The curious case of Hani Hanjour

There is a lack of information in 9/11 cover stories; clearly the pilots demonstrated a high level of flying ability on 9/11.

It is possible that the men involved had more training than the mainstream media suggests, since the mainstream information paints the pilots as useless. In an exchange program between Saudi Arabia and the United States, some of the subjects who hijacked planes had the same names as Saudi pilots involved in the exchange program. Having the same first and second names on military exchange programs is extremely unusual.

The US Embassy in Saudi Arabia in Jeddah's visa apartment, headed by Michael Springman in the 1980s, claimed Bin Laden and the CIA were in touch. CIA was recruiting Arabs and issuing strange visas to Saudi Arabians who wanted to attend training there for military purposes.

CIA in Jeddah vetted many of the less known 9/11 terrorists before they could get a visa, confirming the CIA network was watching over terrorists long before the attacks on September 11

The attack was supposedly planned by Bin Laden, but he didn't appear with any of the 19 guys. He liked the camera, and it is plausible that he would exploit them if they were really planned by him. The Bush family and Carlyle group are linked to the Bin Laden family, so Bin Laden was likely in contact with the Neo-Con cartel for decades. 

A track record of covering for terrorists suggests something is amiss in the story. In twenty years, why haven't we seen the complete picture of the surveillance operation. Why is that? The fact that Richard Clarke would claim on video that someone directly within the CIA would have removed logs for him to not have them at the White House reveals that very high level people were preventing people from connecting the dots. The official story of 9/11 is not accurate because of all the problems with collapses, terrorist tracking, flight schools, and so on. Media reports have given us a sanitised version of what happened, but insider information shows a completely different picture. 

During the video Clarke admitted that there was a conspiracy within the CIA to hide information about the hijackers' movements. The reason your confused and mistaken is that he provides a motive that they were recruiting these guys and turning them around ( double agent). He does not know whether his theory is true or not; he said there could have been other motives as well. A career politician in Washington would have a hard time believing that some in his government could perpetrate a false flag, so he went to explanatory ease in order to explain in own mind. There is no question that removing logs and files from a secured computer is a way to conceal information associated with some shady activities

That myth was invented by the CIA to cover its own asses. Never lost track of them because clearly involved in some way in this false flag at some level at top.

 He claims George Tenet, his best friend at the CIA, did not inform him about the Al Qeada high level operatives moving freely without government intervention.

Clarke also admitted that someone in higher authority had prevented these guys from appearing on terrorist watchlists, and all information about them was kept to a few CIA members.

Because the CIA refused to even discuss its activities with the 9/11 commission, we don't know what it all means. I am highly suspicious that this was an intentional deed to conceal the movements of the hijackers so that they could carry out the attack.

This is highly suspicious that guys who allegedly took over planes with boxcutters tracked all the way and didn't stop them

. Overhearing someone plan to steal your car, would you intervene to prevent it?

There was a long-term plan in place to use this event not to want the suspects to be caught, and it makes sense why they didn't get stopped because of what happened in building seven and the escalating events in the war on terror. 

In his interview, he admitted that the CIA covered up terrorist movements before 9/11. Debunkers assume nothing conspiratorial ever occurs here and nothing to worry about. In order to believe the nonsense, you need to ignore all the scandals at the White House, the operation Gladio, the Iran- Contra affair, as well as lies about the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and scandals not mentioned here.,

. Anyone who read Operation Northwoods know that the military actually signed off on attacks against US cities in false attack in 60s and was only for Kennedy stopping it that would have gone ahead. I dont live in mindset that not bad factions here. Reality is even in current crisis we have unsolved NORD stream explosions lurking in the background of current crisis. 

The debate we had with Ruby, who has since disappeared, may be a reference to that. I cannot say with any certainty what caused the Pentagon attack. It might have been a large or small plane. Things i disagreed with Ruby about the flight path

The FDR ( Flight recorder) and radar turns picked up a plane heading to Washington and towards the Pentagon. There are some errors in the data that don't make sense.

There is no way that the official reports are factual. I suspect if it was flight 77, it was coming in at much slower speed than they claim, given that everything would have been zipping past his view as he was flying 500 mph an hour near ground allegedly.

The idea of lining up a target going 500+ mph an hour off autopilot makes no sense. Overfly the target instead.

Whether it was flight 77 or something else, I can't say for sure, but there is plenty of evidence that something hit the Pentagon. It wasn't a car bomb. Although I am not overly stubborn when it comes to this event, I believe that it is very possible that it was flight 77, but the official reports contain errors.