Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[radical_logic]

Johnnyclueless, I refuse to engage with you any longer in this thread. Every time I ask to you support an assertion, you retort by saying "I already DID, but clearly you don't bother to read." I read your posts again but do not find where you have supported them. Hence I need to repeat my questions, to which you give the same dishonest dodge.

I can deal with pricks, but it's a waste of time to write long responses to those who won't interact with them.

 

[radical_logic]

There you go being dishonest again. If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case.

This is what I mean. I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, but your counter is only to say "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[stilicho]

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

So the next question is obvious: Was he at the controls of AA77 on the morning of SEP 11, 2001?

You have already agreed with the evidence that he was a licensed pilot and that he could fly.

I feel we are making progress here.

 

[radical_logic]

So the next question is obvious: Was he at the controls of AA77 on the morning of SEP 11, 2001?

Answer: I don't know. But, if the quotes I cited are correct, then it is highly unlikely that he piloted 77 into the pentagon.

You have already agreed with the evidence that he was a licensed pilot and that he could fly.

True, though I qualify my claim by adding that he could only fly "badly" or "terribly," since that is what the relevant experts say and imply.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

This is what I mean. I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, but your counter is only to say "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty. Thanks for proving my point.

No one can possibly be this stupid. Did ya see where I quoted your article as well? ya see, if you leave out the important parts that completely contradict your claims, it kinda has a factor in your honesty.

So when you quote the part just saying "He was terrible" and then leave out the part that says "Because of his language skills and his tardiness" you're not exactly being honest are you?

When you take quotes and say "There was questions about the legitimacy of his commercial lisc", and then leave out the part that says "His lisc was checked and found to be legit" you're not exactly being honest are you?

Thank YOU for proving MY point, which is pretty much that you are a fraud.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Johnnyclueless, I refuse to engage with you any longer in this thread. Every time I ask to you support an assertion, you retort by saying "I already DID, but clearly you don't bother to read." I read your posts again but do not find where you have supported them. Hence I need to repeat my questions, to which you give the same dishonest dodge.

I can deal with pricks, but it's a waste of time to write long responses to those who won't interact with them.

And I am getting tired of continually supporting my assertions and providing concise examples that leave no confusion just for you to respond that i did not each time. Either you grown up and stop playing pretend here, or give it a rest. How can you be reading the posts when I clearly have provided support many times and on the same exact points?

how many times do I need to keep repeating myself? if you would bother to read, you would see the answers and you wouldn't need to keep asking the same questions that have been addressed, not only by me, but many others.

But the fact that you sit here and saying things like "I am not aware of such quotes" when dozens of people in this very thread have provided you with such quotes IN this thread, well that says it all.

When people have provided you with quotes of expert pilots and you claim they have not, it pretty much shows you are either lying or simply not reading. And to make it worse, some of those people providing the quotes and examples are themselves expert pilots.

 

[radical_logic]

No one can possibly be this stupid. Did ya see where I quoted your article as well? ya see, if you leave out the important parts that completely contradict your claims, it kinda has a factor in your honesty.

So when you quote the part just saying "He was terrible" and then leave out the part that says "Because of his language skills and his tardiness" you're not exactly being honest are you?

When you take quotes and say "There was questions about the legitimacy of his commercial lisc", and then leave out the part that says "His lisc was checked and found to be legit" you're not exactly being honest are you?

Thank YOU for proving MY point, which is pretty much that you are a fraud.

Thanks, again, for proving my point.

Whereas I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, your counter is to say nothing but "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
So the next question is obvious: Was he at the controls of AA77 on the morning of SEP 11, 2001?

Answer: I don't know. But, if the quotes I cited are correct, then it is highly unlikely that he piloted 77 into the pentagon.

I could crop your quote and state that you honestly don't know if Hanjour was at the controls of AA77. The quotes you used are neither from the man who certified Hanjour nor the man who validated his license. It's difficult for me to understand why you disagree with them. Your quotes are from others forming an opinion based on something other than the facts.

http://www.flight77.info/docs/Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

That's the first page of the passenger manifest indicating that Hanjour was on AA77 that day. I figure you will accept that he was on that flight as well.

Then we will have an understanding that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that he was on AA77 on SEP 11, 2001.

 

[Corsair 115]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but has anyone yet raised the Kamikazes of WWII? Most of them were given relatively little training before being sent up. But considering their job was to crash into U.S. Navy ships, a lot of piloting skill wasn't required. Kamikazes were by their nature expendable, so giving them any degree of sophisticated training would be a waste of resources.

 

[radical_logic]

I could crop your quote and state that you honestly don't know if Hanjour was at the controls of AA77. The quotes you used are neither from the man who certified Hanjour nor the man who validated his license. It's difficult for me to understand why you disagree with them. Your quotes are from others forming an opinion based on something other than the facts.

The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. Why are those quotes irrelevant?

http://www.flight77.info/docs/Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

That's the first page of the passenger manifest indicating that Hanjour was on AA77 that day. I figure you will accept that he was on that flight as well.

Then we will have an understanding that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that he was on AA77 on SEP 11, 2001.

Suppose it's true that he was on AA77 that day. We still have the following problem:

1. Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown 77 into the pentagon the way it allegedly did.

2. Hani Hanjour, according to the relevant experts, was a terrible pilot.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thanks, again, for proving my point.

Whereas I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, your counter is to say nothing but "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty.

Thank you again for proving my point where you continue to not read. And you didn't quote a source there. Just like you prtend I didn't quote any sources. Please stop lying.

 

[radical_logic]

you didn't quote a source there.

Post 266 refutes your lying ass.

Just like you prtend I didn't quote any sources. Please stop lying.

Sorry, but you haven't.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. Why are those quotes irrelevant?




Suppose it's true that he was on AA77 that day. We still have the following problem:

1. Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown 77 into the pentagon the way it allegedly did.

2. Hani Hanjour, according to the relevant experts, was a terrible pilot.

No, the quotes were not all form his instructors, and you left out the most important parts of the quotes whcih explained as to WHY they felt the way they did and how it was more so about his language skills and othere non-flying related things.

1. INCORRECT. Please stop making this up. According to experts it was not a difficult maneuver.

2. INCORRECT. Please stop lying. According to the sources you provided, that is not the case. According to your source, the validity of his lisc was checked and verified as legitimate. Thus he was NOT a terrible pilot, but rather a pilot qualifed to fly a commercial plane.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Post 266 refutes your lying ass.

And my response to that post shows not only am I not alying, but that you certainly are.

Sorry, but you haven't.

yes I have, as have others. Stop lying. I used YOUR sources. And I quoted them. It's in this thread for everyone to read. Also, many other people here have provided numerous quotes and sources to show you pilots that claim it requires very little skill to perform those maneuvers. Expert pilots themselves have posted into this very thread claiming that it was not difficult.

Him getting a legit commercial pilots lisc proves he was not a terrible pilot. Please stop lying.

 

[radical_logic]

No, the quotes were not all form his instructors,

"The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. "
Never said they ALL were from them. Stop it with the misrepresentation.

and you left out the most important parts of the quotes whcih explained as to WHY they felt the way they did and how it was more so about his language skills and othere non-flying related things.

Quote where the article supports this claim or shut up.

1. INCORRECT. Please stop making this up. According to experts it was not a difficult maneuver.

Not incorrect. See the quotes listed in post 42.

2. INCORRECT. Please stop lying. According to the sources you provided, that is not the case.

Mere assertion. Quote where the articles show that "that is not the case." (You won't, of course).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's another quote form your sourece:

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." "

Did the guy who signed off on his pilots lisc say he was a terrible pilot?

 

[radical_logic]

Stop lying. I used YOUR sources. And I quoted them.

No, you didn't.

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

You said: "If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case."

and: "And you didn't quote a source there [from the CBS article]."

I quoted the CBS article where I showed indeed that that was the case (post 266). Hence my charge of lying stands.

Show where you quoted the CBS article I cited that showed that that was not the case, as you assert?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. "
Never said they ALL were from them. Stop it with the misrepresentation.

Again, not all of them/

Quote where the article supports this claim or shut up.

What, for the 10th time now? It's YOUR ARTICLE

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS?

I am not sure how many times I have to keep repeating that, so just to be clear here:

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

You know, that article which you keep posting over and over. now go look at the post number for this post. And every time you keep asking for a source and claiming I am not providing one, just remember that post number. Now that I have copied and pasted it repeatedly in one post instead of my pasting it just once in many individual posts, maybe you won't miss it now?

maybe?

Maybe?

Not incorrect. See the quotes listed in post 42.

And now read the actual sources and look at the stuff you left out of your quotes. AND look at the quotes provided by many posts in this thread. look at the many posts by actual expert pilots who have been responding to this thread.

Mere assertion. Quote where the articles show that "that is not the case." (You won't, of course).

I am using the same articles as you which show you to be wrong. Your own sources show you are wrong. Expert pilots who have posted in this thread have shown that you are wrong. Some of the people you quoted have also shown you to be wrong because you left out all of their quotes.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, you didn't.

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

You said: "If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case."

and: "And you didn't quote a source there [from the CBS article]."

I quoted the CBS article where I showed indeed that that was the case (post 266). Hence my charge of lying stands.

Show where you quoted the CBS article I cited that showed that that was not the case, as you assert?

So you can there see where I am referring to your CBS article can you not? Just just copy pasted some replies of mine where I am referring to a specific source (which is one you provided).

Again???

Again??

OK time for ignore. You're too much of an idiot to be worth this much trouble. I am not going to keep repeating the same things over and over so you can get out of lying. READ YOUR OWN SOURCE ARTICLE. Not just the selective quotes you cherry picked, THE WHOLE THING.

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

Is the perfect example of you taking the quote o one person saying he was a bad pilot, and then ignoring the part where they explain why. That's an example of a source you use to cherry pick a part where one person says they question his lisc, but then ignore the part that shows his lisc was investigated and found to be legit. That's the source you sue to say he was a bad pilot and then ignore the part that says he was an average pilot by the instructor who actually tested him for his lisc.

 

[radical_logic]

Here's another quote form your sourece:

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." "

Did the guy who signed off on his pilots lisc say he was a terrible pilot?

Again, you keep ignoring:
"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."


"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."