The day

Could the hijackers fly those planes?

Hani Hanjour, the flight schools and the Pentagon turn

RECORD / AT A GLANCE

Partly true

It is true that several of the pilots, Hanjour especially, were weak students; the Commission documents it. But they all had licenses and simulator time, practiced in the months before, and needed only to steer a plane already in the air into a large target, not to take off or land.

THE EVENTS / THE INVESTIGATION / THE STORY

The chronology.

READ THE FILE

Evidence & assessment.

Open an article for its evidence, labeled AI assessment and numbered sources. Read the complete static edition ↗

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT THIS FILE

The claims, rated.

3 claims people make about this file, each rated documented, partly true, disputed, unproven or false. Think a rating is wrong? Use Dispute or Support, or join the Discussion.

DOCUMENTED The morning of 11 September

“The Pentagon hijacker pilot was a terrible pilot.”

Instructors judged Hani Hanjour weak; one simulator instructor called his work “well below standard.”

Who says it: The 9/11 Commission; an FBI memo.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

DOCUMENTED Al Qaeda, the plot & the hijackers

“The hijacker pilots learned to fly in America.”

Atta, Shehhi and Jarrah trained in Florida; Hanjour had learned in Arizona in the 1990s and trained there again.

Who says it: 9/11 Commission.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

PARTLY TRUE The morning of 11 September

“Amateur pilots could not have flown those planes into their targets.”

The pilots were mediocre, but they had licenses and simulator time, took over at cruising altitude and needed only to steer into large targets.

Who says it: Pilots for 9/11 Truth, others.

The evidence in this file ↗ · On the full claims board ↗

All 162 rated claims ↗

OPEN THE RECORD

Sources & limits.

Numbered citations in each article identify the relevant sources. These records have different purposes and evidentiary weight.

  1. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5: Al Qaeda Aims at the American Homeland ↗

    KSM’s planes operation, the selection of the hijackers, financing, and the finding of no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials individually funded al Qaeda.

  2. 9/11 Commission Report: endnotes ↗

    The notes carry many of the report’s most specific findings, including the put-options trading, the phone-call records and the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

  3. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 7: The Attack Looms ↗

    The hijackers in San Diego and Florida, Bayoumi and Thumairy, Atta’s alleged Prague trip, transit through Iran, flight schools and the final preparations.

  4. 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 1: “We Have Some Planes” ↗

    The minute-by-minute account of the four flights and of the FAA and NORAD response, including the 10:03:11 crash time of United 93 and when the shootdown order reached the pilots.

  5. ASCE (Mlakar et al.), January 2003: The Pentagon Building Performance Report (NIST copy) ↗

    Engineers’ study of the damage path from Flight 77 through the building.

← The 9/11 hub: the story, the full timeline and every file

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFiles911 shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings appear here when JavaScript is on.

On X

Posts from the daily snapshot appear here when JavaScript is on. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFiles911.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.