Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[Pardalis]

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

Read it for yourself then:

[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]

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

 

[Pardalis]

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

Complete nonsense.

The Pentagon is a building. Bernard knows Hanjour is the one who flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Obviously you've got issues, so this is my last comment in this thread:

"It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm

 

[radical_logic]

Complete nonsense.

The Pentagon is a building.

So is the Empire State Building. But neither were specified in the quote.

Bernard knows Hanjour is the one who flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

One can be aware of the offical story without endorsing it.

 

[A W Smith]

two logical fallacies in one post. ask me why im not surprised?

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



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.

false choice logical fallacy and moving the goalposts logical fallacy noted.

You know very well that other experts opinions conflicts with those who find the maneuvers incredulous. so instead you ask for specific counters to specific claims of specific individuals. Thus you hope to find the toe hold for which you have been searching seven years in an effort to lend credibility to a conspiracy fantasy to support your world view. you fail.

 

[Arus808]

And this goes to show that RL is nothing more than a trool and another thread, in which he repeats the same thing over and over again

Now he is using the "semantic" tacitc, where unless the person is specifically stating the "Pentagon" then "a building" doesn't INCLUDE the pentagon.

what a cowardly, and pathetic invidual RL has shown himself to be.

Why dont you all just ignore this VERY apparent troll? Let this thread die. his questiosn were answered, EARLIER in the thread and spams and repeates the same thing over.

 

[radical_logic]

You know very well that other experts opinions conflicts with those who find the maneuvers incredulous.

Actually, I don't. Please cite a credible news article.

 

[A W Smith]

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

he didn't need to specify the pentagon. since the entire world that wasn't living under the rock you live under knew that hanjour flew into the pentagon

 

[A W Smith]

And this goes to show that RL is nothing more than a trool and another thread, in which he repeats the same thing over and over again

Now he is using the "semantic" tacitc, where unless the person is specifically stating the "Pentagon" then "a building" doesn't INCLUDE the pentagon.

what a cowardly, and pathetic invidual RL has shown himself to be.

Why dont you all just ignore this VERY apparent troll? Let this thread die. his questiosn were answered, EARLIER in the thread and spams and repeates the same thing over.

You are correct. I think we have posted enough that lurkers can decide for themselves. The trolls posts have degraded into logical fallacies and semantics. im done with this trolling moron.

 

[radical_logic]

he didn't need to specify the pentagon.

Actually, he did need to. How do we know he wasn't talking generically, that Hanjour could generally hit buildings with the aim-and-hit method, with the pentagon being an exception?

The one little quote provided is unclear.

 

[Kent1]

Actually, he did need to. How do we know he wasn't talking generically, that Hanjour could generally hit buildings with the aim-and-hit method, with the pentagon being an exception?

The one little quote provided is unclear.

You are correct. I think we have posted enough that lurkers can decide for themselves. The trolls posts have degraded into logical fallacies and semantics. im done with this trolling moron.

I agree this is just too pathetic to continue. I'm done with him for good. It's like he wants to start some kind of new weasel award of the month thread. Something like the Stundies. This is beyond belief.

 

[radical_logic]

I personally don't have any doubt that Hani did not have enough experience and ability to do what he done that day, but a lot of people like to say that he was an inexperienced pilot and could not have pulled off the maneuvers that he did.

"Freeway Airport evaluated suspected hijacker Hani Hanjour when he attempted to rent a plane. He took three flights with the instructors in the second week of August, but flew so poorly he was rejected for the rental, said Marcel Bernard, chief flight instructor at Freeway."

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


"Marcel Bernard, the airport manager and chief flight instructor, told FBI agents investigating last week's suicide attacks that one of their suspects in case, Hani Hanjour, had flown with flight instructors on three occasions over the last six weeks…His flying skills were so poor overall that [instructors] declined to rent a plane to him without future training,’ Bernard said of Hanjour."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html

"Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine."

"Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner."

"A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly."

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot…'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63

"[Managers] reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told the Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license… ‘I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had,’ said Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml

 

[jhunter1163]

Well, if you don't want that Stundie, I'll take it.

 

[radical_logic]

Kent, say what you want, but the fact remains: you (along with everyone else) have yet to point out the flaw in my argument--that there is a contradiction.

 

[Arus808]

Actually, he did need to. How do we know he wasn't talking generically, that Hanjour could generally hit buildings with the aim-and-hit method, with the pentagon being an exception?

The one little quote provided is unclear.

you're playing the semantic game here; we all can see from the questions asked and answered that the instructor KNEW that there was only one building being alluded to, and that was the pentagon.

You are being wholly stubborn and ignorant to think that he was referring to any other building, as that IS the only building that one would ask about to a flight instructor, of a former student, who has been linked to the attacks on 9/11/2001. there were only 3 buildings that were hit. HE knew and WE knew that it wasn't the WTC towers. So tell us what other buildings were hit in on 9/11/2001 by planes.

 

[jhunter1163]

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

Am I breaking any forum rules if I assert that this is the stupidest thing I have ever read?

 

[stateofgrace]

Let me get this straight.

What you are saying is if he was a good pilot he would have hit the target, first time, right?

But if he was a bad pilot he would have missed the target, first time round, right?

But if he was a good pilot he would have executed a perfect circle round, right?

But if he was a bad pilot, who missed the target, he would not be able do execute the circle, unless he was a good pilot, right?

So basically he was a good pilot until he saw the Pentagon, at which point he became a bad pilot and missed it but as soon as he did that he became a good pilot to execute the turn, but once he had done that he became a bad pilot, right?

Help me out here RL, what do you think?

 

[Mancman]

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

An utterly staggering post. Jaw agape!!



You actually tried to turn the statement "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," into a claim that Hanjour could not hit the Pentagon. Amazing. Why are you trying to fool? You think anyone here will fall for your nonsense?

 

[beachnut]

An utterly staggering post. Jaw agape!!



You actually tried to turn the statement "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," into a claim that Hanjour could not hit the Pentagon. Amazing. Why are you trying to fool? You think anyone here will fall for your nonsense?

Did anyone point out the Pentagon is one of the biggest building in the world?

 

[radical_logic]

Am I breaking any forum rules if I assert that this is the stupidest thing I have ever read?

Irrelevant--my statements remain unrefuted. Show the flaw in my logic.

He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

Again: Show the flaw in my logic. SHOW IT. Don't just assert.