Appendix
9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers
https://911Pilots.org website by Captain Dan Hanley
Captain Dan Hanley is an American citizen who has resided in Islamabad, Pakistan, since 2009 with his wonderful and very supportive Muslim wife. He is the director and international public spokesperson of the global “9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers”. One of his objectives is to show that there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9/11 aircraft. If aircraft flew into the Twin Towers, they could have been hijacked by an uninterruptible autopilot system that enables a remote source to take complete control of the aircraft and guide it to the desired destination. Once engaged remotely, the pilot cannot disconnect the system.
Experienced pilots know that the novice “Muslim hijackers” could never have flown the advanced commercial jets on 9/11, when Hanjour barely passed flight lessons in a little Cessna. Even highly trained pilots could not have flown the given profiles on that fateful day. We have interviews with experienced pilots who are willing to look at the actual data and explain the skills and aptitudes a pilot must master to be able to fly advanced commercial jets like those that were possibly used on 9/11.
In addition to the 3000 people killed in the WTC Twin Towers, millions of additional people have been killed, maimed, and/or displaced from their homelands in the Middle East and South Asia as a result of the horrific 9/11 crimes. Furthermore, the Muslim community has been persecuted by falsely blaming Muslims for something that they could NEVER have done.
YouTube Videos for 911Pilots
https://www.youtube.com/@911pilots4 There are over 50 relevant videos on this YouTube channel for 911Pilots. If you are reading the paperback version of this book, it is probably a lot easier to simply go to this YouTube address and search for the videos you want to watch, than to try and type the associated video address.
https://www.brighteon.com/channels/captaindanhanley/home The above YouTube videos are also duplicated here, just in case YouTube decides to remove these videos.
https://rumble.com/user/Captaindanhanley The above videos on YouTube will also be duplicated here if YouTube & Brighteon both decide to remove these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMJAlwPeTt8 [2-28-2020 | 58:03] United Airlines Whistleblower Captain Dan Hanley Launches 911pilots.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1j4EMVLRMI [5-22-2021 | 5:13] Introduction to 911 Pilot Whistleblowers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acv1DwM9EG8 [2-24-2020 | 3:24] Captain Dan Hanley on Malaysian TV discusses uninterruptible autopilot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUOpzmgOBwI [4-18-2020 | 1:05:17] Interview of Captain Dan Hanley by Brendon O'Connell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r5Hdj7b_A [7-4-2020 | 46:12] Pilots for 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo interview of Wayne Anderson regarding uninterruptible autopilot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63TTxDBAgwU [9-2-2020 | 36:46] Interview of Captain Dan Hanley by UK-based David Scott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8e3L3FmvkI [9-8-2020 | 15:33] Captain Doug Greene interview by Captain Dan Hanley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24CvtjdNcoE [10-8-2021 | 24:42] PAF Wing Commander and PIA Captain Arif Najmi interview by Captain Dan Hanley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6Xr1pU_0wQ [10-10-2020 | 14:54] Captain Hadi Rizvi interview by Captain Dan Hanley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZcwnD7T50 [3-4-2022 | 1:05:04] 9/11 author-investigator Aidan Monaghan interview by Captain Dan Hanley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGpJFZxi5sI [3-5-2022 | 36:03] 9/11 Author- Whistleblower Mark Gaffney interview by Captain Dan Hanley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPyVWVyvnw0 [2-13-2023 | 1:06:00] Charlie Robinson interviews 9/11 Pilot Whistleblower Captain Dan Hanley
“Coalition of the Willing” or “Coalition of the Cowards”?
https://911pilots.org/subj-will-we-be-viewed-as-the-coalition-of-the-willing This is the website page where much of the following can be found.
Dear Honorable OIC Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha and the Honorable Ministers of Foreign Affairs representatives to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation,
The 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers leadership, its members and other organization members are extremely saddened, disappointed and bewildered at the total unresponsiveness of the global Muslim leadership to our invitation to join the following organizations, who comprise part of the “9/11 Truth – Coalition of the Willing”, in support of an “International Islamic Commission for 9/11 Inquiry”:
https://www.ae911truth.org Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
https://911pilots.org 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers
https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
https://richardgage911.org RichardGage911.org
https://ic911.org International Center for 9/11 Justice
https://911pilots.org/our-whistleblowing-affiliates Other Whistleblowing Affiliates
Together, the above-named organizations have more than ample proof to show that the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition and that the 9/11 aircraft were electronically hijacked and remotely controlled.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the United Nations of the Muslim Community who claims itself to be the collective voice of the Muslim world. The 57 Ministers of Foreign Affairs representatives to this institution act on behalf of the 2-billion Muslim people on the planet.
The “9/11 Truth – Coalition of the Willing” is comprised of those 9/11 truth organizations and individuals working in collaboration with the courageous leadership of the 57 member Muslim countries, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, that comprise the body of the OIC, who are bold enough to step forward with evidence and testimony that demonstrates that the official 9/11 story is grossly in error.
A wealth of 9/11 information, evidence and testimony has been laid at the feet of the OIC by the above-named organizations and its membership to act upon and, yet to date, this has not occurred.
Why not? We believe that these member nation’s leaders fear severe reprisals, up to and including death, by the real powers that be that ordered the 9/11 hit if they were to engage in such a bold legal venture. Additionally, we feel that they dread the harsh and punitive financial reprisals their country’s citizens would endure should they challenge the official 9/11 story and those hideous people who planned and executed it. One needs to look no further than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya for examples.
Why else would one refuse to participate in a legal process that would expose the truth surrounding the lies of 9/11 that villainized Islam and 2-billion Muslims on earth and was the greatest crime of our lifetimes? Isn’t the OIC the voice of Muslims worldwide and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs their representatives?
Now is not the time for moral cowardice. The sinister powers that brought down Hussein and Gaddafi were among those who committed the horrific atrocities of 9/11. These powers cannot thwart the efforts of 57 collaborating countries publicly working in concert with 9/11 whistleblowing organizations and individuals…or can they?
The ghost of the great and noble Muslim warrior Saladin is rolling over in his grave over the timidity and outright cowardice that has been displayed by inaction thus far regarding the lies of 9/11 by the global Muslim leadership.
The choice is yours to make…will we be viewed as the “Coalition of the Willing” or the “Coalition of the Cowards”? You decide.
Everyone knows that Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with the crimes of 9/11. Isn’t it about time we all quit pretending amongst ourselves that he did? It is time to grow some spine.
Kindly review the attached letters that have been mailed to the OIC Secretary General and others regarding these issues to which we never received a single response from any recipient.
Very Respectfully,
Captain Dan Hanley (retired)
Director – 9/11 Truth – Coalition of the Willing
9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers
Islamabad, Pakistan
Plausibility of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated by GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems; by Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf [June 2012]
Abstract: The alleged flight performances of inexperienced terrorist pilots accused of operating complex flight control systems of four aircraft during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has surprised observers. Moreover, official information presented to demonstrate terrorist pilot control of the said aircraft has been either unverifiable or demonstrated to contain noteworthy anomalies. The flight paths of the September 11, 2001 attack aircraft bear characteristics common to the capabilities provided by precision automated flight control systems and related commercial aviation technology that emerged prior to these attacks. The unreported use of augmented GPS guided auto-pilot aircraft systems in order to perform the said aircraft attacks is hypothesized.
Introduction: U.S. federal government and civil aviation industry publications describe the development and implementation pre-September 11, 2001, of state-of the-art systems capable of facilitating precise automated navigation of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft used that day to a given destination. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost. The information signal can be obtained through the use of GPS signal receiving equipment.
Augmented GPS signal service intended to replace dated and expensive ground-based aviation navigation signals, was developed during the mid-to-late 1990s by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Raytheon. Serving on Raytheon's Special Advisory Board was "Project for the New American Century" signatory Richard Armitage, although it is unknown precisely when he served in this capacity. Known as the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), precisely surveyed ground-based Wide Area Reference Stations monitor and collect GPS satellite signal errors. Ground-based Wide-area Master Stations then transmit corrected GPS signal information to ground-based Ground Uplink Stations that then transmit the corrected GPS signal information to Geostationary Satellites. These satellites then broadcast the corrected positional information back to Earth for use within a GPS-like signal.
On May 1, 2000, just 16 months prior September 11, 2001, President Clinton announced that intentionally embedded position and timing errors in GPS data (Selective Availability or SA) would end. SA was implemented to deter abuse of GPS in the national security interest. The FAA later announced on August 24, 2000, just 13 months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, that the WAAS signal was available pending final approval by the FAA. Horizontal and vertical positional data accurate to between one to three meters and sufficient for Category I precision aircraft runway approaches, was now available throughout the contiguous United States. Normal GPS service only provides placement accuracy to within 100 meters. Conventional en route aviation navigation beacon signals were only able to provide placement information accurate to within one mile. Raytheon's director of satellite navigation systems reported that rescue personnel utilized the newly activated WAAS signal, in order to precisely survey the Ground Zero site following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Remote Controlled Aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot. Although Boeing didn’t patent this uninterruptible autopilot until 2006, there exist witness testimonies showing that the system was developed and produced in the early to mid-1990s prior to 9/11/2001. Also, when you do a patent search for similar technology, there are relevant patents prior to 2001, which means that this technology was already being developed prior to 2001.
https://911pilots.org/remote-controlled-aircraft Remote Controlled Aircraft
How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77
https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-fbi-and-9-11-commission-suppressed-key-evidence-about-hani-hanjour-alleged-hijack-pilot-of-aal-77/14290 [7-7-2009 | by Mark H. Gaffney] Footnote references can be viewed in this original article.
The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver. But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in bite-size pieces…
In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transferred custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[1] There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.
As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until November, 2002–––more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”[2] Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this independent research was a matter of public record, which created a serious problem for the 9/11 Commission…
By all accounts Hani Hanjour was a diminutive fellow. He stood barely five feet tall and was slight of build. As a young man in his hometown of Taif, Saudi Arabia, Hanjour cultivated no great dreams of flying airplanes. He was satisfied with a more modest ambition: he wanted to become a flight attendant. That is, until his older brother Abulrahman encouraged him to aim higher. Even so, Hani Hanjour’s aptitude for learning appears to have been rather limited. Although he resided in the US for about 38 months over a ten-year period that ended on 9/11, Hanjour never learned to speak or write English, a telling observation about his capacity for learning. As we will discover, he actually flunked a written test for a driver’s license just weeks before 9/11.
While it is true that Hanjour trained at various flight schools in the US, the evidence shows he was a perpetual novice. Hanjour dropped out of his first school, the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, located in Oakland, after attending only a few classes. Next, he enrolled at Cockpit Resource Management (CRM), a flight school in Scottsdale, Arizona. But his performance as a student at CRM was less than adequate. Duncan K.M. Hastie, owner of the school, described Hanjour as “a weak student” who was “wasting our resources.”[3]
After several weeks, Hanjour withdrew from the program, then returned in 1997 for another short period of instruction. This on and off pattern of behavior was typical of the man. Hastie says that over the next three years Hanjour called him at least twice a year, and each time wanted to return for more training. By this time, however, it was obvious to Hastie that his erstwhile student had no business in a cockpit. Hastie refused to let Hanjour come back. “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’.”[4]
Rejected by CRM, Hanjour enrolled at nearby Sawyer Aviation, also located in the Phoenix area. Wes Fults, a former instructor at Sawyer, later described it as the school of last resort. Said Fults: “it was a commonly held truth that, if you failed anywhere else, go to Sawyer.” Fults remembers training Hanjour, whom he describes as “a neophyte.” He says Hani “got overwhelmed with the instruments” in the school’s flight simulator. “He had only the barest understanding of what the instruments were there to do,” said Fults. “He [Hanjour] used the simulator three or four times, then disappeared like a fog.”[5] I must emphasize to the reader, I am not making this up. Other accounts by Newsday, the New York Times, as well as the FOX network, all confirm that Hani Hanjour was at best a novice pilot.
Evading the Language Requirement
In fact, because fluency in English is required to qualify for a US pilot’s license, Hanjour’s atrocious English should have barred him from ever obtaining a license. But it seems that Hanjour exploited a loophole in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system, which for years has outsourced the pilot certification process. According to a June 2002 story in the Dallas Morning News, Hanjour was certified in April 1999 as an “Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot” by Daryl Strong, one of the FAA’s 20,000 designated pilot examiners.[6] Although an FAA official later defended the agency’s policy of using private contractors, a critic, Heather Awsumb, took issue with it. Awsumb is a spokesperson for the Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS) Union, which represents more than 11,000 FAA and Defense Department employees. She pointed out that the FAA does not have anywhere near enough staff to oversee its 20,000 designated inspectors, all of whom have a financial interest in certifying as many pilots as possible. It seems that Hanjour evaded the language requirement by finding an examiner willing to ignore the rule. Said Awsumb: “They receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check. If they get a reputation for being too tough, they won’t get any business.” According to Awsumb, the present system allows “safety to be sold to the lowest bidder.”[7]
Later, Hanjour’s horrible English prompted one flight school, Jet Tech, to question the authenticity of his FAA-approved pilot’s license. Jet Tech was another school in the Phoenix area where Hanjour sought continuing instruction. Peggy Chevrette, operation manager at Jet Tech, later told FOX News: “I couldn’t believe that he had a license of any kind with the skills that he had.”[8] She explained that Hanjour’s English was so bad it took him five hours to complete an oral exam that normally should have taken about two.
But it wasn’t just his poor English that failed to impress. In his evaluation the Jet Tech flight instructor wrote that the “student [Hanjour] made numerous errors during his performance and displayed a lack of understanding of some basic concepts. The same was true during review of systems knowledge….
“I doubt his ability to pass an FAA [Boeing 737] oral at this time or in the near future.” The 737 instructor concluded his evaluation with a final entry: “He [Hanjour] will need much more experience flying smaller A/C [aircraft] before he is ready to master large jets.”[9] The 9/11 Commission Report fails to discuss or even mention this negative written evaluation, even while presenting Hanjour’s substandard performance in a Boeing 737 simulator as sufficient evidence that Hanjour could fly a Boeing 757, an even larger plane![10] The wording of the final report succeeds in giving this impression, however dubious, even while obscuring the facts: an amazing achievement of propaganda.
Early in 2001, Peggy Chevrette, the operation manager at Jet Tech, contacted the FAA repeatedly to convey her concerns about Hanjour. Eventually John Anthony, a federal inspector, showed up at the school and examined Hanjour’s credentials. But Anthony found them in order and took no further action. The inspector even suggested that Jet Tech provide Hanjour with an interpreter. This surprised Chevrette because it was a violation of FAA rules. “The thing that really concerned me,” she later told FOX News, “Was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English.”[11] Evidently, the inspector also sat in on a class with Hanjour.
FOX News was unable to reach John Anthony for comment, but FAA spokesperson Laura Brown defended the FAA employee. “There was nothing about the pilot’s actions” she said, “to signal criminal intent or that would have caused us to alert law enforcement.”[12] This is true enough. The Jet Tech staff never suspected that Hani Hanjour was a terrorist. According to Marilyn Ladner, vice-president Pan Am International, the company that owned Jet Tech, “It was more of a very typical instructional concern that ‘you really shouldn’t be in the air’.”[13] Although Pan Am dissolved its Jet Tech operation shortly after 9/11, a former employee who knew Hanjour expressed amazement “that he [Hanjour] could have flown into the Pentagon. [because] He could not fly at all.”[14]
The “Scouting” Flights
We know that in the months before the September 11, 2001 attack Hani Hanjour rented planes at several small airports on the outskirts of New York City and Washington DC. The 9/11 Commission Report mentions these local flights and suggests that Hanjour was scouting the terrain: familiarizing himself with possible suicide targets.[15] But the record also shows the same pattern described above. For example, on May 29, 2001 Hanjour rented a plane at a small airport in Teterboro, New Jersey and flew “the Hudson Tour,” accompanied by a flight instructor. However, the next day, when Hanjour returned for a repeat flight the same instructor “would not allow it because of Hanjour’s poor piloting skills.”[16] The 9/11 Commission Report actually cites this incident, but in a context that diminishes its significance.[17]
The pattern played out again on August 16-17, 2001 when Hanjour attempted to rent a plane at Freeway Airport, in Bowie, Maryland, about twenty miles from Washington. Although Hanjour presented his FAA license, according to Newsday the Freeway airport manager insisted that instructors first accompany him on a test flight to evaluate his piloting skills. During three such flights over two days in a single-engine Cessna 172, instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner observed what others had before them. Hanjour had trouble controlling and landing the aircraft. Afterward, Baxter interviewed Hanjour extensively about his flight training and experience, and also reviewed his flight log, which documented 600 hours of flight time. On this basis she and Conner declined to approve a current license rating until Hanjour returned for more training. On their recommendation, Freeway’s chief instructor Marcel Bernard refused to rent Hanjour a plane.[18] Notice, this was less than a month before 9/11. When I reached Bernard by phone, he confirmed the details of the story by Newsday.[19] So did Ben Conner when I spoke with him.[20] Conner also emphasized that the issue was not simply Hanjour’s poor English. It was everything, i.e., his general ineptitude.
Curiously, The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges Hanjour’s poor English and sub-standard flying skills. The report even mentions that flight instructors had urged Hanjour to give up trying to become a pilot.[21] Strangely, however, another passage (in a footnote) describes Hanjour as “the [al Qaeda] operation’s most experienced pilot,” suggesting that the commission had a mixed opinion about Hanjour.[22] In the end the official investigation evidently interpreted Hanjour’s FAA license as sufficient proof that he had “persevered” in overcoming his issues.[23] The word “persevered” is straight out of the report.
But why did the commission ignore the multiple open-sourced accounts cited above, all mutually corroborative, indicating that Hanjour would have been lost in the cockpit of a Boeing 757 and was barely qualified to fly a single-engine Cessna? It is notable that The 9/11 Commission Report fails to mention the negative written evaluation by Hanjour’s Jet Tech flight instructor. The omission is serious because a glance at the timeline shows that Hanjour’s 5-6 weeks of training at Jet Tech occurred in February-March 2001, that is, after he had already earned his FAA license. Perseverance obviously was not enough. The instructor’s negative evaluation was based on Hanjour’s actual skill-set at the time, license or no license. Nor does the final report so much as mention Hanjour’s test flight at Freeway airport, or the fact that he failed it. These are telling omissions. Obviously, the commission screened out testimony that conflicted with the official narrative of what happened on that terrible day. However, this is not the full story. As we are about to learn, the recently released 9/11 files have raised disturbing new questions.
The Other Flight Instructor
It turns out that just three days after Hani Hanjour failed a flight evaluation in a Cessna 172 at Freeway airport, he showed up at Congressional Air Charters, located down the road at Gaithersburg airport, also in the Washington suburbs. Once again Hanjour attempted to rent a plane, and again he was asked to go up with an instructor for a flight evaluation to confirm his flight skills. The plane was the same: a Cessna 172. Yet, on this occasion Hanjour passed with flying colors and, later, this other instructor gave testimony to the commission that turned out to be crucial. The final report mentions the instructor’s name only once in a brief endnote buried at the back of the report. The note states:
Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charter of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview. (Apr. 9, 2004)[24]
The note gives a name, Eddie Shalev, but no other information about him. Indeed, his identity remained a mystery until January 2009, when NARA released the 9/11 files.[25] Nonetheless, David Ray Griffin had already identified the key questions in his 2008 book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. Wrote Griffin: “How could an instructor in Gaithersburg [i.e., Shalev] have had such a radically different view of Hanjour’s abilities from that of all of the other flight instructors who worked with him? Who was this instructor? How could this report be verified?”[26]
These are important questions because the two assessments of Hani Hanjour’s flight skills are so radically different that both cannot be correct. The evaluations, made just days apart, are contradictory, hence, mutually exclusive; which raises the disturbing possibility that someone could be lying.
The FBI File
Fortunately, another newly released document, the FBI file on Hani Hanjour, sheds additional light on the case.[27] The file includes a timeline and evidently was compiled to document the government’s case against Hanjour. I learned about it from a source on the commission, a staffer who insisted to me in an email that it authenticates Hani Hanjour’s flight training. At a glance it appears to do that. However, on closer examination the file is much less impressive and I have to wonder if the staffer actually studied it. As we will see, the document not only falls short of confirming Hanjour’s flight skills, it shows signs of having been “enhanced” to obscure the record.
Crucially, the FBI file includes not a scintilla of evidence that Hani Hanjour ever trained in a Boeing 757. Although Hanjour did some sessions a Boeing 737 simulator, as we have already seen, the press accounts, more importantly, his own instructor’s written evaluation, offer a clear and unambiguous assessment of his actual skills. It is also important to realize that even if Hanjour had mastered the controls of a Boeing 737, this would not have qualified him to execute a high-speed suicide crash in a Boeing 757, a significantly larger and less maneuverable aircraft. Such is the view of commercial pilots who fly these planes every day.[28]
One such pilot, Philip Marshall, who is licensed to fly Boeing 727s, 737s, 747s, as well as 757s and 767s, recently authored a book, False Flag 911, in which he states categorically that the alleged 9/11 hijacker pilots, including Hani Hanjour, could never have flown 767s and 757s into buildings at high speed without advanced training and practice flights in that same aircraft over a period of months. As Marshall put it: “Hitting a 90-foot target [i.e., the Pentagon] with a 757 at 500 mph is extremely difficult — absolutely impossible for first-time fliers of a heavy airliner. It’s like seeing Tiger Woods hit a 300-yard one-iron and someone telling you he never practiced the shot.”[29] Marshall speculates that the hijackers may have received advanced flight lessons from Arabic-speaking instructors at a secret desert base somewhere in Arizona or Nevada, possibly arranged by complicit Saudi diplomats, or by members of the Saudi royal family.[30] This is why Hanjour’s inability to pass a test flight evaluation at Freeway airport just weeks before 9/11 is so significant: It tends to rule out Marshall’s theory of advanced instruction.
Close inspection of the FBI file also shows that someone padded the record to put the best face on Hanjour’s flight training. This was done in a curious way. Instead of simply informing us that Hanjour took courses “x,” “y” and “z” at such-and-such a flight school between certain dates, the FBI file gives an itemized record of every single day that Hanjour showed up for training at the various schools. The effect creates the appearance of more extensive instruction than actually occurred. Even so, the enhancement is transparently obvious. Imagine the reaction of a potential employer if you or I engaged in this dubious practice in a resume. On closer examination, another reason for padding the record is also obvious. Enhancement tends to obscure Hanjour’s tendency to jump around from school to school and his inability to finish anything he started.
The FBI file also conspicuously fails to mention the Jet Tech instructor’s written evaluation of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills. The omission easily qualifies as suppression of evidence because we know the FBI had the document in its possession. It was made public at the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui when the document was submitted as evidence. This means, of course that the 9/11 Commission also surely had it and similarly suppressed it. (See note #9.)
The FBI file also grossly mischaracterizes what happened at Freeway airport. The file mentions Hanjour’s visits but wrongly indicates that Hanjour received flight instruction. Not true. When I specifically asked Marcel Bernard about this, he denied the fact and emphasized that Hanjour’s test flights included no lessons and were strictly for the purpose of evaluation.[31] The FBI should have known as much because after 9/11 Bernard and his two flight instructors notified the FBI about Hanjour’s visit and were subsequently interviewed by FBI agents. The file also conspicuously fails to mention that Hanjour flunked his test flight evaluation! Whether through incompetence or deception, the FBI failed on every point to state the facts correctly.
The FBI file does offer some fresh insights into Hani Hanjour the man. On August 2, 2001, according to the timeline, Hanjour showed up at the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in Arlington, where he flunked a standard written test for a Virginia driver’s license. The fact is astonishing and ought to make us wonder how Hanjour ever managed to acquire his previous Arizona driver’s license issued in 1991 and his Florida license issued in 1996, let alone master the controls of a Boeing 757.
There is another interesting item. The record indicates that on September 5, 2001, just six days before 9/11, Hanjour showed up at the First Union National Bank in Laurel, Maryland where he made four failed bank transactions. The file cites bank records showing that Hanjour was unable to make balance inquiries and withdraw funds from his account because he failed to enter the correct pin number, which he evidently had forgotten! Two days later, Hanjour returned to the bank, this time accompanied by an unidentified male, and made another unsuccessful attempt to withdraw $4900.
It is astonishing the FBI file was ever touted as authenticating Hanjour’s flight credentials. The document falls short on that score and actually raises new questions. How likely is it that a man who was unable to remember his own pin number, and who just weeks before 9/11 flunked a simple test for a driver’s license, could have executed a top gun maneuver in a commercial airliner? The odds, I would submit, are approximately zero.
The FBI file includes one other curious entry. On August 20, 2001 Hanjour shopped at Travelocity.com for information about September 5, 2001 flights from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles. This suggests that as of August 20 Hanjour did not yet know the date of the planned attack, either because he had not been briefed or because the date had not yet been selected. By the end of the month, however, the die was cast. On August 31 Hanjour and another “middle-eastern male” purchased one-way tickets for AA Flight 77 from a New Jersey travel agent. The date of departure: September 11, 2001. Yet, given Hanjour’s level of skill, one has to wonder what the waif from Taif believed was supposed to happen on that fateful morning.
So, Who is Eddie Shalev?
The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. This is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.
So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labeled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr. Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33] Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.
But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters…[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”
The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev? Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?
Real people have known addresses. But the current whereabouts of Eddie Shalev is unknown. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Recent searches by Woodworth and myself indicate that an “Eddy Shalev” resided in Rockville, Maryland as recently as 2007. However, the associated phone number is no longer in service. The 9/11 memorandum raises the possibility that Shalev may have returned to Israel. Clearly, the man needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a new investigation, even if this necessitates extradition. Quinn John Tamm and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points for a new 9/11 investigation.
Given his identity, the search for and possible extradition of Eddie Shalev could become controversial. But 9/11 investigators must not be turned aside. We must follow the trail of evidence, regardless. Should it lead into a dark wood, we must resolve to go there; and if it takes us to the gates of hell, so be it. When our search obtains a certain critical mass, momentum will shift decisively in our favor. Public support for a new 9/11 investigation will become irresistible. The light of truth will do the rest…
Transcript of Interview with Mark H. Gaffney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGpJFZxi5sI [3-5-2022 | 36:03] 9/11 Author- Whistleblower Mark Gaffney interview by Captain Dan Hanley
This interview references the above article that was also written by Mark Gaffney: “How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77”.
Dan Hanley: Hello, my name is Captain Dan Hanley. I currently serve as director and international public spokesperson for a global grassroots effort called 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers, whose website is at 911Pilots.org and YouTube channel at 911Pilots if you'd like additional information on it.
But basically, the purpose of our organization is to show that there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9/11/2001 aircraft, but that the aircraft were electronically hijacked through employment of a system called the Uninterruptible Autopilot that enables a remote source to take complete control of the aircraft's autopilot and flight management computers and fly the aircraft to its designated target.
Now once this system is engaged, the pilots can no longer disconnect it. And if you disbelieve that a large commercial jet aircraft could be electronic hijacked, I suggest you go to that website at 911Pilots.org and go to the “Remote Control” page on the drop-down Menu, and you will see that it is entirely possible for them to be remotely controlled.
So today I have with me Mark Gaffney. He lives in Chiloquin, Oregon. He's the author of several books. Two of them, well, three actually, if you consider the second edition of the book, but three books on 9/11. The first book that he wrote was in 2008, and it was called the “9/11 Mystery Plane: And the Vanishing of America” with another 9/11 truther, David Ray Griffin.
And that's about the E4B that was seen circling over Washington D.C. on 9/11. I'll let Mark talk about that if he'd like to. And the second book he wrote was in 2012, and it's called “Black 9/11: Money, Motive, and Technology”. And the third was the second edition to that book, and it's called “Black 9/11: How Cutting-Edge Technology Was Used Against the American People on September 11, 2001”.
So, I'm embarrassed to admit, Mark, I didn't read your books, but they both sound very, they all sound very interesting. Mark, thanks for doing this interview, and maybe you'd like to tell people a little bit more about yourself, how you got into the Truth Movement and became an author.
Mark Gaffney: Thank you, Dan. Glad to be with you.
Let me just say up front that I'm very pleased that somebody is picking up this issue, even if it is late in the game, you know, and running with it, because there is no statute of limitations for murder, and that's what we have here. We have mass murder of Americans to further a foreign policy agenda, in my opinion, so I'm glad you're doing this, what you're doing.
So, I got into this in 2006. I was late coming to the issue. Somebody passed me a copy of David Ray Griffin's book, “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11”, and you know, that got me asking questions and then when I heard about this, I was contacted by a researcher who had been looking into these E4Bs flying over Washington during the attacks and he got into the archives of one of the networks. I'm trying to remember if it was CNN. I think it was CNN and he actually got the footage that had been stored there, somehow. I got access to it and he shared that with me and that really got me started on the first book.
And then I found out so much, I couldn't include it all in one book, so I did a second book, a follow-up book, “Black 9/11” and investigated some of these other related issues and that included Hani Hanjour, who supposedly we are told, flew flight 77 into the Pentagon. Now I had access to the 9/11 radar data because a colleague, John Farmer, acquired the 9/11 raid's radar data from the government through a Freedom of Information Act request and made that available to me.
So that was extremely helpful in piecing together the story that I, that I learned, you know, what I found out, and we had flight 77. I just want to say up front here, I try to avoid the Pentagon strike because it's so, you know, divisive, but we had flight 77 on radar the entire time from Dulles until it hit the Pentagon.
So, in the photographs of the Pentagon, unfortunately the ones that show the big hole in the side of the building never got much attention. All we saw was this photograph of a little tiny hole and people thought it was a missile hole, but there was a big area that got hit and definitely large enough, you know, to accommodate a flight, a Boeing 757.
So, I have no doubt about that. I just want to say that and get that out of the way. But anyway, the Hani Hanjour issue is vital. I don't question that 77 hit the Pentagon, but Hani Hanjour was not able to fly that plane. The research I did, still no one has refuted. It's still valid today. The research I did back then.
Dan Hanley: Oh, I'd like to just mention, because a lot of people may not be familiar with who specifically Hani Hanjour was. He was a 29-year-old Saudi Arabian who came to the States in the 90s to train and went back to Saudi Arabia and then returned before 9/11 to try to continue his training.
But basically, as Mark mentioned, he took off from Washington Dulles Airport heading west and got to cruising altitude, made a U-turn, a 180 degree turn back into Washington D.C., and started his descent. At around 7,000 feet, he commenced his 330-degree descending, accelerating, corkscrew turn to arrive precisely at the surface without skidding on the surface at 500 knots to strike the Office of Naval Intelligence on his first try.
Now we're going to get into Hani Hanjour's experience, or lack thereof. Now this very experiment, there's another grassroots organization called “Pilots for 9/11 Truth”. They rented some simulator time and put highly experienced pilots in the seat. And when they tried to accomplish this maneuver, they crashed the simulator and yet we're led to believe by the “9/11 Commission” that this novice pilot was able to accomplish it on his first attempt.
Mark did a research article. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but this July 2008 Global Research article was actually a chapter from your book. Is that correct? (Correction: The Global Research article was published 7/7/2009 and is also included in this Appendix.)
Mark Gaffney: That became a chapter in the 2009 edition.
Dan Hanley: Oh, okay. I got it backwards then. Okay. Anyhow. Right. Okay. I don't know how I stumbled across it, but it was a real eye opener for me when I read the information contained therein.
And it's so important that we, on our 911Pilots.org website, we've placed it in two locations. If you go to the top of the page, there's a tab called “Articles” and you click on that and you drop down and it'll say “Gaffney”. Just go to that. We've got it where you can download it or print a copy of it. But it's about an eight-page article and well worth reading. And the other place we put it was on the “Hijackers” page on the drop-down menu there. But the title is very descriptive and revealing on what we're going to be talking about here. And that is, quote, “How the FBI and the 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence About Hani Hanjour, the Alleged Hijacker of American 77”.
Now you say in the article in August 2004, the 9/11 Commission had completed its work and they transferred records to the National Archives and it was kept there under lock and key for four and a half years. Then in 2007, a small fraction of these documents were released and the article is basically all about the information that was released about Hani Hanjour in that year. So, it basically says he was a perpetual novice. Now I know we're going back years on you here Mark and I don't know how much you recall about his training, but you said in the article that he was a perpetual novice and he dropped out of his first school at Sierra Academy of Aeronautics just after attending only a few classes and then he enrolled in Cockpit Resource Management, which is a flight school in Scottsdale, Arizona, and his performance was described as being less than adequate and the owner of the school described Hanjour as a weak student who is wasting our resources.
Those were quotes. So, we've got the page that I mentioned to you on “Hijackers” on our website. I just want to read some notes to you about that. He was quoted in major mainstream news outlets. But Hani Hanjour trained mainly in light prop airplanes, like a single engine Cessna. He had never flown a jet aircraft in his life in flight to the best of our knowledge.
In January 2001, the Arizona flight tech school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for a commercial license. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam. In the last two hours Peggy Chevette, a manager at the school, said he failed English classes with a .26-grade-point average. The Jet Tech manager said he could not fly at all. That was a quote.
Now, according to the 9/11 Commission, Honjour began his training in earnest. But in reality, while in Cockpit Resource Management, he rarely finished his coursework required to get a certificate to be able to fly even a single engine aircraft. I've got three newspaper articles here and one TV report.
The New York Times reported that, quote, “he was a lackadaisical student who often cut classes and never displayed a passion so common among budding commercial airline pilots.” ABC News reported that when he returned to Cockpit Resource Management, quote, “he was trying for his pilot's license, but according to one of his instructors, he was a very poor student who skipped homework and missed classes.”
The school's attorney said that when Hanjour reapplied again later in 2000, when he returned from Saudi Arabia, “we declined to provide him training because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 96 and 97.” The school's owner described him as a “weak student,” and he said “one of the first accomplishments of someone in a flight school was to be able to fly an airplane without an instructor.”
And finally, the Chicago Tribune reported that while he was at Cockpit Resource Management, quote “an instructor was left with the impression that Hanjour was unimpressive. He was making weak progress.” So, all in all, you see there from multiple reports that he was a very poor student and apparently had some learning disabilities.
All of this was reported in the mainstream media and was out there. But none of it made it into the 9/11 Commission Final Report and we'll see why here in a bit. But Peggy Chivette, as we mentioned before, she mentioned on Fox News, quote, “I couldn't believe that he had a license of any kind with the skills that he had.”
Now Mark, maybe you could expound on this, but he did in fact have some simulator time in a 737.
Mark Gaffney: Well, yes, and actually you're the pilot, though I should be asking you, would a simulator time in a 737 qualify somebody to fly a 757?
Dan Hanley: Not at those speeds in a 757. To the best of our knowledge, they had never seen the inside of a Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft. The 757 was the American 77 that hit the Pentagon. It's absurd to believe that this pilot could have flown this aircraft. And what we do on our website, we do a photo analysis of the Cessna 172, it's on the “Aircraft” page, which was their primary training aircraft, compared with that of a 757.
You see the vast differences. You're talking about a one-ton airplane compared to a hundred-ton airplane, one that does a hundred knots compared to one that supposedly did 500 knots, which is questionable that it could achieve that speed. An airplane that's 27-feet-long compared to a 160-foot-long airplane.
And it's absurd when you look at the cockpit differences between a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 757, with the vast differences in the instrumentation and the wealth of information that is available on the various screens with computer displays, etc. on the 757 aircraft. So, the fact that he had 737 simulator experience, and that's a big question that I haven't been able to research it, whether it was in a 737 200, which was your older cockpit airplane, or a 737 300 or above that had the glass cockpit.
But at any rate, no flight time in any jet aircraft. His instructor that trained him on the simulator said he, Hanjour, will need much more experience flying small aircraft before he's ready to master a large jet. So, all of this was not mentioned in the final 9/11 Commission Report. Pan Am dissolved Jet Tech after 9/11. They owned it, okay?
But a former employee who knew Honjour expressed amazement that he, Honjour, could have flown into the Pentagon because he could not fly at all. Now, Mark, are you familiar with the scouting flights in 2001, just five months before 9/11 that Hanjour wanted to do up in New Jersey?
Mark Gaffney: I am more familiar. I know he did the flight up there in New Jersey, but I spent more time investigating his visit to Freeway Airport, which was in August, just before the attacks.
Dan Hanley: Right. That was just one.
Mark Gaffney: I actually contacted the manager there, Marcel Bernard, and he confirmed to me that the, you know, the story I had read in the paper about how Hanjour had flunked was accurate. One of his pilots, two of his pilots actually, flew with Hanjour and I talked with one of them, Ben Conner.
I looked him up also and he also confirmed that Hanjour could not fly and they recommend, when he got back, he recommended to his boss, Marcel Bernard, that they not rent him a plane. This is the same pattern that happened in New Jersey that was repeated again in Maryland, just outside of the Washington area.
Dan Hanley: Right. In New Jersey, just four months before going back, just for a minute, Hanjour rented a plane. But he had an instructor with him, and he wanted to do a Hudson tour, they claimed, okay? But the next day, when Hanjour came back, he wanted to rent an airplane again, the instructor wouldn't allow it because of Hanjour's poor piloting skills.
But the very incident you're talking about, Mark, was exactly one month prior to 9/11. He shows up at the Freeway Airport to rent an airplane. Now, when you're a pilot, you show up out of the clear blue in an airport, they want to do an evaluation flight to make sure you're capable of flying. And that's what Hani Hanjour did on three flights on two days he went up with these instructors that Mark mentioned.
Sherry Baxter and Ben Conner both came back independently and told Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor, he can't fly, don't rent him an airplane. And I personally spoke with Marcel Bernard last month and he really didn't want to talk about it. He said it was past history and it wasn't going to go anywhere and he was really tight lipped about it, but he did acknowledge that they did come to him and talk to him.
I thought he was the one that had flown with him, but he told me that he didn't fly with him. He just refused the airplane. Now we're going to talk about why did the 9/11 Commission ignore all these open-source accounts of what happened, okay? Collaboratively, these indicate that Hanjour would have been lost in the cockpit of 757 and was barely able to qualify on a single engine Cessna.
We're going to find out here, because another important point is the 9/11 Commission fails to report the negative evaluation of Hanjour by the Jet Tech flight instructor. But, anyhow.
Mark Gaffney: Yes, and these pilots and instructors at Freeway Airport, Ben Conner and what was her name, Baxter?
Dan Hanley: Sherry Baxter, right.
Mark Gaffney: Yes, yeah, they both expected to be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. They should have been interviewed. Neither one was and they were surprised. But this pattern you see over and over again, you know. All these different experts or people who met Hani Hanjour had the same impression.
And in fact, if you just look, consider the guy's motivation. He never even wanted to be a pilot, according to one source. He was going to be happy if he could just be a flight attendant. Supposedly, his brother persuaded him to, you know, aim higher, and the people that knew Hani said that he wasn't very motivated, you know. He was, like you said, a lackadaisical guy, kind of a happy go lucky guy who really didn't take life that seriously.
He wasn't very smart. He just wasn't that intelligent or capable.
Dan Hanley: Yeah.
Mark Gaffney: So, we met him… (conversation breaking up) They all said he does not have what it takes to be a pilot. You know, he just didn't have it.
Dan Hanley: Right. Well, the FBI file that you mentioned in the article, says that there's not one scintilla of evidence that Hanjour ever trained in the 757, and it also failed to mention Jet Tech, as we mentioned before.
But it grossly mischaracterizes what happened at the Freeway Airport in that it says that Hanjour received instruction from Serry Baxter and Ben Conner and that isn't true. It was just an evaluation flight. And there were no lessons given. So, we can see that the FBI failed to accurately report any of this information to the 9/11 Commission.
So, it's a total suppression of valuable evidence by the FBI and the 9/11 Commission. And this is curious to note that in August 2001, he actually failed a written test for his driver's license at the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles. So, Mark, we have talked about Hanjour now. And we talked about Marcel Bernard and the two flight instructors.
So why don't you share with everybody who was Eddie Shalev? Three days later, where did Hani Hanjour go? And what happened, if you're familiar with Eddie Shalev?
Mark Gaffney: Yes. Well, Eddie Shalev was the one source that the 9/11 Commission, you know, regarded as valid and all these other reports that were never even mentioned were dropped. Because Eddie Shalev was the one instructor who stated that Hanjour could fly, that he was a decent pilot, you know, that he would have been able to do what the 9/11 Commission claims that he did.
So, the question is who is this guy, Eddie Shalev? Well, he's a mystery man because he basically dropped out of sight. He was working at a Gaithersburg, Maryland, company, Congressional Air Charters, very briefly though, only for about a month before 9/11 and then shortly after he disappears.
And this Congressional Air Charters, you know, was also the outfit that ceased to exist shortly after 9/11. So, many questions arise over this. Was this just a front set up for the specific purpose of creating a false story, a false narrative, so that whoever was going to investigate later would have a shred of evidence indicating that Hani Hanjour could indeed fly when we know that he couldn't?
Dan Hanley: Right.
Mark Gaffney: Apparently the 9/11 Commission bought that lone witness supporting Hani Hanjour and threw out all that other evidence is, you know, overwhelming amount of evidence. So, it's just, that's why I can't remember all the details over these years because there's so much of it.
Dan Hanley: Right.
Mark Gaffney: So many people testified that Hanjour couldn't fly and yet the 9/11 Commission ignored all of that. And they went with Eddie Shalev's testimony that he was a pilot that could fly. So, the question is, who is this Eddie Shalev? And we never did locate this guy. He dropped out of sight and we believe that he ended up back in Israel because Eddie Shalev was a member of the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, and for, you know, we don't know, nobody really knows, you know nobody can answer the question, the key questions because nobody has ever been able to get a hold of this guy.
Dan Hanley: Yeah.
Mark Gaffney: So, then we were left with a loose end there and all these unanswered questions because this guy disappeared.
Dan Hanley: So, in a nutshell, you've got Hanjour denied rental from the Freeway Airport after flying with two instructors.
Okay. So, three days later, he goes down to Congressional Air Charter, asked to rent an airplane, goes up with his instructor, an Israeli, who we don't know anything about, who came back and said, Hani Hanjour was a good pilot. There was a 9/11 Commission staffer, let me, I got his name here. His name was Quinn John Tam.
He interviewed Shalev and Shalev said that he was a good pilot. He also interviewed Conner and Baxter, so he had both sides of the story, and yet he ignored three qualified instructor pilots who said he couldn't fly an airplane, and chose the testimony of this Israeli that we know nothing about, that the 9/11 Commission didn't vet, and this appeared as a footnote, an end note, in the 9/11 Commission Final Report. So, they are entitled.
Mark Gaffney: That's right, in 9/11 his name only appeared one time in a footnote.
Dan Hanley: It's amazing.
Mark Gaffney: That's all the information they gave us.
Dan Hanley: And that was so hyper critical, because all this information shows that Hani Hanjour was not a good airplane pilot and couldn't fly an airplane at all. Never mind a 757 performing that incredible maneuver at that speed. So read this article. Mark, you wanted to talk about United 93, which we really don't cover on our website, but you said you'd like to mention something about it.
Mark Gaffney: Yes, and let me, just before we go there, let me just mention another detail.
Dan Hanley: Oh, okay.
Mark Gaffney: That's really important about Congressional Air Charters where Eddie Shalev worked in Gaithersburg, Maryland. There was another airport there where he worked. It turned out that I found out that the man who ran this actually, this was thanks to Chris Bollyn, he found this out, that the Congressional Air Charters was actually run by a guy with a criminal record.
His name is Monty Lilly and he'd been convicted of let's see, he had a criminal background, a convicted felon. I'm not sure about the details of his crime. He had been sentenced to 30 months in prison, however, and ordered to pay $33 million in restitution. Oh, after embezzling. This guy was an embezzler.
And he was running Congressional Air Charters. So, it really raises a lot of questions about what, you know, what is this, what was going on here? Because it's common for intelligence agencies to work with these kinds of guys, you know.
Dan Hanley: Right.
Mark Gaffney: Criminals, drug dealers, and so on. People with shady pasts end up, a lot of times, you know, working with the CIA or others as cutouts or other intelligence agencies like the Mossad, for example.
Dan Hanley: Right.
Mark Gaffney: So, this was another detail that you know, that raises questions.
Dan Hanley: So that’s, that.
Mark Gaffney: Let's talk about Flight 93.
Dan Hanley: Okay. Sure. Let me just say one thing Mark. 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers, the basic statements we're making is the hijackers couldn't have flown, and there's a system called the uninterruptible autopilot that could have flown the profile. So, we really just cover the two planes that hit the Trade Center and the Pentagon and the Profile and don't get in get into whether a missile hit the Pentagon or whether there was really an airplane to hit the Twin Towers or whatever, but we don't even address flight 93. But go ahead Mark. I didn't mean to interrupt you there.
Mark Gaffney: Well, I mean I think that's a smart approach to just stay very focused on the issues that you want to concentrate on.
Dan Hanley: Right.
Mark Gaffney: But the reason I wanted to talk about flight 93 is because we have new information that I think actually supports the remote access and remote-control theory.
So, it fits very consistent with it. I learned about this last September 11th at a September 11th event, let me put it that way, in Oakland. They have an annual conference down there. I went down last September for it and Ken Jenkins gave a presentation about flight 93. He's a 9/11 researcher.
He's been working, you know, he's been working on the issue for many years. I've known him for quite a while. He gave a presentation about Flight 93 that impressed me very much because he had new information. He presented an animation based on the flight 93's flight data recorder, which was recovered on site there near Shanksville.
That was very persuasive and this was new information for me. The information in that flight data recorder and the voice, what's the name of that, the voice?
Dan Hanley: Voice recorder.
Mark Gaffney: Yes, the voice recorder indicated that it may very well be that the hijackers were on that plane and flying that plane and that a revolt did occur among the passengers who apparently tried to break into the cockpit. At that moment, that is when, you know, the plane does these weird, all this jumping around in the sky. It actually goes, was flying upside down just before the crash and then went straight down into the ground. Now, that kind of a trajectory could explain the debris field.
That's the one trajectory that could account for what was, you know, the absence of debris and so on. And the reason that I think it's important and I think that this actually renders my chapter on flight 93 a little bit dated at this point, because if those hijackers were on that plane flying it, I mean, it confirms what we're saying about these Arab hijackers as being incompetent pilots, because these guys were wandering all around the Pennsylvania countryside. They couldn't hit the broadside of a barn.
They would have been lucky to actually find the Washington, D.C. area, let alone hit anything.
Dan Hanley: Right, exactly.
Mark Gaffney: This indirectly supports the remote-control theory, because what I believe happened is that three of the four planes were flown with remote control, and for some reason, flight 93, something happened, something went wrong, they were not able to actually get control over that flight controller.
So, if they had gotten control, then they would have locked out those hijackers, and they would have uploaded a different flight plan, and would have flown that plane remotely to wherever they wanted to, you know, target what they wanted to hit. That's apparently, in my opinion, what happened to the other three planes.
And if the alleged hijackers were actually on those other three planes, they got locked out. They were, the hijackers were jacked and those guys did not have control. They lost control and they were victims just like the passengers and the crew.
Dan Hanley: Exactly.
Mark Gaffney: That's my view of it.
Dan Hanley: Exactly. And for people that want additional information on the research and development that went into this uninterruptible autopilot in the 1990s, prior to 9/11, I just interviewed Aiden Monaghan. who's also a researcher that did a lot of Freedom of Information Act work to get the information he needed to write a book whose title escapes me right now. (Declassifying 9/11: A Between the Lines and Behind the Scenes Look at the September 11 Attacks, by Aidan Monaghan)
We have the article that he wrote under the “Articles” tab of our website. Go to the “Videos” tab under “Monaghan” and you can listen to a one-hour interview I did with Aiden last week on this very topic. It's very revealing that the system was developed before 9/11 and it does exist. We allege that it was used on 9/11, because the navigation system on today's modern commercial jet aircraft is derived from cruise missile technology that's extremely accurate. And yes, within a few meters, it could hit the targets it did and it's amazing that all three airplanes, American 11 in the North Tower, United 175 in the South Tower and American 77 in the Pentagon on their first attempt with these rookies supposedly at the control wheel were able to precisely strike the target the way they did.
It just didn't happen that way. Please go to our website and read it. But Mark, do you have any other comments you want to make before we sign off here?
Mark Gaffney: No, I just want to mention briefly that Aiden Monaghan actually edited a section of my book where he presents his GPS research that he did about highways in the sky.
Dan Hanley: Yeah. How's that?
Mark Gaffney: And I detail my own research on the remote control in a separate chapter. So actually, the book presents two possible means of remote control that they could have been used on 9/11.
Dan Hanley: Very good. From my end we encourage you to go at our website, 911Pilots.org, and read these articles by these two gentlemen that are very revealing. Also, you might go to our YouTube channel at 911Pilots where we have about 45 videos. A lot of them are interviews that we've done. So, if you don't have anything else Mark, thanks again for joining me on this interview and sharing your information with us and, and for all the work that you’ve done.
Mark Gaffney: We wish you well and keep up the good work, Dan.
Dan Hanley: Oh, thank you, Mark. Thank you so much. Me from Islamabad, Pakistan and Mark Gaffney from Chiloquin, Oregon. I believe I pronounced that correctly. That's it. Thanks so much. Thanks for joining us and we'll see you next time. Bye.
The following information about Aidan Monaghan was referenced above…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZcwnD7T50 [3-4-2022 | 1:05:04] 9/11 author-investigator Aidan Monaghan interview by Captain Dan Hanley
https://911pilots.org/important-new-document-on-autopilot Plausibility of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated by GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems, by Aidan Monaghan
United Airlines bankruptcy never should have happened
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/1448193/pilots-united-airlines-bankruptcy-never-should-have-happened [3/9/2010] by Barbara Hollingsworth]
Note: As of 2021, this article is still available at the Washington Examiner, yet most of the links in the article are unavailable and marked as such.
The single largest pension default in U.S. history should never have happened, say former pilots who lost stock and the bulk of their pensions in the United Airlines bankruptcy.
The pilots say they are in the early stages of preparing to file a RICO lawsuit based on what they claim was the airline’s fraudulent listing of its frequent flyer Mileage Plus asset – worth an estimated $15 billion at the time - as a liability in documents submitted to a Chicago bankruptcy court and the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), which took over all of the airline’s pension obligations.
Jerry Summers, a former United pilot who involuntarily retired after 36 years of flying, told The Examiner he expected a pension of $10,000 per month, but now gets less than half that amount even though the pilots’ pension fund was 85 percent funded. “Nobody expected this bloodbath,” he said.
Summers added that PBCG inexplicably agreed to hold United “harmless” against future guaranteed claims, even though “no one can make sense of how the numbers were computed.” Airline employees were also told that it would take a “few months” to issue final determination letters from PBGC regarding their reduced pensions. Five years later, they’re still waiting.
“The bottom line, based on the undisclosed Mileage-Plus asset (link unavailable), estimated at $15 billion, is that this bankruptcy should never have been allowed,” Summers added.
“Employee-owned stock was allowed to plummet to near zero value before it was sold with the bankruptcy judge’s approval,” former United 777 captain Dan Hanley, now national spokesman for the Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association (link unavailable), charged in an Oct. 18, 2007 letter to SEC chairman Christopher Cox, a copy of which was also delivered to then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. “The employees were prevented from selling their stock during this time frame.”
Hanley’s letter also alleges that investment banks, in particular major creditor Goldman Sachs, participated in falsifying the publicly-traded airline’s financial records to obfuscate its true financial picture. The airline’s lead bankruptcy attorney accepted a job with Goldman Sachs immediately after Chicago Seventh Circuit Chief Bankruptcy Judge Eugene R. Wedoff declared United bankrupt (link unavailable) in 2005, approving a plan to terminate employee pensions in what was the largest corporate pension default in American history.
In a scenario eerily reminiscent of Enron, top-level corporate officers cashed out as their lower-level employees lost billions. The pension liabilities were then transferred to taxpayers via PBGC, which is now close to insolvency itself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111304087_pf.html
Wedoff was the same judge presiding over the 2001 bankruptcy of McCook Metals, whose owner, Michael Lynch, asserted in a 2006 sworn affidavit submitted to the court that he had evidence “confirming the existence of an alleged, organized nation-wide criminal enterprise involving officers of state and federal courts who exploit litigants for the personal financial gain and who unlawfully manipulate and exploit the judicial system at the expense of state and federal taxpayers.”
A key witness in an ongoing SEC investigation into the United bankruptcy, Lynch is on the verge of being arrested in Chicago for “contempt of court” in another Cook County court proceeding, The Examiner has learned.
Lynch said he turned over material evidence, including “bank accounts, real estate holdings, trust accounts, and fake real estate deeds of multiple allegedly corrupt judges and attorneys” to authorities, including what he said was evidence of a $40 million “bribery fund” Wedoff allegedly used to hide money from federal authorities in a trust, including fake real estate transactions he says were covered up by LaSalle Bank, Wells Fargo and Northern Trust Bank.
Judge Wedoff refused to recuse himself in a current case involving a company owned by Lynch’s brother, which Lynch claims is retaliation for his allegations of judicial corruption.
Justice Chicago Style
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2208980/justice-chicago-style [7/26/2010] by Barbara Hollingsworth, Washington Examiner
UPDATE: “Chicago judge to decide if his own accuser goes to jail,” March 26
A Chicago businessman with no previous record has been ordered to report to the infamous Cook County Jail Monday to finish serving his 60-day sentence for criminal contempt of court – the longest such sentence in Illinois history. To put this in perspective, the sentence was twice as long as a man in neighboring DuPage County got for throwing an object at a judge’s head.
Michael Lynch’s offense? He complained about judicial corruption. In Chicago, that gets you thrown in the slammer.
Even more outrageous, Lynch was sentenced by one of the same judges he accused of fixing cases for organized crime – and also happens to be a witness in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into bankruptcy fraud.
In May 2006, Lynch filed a sworn affidavit with the court claiming that he had “material evidence” of judicial corruption involving several Chicago judges – including Circuit Court Judge Alexander White – and asked for another judge to hear the case. In the affidavit, Lynch accused White of being a beneficiary of the Five Whites LLC trust fund used to launder bribe money from an organized crime family in Arizona.
Lynch told The Examiner that Judge White told him and his attorneys – in court – that he wanted to assign him to house arrest because Lynch’s wife has Stage 4 cancer. But the judge said he received a visit in his chambers from First Appellate Justice Mary Jane Theis (whose father was reportedly part of the Greylord judicial corruption scandal during the 1980’s) who reportedly told him to “put Lynch back in Cook County.”
The Examiner asked Justice Theis – twice – if she had pressured Judge White to throw Lynch back in jail, but she did not answer the question, referring us to several opinions she wrote in which she concluded that Lynch’s motion “contained unsubstantiated and far-flung allegations that Judge White was a participant in an organized crime scheme in Arizona.”
But Lynch said he never got a chance to present his evidence of judicial corruption while appealing the contempt sentence because Judge McNamara insisted that he produce his out-of-state witnesses (a forensics expert and a former member of the organized crime family) within three hours – which was clearly impossible. He also refused, for their protection, to publicly identify them.
In the four years since he filed his affidavit, Lynch says, his witnesses have never been interviewed by law enforcement. Since the allegations were never investigated, how does Justice Theis know whether they’re “unsubstantiated” or not? Furthermore, strange behavior by two previous judges in the case indicates otherwise.
After Judge Barbara Disco entered an $1.8 million dollar judgment against him in the civil case, Lynch says he filed a motion asking her “to admit or deny that she was a member of organized crime.” Attached to the motion was a document listing Disco’s alleged hidden trust.
Lynch says he was sentenced for contempt on Oct. 13, 2006 by former Judge Paddy McNamara with no mandated sentencing hearing and no bond. Lynch’s affidavit also accused McNamara of accepting payoffs through Crown Central Asset Fund, Crown Central Systems, Crown Ambassador Enterprises, and Fidelity Investments.
Disco abruptly retired while Lynch was serving the first 17 days of his 60-day sentence at Cook County Jail. “The day I was released, Judge McNamara also suddenly retired and stepped down from the bench. Everyone was stunned,” Lynch told The Examiner.
As I reported back in March, Lynch alleged massive judicial corruption in Chicago’s state and federal courts after his firm, McCook Metals, was forced into bankruptcy after winning an anti-trust lawsuit against Alcoa.
Lynch’s sworn affidavit specifically accuses Chief Bankruptcy Judge Eugene R. Wedoff, who presided over the McCook bankruptcy, and Judge White, who recently ordered Lynch jailed, of being part of a nationwide racketeering enterprise that launders illegally obtained funds through the court system using a “systematic code-based creation of fraudulent documents and identity theft” – including fraudulent federal marshal credentials.
Lynch says a federal auditor he hired through the Independent Federal Fund Oversight Committee in Topeka, Kansas uncovered material evidence – including specific bank account numbers – alleging that Judge Wedoff (who also presided over the United Airlines bankruptcy, the largest bankruptcy case in U.S. history) personally oversaw a $39 million “bribery fund” in return for a verdict favorable to McCook lender General Electric Commercial Finance (GECC) and Alcoa, McCook’s competitor, in violation of anti-trust laws.
In a letter to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Lynch alleged that Wedoff blocked his subpoenas for the financial records of two bankruptcy trustees in on the scheme and refused to read an affidavit signed by a federal agent documenting Wedoff’s participation, including a pure trust called “ERW” that was allegedly used to hide payoffs from federal authorities.
He also accused Judge Wedoff of allowing GECC and Alcoa to disregard ERISA and bankruptcy laws by dumping McCook’s pension obligations on the taxpayer-supported Pension Benefit Guaranty Board (PBGC).
But none of these extremely serious allegations of judicial misconduct have been investigated by the either the FBI or the Justice Department, even though Lynch says he handed over the evidence to authorities four years ago. Instead, the same judge he accused of corruption is sending him back to jail.
That’s contempt, all right, but not by Michael Lynch.
Update: SEC IG looks into United Airlines bankruptcy
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/850910/update-sec-ig-looks-into-united-airlines-bankruptcy [11/25/2009] by Barbara Hollingsworth, Washington Examiner
David Kotz, inspector general of the Securities and Exchange Commission, acknowledged that the agency did not respond appropriately to allegations made in November 2007 by former pilot Dan Hanley that United Airlines violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act during its post-9/11 Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The law was passed after financial shenanigans by Enron management cratered the energy company.
In a Nov. 3 letter, Kotz told Hanley, now head of the Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association (https://airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com) that after reviewing his complaint, “we did not believe that sufficient action was taken by the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy.” Kotz said he was referring the matter directly to SEC Enforcement Division senior counsel Michelle Barrans for possible criminal action.
One of Hanley’s allegations was that the Department of Justice worked out a deferred prosecution agreement with United management, essentially giving them a pass on criminal charges and allowing them to collect millions of dollars in exit bonuses while United vendors, shareholders and employees – who lost their pensions – were hung out to dry.
Hanley, a veteran pilot who was forced out of his job after complaining about lax safety at the airline, also alleges that the Chicago judge who presided over the United Airline bankruptcy proceedings maintained a $40 million bribery fund, part of which was held in a land trust in Arizona under his initials.
FBI, DOJ refuse to investigate charges of judicial corruption
Note: As of 2021, this article is no longer available on the Washington Examiner. A copy can be found at…
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1260380881 [12/3/2009 | by Barbara Hollingsworth]
Re: “SEC IG looks into United Airlines bankruptcy,” Nov. 24
For three years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice have refused to investigate material evidence of a nationwide criminal racket that has allegedly infiltrated state and federal courts and is unlawfully manipulating and exploiting litigants in bankruptcy, family and probate courts.
According to court documents filed in Chicago, the FBI and DOJ turned a blind eye to retaliation against citizens who attempted to expose the corruption, including “kidnapping of children, false incarceration after being ‘framed’ by criminal elements in civil and criminal authorities, impoverishment, coercion under duress, and serious physical injury up to and including death.”
The 2006 affidavit claims that “multiple judges and lawyers are aware of and/or involved in alleged criminal acts,” but have not reported wrongdoing to authorities in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It specifically mentions four federal judges, including Eugene R. Wedoff, who was appointed chief bankruptcy judge of the Northern District of Illinois in 1986.
Judge Wedoff presided over the 2005 bankruptcy of United Airlines, in which 20 large unsecured creditors lost nearly $18 million. The airline also defaulted on $3.2 billion worth of pension obligations for over 134,000 United employees –the largest pension default in three decades – while its top executives walked off with millions in exit bonuses.
Dan Hanley, public spokesperson the Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association and a former United 777 captain who was forced out of his job, alleges that United management fraudulently withheld information from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which took over their pensions, and that PBGC never conducted the federally mandated analysis of the United pension fund before agreeing to its termination. The Securities and Exchange Commission has recently agreed to look into the matter.
The court affidavit also accuses Wedoff, who recently suffered a mysterious fractured skull, and other allegedly crooked judges of squirreling away $40 million in bribes at LaSalle National Bank in Chicago, Wells Fargo and Northern Trust Bank in Arizona. The affidavit further claims that payoffs to Wedoff eventually wound up in the ERW Living Trust, which purchased Lot 114 of Greenfield Place in Maricopa County, Arizona. The signature of ERW trustee “Richard E. Williams” is allegedly identical to Judge Wedoff’s.
The affidavit further charges that the criminal racketeering enterprise headquartered in Phoenix hacked into INSLAW, a court software program, and “through the systematic code-based creation of fraudulent documents and identity theft,” illegally hijacked it to funnel stolen private and government funds into two trusts – Omega and Anchor Pure Trusts – which ultimately dispersed the hot cash into personal trusts such as ERW, which then used fake mortgages for property that had already been bought with cash to further launder the money.
“Multiple lawyers of prominent law firms are allegedly members” of the racket, which uses phony federal marshal credentials to gain access to the Federal Court Building in Chicago, according to the affidavit.
Another signed affidavit, filed by court qualified document examiner Sidney Perceful, accused Wedoff of allowing a bankruptcy trustee to confiscate and destroy records and transfer “large sums of money” to his account at La Salle, which she called “highly irregular and illegal.”
These allegations, if true, point to a massive criminal infiltration of the federal court system. But so far, neither the FBI nor DOJ have bothered to look into them. The big unanswered question is: Why not?
The SEC Affidavit of Captain Daniel Hanley to DOJ/SEC/DOT
https://airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com/p/sec-affidavit-of-captain-daniel-hanley.html
Affidavit of Daniel William Hanley in Support of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice Investigation of Alleged Fraud in the United Airlines Post-9/11 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Federal Tort Claim Suit Filed by Captain Dan Hanley
https://airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com/p/whistleblowing-united-pilots_13.html
This Blog serves as a cross-industry common site for airline employees and retirees to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoing within the airline industry that has been reported to competent legal authority, but has been suppressed or ignored by higher authority.
Podcast Transcripts from the Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association
https://airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com/p/5-year-doj-stonewall-must-one-seek.html
This Blog serves as a cross-industry common site for airline employees and retirees to blow the whistle on alleged wrongdoing within the airline industry that has been reported to competent legal authority, but has been suppressed or ignored by higher authority.
End of Appendix