• 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:
Sure. See posts 42, 118, 139, 142, 145, and 152 to get what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I see, so rather than answer questions you simply avoid them? I asked this...............

stateofgrace said:
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?
Click to expand...

You have not answered.

I have started a new thread for you, giving you the opportunity to answer questions again you have not answered.

If I was really skeptical I would assume you was simply repeating CT BS, which of you are not,are you?

Please remember I am Joe Public, they guy you are trying to sell your theories to, so on you go,

I look forward to your answers.

PS In future, rather than making yourself look like a complete fool quote entire posts when responding.
 
Last edited:
Need I remind anyone that the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, and probably the easiest building on the friggen planet to identify from the air?

If you were such an incompetent pilot that there was only one building on the entire planet that you could hit, it would be the Pentagon.

ETA. Beaten by Beachnut and Pardalis! Curse you!
 
radical_logic said:
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.
Click to expand...
The biggest building in the world? And a 40 foot runway! Which can a terrorist hit? You lack logic, mr logic man.

77hanicntlandpentagoncan.jpg

40 foot runway, or Pentagon. If you had to hit something, which could you be sure of hitting if money was involved and you were immortal?

Albeit, the Pentagon is a short runway, only over 1400 feet long, but it beats 40 feet in all dimensions I can think of.

40 feet wide? When 933 to over 1400 feet wide target!? LOL

""… 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" <A href="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm" target=_blank>http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm""

You are saying they were not talking about the Pentagon? But just a building? Yet one of the largest building in the world he can't hit, but a little building he can? That is your logic?

You have no expert to back up your ideas... You have lot of hearsay news stories.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
If you were such an incompetent pilot that there was only one building on the entire planet that you could hit, it would be the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[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.
Click to expand...
[1]

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.
Click to expand...
[2]

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.
Click to expand...
[3]

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.
Click to expand...
[4]


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.
Click to expand...
[5]

Hence, from the above, we can drive:
A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot who is alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, much have been a highly skilled pilot.
Consider the following:
“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. “
Click to expand...
[6]
“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.”
Click to expand...
[7]
“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.”
Click to expand...
[8]
“Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.”
Click to expand...
[9]
“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.”
Click to expand...
[10]
“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.''
Click to expand...
[11]
“[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.
Click to expand...
[12]

Hence, from these above, we can derive:
A. ~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot who is alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.
Contradiction: (A ^~A)
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
[2] http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml
[4] http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html
[5] http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

[6] http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html
[8] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
 
Pardalis said:
Nonsense, with people like Radical Logic, one needs to repeat this sort of thing a couple of times. :)
Click to expand...

Be honest now. He said: "If you were such an incompetent pilot that there was only one building on the entire planet that you could hit, it would be the Pentagon."

He offered NO sources to back up this incredible claim, whereas I offered quite a few.
 
Somehow I feel that if the Pentagon wasn't in the way HH would've crashed anyways.
 
radical_logic said:
Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[1]

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
[2] http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml
[4] http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html
[5] http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

[6] http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html
[8] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
Click to expand...
LOL!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
Number 1 is junk! 1 down, 9 to go.

"1. But just 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, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said."

Debunked, this story was posted on 12 September! The day after.
Things wrong in the news story.
a. The pivot was so tight, wrong, it was a big 5 mile turn. FIVE MILES WIDE, is not a tight turn. So tight? LOL
b. 270 degrees is wrong, it was 330 degrees, see there was only hearsay, word of mouth data. This was later refined.
c. Using a news story to support Hani can't do it the day after is PURE JUNK

The C-130 say 77 right in front of them and at that time 77 did over bank to about 40 degrees, which an airliner rarely does, but it was only for a moment, then the 5 mile wide turn continued at 20 to 30 degrees, kind of sloppy, proving Hani was at the controls and still a poor pilot. But that is what poor pilots do, crash! Maybe they gave Hani the biggest target for a BIG reason!
 
Last edited:
You've left reality for a rhetorical argument that will not benefit anyone but the pharmaceutical companies producing your anti-psychotic meds.

I feel sorry for you.I really do.
 
[2] http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0...a03-293072.htm 13 September 2001

"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. "

Bad news, this is tripe too. This article was made on the 13th.
a. These reporters had no idea the terrorist had flight training, and all the terrorist pilots know about transponders, they had to use them. They had technical manuals for the 757/767 planes, they knew how to turn off transponders.
b. Again the tight 5 mile turn and the wrong degrees. Not correct; but 77 was speeding at 300KIAS, the limit in the area they were over would normally see slow speed. But 300 KIAS is a very good speed for the 757, the plane loves to fly at this speed.
c. This article was questions and answers, this question was about training, Yes, the terrorist had training. You can't use this for anything.

2 down, 8 to go.
 
Radical_logic:
Do you know what a standard rate turn is?
Was Hani Hanjour's 330 degree, ~3 minute turn wider or narrower than a standard rate turn?
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.
Click to expand...


All of your "experts" except one is a journalist. Excuse me if I refrain from accepting the unsupported claims of American journalists. The only "expert" you cite is an Air Traffic Controller, so not in any way an expert on pilot ability, and they only support your stupid claim if you totally fail to understand what they're saying anyway.

Here's a collection of real experts:

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Click to expand...

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
Click to expand...

There was nothing remotely difficult about what Hani Hanjour did in AA77. Nothing. The most difficult thing the hijackers had to do was muster the will to sacrifice their lives for a cause. That's a feat that few humans can achieve, but it's something Radical Islamic Terrorists have by the bucketful.
 
Even 40 degrees is not a particularly steep turn. I've experienced turns that steep in airliners (that were not hijacked) plenty of times. as for the rate of descent - AA77's departure was more rapid than its final descent, and everyone knows descending is much easier than ascending due to our friend gravity.
 
gumboot said:
Even 40 degrees is not a particularly steep turn. I've experienced turns that steep in airliners (that were not hijacked) plenty of times. as for the rate of descent - AA77's departure was more rapid than its final descent, and everyone knows descending is much easier than ascending due to our friend gravity.
Click to expand...
And he only went to 40 degrees for a short time, the average bank for the 5 mile wide turn, not so tight, was 30 degrees, just above standard rate, but Hani was all over the bank angle. Bad pilot hits 900 to 1400 foot wide building vs.40 foot runway.

This is sad someone uses news reports, hearsay as some sort of bible for flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom