• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

radical_logic said:
Kent, you previously said: "As shown previously in this thread, his flight school trainers Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard do not share the same doubt as you."

How have you shown this? Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard believe that Hanjour was a terrible pilot, which is what other experts have also claimed.

It is also claimed by many experts that the pilot who flew 77 into the pentagon must have been very good (see post 42).

Don't you see the contradiction?
Click to expand...
Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem.
 
Kent1 said:
So then they don't share the same doubts as you?
Click to expand...

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
 
radical_logic said:
There is reason to doubt that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon, yes.
Click to expand...
No, anyone could fly a 757 into the Pentagon. A low time single engine pilot hit the Pentagon the first time in a 757 simulator.

The only pilots who can't hit the Pentagon are p4t pilots; they are not as good at flying as the terrorist; p4t said so.

Even your sources, if you research them, debunk your idea on Hani.
 
The rest of the story; u b d-bunked

radical_logic said:
A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
Click to expand...
Too bad, they said more! Sad to see the truth covered up by you.
… he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
Click to expand...
Bernard says he can hit the Pentagon


DEBUNKED
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem.
Click to expand...


Again, if it's true - as many experts say - that the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon was highly skilled, then it's probably not true that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon because his trainers say he was terribly skilled.

Address the contradiction.
 
radical_logic said:
Contradiction: (A ^~A)

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Is that more explicit for you?
Click to expand...

Your logic is incorrect. There isn't a binary choice, of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible". Nor is there a simple linear scale of ability. Piloting is a complex set of skills in a wide variety of different situations. The expert quotes you cite are overall appraisals of Hanjour's skill, making no attempt to differentiate between different areas of ability. For example, a pilot who is able to control an airplane in flight, navigate accurately and execute turns, climbs and dives with reasonable precision, but is unable to take off, land or communicate effectively with air traffic controllers, might reasonably be described as a terrible pilot, yet be able to execute the maneuvers seen from flight 77 on 9/11. Therefore your argument is rejected, as it is based on the gross and unrealistic oversimplification that piloting skill may be expressed on a one-dimensional scale.

Dave
 
Lets try this again,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?
I could care less about his exact skill set. I'm not shocked about contradictions. I think I've addressed that fine on post 141. As have others.
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
If you don't see how A^~A is a contradiction, then I give up.
Click to expand...

What about if he was a medico pilot? You know some guy who was good enough to grab the controls and fly a plane and think “Oh Crap I missed my target better turn round and try again”? Is that possible RL?

Where, in your black and white world of good and bad, right and wrong, does that sit RL?

Don’t give up LC, I am fascinated by your theories, oh wait you haven’t got one right?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Your logic is incorrect. There isn't a binary choice, of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible". Nor is there a simple linear scale of ability. Piloting is a complex set of skills in a wide variety of different situations. The expert quotes you cite are overall appraisals of Hanjour's skill, making no attempt to differentiate between different areas of ability. For example, a pilot who is able to control an airplane in flight, navigate accurately and execute turns, climbs and dives with reasonable precision, but is unable to take off, land or communicate effectively with air traffic controllers, might reasonably be described as a terrible pilot, yet be able to execute the maneuvers seen from flight 77 on 9/11. Therefore your argument is rejected, as it is based on the gross and unrealistic oversimplification that piloting skill may be expressed on a one-dimensional scale.

Dave
Click to expand...


My logic is not incorrect, nor am I assuming a "binary choice of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible."

I've studied piano for many years, and I know from experience of course that everyone has their "specializations"--it could be that I play Bach better than my friend, though she plays Chopin better. Nevertheless, a "terrible" pianist who can barely get through scales cannot play either.

The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.
 
radical_logic said:
Again, if it's true - as many experts say - that the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon was highly skilled, then it's probably not true that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon because his trainers say he was terribly skilled.

Address the contradiction.
Click to expand...

It is not true, there is no need for experience or even a pilot to hit the Pentagon. Failure is yours, or are you just repeating the lies that fool you?

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

As I pilot, I find you have failed.
 
radical_logic said:
The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.
Click to expand...

They don't refer to anything he specifically wasn't good at, except that he didn't speak or write in English well enough, which was of no consequence for him anyway.
 
Kent1 said:
Lets try this again,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?


I could care less about his exact skill set. I'm not shocked about contradictions. I think I've addressed that fine on post 141. As have others.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't addressed the contradiction.

"Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem. " (post 141)

Where did you even attempt to resolve it?

here it is again:
---------------------
A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
-----------------------
 
Pardalis said:
They don't refer to anything he specifically wasn't good at,
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. If numerous experts assert that Jane was a horrible teacher, even going so far as to question the authenticity of her teacher's licence, then I don't have to know exactly which aspects she was bad at. It's enough to know that she was very bad.
 
radical_logic said:
My logic is not incorrect, nor am I assuming a "binary choice of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible."

I've studied piano for many years, and I know from experience of course that everyone has their "specializations"--it could be that I play Bach better than my friend, though she plays Chopin better. Nevertheless, a "terrible" pianist who can barely get through scales cannot play either.

The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.
Click to expand...

Funny stuff.

Yes it is hard to fly; but piano!

Anyone can play a piano bad and hit the Pentagon with it! LOL


your logic has failed you

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
No, you haven't addressed the contradiction.

"Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem. " (post 141)

Where did you even attempt to resolve it?

here it is again:
---------------------
A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
-----------------------
Click to expand...
I stand by what you quoted, and I'm happy with the answers that others have posted. Sorry it wasn't to your satisfaction but I'm happy, now then....I'll ask once last time...
Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes it is relevant. If he didn't master take-off, landing, the english language, altitude control or anything else like passenger safety that would make him a terrible pilot and still allow him to perform his tasks to steer the plane and ram it against the Pentagon.

So of course he would be a danger at the helm of a plane, but that was the whole point wasn't it, to crash the plane?

Of course you'll keep ignoring this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom