Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[Pardalis]

May have been true about the WTC towers, but not about the Pentagon. To hit the latter, as experts say, you don't just "point and hit."

In Beachnut's link he specifically is talking about Hanjour.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, 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.[/FONT]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

 

[radical_logic]

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.

The claims of experts I cited made it clear that the 77-dive was an advanced maneuver. How well did Hanjour fare in the "advanced" classes?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Your experience on the piano is utterly irrelevant, and your reference to it unworthy of comment. Flying involves many very different skills, and takeoffs and landings are generally understood to be the most difficult. A pilot who can fly straight and level, execute turns, and navigate, but can't take off or land safely, could correctly be described as an awful pilot. Therefore, none of the expert quotes exclude the possibility that aspects of Hanjour's flying were competent.

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

Hypothetically, this would be a reasonable assessment even if his only shortcoming was an inability to land without causing serious damage to his airplane. Therefore there is no contradiction established.

Show me a single quote that suggests that Hanjour was specifically incompetent at the relatively simple areas of flying straight and level, executing turns, climbs and dives, and navigation. Then you can set those against Marcel Bernard's expert assessment that Hanjour's skill level in those specific areas was sufficient to carry out the maneuvers observed.

When you've got a quote saying that, I may want to respond. On the other hand, you could keep on repeating your logically flawed analysis in the hope that that will prove something.

Dave

 

[radical_logic]

In Beachnut's link he specifically is talking about Hanjour.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It doesn't. However, if the claims I cited are correct, then Hanjour most likely didn't pilot flight 77 because experts say he couldn't have.

Please don't lie. Experts do NOT say he couldn't have. That is an outright lie, and the quotes you took out of context do NOT say that.

If you have some evidence that Hani didn't fly the plane, then please share it. So far you have not done this.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

Once again you are lying by saying that experts say it was performed with military precision. most experts do NOT say this and say that a child could have performed those moves. To sit here and take a few quotes out of context to claim that the professional pilot opinion was that he could not have done it is a lie.

 

[Pardalis]

The claims of experts I cited made it clear that the 77-dive was an advanced maneuver. How well did Hanjour fare in the "advanced" classes?

Pilots in this very thread have stated that it wasn't a particurlarly difficult maneuvre.

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

But that doesn't change the fact that Bernard was talking about Hanjour.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The claims of experts I cited made it clear that the 77-dive was an advanced maneuver. How well did Hanjour fare in the "advanced" classes?

And you intentionally leave out the experts that make it clear the dive was an easy maneuver. How honest is that?

 

[Kent1]

Point to where you "addressed" my contradiction.

Well, I'm done. I gave you one more try.

 

[beachnut]

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

Not one expert said so! The only people that say this are evidence free truthers.

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

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

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

 

[stateofgrace]

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?

RL ?

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe it would be best if RL took Beachnut out of ignore?

Anyway:

Not one expert said so! The only people that say this are evidence free truthers.

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

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

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

 

[radical_logic]

Your experience on the piano is utterly irrelevant,

But my point isn't. If Hanjour was that bad, then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - let alone the advanced maneuvers.

Flying involves many very different skills, and takeoffs and landings are generally understood to be the most difficult.

Note the key word "generally." Many experts believe the 77-maneuver was also very difficult as well.

A pilot who can fly straight and level, execute turns, and navigate, but can't take off or land safely, could correctly be described as an awful pilot. Therefore, none of the expert quotes exclude the possibility that aspects of Hanjour's flying were competent.

Except that his trainers thought his skills were so poort that they questioned the authenticity of his licence - hence strongly implying that he didn't know the basics.

Hypothetically, this would be a reasonable assessment even if his only shortcoming was an inability to land without causing serious damage to his airplane. Therefore there is no contradiction established.

Show me a single quote that suggests that Hanjour was specifically incompetent at the relatively simple areas of flying straight and level, executing turns, climbs and dives, and navigation. Then you can set those against Marcel Bernard's expert assessment that Hanjour's skill level in those specific areas was sufficient to carry out the maneuvers observed.

When you've got a quote saying that, I may want to respond. On the other hand, you could keep on repeating your logically flawed analysis in the hope that that will prove something.

Dave

"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

 

[stateofgrace]

But my point isn't. If Hanjour was that bad, then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - let alone the advanced maneuvers.



Note the key word "generally." Many experts believe the 77-maneuver was also very difficult as well.



Except that his trainers thought his skills were so poort that they questioned the authenticity of his licence - hence strongly implying that he didn't know the basics.





"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

So he was a crap pilot, right?

 

[radical_logic]

Please don't lie. Experts do NOT say he couldn't have. That is an outright lie, and the quotes you took out of context do NOT say that.

If you have some evidence that Hani didn't fly the plane, then please share it. So far you have not done this.

I have done so, by providing the relevant quotes and articles. Show how I've taken those quotes out of context, as you assert. SHOW IT.

 

[Pardalis]

If Hanjour was that bad,

None of your links say specifically how bad he actually was, in which aspects of piloting specifically.

then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - much less the advanced maneuvers.

Not true, as we've said again and again, once the plane is off the ground and you don't have to bother with passenger safety, air control communication and landing, the rest of the flight is relatively easy.

You keep ignoring this.

 

[A W Smith]

so even with documented 600 hours flight time you cannot perform those maneuvers unless you are fluent in English?


http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour

Claim

Hani Hanjour had poor piloting skills, and couldn't have executed a 270° (or 330°) turn that the aircraft made before its final approach in hitting the Pentagon.
Fact


The main concerns that flight instructors had about Hani were his poor English language skills and behavior problems.

• "He didn't do his homework, didn't attend on time and he would sort of come and go," said Duncan Hastie of Cockpit Resource Management.[20]

• "He wasn't the greatest of students in terms of his attitude, but most of that was his lack of ability to communicate in English, and I don't speak Arabic." said one of his flight instructors in Arizona.[5]

• Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix, "Hanjour's English was so poor that it took him five hours to complete a section of a mock pilot's oral exam that is supposed to last just a couple of hours."[21]

Hani Hanjour did have a commercial pilots license, as well as instrument rating. Many concerns expressed about his ability had to do with his poor English language skills. The FAA requires commercial pilots to be able to speak and write fluently in English.[22]
The New York Daily News spoke with an expert who said, "steering a large jet into a huge building wouldn't require a great deal of skill because taking off and landing are the most difficult maneuvers. A few hours in a twin-engine plane or a decent simulator could get you there."[23]

 

[beachnut]

But my point isn't. If Hanjour was that bad, then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - let alone the advanced maneuvers.


Note the key word "generally." Many experts believe the 77-maneuver was also very difficult as well.


Except that his trainers thought his skills were so poort that they questioned the authenticity of his licence - hence strongly implying that he didn't know the basics.


"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

What a bunch of junk.

The approach was steep for landing, but 6 degrees nose down is only twice as steep as landing.

The terrorists wasted money! Most kids off the street could fly a 757 and hit the Pentagon.

Hani did. Stop posting bs! You are looking very uninformed on flying.

The turn was not tight! It was NOT A TIGHT TURN. It is a boring sloppy turn any kid off the street could do without training. Need to work with some pilots who are not idiots in 9/11 truth.

 

[radical_logic]

Pilots in this very thread have stated that it wasn't a particurlarly difficult maneuvre.

Pilots referenced in the sources I quoted (on the record and in reputable newspapers) stated that it WAS a particularly difficult maneuver. So there.

But that doesn't change the fact that Bernard was talking about Hanjour.

You can't have it both ways.

I never denied that Bernard wasn't talking about Hanjour. What I deny is that the "point-and-hit" technique is applicable to the flight 77 dive, as many experts testify.

 

[beachnut]

so even with documented 600 hours flight time you cannot perform those maneuvers unless you are fluent in English?


http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour

Or play a piano;