Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[gumboot]

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.

Anyone who claims the pilot had to be gifted should really watch the NTSB video. I was quite shocked at just how sloppy Hanjour's handling was during that turn. He was, as you say, all over the place.

This is sad someone uses news reports, hearsay as some sort of bible for flying.

"This is sad" pretty much sums up the Truth Movement.

 

[radical_logic]

All of your "experts" except one is a journalist.

False. It's journalists quoting statements by experts.

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."

How do you know that Mr. XX and Mr. Michael X are "real experts?"

"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."

If qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

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.

Again, if qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

 

[gumboot]

False. It's journalists quoting statements by experts.

No it isn't. Of the four one cites "sources", one isn't sourced at all, another sources "investigators" and a last one cites the quote that's the fifth quote. And not one of those journalists actually directly quotes anyone.

How do you know that Mr. XX and Mr. Michael X are "real experts?"

The point is that they are directly quoted. None of your "sources" do that.

If qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

No it isn't. The only thing consistent with the statement is that AA77 was flown dangerously. That goes without saying.

Again, if qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

No it isn't. See above.

A butcher and a physician are both quite capable of amputating a limb. The latter does it with substantially more skill and precision than the former.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

The quotes you are talking about describe the manuvers in a way to show they were not ones normally made by those planes. That is because those planes are carrying passengers and making those moves would upset passengers.

What was NOT meant by those quotes you used, was to imply that those moves were too difficult for Hani to make. You are intentionally taking them out of context in this way and trying to make false implications. By putting them all together and then adding your OPINION and trying to pretend that your opinion is the same as what the people making those quotes are saying. That is essentially a lie because you are doing it with the intent to mislead people.

And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE. There is no debate about this issue, it is completely false. The only way you can falsify it is with your trick of trying to mislead people as to what people making those quotes are saying, and using them out of context.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Except it doesn't.


A. Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A. Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Contradiction: (A ^~A)

Incorrect. He was neither highly skilled, nor terrible.

you reached the conclusion of being a skilled pilot using false statements that don't in any way say he was skilled pilot.

You reached the conclusion about him being a terrible pilot by using quotes out of context and applying them to his overall flying ability. you intentionally leave out the parts where he continues training and gets so good that he gets a commercial pilots lisc. You are cherry picking all the stuff that tells you what you want, and ignoring everything that puts a dent in your conspiracy. For example:

For him being very skilled, you use only quotes that describe the maneuver and misunderstand what they are actually saying. You then ignore all experts who clear this up and show otherwise.

For him being a terrible pilot, you ONLY use quotes from people talking about certain points in his training and ignore all following training and leave out all quotes from instructors that mention that he was actually pretty decent as a pilot (made by some of the same people who also said he was terrible, but at different points of time).

 

[radical_logic]

The quotes you are talking about describe the manuvers in a way to show they were not ones normally made by those planes. That is because those planes are carrying passengers and making those moves would upset passengers.

What was NOT meant by those quotes you used, was to imply that those moves were too difficult for Hani to make.

Here's what I said. Hence, from the above, we can derive:
A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.

Is it not true that, from the quotes, one would have to be a highly skilled pilot to accomplish the flight 77 dive?

You are intentionally taking them out of context in this way and trying to make false implications.

This charge implies that I was intellectually dishonest. Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it.

By putting them all together and then adding your OPINION

False.

A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.
~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

They were derived completely from the statements I quoted. Show otherwise.

And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE.

You are simply wrong.

"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

You do not need to keep reposting the same posts and links. Post them, then refer to post numbers if you need to.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Pardalis]

How many more times are you going to post those links?

 

[radical_logic]

How many more times are you going to post those links?

Until people stop making statements like this: "And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

 

[jaydeehess]

So, what did the controller mean by their thinking it must be a military pilot? That the plane was desending at a higher forward speed than any commercial pilot would, and was in fact doing a much greater speed than any commercial pilot would be doing while approaching the ground. Commercial aircraft simply do not do low level at high speed, it frightens the passengers and shakes the plane up. Only fighters do that, thus the statement that this looked like a fighter manouver.

It was also turning to do what would look somewhat like an approach to National airport yet any commercial pilot would have gone much further out and reduced speed while turning and desending. A landing approach at that speed is also unsafe for a large commercial jet. Fighters often land faster than civilian aircraft.

However it must be kept in mind that Hanjour had nothing "safe" in mind for the aircraft or the souls on board. Low level unsafe flight? Sure, why not, after all one must fly low and fast if one's intent is to crash the plane and do maximum damage. Turn and desend at high forward speed? Sure, why not if one is intent on getting the aircraft to slam into a building as soon as possible. Hanjour never did anything that was technically particularily difficult. He did not even concern himself with such tasks as dropping the landing gear or extending flaps. He did many things that a pilot intent on staying alive and well and keeping his aircraft and passengers intact would not do, but those were not a concern to Hanjour.

 

[jaydeehess]

Once at low level any 16 year old, 90 pound cheer leader with a whim for suicide could pilot a 757 into a building 1400 feet wide. Parallel parking would be harder.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's what I said. Hence, from the above, we can derive:
A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.

Is it not true that, from the quotes, one would have to be a highly skilled pilot to accomplish the flight 77 dive?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. First of all you are reading into the quotes and not reading them for what they are really saying. Furthermore, you are selectively choosing quotes that give this impression, while ignoring the ones that show just the opposite. So you sue quotes of supposed experts, ONLY when they tell you it required expertise, and you leave out all the quotes of experts saying otherwise. So again, the answer to your question is NO.

And in reverse, if I were to take quotes from only experts who say that the moves do not require one be highly skilled, and I then asked you if the quotes showed that one would NOT have to be highly skilled, what would you say?

This charge implies that I was intellectually dishonest. Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it.

Hello? I already DID. Did you bother to read? Admit you are are being dishonest or retract your whole argument.

False.

A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.
~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

They were derived completely from the statements I quoted. Show otherwise.

True. You used selective quotes, and then you used your opinion on the interpretation of them. You are then pretending they are representative of, well of what we don't know. But if you are trying to show that the official story is conflicting, then you have failed again. The statements YOU used absolutely do NOT show a contradiction, but they show you are being dishonest in your argument.

half the survivors of the Titanic said the boat split in half, and half of them say it went down whole. using those quotes, would that mean that there is a contradiction as to what actually happened, and thus a conspiracy theory?

You're using ONLY quotes about the moved being difficult, while ignoring the ones that show it was NOT difficult. THIS is you being dishonest.

Then you use quotes that imply hani being a bad pilot, and you ignore and leave out all the ones that showed he was NOT a bad pilot. THIS is you being dishonest.

You are simply wrong.

That is YOU wanting to pretend I am wrong because you are being caught in your dishonesty again.

"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

Why are you taking all the quotes referring to before he completed his training? Huh? answer the question. Why are you leaving out the quotes referring to him getting his commercial pilots lisc which requires testing which he passed. Why do you leave those quotes out? Why do you leave out the quotes from some of those people you quoted that go on to say how much he improved/ Why do you leave out the quotes that refer to him getting several pilots lisc? Why do you neglect to mention that some of those quotes were simply in reference to his language skills and not his piloting skills?

you are a con artist. please stop being so dishonest here.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Until people stop making statements like this: "And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

So then we can be sure you are most definitely INTENTIONALLY being dishonest. Good to clear up any possibility of this simply being a case of ignorance.

 

[radical_logic]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. First of all you are reading into the quotes and not reading them for what they are really saying.

Tell me what the quotes I cited are "really" saying.

Furthermore, you are selectively choosing quotes that give this impression, while ignoring the ones that show just the opposite.

Such as?

So you sue quotes of supposed experts,

Suppose it's true that you can find experts who take either side. On what basis do you claim to know that the experts who say that (i) the 77 dive is extremely difficult and (ii) Hanjour was a terrible pilot are wrong?


"And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

Prove that it is "absolutely 100% completely FALSE." Prove it.

ONLY when they tell you it required expertise, and you leave out all the quotes of experts saying otherwise.

Again, such as?

And in reverse, if I were to take quotes from only experts who say that the moves do not require one be highly skilled, and I then asked you if the quotes showed that one would NOT have to be highly skilled, what would you say?

All I'm claiming is that there is a contradiction among what people (in the know) say. If there are experts who claim that critics are wrong, we still have an unresolved contradiction.

Hello? I already DID. Did you bother to read? Admit you are are being dishonest or retract your whole argument.

No, you did not support your claim. I will ask again: Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it. Point to where you did this.

The statements YOU used absolutely do NOT show a contradiction,

Asserting this doesn't make it true. I went to great lengths to show that there IS a contradiction among the statements I quoted, but you never addressed my argument.

You're using ONLY quotes about the moved being difficult, while ignoring the ones that show it was NOT difficult. THIS is you being dishonest.

1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show that the move is not difficult. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that the 77-dive is difficult? Yes or no?

Then you use quotes that imply hani being a bad pilot, and you ignore and leave out all the ones that showed he was NOT a bad pilot. THIS is you being dishonest.

1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show Hani was nothing but a substandard pilot. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that Hani was a bad pilot? Yes or no?

Why are you taking all the quotes referring to before he completed his training? Huh? answer the question.

"Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales. "

"They 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."

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

So, it's established that he was a terrible pilot only "months" before he allegedly flew 77 into the pentagon. If you have quotes which purport to show his extraordinary improvement in the intervening months, I'm all ears.

Why are you leaving out the quotes referring to him getting his commercial pilots lisc which requires testing which he passed. Why do you leave those quotes out? Why do you leave out the quotes from some of those people you quoted that go on to say how much he improved/ Why do you leave out the quotes that refer to him getting several pilots lisc?

Answer: I'm unaware of these quotes. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

Why do you neglect to mention that some of those quotes were simply in reference to his language skills and not his piloting skills?

WHERE in ANY of the quotes I cited was reference made ONLY to Hanjur's bad language skills and NOT to his piloting skills? Where?

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by gumboot
"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."

If qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour License AP.pdf
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

You're confusing the fact that Hanjour had a pilot's license with some opinions that he shouldn't have been issued one. Surely you don't deny that Hanjour was licensed to operate multi-engine aircraft prior to SEP 11, 2001. The evidence shows the name of the person who certified him and the name of the person at the FAA who confirmed that his license was valid.

That's usually enough to convince anyone that Hanjour could fly. Does it convince you?

 

[radical_logic]

http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour License AP.pdf
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

You're confusing the fact that Hanjour had a pilot's license with some opinions that he shouldn't have been issued one. Surely you don't deny that Hanjour was licensed to operate multi-engine aircraft prior to SEP 11, 2001. The evidence shows the name of the person who certified him and the name of the person at the FAA who confirmed that his license was valid.

That's usually enough to convince anyone that Hanjour could fly. Does it convince you?

1. The fact that his trainers questioned the authenticity of his license reflects their very low opinion of his piloting abilities. But I cited other statements that directly support the claim that they thought he was a terrible pilot.

2. The point is, according to relevant experts, he was a terrible pilot. Therefore, he could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon, because that would have been too difficult a task for him to accomplish.

 

[stilicho]

1. The fact that his trainers questioned the authenticity of his license reflects their very low opinion of his piloting abilities. But I cited other statements that directly support the claim that they thought he was a terrible pilot.

2. The point is, according to relevant experts, he was a terrible pilot. Therefore, he could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon, because that would have been too difficult a task for him to accomplish.

You didn't answer the question. Given the evidence and the names of the people who certified him and validated his license upon request, are you convinced now that Hanjour could fly?

 

[radical_logic]

You didn't answer the question. Given the evidence and the names of the people who certified him and validated his license upon request, are you convinced now that Hanjour could fly?

According to the AP report, he was certified in 1999, and in one of the news articles I cited (CBS I believe), it was reported that he had terrible abilities only "months" before 9/11.

So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Tell me what the quotes I cited are "really" saying.

I already DID, but clearly you don't bother to read.

Such as?

Have you been bothering to read the thread? Because several times I have given you clear examples. Please don't play dumb.

Suppose it's true that you can find experts who take either side. On what basis do you claim to know that the experts who say that (i) the 77 dive is extremely difficult and (ii) Hanjour was a terrible pilot are wrong?

What do you mean suppose it's true. The only truth is that most experts agree that the moves were not difficult. And shouldn't you be asking that question to yourself? The fact that post after post have provided you with real experts (as opposed to indirect and unaccounted quotes) and still sit there thinking that they don't exist pretty much says it all. You're in denial.

I would base it on the fact that most of your quotes are NOT saying that it was difficult, you're simply adding that part, the fact that you are intentionally being dishonest and avoiding all the experts who say otherwise and ignore the silent majority who would clearly speak out if they saw something wrong. And again, the fact that Hani got several pilots lisc which all required professional testing and that those flying tests be passed proves beyon any doubt or any quotes that he was certainly a competent pilot.

Can you explain how he could have passed all his test is he was such a bad pilot?

"And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

Prove that it is "absolutely 100% completely FALSE." Prove it.

As soon as you prove that the Easter Bunny is real. That's a double-negative and I cannot prove something that does not exist. If you want to prove it, then the burden is on you. Go ahead and try prove that the general consensus amoung pilots is that the maneuver was difficult. Not among a few select quotes kid. This is about as dishonest as you can get.

Again, such as?

Again, you have been provided with many examples in this very thread and have chosen to ignore them.

And again back to your lying. If I found one expert who claimed the easter bunny was real and pointed out that you cannot find any experts that are claiming the easter bunny is not real, does that prove the easter bunny is real? Can you see how your lying is too obvious?

All I'm claiming is that there is a contradiction among what people (in the know) say. If there are experts who claim that critics are wrong, we still have an unresolved contradiction.

No there is no contradiction, you're simply making one when there isn't one. With billions of people in the world, there is technically a contradiction in everything in existence. Some people say the earth is flat, some say it's not. Contradiction. Some people say the big bang is true, some say it's false, contradiction. Some people say the Titantic split in half, some say it did not.

What you are doing is trying to cast doubt because you lack any evidence for your own beliefs. You cannot prove any of your crackpot theories so all you can do is try to use dishonest arguments to try to imply that the research done by REAL researchers is wrong. And like most frauds you do it with absurd speculation and assumptions.

No, you did not support your claim. I will ask again: Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it. Point to where you did this.

yes I did. Anyone who can't see where I pointed this out in my posts is a complete utter idiot. Admit you are being dishonest here or retract your argument. Read my posts, I did it in several, including the one you are responding to.

Asserting this doesn't make it true. I went to great lengths to show that there IS a contradiction among the statements I quoted, but you never addressed my argument.

And again, I have shown you at least 3-4 times now why they are not a contradiction. Simply saying they are a contradiction does not make it so. I have addressed your argument repeatedly. Are you on drugs?

1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show that the move is not difficult. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

Now you are lying because this thread contains many many examples by many different people, some of them being experts themselves.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that the 77-dive is difficult? Yes or no?

No, that is not what they are saying. Though there of course are people who do think it was difficult. And there are people from those same groups of experts who also think that there is a submarine tunnel to Las Vegas, and a machine on the moon that captures peoples souls, and that the planes on 9/11 were holograms. They're called nut jobs.

1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show Hani was nothing but a substandard pilot. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

That's because you only research 9/11 cult websites. If you did real research you would see some of the people pointing out he was a decent pilot are some of the same ones you are quoting as saying he is bad. So when you leave out the aprts where they go on to say "But he kept going and became good enough to get his lisc" (paraphrasing), it's pretty dishonest.

And my charge still stands because your dishonesty also lies in your intention to find only what you want to hear. If you were honest, you would be looking at all the information and not simply researching only sources that tell you what you want to hear. And before you start mentioning the sources for the individual quotes, it's that you got those quotes compiled by crackpot web sites who were the ones who left out the key information. This is the same as lying. It's called quote mining, and the site that did the mining is the source. My guess is XXXtruth.org.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that Hani was a bad pilot? Yes or no?

Once again, No. Because you are taking them out of context. Many of those same people you quoted also go on to say he ended up being a decent pilot. Do you admit that the quotes people here have cited from experts claim that he was not a bad pilot?

So, it's established that he was a terrible pilot only "months" before he allegedly flew 77 into the pentagon. If you have quotes which purport to show his extraordinary improvement in the intervening months, I'm all ears.

Are you serious? How many times have you been provided with those quotes in this thread already? 6 or 7 times now? And you ignore them all!

But again, aside form you ignoring all of this, how do you explain him getting a commercial and private pilots lisc?

And notice how your quotes do NOT say he was a terrible pilot months before the attack. It says he was reported. You're then taking the quote form the reporter who is making assumptions. Also note this part:

"Reacting to the alert in January 2001, an FAA inspector checked to ensure Hanjour's 1999 license was legitimate and even sat next to him in one of the Arizona classes. "

So though he was reported, it was checked to make sure he had a legit lisc. It also goes on to explain that the reports were due to his english skills, NOT his flying skills. The complaints were about him not showing up on time and not doing homework, not about his flying skills.

But you ONLY took the quotes that you wanted and left this stuff out. That is called LYING.

Answer: I'm unaware of these quotes. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

Some of them are in your OWN sources. And you have been provided with the quotes at least 6 or 7 times in this thread. YOU are as dishonest as it gets.

WHERE in ANY of the quotes I cited was reference made ONLY to Hanjur's bad language skills and NOT to his piloting skills? Where?

For example, the one you jsut provided above. Not the quote you sued did not, but that's because you left out the most important parts of them. If you actually read the page you linked to and got your quote form, you would see them. But you didn't bother to do that. you just found the list o quotes and links form some crackpot cult website, and didn't bother to even read through the sources. Because you aren't interested in any kind of facts, you're just interesting in these crackpot theories.

If you haven't even bothered to read your own sources, then how do you expect to make these arguments?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

According to the AP report, he was certified in 1999, and in one of the news articles I cited (CBS I believe), it was reported that he had terrible abilities only "months" before 9/11.

So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact.

There you go being dishonest again. If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case. You were convinced he was a bad pilot before you even found the article because it's the only way you can support your crackpot theories.

His problem according to your own source was his poor english skills, his tardiness, and not doing all his homework. Something that does indeed make a bad student, but does not mean he was a bad pilot months before the attack. He had a commercial AND private pilots lisc, which require being tested by an expert.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

1. The fact that his trainers questioned the authenticity of his license reflects their very low opinion of his piloting abilities. But I cited other statements that directly support the claim that they thought he was a terrible pilot.

2. The point is, according to relevant experts, he was a terrible pilot. Therefore, he could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon, because that would have been too difficult a task for him to accomplish.

1) The fact that his lisc was checked officially and found to be legitimate reflects that your claims are baseless.

2) According to real experts he was not a terrible expert. What you keep doing is taking quotes from people referring to his language skills, tardiness, and work ethic 9why should he have cared, he just needed to hit a building, not be great at landing), and then trying to pretend they are talking about his piloting skills.