Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[Pardalis]

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

No, your quotes date from a few days after the event, when people didn't know the specific flight trajectory and circumstances.

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.

But Bernard is an expert, an expert you keep citing. Yet as Beachnut has shown, agrees that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the Pentagon.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[radical_logic]

and landing, the rest of the flight is relatively easy.

You keep ignoring this.

Except that the flight 77 dive was NOT easy--you keep ignoring this.

"[J]ust as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west…Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11

"Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision."

http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm


"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says [Danielle] O'Brien."

http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training… And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that."

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm

"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

 

[A W Smith]

the last moments of flight 77 sure look like a point and hit to me

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_final_maneuver.png

 

[Pardalis]

RL, none of your links work, and you'll be reported if you post the same links over and over again. You've posted them five times already.

That is spamming.

 

[radical_logic]

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

1. Show me the links to reputable sources that quote experts denying the claims I cited.

2. On what basis do you deny the sources I cited?

 

[radical_logic]

Yet as Beachnut has shown, agrees that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the Pentagon.

Misrepresentation. He does not say this.

 

[Pardalis]

Misrepresentation. He does not say this.

He does, quite literally.

[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]

 

[radical_logic]

RL, none of your links work, and you'll be reported if you post the same links over and over again. You've posted them five times already.

That is spamming.

You keep ignoring my point. You said: "the rest of the flight is relatively easy"

With respect to the flight-77 dive, that is not the case, as I need to keep repeating.

 

[stateofgrace]

LC RL, what exactly is your point?

 

[Pardalis]

You keep ignoring my point. You said: "the rest of the flight is relatively easy"

With respect to the flight-77 dive, that is not the case, as I need to keep repeating.

One of the links (the CBS one) you keep relinking to says this:

Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.

Which of course was shown to be wrong.

That's what happens when you only retain sources a few days after the events. You only get first impressions.

There has been a detailed analysis and investigation into this flight after september 21, and there is no doubt it was flight 77 flown by Hanjour.

But I suspect you'll keep referring to this sept 21 2001 article, because it fits with your worldview.

 

[radical_logic]

He does, quite literally.

"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,"

I don't see the word "any" there.

Also, if we are to take your claim seriously, then we must take seriously the claim that he could have hit the white house simply with the "aim-and-hit" technique despite the fact that it is guarded by anti-aircraft missiles.

 

[A W Smith]

whats so difficult about flight 77s point and dive? Flight 93's dive was steeper and even upside down.

 

[radical_logic]

Which of course was shown to be wrong.

Fine. Show that the experts who said the flight-77 dive was difficult are wrong.

 

[Pardalis]

"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,"

Yes, the Pentagon is a building.

Also, if we are to take your claim seriously, then we must take seriously the claim that he could have hit the white house simply with the "aim-and-hit" technique despite the fact that it is guarded by anti-aircraft missiles.

No, because he was talking about Hanjour and the Pentagon specifically.

 

[radical_logic]

LC RL, what exactly is your point?

That there is a contradiction.

 

[radical_logic]

Yes, the Pentagon is a building.



No, because he was talking about Hanjour and the Pentagon specifically.

The Pentagon building was not specified.

Point to where he specifies the Pentagon.

 

[Pardalis]

Fine. Show that the experts who said the flight-77 dive was difficult are wrong.

Why don't you ask the experts in this thread?

 

[A W Smith]

BFD

That there is a contradiction.

a contradiction of opinion only weeks after the event before data was analyzed

 

[Pardalis]

The Pentagon building was not specified.

Point to where he specifies the Pentagon.

He was talking about Hanjour. Hanjour flew into the Pentagon.

 

[A W Smith]

The Pentagon building was not specified.

Point to where he specifies the Pentagon.

Oh then he meant all the other example buildings in the world which were smaller? Do you see how this does not help your case?