• 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?

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


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.
A 330 degree turn is just an ordinary turn. He used 25 to 40 degree of bank, usually about 30, which is normal! The turn took for ever, it was just like an airliner turn! He used 300 KIAS, the speed a 757 loves to fly at!

Only idiots would say it was a difficult maneuver!
 
Last edited:
Why don't you ask the experts in this thread?

The so-called experts in this thread are contradicted by experts on other sites and news sources.

Why take their word simply because they post on this site?

(btw, before you misrepresent me, I am NOT saying that I firmly believe the experts I cite - only that there are enough serious questions with the official story due to the contradiction that the issue is worth further investigations).

You, however, dismiss all the experts who disagree with you and think the case has been resolved.
 
A 330 degree turn is just an ordinary turn. He used 25 to 40 degree of bank, ususally about 30, which is normal! The turn took for ever, it was just like an airliner turn!

Only idiots would say it was a difficult maneuver!

Which sounds exactly like my very first jumbo jet flight out of Newark liberty in which every flight banks over Newark bay because of noise abatement.
 
He was talking about Hanjour. Hanjour flew into the Pentagon.

Again, he did not say that Hanjour could have flown into the pentagon the way he allegedly did - only that he had enough skills to fly into "a building" using the generic "hit and aim" technique.
 
The so-called experts in this thread are contradicted by experts on other sites and news sources.

Why take their word simply because they post on this site?

Because they are here at your disposal, and you started this discussion. This means you want to talk about it, and you want people's opinions. This is a discussion forum, the word 'discussion' implies that you consider other people's opinions, especially people who know more about a subject than you.

You haven't done that.

You keep to your initial idea and keep posting the same things over and over again, which is the equivalent of sticking your fingers into your ears and singing "la la la la".
 
Because they are here at your disposal, and you started this discussion. This means you want to talk about it, and you want people's opinions. This is a discussion forum, the word 'discussion' implies that you consider other people's opinions, especially people who know more about a subject than you.

Except all they're doing is asserting that "I'm wrong" and that's it. Also, since I don't know them, I don't know if they're really "experts" - so their credibility from the outset is questionable.

Why take their word simply because they post on this site?

Also, why dismiss out of hand all the experts who disagree with you?
 
well then I'm not going to take your forum posts seriously.

If I simply assert my opinion without citing credible sources, then I don't expect you to.

my post has a link to a source listing the articles you ask for.

No, I want specifics. I browsed through them and could find nothing that adequately addressed the expert claims I cited.

Give me a specific quote and a specific link, like I have in this thread.
 
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

"[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

WRONG. They were talking about the speed! All the planes they see that close are going 200 KIAS and less than 250 KIAS. 77 was going 300 KIAS, only military planes do this near the airport because they have WAIVERS TO DO IT.
Your news story is not right.

LOL; the tight pivot turn was over 26,000 feet wide! LOL You are being taken by news stories by non experts. As in not pilots!

LOL, the transponder, they had the 757 manuals! This is real funny, all pilots use transponders even bad pilots! Your posting pure stupid from non experts!

The turn was sloppy, your sources are wrong again!

The turn and descent from 7000 feet was easy, your sources are bad and wrong.

You posted the dumbest news articles on flying I have seen.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

 
Last edited:
Bernard doesn't agree with you. He says there is not doubt in his mind that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the building.

Again, you misquoted him. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.
 

Back
Top Bottom