence.

Loose Change is backed up by the facts. Screw Loose Change has not debunked Loose Change.

Attorney General Ashcroft Forewarnings

2007-02-12T17:53:00.000-08:00

Loose Change claims:

June, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft begins flying on chartered jets, for the remainder of his term, due to a "threat assessment" by the FBI.

Here's the debunking from Screw Loose Change:

During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not national. From Ashcroft’s 9/11 Commission testimony:

QUOTE
BEN-VENISTE: Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.

And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.

At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.

The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year.

It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation.

It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general,
given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.

These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.

So he states that there were two threats, one to the nation and one related to him personally. And he states that he took commercial aircraft for his personal travel through the entirety of the threat period to the nation. Why did he continue to fly with commercial airliners when there was a personal threat against him? Or maybe he didn't? Before 9/11, the story about Ashcroft sounded otherwise:

QUOTE
Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart. (CBS 7-26-01)

Does this sound like a personal travel or not? Before the 9/11 Commission he said under oath the he took commercial aircraft for his personal travel. Does the CBS got it wrong. But if so, then why was it confirmed by the Department of Justice?

QUOTE

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

After 9/11 we are told that this threat was not related to national security, only and specifically to the security of Ashcroft. But why wasn't this stated before 9/11? And why does Ashcroft state that he still used commercial aircraft though there was a specific threat against him? Would this make sense?

QUOTE
Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

"I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes," Ashcroft said.

So again, we're not told then about the nature of the threat. He himself doesn't seem to know what was going on, and it seems he didn't even care about it:

QUOTE

Asked if he knew anything about the threat or who might have made it, the attorney general replied, "Frankly, I don't. That's the answer."

When the FBI or the Department of Justice would tell you that there's a threat against you, would you want to know about it? So at this time (end of July 2001) Ashcroft couldn't even confirm the nature of the threat, though he said in front of the Commission that "the assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year." Should be enough time to get informed.

QUOTE

Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond.

Declined to response. But not refused that he used it for personal business.

Ashcroft had not only little interest in threats related to his personal security, but also to threats related to the national security.

From the 9/11-Commission- Report, p.258

QUOTE

That same day (July 5th, 2001), the CIA briefed Attorney General Ashcroft on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant terrorist attack was imminent. Ashcroft was told that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little additional warning could be expected. The briefing addressed only threats outside the United States.

(See CIA memo “CTC Briefing for the Attorney General on the Usama Bin Ladin Terrorist Threat” July 5, 2001, and the accompanying CIA briefing materials,“DCI Update Terrorist Threat Review” July 3, 2001.) 9/11 Commission Report, 4/13/04

QUOTE

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again. (Source)

On this day, acting FBI Director Tom Pickard briefs Ashcroft about the terror threat inside the US. Pickard later swears under oath that Ashcroft tells him, “[I do] not want to hear about this anymore.“ (Source)

Pickard later says:

QUOTE

“Before September 11th, I couldn’t get half an hour on terrorism with Ashcroft. He was only interested in three things: guns, drugs, and civil rights.” ( The cell: Inside the 9/11 plot, p. 293)

QUOTE

One day before the attacks, Ashcroft rejects a proposed $58 million increase in financing for the bureau’s counterterrorism programs. The money would have paid for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 additional analysts and 54 additional translators. On the same day, he sends a request for budget increases to the White House. It covers 68 programs—but none of them relate to counterterrorism. He also sends a memorandum to his heads of departments, stating his seven priorities—none of them relate to counterterrorism. (Source)

Ashcroft is not always so ignorant about threats:

QUOTE

Who needs terrorists when we have John Ashcroft to scare us out of our pants?

The way the attorney general detonated the “dirty bomber” case this week completes his metamorphosis from a common press hog to a genuine fear monger.

That Ashcroft insisted that he had to scoop all the other terror warriors (Mssrs. Mueller, Wolfowitz and Thompson) and make the announcement about Jose Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir, in a panicky performance from Moscow shows what a camera-moth Ashcroft is. (CBS - Minister of Fear)

After 9/11 the story goes like this:

QUOTE
Attorney General John Ashcroft was urged in May 2001 by his top security experts not to fly aboard commercial aircraft because of personal threats on his life, not out of fears about terrorist hijackings, the Justice Department said Thursday. (....)

An FBI security review after Ashcroft took office recommended that the attorney general eschew flying on commercial planes whenever possible, citing nonspecific threats against Ashcroft's life. The earliest threat assessment from the FBI was presented May 8 to Ashcroft that recommended against flying commercial, and a follow-up assessment was made to Ashcroft on June 19. (AP 5-16-02)

QUOTE

Ashcroft walked from the room without comment when a reporter asked about it. (AP 5-16-02)

CBS anchor Dan Rather also expressed his concerns about this issue.

QUOTE
Justice Department officials are ticked off at Dan Rather.

On the "Imus in the Morning" radio show last Wednesday, the CBS anchor said that Attorney General John Ashcroft "just before September 11 started taking private aircraft. . . . Well, that would indicate that somebody somewhere was getting pretty worried. . . . Why wasn't it shared with the public at large?"

Justice spokeswoman Barbara Comstock calls Rather's comments "irresponsible," saying: "The implication here is outrageous. He's acting like the attorney general found out there were going to be hijackings and started to fly on private planes." She says CBS and other news outlets were told days earlier that the warnings in early 2001 concerned Ashcroft's personal safety, not hijackings, and that his family kept flying on commercial jets.
Rather called Don Imus back Friday to protest that he "never said the attorney general was warned specifically about 9/11 threats and therefore covered his own security." But Rather escalated the dispute instead, insisting that Ashcroft's conduct "doesn't look particularly good" when contrasted with the failure to warn American passengers. "Maybe it would be better for him to spend a little less time trying to sully up my reputation in a way and cover his backside and more time trying to get things straight." (Washington Post)

Not only Dan Rather was suspicious about Ashcrofts travel plans.

QUOTE

The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?

Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. "Frankly, I don't," he told reporters.

So our nation's chief law enforcement officer was told that flying commercial was hazardous to his health, and yet he appeared not to care what the threat was, who made it, how, or why?

Note that it was the FBI that warned Ashcroft before Sept. 11. That's the same FBI now claiming it didn't "connect the dots" before Sept. 11.

Had we in the press been on our toes, we might have realized that if flying commercial posed a threat to John Ashcroft, it also posed a threat to the population at large.(...)
We need a full-blown investigation of who know what before Sept. 11. We need explanations of such things as the FBI warning Ashcroft off commercial jets, while simultaneously ignoring strident warnings from its own agents in Minneapolis, Phoenix and Oklahoma. These things don't add up. SF Gate

Whenever considering Ashcroft, one should note this telling passage from his speech in the U.S: Senate:

QUOTE
In all these ways and more, the Department of Justice has sought to prevent terrorism with reason, careful balance and excruciating attention to detail. Some of our critics, I regret to say, have shown less affection for detail. Their bold declarations of so-called fact have quickly dissolved, upon inspection, into vague conjecture. Charges of "kangaroo courts" and "shredding the Constitution" give new meaning to the term, "the fog of war."

Since lives and liberties depend upon clarity, not obfuscation, and reason, not hyperbole, let me take this opportunity today to be clear: Each action taken by the Department of Justice, as well as the war crimes commissions considered by the President and the Department of Defense, is carefully drawn to target a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists. Our legal powers are targeted at terrorists. Our investigation is focused on terrorists. Our prevention strategy targets the terrorist threat.

Since 1983, the United States government has defined terrorists as those who perpetrate premeditated, politically motivated violence against noncombatant targets. My message to America this morning, then, is this: If you fit this definition of a terrorist, fear the United States, for you will lose your liberty.

We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

So whenever you say that the Patriot Act destroys the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution, you're aiding terrorists. And when you're aiding terrorist, you will lose your liberties!

So the only liberty you have is to confirm that you have the liberty to confirm that you have the liberty to confirm that you have .......

Bin Laden met CIA in Dubai

2007-02-12T17:42:00.000-08:00

Loose Change claims:

July 4th, 2001.

Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998 receives medical attention at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he is visited by a local chief of the CIA.

And here's the debunking from Screw Loose Change:

This was reported by the French paper Le Figaro, (not exactly a pro-American paper*). Quoting an anonymous source. The story is unconfirmed. I’m not aware of any evidence at all that this happened.

* This statement was in the first version of the guide.

Let's check the facts:

It was not only reported by the Le Figaro, also by Radio France International and other medias. It was reported that bin Laden receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American surgeon specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden's personal physician, al-Qaeda's second-in-command, and leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter.(Le Figaro 10/31/01, Agence France-Presse 11/1/01, London Times 11/01/01)
During his stay, bin Laden is visited by „several members of his family and Saudi personalities“, including Prince Turki al Faisal, the head of Saudi intelligence, as well as two CIA officers ( Guardian, 11/1/01, FTW)

Al-Faisal, head of the intelligence service for 24 years, is replaced on August 31. 2001 without any explanation.( Seattle Times, 10/29/01, Wall Street Journal, 10/22/01 Al-Faisal is later sued in August 2002 for his role in 9/11 (Associated Press, 8/15/02, MSNBC, 8/25/02) Back to bin Laden.

On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell, a retired Air Force Col, apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent.

Surprisingly (caution: irony!), the CIA, the Dubai hospital and bin Laden deny the story. However, Le Figaro and Radio France International stand by their reporting.( Radio France International, 11/1/01)
The explosive story is widely reported in Europe, but barely at all in the US (possibly only by UPI, 11/1/01)
French terrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising :

QUOTE

It is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.(Le Figaro 11/1/01)

It's reported that

QUOTE

Exactly one year ago, from July 4 to July 14, Osama bin Laden was undergoing medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai. He arrived by plane from Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan (daily flights either with PIA or Emirates Airlines). He met many wealthy Saudi princes and businessmen. He was also visited by the local CIA chief. He could have been arrested on the spot - and there would be no excuses for a war against terrorism. He was not arrested. The rest, of course, is history - with an al-Qaeda hand in the screenplay. (Asia Time, 7/13/02)

Reuters, 13.11.2003:

QUOTE

Richard Labeviere, author of "The Corridors of Terror", released on Thursday, says the CIA's Dubai station chief approached bin Laden while the al Qaeda leader was being treated for a serious kidney complaint in the United Arab Emirates.
He said the meeting took place in the American Hospital in Dubai on July 12, barely eight weeks before al Qaeda militants slammed fuel-laden hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center, killing almost 3,000 people.
"Such an allegation is sheer fantasy, no such thing occurred," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, echoing an earlier rebuttal by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency of French media reports in October 2001 about tne alleged Dubai meeting.
Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.
The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.
Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department.

To put an end to the CIA-meets-Bin-Laden-story there's a new argumentation: Bin Laden never suffered any kidney diseases!
This article from the Washington Time states that there's no evidence at all that Osama ever suffered any kidney diseases. (Osama debunks a myth) But the argumentation isn't conclusive.

But before we examine the debunking of the kidney-disease stories, let's take a look at these stories first.
We begin with the Pakistan-Hospital-Story also mentioned in Loose Change:

QUOTE

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan`s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.
CBS Report

QUOTE

Intelligence sources believe that bin Laden bought a dialysis machine earlier this year which he had shipped to KandaharLondon Times 11/01/01

QUOTE

Osama bin Laden seemed weak and gaunt at a meeting about President Clinton's visit to Pakistan, a witness said, and a Western intelligence official said the alleged terrorist leader is suffering from kidney and liver disease.

Bin Laden has kidney failure and ``his liver is going,'' the official said, speaking on condition that neither he nor his nation be identified. He said bin Laden's followers were trying to find a kidney dialysis machine for their ailing leader.
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, however, insist bin Laden is fine.

``His health is good. There is no problem with his kidney or liver,'' said Ahmad Ullah, a Taliban spokesman in southern Kandahar, the headquarters of the religious militia.
Bin Laden, a Saudi exile accused by the United States of organizing the deadly 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, was seen March 17 with 100 followers in a remote mountain valley in Afghanistan's eastern Laghman province, said an Afghan who attended the meeting.

``He is very much weak. His face is very thin,'' said the man, who has close contacts with Afghanistan's ruling militia and accompanied a Taliban security officer to the meeting. .....
Bin Laden, believed to be in his late 30s, coughed frequently and seemed to become easily exhausted, even while seated, said the man, who did not want his name used because of the potential danger. Bin Laden took milk, rather than the traditional tea, for refreshment, he said.

``The sheik speaks for five or 10 minutes,'' he said, ``and then he drinks some milk and gets up and walks around.''

The Afghan also spoke to a doctor who accompanied bin Laden to the valley and was told bin Laden's ailment is related to his circulation and his blood ``is not being cleaned in the right way.''

``I asked him, 'Why is the sheik very weak, very unhappy looking?' and he told me, 'He is very sick.'''

The Afghan doctor also told the man the problem was with bin Laden's ``jigger,'' the Pashtu word for liver.AP, 3/25/00

QUOTE

Suspected Saudi Arabian terrorist Osama bin Laden, wanted in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, is dying of kidney failure, the Hong Kong-based Asiaweek magazine reported Thursday. Bin Laden, reportedly holed up in a secret location in Afghanistan, is dying of a kidney disease that is now affecting his liver, said a preview of the magazine's March 24 issue.

"The man is dying," a Western intelligence source told Asiaweek.

Bin Laden's host, Afghanistan's Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, has refused to hand him over the U.S. authorities.

U.S. President Bill Clinton is expected to discuss the suspected terrorist's case when he meets with Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf next week.DPA 3/16/00

QUOTE

Suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden is dying of kidney failure, according to a Western intelligence source who has been tracking him. Bin Laden's kidney disease has now begun to affect his liver, and close associates are trying to obtain a dialysis machine to stabilize his condition.Asiawekk 3/24/00

QUOTE

In September 2001, it was reported that Moosa Wardak, an Afghan doctor, had travelled to India not long before on a diplomatic passport issued by the Taliban government to buy some medical equipment for bin Laden. Unnamed intelligence sources say a dialysis machine was bought for bin Laden earlier in 2001 and shipped to Kandahar.Source

QUOTE

bin Laden, who suffers from a kidney ailment, reportedly comes to Peshawar periodically for dialysis at the local military hospital. (Saprra, India, 3/7/00)

QUOTE

A veteran Islamic militant who is known by the nom de guerre Abdullah claimed that last February he was assigned to deliver medicines to an ailing bin Laden in Afghanistan's thickly forested Kunar province. "He looked weak and frail," said Abdullah. "He moves with a few close aides and guards and never stays at any place for long. To avoid detection he often travels during nights and in bad weather," he said.MSNBC

Now lets start with the Washington Time - Osama debunks a myth-Article:

QUOTE

There is only one presumably well-informed source who has gone on the record to say that bin Laden was on dialysis: Pakistani Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf.

No, we've seen that there are other sources, Pakistan and Western intelligence, the Taliban-Expert Ahmed Rashid, a medical worker, a 'pretty relaible journalist', and others. Here's what Musharaf said in 2002:

QUOTE

"I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient," Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Friday in an interview with CNN.

Musharraf said Pakistan knew bin Laden took two dialysis machines into Afghanistan. "One was specifically for his own personal use," he said.

"I don't know if he has been getting all that treatment in Afghanistan now. And the photographs that have been shown of him on television show him extremely weak.CNN Interview 1/18/02

Washington Times:

QUOTE

In December 2004, when Gen. Musharraf again sat down with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he all but reversed himself.

Here's what he actually said:

QUOTE

BLITZER: Over the years, when we've spoken, you've suggested he was a sick man, Osama bin Laden, that he had kidney problems, he needed dialysis. Do you still believe that?

MUSHARRAF: I'm confused, really. I thought that all the intelligence said that he suffers from kidney problems, that he got dialysis machines into the area, but since then, he is alive, that I am sure of. I don't really know how much he's suffering.CNN Interview 5/12/04

Not really a withdrawn, he's just saying he "don't really know". Furthermore, whenever you evaluate his statement, take also this into consideration, as it does prove that he's under pressure by the US-Government:US 'threatened to bomb' Pakistan. Back to the WT-Article:

QUOTE

"In fact, there is a mountain of evidence that bin Laden is not on dialysis. No medical report has been produced that shows bin Laden is on dialysis."

That shouldn't be a surprise as Osama was number one wanted terrorist. Who should why make a medical report and store/publish it? And if he was treated in Dubai and later in Pakistan hospital, it is safe to say that they won't have any record of their highly wanted guest. Additionally,we've already seen that they refused to show any records.

QUOTE

No reporter who has actually met bin Laden has seen the archterrorist hooked up to a dialysis machine or heard him talk about it. Robert Fisk, the only Western journalist to interview bin Laden three times, makes no mention of dialysis.

How many Western journalists have met Bin Laden since the first reports of a kidney disease were published? None of that I'm aware of. And let's not forget that the first reports, like the report in the Asia Time from March 2000, speaking of a kidney infection. But the Washington Times article suggests that if he had a kidney disease he would have it the whole life. But no one claimed this, this is obviously a straw man-tactic. And btw. the last interview Fisk was doing was in December 1996.

QUOTE

Peter Bergen led a CNN team into Afghanistan to interview bin Laden in 1997. Bin Laden appeared healthy and strong; neither the reporters nor bin Laden mentioned dialysis or kidney trouble.

Again, this was 1997 and not the period we're talking about. See what Peter Bergen actually has to say about it:

QUOTE

I think there may be something to the kidney story, but I don't think he has a life threatening condition based on kidney problems. A pretty reliable Pakistani journalist was the guy who broke the story. I've spoken to him directly.

Bin Laden apparently two years ago may have gone to a military hospital in Kabul for some sort of kidney ailment. But I don't think he is in need of sort of daily or weekly dialysis. ....
O'BRIEN: Why haven't we heard from him, seen him?

BERGEN: Possibly because he's in bad shape. I mean I think he does have some pretty serious health problems. We talked earlier about this possible shrapnel wound. If you remember the last videotape, Miles, he looked like he was in early '60s. The guy is only 45. He's obviously got some pretty major health problems. They may not be life threatening, but perhaps he doesn't want to show himself looking ill. ......
O'BRIEN: You know, and when I think about your interview with bin Laden, which was back in, what, '96 thereabouts?

BERGEN: '97.

O'BRIEN: '97, compared to what we saw in that last video, it's dramatic his health degradation, just very evident. So clearly if he's alive, he's in a bad way. CNN Interview

Sounds otherwise then the Washington Times claims, doesn't it? Back to the article:

QUOTE

Even bin Laden's longtime associates dispute the kidney ailment meme. Saudi newspaper editor Khaled Batarfi has known bin Laden for two decades, ever since the two were neighbors in the Saudi port city of Jeddah. He told the Sunday Tasmanian, an Australian newspaper, that bin Laden "does not suffer from kidney disease."
Foreign government officials who have met bin Laden also insist that he has no problems with his kidneys. Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to May 1996. I interviewed political leaders and intelligence officials there who knew him. Gutbi al-Mahdi, Sudan's former intelligence chief, told me bin Laden had no health problems during his time in Sudan. In fact, every Sudanese I spoke with denied that bin Laden had any health problems, let alone a kidney ailment requiring dialysis.

Again, this is irrelevant. We're not dealing with the period in question. Again the strawman-tactic. But it's getting better:

QUOTE

Bin Laden himself is of the same opinion. Hamid Mir, an intrepid Pakistani journalist who writes for the Pakistani daily Dawn, landed one of the only two authentic post September 11 interviews with the world's most wanted man.
In the course of the wide-ranging interview, Mr. Mir asked bin Laden about his kidneys: "A French newspaper has claimed that you have a kidney problem and have secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year [2000]. Is that correct?"
Bin Laden responded: "My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year. One British newspaper has published an imaginary interview with an Islamabad dateline with one of my sons in Saudi Arabia. All this is false."

(Posted Image)
When this interview was one of the two post 9/11 interviews, which was the other one? Why don't they mention it? Because in the other one Bin Laden denied any involvement into the attacks. (Ummat Karachi interview)
When we trust him on the kidney-thing why then not on the other one?
So, when he backs up the official version Osama is a reliable person, when he contradicts the official version he's not. But wait, we have another reliable witness that he doesn't suffer on kidney disease:

QUOTE

Osama Bin Laden's half brother told CNN that the Al-Qaeda leader is not only alive, but does not suffer from a kidney disease that requires dialysis. Ahmad Muhammad Al-Attas also said that his brother Osama was not behind the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. "He is my brother. I know him. I lived with him for years. I know how much he fears God," Ahmad said in an interview with CNN. Ahmad and Bin Laden have the same mother but different fathers . . .

Ahmad said that their mother learned through a telephone call three weeks ago that Osama was well, without revealing the source of the call. However, Ahmad affirmed that the call was true and that his brother Osama is fine. Informed Bin Laden family sources told Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News, that Ahmad's statement did not represent the family's views. "It's his personal opinion," the sources said. They also pointed out that Ahmad had no relation with the Bin Laden Group's activities.

So, when he backs up the official version, Osamas brother is a reliable person, when he contradicts the official version he's not. But wait, we have another reliable witness that he doesn't suffer on kidney disease (WT-article again.):

QUOTE

Perhaps the definitive account comes from bin Laden's doctor, who was arrested on October 21, 2002, in Pakistan and held incommunicado for a full month. "It was a very extensive investigation, eight hours a day," he said. "It went on and on." He added, "I was not physically tortured; there was just mental anguish."
Dr. Amer Aziz, a British citizen born in Pakistan, was interrogated by eight CIA and FBI agents, as well as by Pakistani intelligence officers. Strongly sympathetic to radical Islam, Aziz had treated bin Laden for years. He reportedly admitted to visiting bin Laden after the September 11 attacks. Upon his release, he talked freely to Paul Haven of the Associated Press in November 2002. The doctor said he had given bin Laden a "complete physical" in 1999 and treated him for back injuries after bin Laden was thrown from a horse. "His kidneys were fine," the doctor told Mr. Haven. He said "If you're on dialysis, you have a special look. I didn't see any of that," and added that bin Laden "was walking. He was healthy." Aziz was emphatic: "I did not see any evidence of kidney disease; I didn't see any evidence of dialysis."
Aziz later discussed the dialysis issue with the New York Times. "When I hear these reports, I laugh. I did not see any evidence."
He has good reason to laugh -- legions of Westerners have bought the story that bin Laden is on dialysis, with no proof at all.

So, when he backs up the official version Osamas supporter is a reliable person, when he contradicts the official version he's not.
Let me get this straight: here we have a man who sympathizes with al-qaida ideologically, who has close ties to Bin Laden for years and who still supports him and visited him after 9/11! And the CIA caught him and let him go!
And notice the date: they arrested him six weeks after 9/11! And within this six weeks he met Bin Laden and they let him go just four weeks later, when the hunt of Bin Laden was the big deal!!
Here's a question that comes to my mind: how many are there still in Guantanamo who don't sympathize with Al-Qaida, who don't have close ties to Osama even for a single moment and never met him before or after 9/11? Quite logical to keep them still locked and to let a proven Al-Qaida-Supporter go free, don't you agree?
If that's "perhaps the definitive account" then they have no account!

Let's summarize regarding the kidney-disease:
Pro: Musharaf, a "pretty reliable journalist", Western intelligence, Pakistan Intelligence, hospital employees and doctors, the Taliban-Expert Ahmed Rashid, several combatants and not to forget the sources of the Dubai-Story: an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain (testified by Richard Labeviere), French intelligence, French terrorism expert Antoine Sfeir, a partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai (testified by 'Le Figaro')

Contra: Bin Laden, his brother, a doctor who's "strongly sympathetic to radical Islam", and a Taliban spokesman

My Diagnosis: the official story has a very serious health problem!

Finally, we come back to the "debunking" of Loose Change by Screw Loose Change:

-This was reported by the French paper Le Figaro
Yes, but also by other media outlets and for several times. The Figaro stands by it's story.
-The story is unconfirmed
Here's the question 'confirmed by whom'? The CIA? Bin Laden? Obviously there's no way for a confirmation that would satisfy the maker of Screw Loose Change as it is absolute unlogical to think that the CIA would confirm this.
But let's not forget: "French terrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified"
-I’m not aware of any evidence at all that this happened.
We have a lot of information explicity mentions date, locality, names of persons like the surgeon specialist Terry callaway, the CIA-Agent Larry Mitchell (who was recalled to the CIA's headquarters in McLean, Va., on July 15., a day after Bin Laden left!) visitor Turki al-Faisal, even the origin of the flight to Dubai is mentioned. I think there are too much details mentiond for a fantasy-story. Notice that CIA-Agent Mitchell left Dubai on the 15th. Whoever invented such a story would have had plenty of luck by inventing a timeline which fits so perfectly.
Also notice, how sceptics (i.e.defenders of the official version) draw on Osamas statement as prove for their version because it fits with their theory but would completely deny his account if it doesn't, for example when he says that he has nothing to do with September 11th!

Screw Loose Change (and I have also taking other arguments into account like the 'he has no kidney disease at all', ) hasn't debunked the claims made by Loose Change. Summed up, their argument is "don't trust French papers".

Inside Trade

2007-02-12T17:38:00.000-08:00

Loose Change claims:

4,516 put options are placed on American Airlines, almost 11 times its daily average.

And here's the debunking from Screw Loose Change:

American stock had been falling, and on Friday, Sept. 7 they announced a prediction of higher-than-expected losses for Q3 and Q4, on top of a Q2 loss. On Monday, investors made the safe bet that the stock would continue to fall.911myths.com has covered this issue in depth.
And from the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130:

QUOTE

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

Let me get this right. „Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.“

Why? Because of "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda“. That means the investigation is blocked because the trail doesn't lead to Al-qaida! What is that for an “investigation“ when the result stands before the investigation even starts (petitio principii).
They're saying that a "single U.S.based investor... purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts“.
When it's only one company, how could someone claim that this trading is referred to a general fall of airline-options and a general recommendation made by a trading newsletter? That 95% of the purchased put was done by one investor is prove that this options-trade wasn't result of general business. This investor had a very special interest in these put-options. Who was this single investor?

The bank which purchased 95% of the UAL-Put-options was Alex Brown Inc, headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, who became executive director of the CIA in March 2001 (resigned December 2004).
Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by the german Deutsche Bank. His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust – Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.

Now, as we've just seen that the Commission Report contradicts itself, let's see other aspect of the Inside-Trade:

On Sptember 10th, 1,535 contracts changed hands on options that bring a profit if AMR stock falls below $30 per share before Oct. 20. That was more than 60 times the previous daily average, according to a Bloomberg analysis of options market data (BLOOMBERG NEWS, Sept.20, 2001, also CBS News, Sept.26,2001)

In "Unusual Options Market Activity with an Application to the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" by Allen M. Poteshman of the University of Illinois, the author states:

QUOTE

"When the option market activity in the days leading up to the terrorist attacks is compared to the benchmark distributions, the volume ratios and call volume indicators are seen to be at typical levels. The indicator of long put volume, however, appears to be unusually high, which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks."

According to Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001, October $30 put options for UAL soared, with 2,000 contracts traded on Sept. 6, three trading days before the attack. That was 285 times the previous average trading.

According to CBS News, Sept. 26, 2001, there has been a jump in UAL put options 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

The Put/Call Ratio for UAL was 25 times higher than normal:

But there were more suspicious trades before 9/11.

On 21 September 2001, the Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, states in the report entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" :

QUOTE

„Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6.“

That means 719 daily average the last three day before 9/11, compared to 27 daily average. That's 26 times more than before. The report goes on:

QUOTE

„Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day“

That's 12 times more than the previous average volume.

QUOTE

Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.

Again, Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001:

QUOTE

Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09.

„European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster.... It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells.“

Also, note that German Central Bank president Ernst Welteke reports that a study by his bank indicates,

QUOTE

„There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge“,

not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01] His researchers have found

QUOTE

„almost irrefutable proof of insider trading“ [Miami Herald, 9/24/01]. „If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.“

Nevertheless, he believes that

QUOTE

„in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source.“ [Fox News, 9/22/01]

Welteke reports "fundamentally inexplicable rise" in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/01] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01]

There were also other suspicious winners of 9/11:

Raytheon saw its stock rise immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.

QUOTE

A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. Bloomberg News, 10/3/01

Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volums before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.

QUOTE

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11. (Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks, wsws.org, 10/5/01)

Let's summarize:

-a jump in United Airlines put options 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

-a jump in American Airlines put options 60 times above normal on the day before the attacks. No similar trading ocurred on any other airlines

-Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 26 times in the purchase of put options on its shares.

-Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks.

-a jump of Raytheon call options more than 6 times higher than the average

-extraordinary high volumes in gold and US Treasury notes.

Shouldn't there be a real investigation, even if the result would be that the investors have "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

Bottom Line: Loose Change is backed up by the facts. Screw Loose Change didn't debunked Loose Change.

WTC Evidence Obstruction

2007-02-12T17:09:00.000-08:00

Before we look closer into the claims made by (Screw) Loose Change a summary of who was responsible for the investigation:

QUOTE

"The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), together with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), has established a team of experts, the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), to investigate the factors that led to the collapse of and damage to the World Trade Center towers and other buildings around them (see box below). The team will also identify and make recommendations on further research that needs to be done as a consequence of the terrorist attacks." Source

QUOTE

Dr. W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, in Skokie, Illinois (...), is the over-all director of FEMA's inquiry into the World Trade towers." Source

and of who was responsible for the clean-up:

The New York City agency that oversees the Ground Zero cleanup operation is the Department of Design and Construction (DDC). The DDC is normally responsible for overseeing municipal construction contracts, such as street repairs and jails. Its two top officials are Kenneth Holden and his lieutenant, Michael Burton

That afternoon, Burton meets Holden and together they begin organizing the cleanup operation. Under Burton’s direction, the team of “unbuilders” subsequently undertakes what journalist William Langewiesche describes in his book "America Ground" as

QUOTE

“the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.”Langewiesche

Yet this appears to go against established procedures. New York’s official emergency plans, which were written before 9/11, in fact require the Department of Sanitation to remove debris after a building collapse.

QUOTE

"That DDC would be in charge of the construction response was never an official charge from Coles or Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The city's Sanitation Dept. normally handles emergency debris removal, site officials say, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were on their way, as was usual in disasters of this magnitude. "In early January, I realized that no one ever asked me to manage the effort at Ground Zero." Burton remembers. "I just did what I thought had to be done, and it just happened." Adds DDC Commissioner Kenneth Holden: "We were there, no one said ‘no,' so we went ahead." Order out of Chaos - Engineering News-Record, 4/22/2002

This lack of clear responsibility (which makes it difficult to hold someone accountable) was also stated by Langewiesche in his book. According to him, there is no specific moment when Holden and Burton are placed in charge of the Ground Zero cleanup effort.

QUOTE

“Rather, there was a shift of power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations.”

Reportedly, at some point, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made a

QUOTE

“back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed.”Langewiesche

Authors and New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton write that Michael Burton,

QUOTE

“who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11. ‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.” Glanz and Lipton, p. 299

The prime consultant on the cleanup job was Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc., of New York, N.Y., who managed all structural and engineering operations association with the entire WTC cleanup effort. (Source)

It was Mike Burton from the DDC who made the decision to call them in:

QUOTE

"I got a call from Mike Burton at 1 p.m. He said they needed engineering help down there," says Richard Tomasetti, president of structural engineering firm Thornton-Tomasetti Group Inc".Order out of Chaos - Engineering News-Record, 4/22/2002

The same Burton who, according to that report, "could not tell who was part of the DDC effort and who wasn't."

Also Controlled Demolition Inc. played a major role:

QUOTE

"The core of what may become the cleanup master plan for the wrecked site in lower Manhattan was delivered to the city's Dept. of Design and Construction Sept. 22 by implosion consultant Controlled Demolition Inc., Phoenix, Md. The 25-page "preliminary" document offers a host of debris-related concerns and removal ideas related to the site's key collapsed buildings and outlines other project management issues, from site security and safety to contractor relations and offsite debris disposal.
CDI was initially retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc., one of the site's four main cleanup management contractors, to assess debris removal in its sector that includes the former Two WTC and several smaller buildings."
Source See also

So, who made the decision to quickly transport the remaining structural steel to scrap yards in the first place? It seems that this is a tough question:

QUOTE

"In one testy exchange, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., asked the panel of witnesses who was leading the investigation and three people raised their hands."Source

Finally, we will find the answer here:

From the HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 6, 2002, Serial No. 107–46:

QUOTE

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And we are welcoming, as a guest in the Committee, but an interested guest, Mr. Crowley of New York.

Mr. CROWLEY. (...) I have a number of questions that I think I would address to Mr. Shea, Dr. Corley, and Dr. Bement firstly. And one, can any one of you gentlemen tell me who was in charge of amassing the steel and other debris as a result from the attack of September 11 on the WTC?

Mr. SHEA. I am not sure I understand fully your question, but——

Mr. CROWLEY. In other words, who—what entity was in charge of collecting the material?

Mr. SHEA. FEMA commissioned the Building Performance Assessment Team, and it was that team, led by Dr. Corley, that would have embraced that responsibility.

Mr. CROWLEY. Did they determine which debris would be sold off as scrap? And if not, who did?

Mr. SHEA. I will—yeah, I will defer to Dr. Corley on that.

Dr. CORLEY. No. We did not determine that. That was determined, I understand, by the City of New York. We——

Mr. CROWLEY. When did you—when did you become aware that the steel from the World Trade Center was being sold off?

Dr. CORLEY. I think it was on the order of a week or so before we arrived on site, on October the 5th, I believe it was.

Mr. CROWLEY. So they were—they—in other words, the city was selling or was disposing of material within two weeks of the actual event, or was it prior to that?

Dr. CORLEY. It may have been prior to that. I am not sure when the first decision was made on that. But I didn't find out—we didn't find out about it until then.

Mr. CROWLEY. Were you disturbed by that—by finding that out? Were you disturbed to find out that the city was actually disposing of or selling off that material?

Dr. CORLEY. We had previously indicated that we definitely wanted to see the steel and select quantities that were——

Mr. CROWLEY. Did you or did FEMA or any other entity actually ask or tell the City of New York to cease and desist from disposing of that material?

Dr. CORLEY. As far as the team is concerned, we made it known that we needed steel. And I don't have any knowledge that anyone had the authority even to ask them to cease and desist.

Mr. CROWLEY. So no one even asked them politely to stop selling what, in all likelihood, could be evidence? (....)

But I do believe that conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission look like a walk in the park. And that is unfortunate not only for the Members of Congress who are trying to work on this issue, but for all the families out there that are listening very carefully to what we are talking about today, what these experts are saying. And I just think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah.

Mr. CROWLEY. And I will yield back with that, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Crowley. And the whole purpose of this hearing is to get as much information as we can so that we can be very prudent and very thorough in our analysis and make the appropriate recommendations. Let me point out, in response to your line of questioning, the decision was made by the City of New York to dispose of the material before the BPAT team was even onsite. And I understand fully what the City of New York was doing. Their first interest was the search and rescue operation and they had to get the debris out of the way. And it had a BPAT team, but on site, they would have immediately said, you know, we need this. This is evidence. We need this. This is very important, so get it out of site obviously. We don't want to hamper the research—rescue operation.

But at one time, they were even talking about dumping it into the sea to build a new reef for fish. But, in any event, it just points up to the fact that the material should have been saved. And had there been a timely response of a BPAT team, had we had a protocol in place to get people onsite, we know who is in charge and when, someone would have said that. Source

Now we begin with Loose Change and the debunking-attempt by Screw Loose Change:

If only we could examine the debris from the World Trade Center and figure out what happened.
Experts did examine the debris. Extensively. The last steel wasn’t removed from the WTC site until May 29, 2002.

Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani began shipping the remains off to recycling yards overseas before investigators could even examine it. False.

No, it's true. We've just seen that the decision was made by the City of New York aka Major Giuliani. Now we will look closer into the efforts made by the experts to examine the steel. Again from the Firehouse-Article:

QUOTE

"The team of investigators - comprised of officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers - did not even get access to the site until October, a month after the attack.

They testified they never asked the city of New York not to recycle tons of steel that some experts say could hold vital clues about why the twin towers fell. And the team, which has no subpoena power, did not get access to the trade center blueprints from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey until four months after the collapse and only then after being forced to sign a form agreeing not to testify against the Port Authority."Source

QUOTE

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. (NY Daily News, 4/16/02)

From another article:

QUOTE

New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed.Source

Again from the HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE 6-03-02:

QUOTE

"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. "Source

Now-Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:

QUOTE

„If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything. “Source

Amazing statement. Has he ever heared of something like this?

Back to Loose Change, it claims that:

Not even FEMA was allowed into Ground Zero.
Screw Loose Change's answer is a simple "False." and provides us with two quotes to debunk Loose Change:

QUOTE

"At the beginning of October, the team visited the collapsed and damaged buildings at Ground Zero and over a period of six days collected a significant amount of data on building performance under extreme conditions."?Source

QUOTE

"Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and catalogued for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis (see the "deep mystery" of melted steel)".?"The investigation consisted of visiting Ground Zero, a survey of the WTC site, land-fill and steel recycling centers, review of videotape records, eyewitness accounts, interviews with building design teams, and analysis using computer models."Source

First, the Ground Zero-Tour was from October 7–12, 2001, almost a month after 9/11. At this date, there were already more than a hundred of thousand tons of debris removed, and furthermore, hundreds of tons of steel were announced as stolen. The Telegraph reported on Sept. 28:

QUOTE

"The theft of more than 250 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Centre is being investigated by the FBI and New York police who believe that it was organised by one of the city's Mafia families.

Material from the scene of the September 11 terrorist attack, consisting mainly of steel girders, was discovered earlier this week at three scrapyards, two in New Jersey and one on Long Island.

It appears that the scrap was hauled away by trucks involved in the clear-up operation. But instead of being taken to the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted it was driven directly to the independently-owned scrapyards.

So far, about 130,000 tons of the debris have been removed." Source

A similiar number has been reported three days later:

QUOTE

"By New York City estimates, debris removal to date has topped more than 115,756 tons." Source

And we've had already the quote from the Hearing before the Committee, that "a significant amount of steel debris were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. "

Second, it's the speak that the BPAT "collected a significant amount of data" during its tours. Let's see, if this is true.

FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, didn't collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study,

QUOTE

"Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)."Source (PDF)

Then it's said that:

QUOTE

"SEAoNY [Structural Engineers Association of New York] offered to organize a volunteer team of SEAoNY engineers to collect certain WTC steel pieces for future building performance studies. Visiting Ground Zero in early October 2001, SEAoNY engineers, with the assistance from the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), identified and set aside some steel pieces for further study."

To be precise, seven pieces were set aside for further study as we could read later in D.4 Data collected:

QUOTE

"The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons. As of March 15, 2002, a total of 156 steel pieces (not including most of the fasteners and other smaller pieces) had been inspected.
In addition, seven pieces were set aside from Ground Zero with assistance from the DDC."Source (PDF)

So, of a total of 156 steel pieces ("significant amount"), seven were collected from Ground Zero, not from the BPAT/FEMA, but from voluntary engineers. All other pieces were collected later and not from Ground Zero, as it is also confirmed by the Committes Hearings:

QUOTE

"Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team's behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings." Source

For the 156 pieces the SEYoNY released a "Summary of Identified WTC Steel Pieces at Salvage Yards as of March 15, 2002" , which is replicated here.
The FEMA-Report notes:

QUOTE

"Not all of these pieces were kept for further study. This is because:

-some pieces were later determined not to be relevant to understanding building damage;

-once a coupon was taken, the full piece was discarded; and

-pieces were accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.

Approximately 100 potentially helpful steel pieces were identified at the four salvage yards that had contracts to obtain and process the WTC steel debris. These pieces have been removed and transported to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland." (FEMA WTC Study, Structural Steel and Steel connections, Appendix B, Seite B2,Source (PDF))

The number of recovered pieces differs a bit in the NIST-report (maybe it includes the fasteners and other smaller pieces not counted by FEMA):

QUOTE

" A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers." (NIST NCSTAR 1-3, (PDF))

They also state a

QUOTE

“scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster.” (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. xxxvi )

Also important to note that:

QUOTE

"No steel was recovered from WTC 7." NIST NCSTAR 1-3 (PFD)

But the SEAoNY-Summary contains a few pieces from WTC7, were they also "later determined not to be relevant to understanding building damage" and didn't find their way to NIST? In May 2002, the SEAoNY claims that 41 of the 156 pieces went to NIST, why not the pieces of WTC 7? Shouldn't any kind of piece of debris of the first and only collapse of a steelframed skyscraper due to fire treated as very relevant? Let's stay for short at WTC 7.

QUOTE

"Conventional demolition of 5 WTC is not possible currently because it would get in the way of debris removal operations for the collapsed 7 WTC, which itself is a stand-alone operation." Source

And in a History Channel broadcast, in which WTC7 was a subject, Jonathan Barnett, PhD, had this to say:

QUOTE

"Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7." See the whole part on WTC 7 here

Back to FEMA:

QUOTE

"The team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence." NY Times, 3/7/02

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

1.The BPAT did not control the steel:

QUOTE

"No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA's BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts."

2.FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements:

QUOTE

"Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study: The confidential nature of the BPAT study may prevent the timely discovery of potential gaps in the investigation, which may never be filled if important, but ephemeral evidence, such as memories or home videotapes, are lost. The confidentiality agreement that FEMA requires its BPAT members to sign has frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse, who are unsure if their work is complementary to, or duplicative of, that of the BPAT team. In addition, the agreement has prevented the sharing of research results and the ordinary scientific give-and-take that otherwise allows scientists and engineers to winnow ideas and strengthen results. (....). Others fear that the BPAT’s silence on the scope of its report may allow critical aspects of the picture to be missed, and that, by the time the report is released and any such gaps are discovered, the trail of evidence that could provide answers may have grown cold."

This was also mentioned in an article of the New York Times, where it's said that

QUOTE

"Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press."Source

3.The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.":

QUOTE

"Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records:The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns. The documents are necessary to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future."

4. "The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

QUOTE

"Uncertainty as to the strategy for completing the investigation and applying the lessons learned: The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings. (Its report is expected to rely largely on audio and video tapes of the event.) Nor does it plan to examine other important issues, such as building evacuation mechanisms. Instead, FEMA has asked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation. Yet so far, NIST has not released a detailed plan describing how it will take over the investigation, what types of analyses it will conduct, how it will attempt to apply the lessons it learns to try to improve building and fire codes, and how much funding it will require."

House Science Committe, 3/6/02

And to the role of the National Science Foundation the Committe has this to say:

QUOTE

"The efforts of NSF-funded researchers were impeded by the same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, either removed from the site during the early search and rescue work or shipped to recycling plants, and the denial of access to building design, construction and maintenance documents. (...)

To date, the NSF-funded researchers continue to face problems. They continue to be denied access to important building diagrams and blueprints, and so are unable to complete their analyses or develop the computer models necessary to better understand the failure of the buildings structural elements. Perhaps more importantly, without these computer models, engineering researchers will be unable to develop effective mitigation strategies."See also

Also Bill Manning, editor of "Fire Engineering Magazine", expressed his concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:

QUOTE

„Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.“ Source

He also condemned the destruction of steel, demanding that

QUOTE

"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."
"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

And Manning compared the procedure with past disasters:

QUOTE

„Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.“

And this is from the New York Times,12/25/01 :

QUOTE

"Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling."

Experts critical of the current effort, including some of those people who are actually conducting it, cite the lack of meaningful financial support and poor coordination with the agencies cleaning up the disaster site. They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed.

...structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.

Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments.Source

On the first anniversary of the attacks, The Times wrote,

QUOTE

"the public knows less about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in the middle of an ocean in the dead of night." [NYT 7/23/02]

And here are somes testimonies made before the Science Committee of the House of Representatives on March 6 2000:
Congressman Boehlert, Chairman of the Science Committee of the House of representatives:

QUOTE

"I must say that the current investigation- some would argue that 'review' is the more appropriate word- seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy" and "…valuable evidence has been lost irretrievably, and blueprints were unavailable for months." Source

Professor Glenn P. Corbett, John Jay College of Criminal Justice:

QUOTE

"Without an investigative presence, the FEMA-sanctioned assessment team did not have the authority - nor the organizational wherewithal - to ensure that all of the structural steel was thoroughly examined and the crucial steel from the points of impact saved for examination. Only a handful of pieces of steel from the points of impact have been secured to date. In addition, the BPAT studying the collapse has apparently been hampered in accessing building construction documents. These hindrances will have an impact on the BPAT report, due to be released in April. The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse.
The collapse of the World Trade Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget."

He further noted:

QUOTE

"The steel holds the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting in the collapse." Source

In a letter to Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director, Office of Management and Budget, the committee wrote:

QUOTE

"There was unanimity among the witnesses on the need for a comprehensive assessment and research agenda to address evacuation procedures, emergency response, and structural analysis of the site's buildings."

"However, we are concerned that NIST does not have the financial resources to implement its plan. Although NIST has alocated $2 million for its efforts, the FEMA-BPAT has estimated that $40 million would be required to fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity."

"We have also been troubled by accounts that the BPAT did not have immediate access to the WTC site. As a result, structural steel artifacts were destroyed that may have been important to the investigation." Source (PDF)

(See also this reports: CBS New York Times )

Back again to (Screw) Loose Change:

Essentially, they blocked off a crime scene and destroyed all the evidence. False.
Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

QUOTE

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures". Source

I see a problem here with the quote provided by Screw Loose Change:

1. Corley also says in his testimony: "Resources allocated to support our BPA team's activities is about 1 million. In our opinion, 40 million would be sufficient."

2. We've already seen that his statement about having full access is just not true.

3. Please read again to understand the „logic“ of Dr. Corley:

„At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures“

Ever heard of something similar relayed to a crime scene? Ever heard that the FBI would say. „No, we don't need full access to a car that was used in a crime, because it makes no significant difference in the understanding of the structure of the car.“? What is this man talking about? Of course you need to have access to EVERY piece in a crime scene. And of course it's a crime to remove and destroy pieces of a crime scene before investigators have examined them. And to say that it makes no difference to understand the performance of the structure makes only sense when the conclusion (plane crash + fires) is actually made before the investigation even begins. If you take an alternative explanation into consideration, like explosives, would it also make no significant difference to having access to each piece of steel?

See how others are faced with going to prison for 10 and 15 years for taking away debris of the Space Shattle Columbia with the intent to keep it up: Consequences of Stealing Space Shuttle Debris --- See also
Think of it: people who remove debris and keep it are threatened with prison for many years and to pay up to 500.000 $ . People who remove and destroy debris from a crime scene of mass-murder are punished with ....nothing....or with the position of the major of NYC (Bloomberg)!

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

There were also stories about a leaked report prepared by the Pentagon, stating that their two experts working independently of one another came to the same conclusions like General Parton. Source
Note also, that besides Gene Corley, the authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building, Charles Thornton (from the Thornton-Tomasseti-Group!) and Mete Sozeny, were among the initial team of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. Furthermore, the fourth author on the Murrah Building report was Paul Mlakar, who headed the Pentagon investigation:

QUOTE

"the Pentagon team is headed by Paul Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi." Source

Quoting Kevin Ryan:

QUOTE

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

That's a very good question.

Considering that never before steelframed-skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, and that the towers were built to withstand an impact of a boeing (which they obviously did), it's also a good question why Corley was so sure that the towers would collapse , when rescue-workers, firefighters, etc didn't even think of it? Source
Besides Corley, there were six other authors of the FEMA report who became authors of the NIST report. (Therese McAllister, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, William Baker, Harold Nelson, Ramon Gilsanz). Isn't it strange, that the collapse explanations offered by both reports are quite different though many of the authors are identical? Even more strange when you think of the Weidlinger Study, commissed by Silverstein for his insurance claim, because it was released only five months after the FEMA report. The Weidlinger study blames column - not truss - failure for the collapses.

As failures of truss supports could indicate a design fault, and therefore fail to support the "two occurrances" claimed by Silverstein, the explanation for collapse had to be shifted from the trusses to the columns. Guess who also shifted? Right, Gene Corley (btw. Thornton-Tomasetti Group was also involved in the Weidlinger Study). Source
Why would the same individual endorse two contradictory theories in their different roles? Apparently for political and economic reasons.

I think it's safe to say that the principal witness of Screw Loose Change is in a deep conflict of interest.

And for the last time Loose Change vs Screw Loose Change:

Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.
"Allowed into the site?" They were the major cleanup contractor. They are acknowledged as the best in the world. Why mention the OK City bombing? What's that got to do with the WTC? Do you just like things that go boom?

I think the Screw Loose Change comment speaks for itself, and in some way, this does, too:

QUOTE

"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s (CDI's) international experience with products of the world’s explosives manufacturers, and the paralleled knowledge of the intentional inducement of progressive collapse, positions our groups perfectly to assess the risk of terrorists activities adjacent to existing structures. Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s in-house explosive and anti-terrorist database provides information necessary to respond to questions raised by the most discerning of clients on an absolutely confidential basis.

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on short notice.
Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate clearances and internal controls to support federal agencies involved in domestic or foreign investigations which involve the gathering of criminal evidence critical to our precepts of due process."Source

Bottom line: Loose Change is backed up by the facts, Screw Loose Change has not debunked Loose Change.