Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[radical_logic]

According to the article you linked to, one of his instructor's, the one who signed off on his license, found him to be "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." and "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

"a very average pilot, maybe struggling a bit."

""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."


First, you need to take the other quotes in that article into account which say his skills were "so bad." Second, you need to take the other quotes I provided into account (post 42) which also say he had very poor piloting skills. Third, keep in mind the fact that the "very average pilot" assessment could have been made before his school reported him for his poor performance (which means he went from "very average, maybe struggling a bit" to "poor"). Fourth, even if the "very average pilot" assessment was made after all the reports about his performance (which means he went from "poor" to "very average, maybe struggling a bit"), it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

 

[chillzero]

it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

Are you assuming that every single metre of that maneouvre was specifically planned out beforehand and adhered to?

 

[radical_logic]

I agree.

The conspiracy sites I've seen don't seem to acknowledge that Hanjour was licensed, that his license was verified, and that he was on AA77. "Radical_Logic", here, acknowledges two of three of those things. He then "supposes" that the third point is irrelevant.

Here's why: just because he was "on AA77" doesn't mean he was in the cockpit of AA77. In other words, it doesn't follow from the claim that he was on AA77 that he was flying it.

In light of the first two acknowledgements, it's obviously relevant whether he was on that flight.

It's certainly noteworthy that the article both radical_logic and johnnyclueless cite concludes with a statement that Hanjour was an average pilot with poor English skills. I wouldn't employ that article at all in trying to argue Hanjour was inexperienced. Its conclusion doesn't support that side of the debate.

See my previous post.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"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." - Radical Logic

Please tell us which instructor made that quote.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's why: just because he was "on AA77" doesn't mean he was in the cockpit of AA77. In other words, it doesn't follow from the claim that he was on AA77 that he was flying it.

Just because some of the instructors thought he was a bad pilot due to his english skills, does not mean he was incapable of making the maneuvers. Also, the flight manifest is far from the only evidence of him lying the plane.

And all the evidence shows that he was flying the plane. Do you have any evidence that shows someone else was flying the plane?

 

[stilicho]

This is going to be another marathon thread where he keeps to his original idea no matter what we say.

...

And no matter what radical_logic said himself by agreeing that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that his license was verified by the FAA.

The thread was done at that exact point because those acknowledgements answer the question of the thread title in full.

 

[stilicho]

Here's why: just because he was "on AA77" doesn't mean he was in the cockpit of AA77. In other words, it doesn't follow from the claim that he was on AA77 that he was flying it.

You now acknowledge he was on AA77? You stated previously that you considered that to be hypothetical.

 

[radical_logic]

...

And no matter what radical_logic said himself by agreeing that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that his license was verified by the FAA.

The thread was done at that exact point because those acknowledgements answer the question of the thread title in full.

"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."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible.

 

[radical_logic]

You now acknowledge he was on AA77? You stated previously that you considered that to be hypothetical.

I made no such acknowledgment. I simply explained why him being on flight 77 is irrelevant.

 

[CptColumbo]

"a very average pilot, maybe struggling a bit."

""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."


First, you need to take the other quotes in that article into account which say his skills were "so bad." Second, you need to take the other quotes I provided into account (post 42) which also say he had very poor piloting skills. Third, keep in mind the fact that the "very average pilot" assessment could have been made before his school reported him for his poor performance (which means he went from "very average, maybe struggling a bit" to "poor"). Fourth, even if the "very average pilot" assessment was made after all the reports about his performance (which means he went from "poor" to "very average, maybe struggling a bit"), it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

No, it means that two different people had different opinions of his flying ability.

 

[radical_logic]

No, it means that two different people had different opinions of his flying ability.

Why don't you want to address the substance of my post?


First, you need to take the other quotes in that article into account which say his skills were "so bad."

Don't simply ignore them.

Second, you need to take the other quotes I provided into account (post 42) which also say he had very poor piloting skills.

If you read post 42, you will see that more than one person had a low opinion of Hanjour's skills.


Third, keep in mind the fact that the "very average pilot" assessment could have been made before his school reported him for his poor performance (which means he went from "very average, maybe struggling a bit" to "poor").

Again, you ignore this. If the assessment that his skills were "very average" was made BEFORE the assessment that they were "so bad," then suggests that he got WORSE.



Fourth, even if the "very average pilot" assessment was made after all the reports about his performance (which means he went from "poor" to "very average, maybe struggling a bit"), it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

Again, you ignore this. Why?



"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."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible.

 

[Myriad]

Considerable evidence has been presented that executing a wide, descending, sloppy, irregular turn followed by hitting a building with an over quarter mile wide profile in a modern jetliner is in fact not difficult for any licensed commercial pilot even if relatively poorly skilled. This evidence includes a preponderance of expert opinion as well as actual experiments in simulators.

That resolves the supposed contradiction.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[radical_logic]

Considerable evidence has been presented that executing a wide, descending, sloppy, irregular turn followed by hitting a building with an over quarter mile wide profile in a modern jetliner is in fact not difficult for any licensed commercial pilot even if relatively poorly skilled. This evidence includes a preponderance of expert opinion as well as actual experiments in simulators.

That resolves the supposed contradiction.

Respectfully,
Myriad

First, in this thread, I've seen only one - maybe two - alleged expert say that the dive wasn't difficult. In some of the links I was given, there were quotes like: "expert Michael (last name withheld) says blah blah..." So it's hard to take those quotes seriously, especially when they aren't even made in any reputable news article.

Second, I've provided a lot of quotes (from mainstream sources, no less) suggesting that the dive was difficult and not at all easy. Therefore, if there is a "a preponderance of expert opinion," then it should be easy to give me much more than one expert who disagrees with all the quotes I cited.

Third, even if you could provide me with many experts who disagree with the experts referenced in the news articles I cited, that doesn't make them correct. We still have a disagreement among experts.

 

[Pardalis]

... and on, and on...

 

[chillzero]

First, in this thread, I've seen only one - maybe two - alleged expert say that the dive wasn't difficult. In some of the links I was given, there were quotes like: "expert Michael (last name withheld) says blah blah..." So it's hard to take those quotes seriously, especially when they aren't even made in any reputable news article.

Second, I've provided a lot of quotes (from mainstream sources, no less) suggesting that the dive was difficult and not at all easy. Therefore, if there is a "a preponderance of expert opinion," then it should be easy to give me much more than one expert who disagrees with all the quotes I cited.

Third, even if you could provide me with many experts who disagree with the experts referenced in the news articles I cited, that doesn't make them correct. We still have a disagreement among experts.

and with all that in mind, what's your response to post 322?

 

[radical_logic]

Are you assuming that every single metre of that maneouvre was specifically planned out beforehand and adhered to?

I don't see why I need to assume that.

Again, according to the relevant experts, the flight 77 dive was very difficult to perform - only a highly skilled pilot could pull it off. Hanjour, according to the relevant experts, was not by any stretch of the imagination a highly skilled pilot.

 

[radical_logic]

and with all that in mind, what's your response to post 322?

Will you please address the following?


"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."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

 

[radical_logic]

... and on, and on...

Please address post 337.

 

[stilicho]

Again, you ignore this. If the assessment that his skills were "very average" was made BEFORE the assessment that they were "so bad," then suggests that he got WORSE.

From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Hanjour was a licensed pilot. His license was verified by the FAA. You agree with that.

But now you "suggest" that he was not only too poor a pilot in 1999, but that he became a worse pilot by 2001.

As others have asked on other 9/11 threads I have to ask you: What would it take to falsify your beliefs? So far it appears that it isn't having a commercial pilot's license nor having that license verified by the FAA.

What is it exactly that it would take?

 

[radical_logic]

From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Hanjour was a licensed pilot. His license was verified by the FAA. You agree with that.

But now you "suggest" that he was not only too poor a pilot in 1999, but that he became a worse pilot by 2001.

Where's the flaw in my argument? Was the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible? Yes or no? I've shown how the answer is 'yes.'

As others have asked on other 9/11 threads I have to ask you: What would it take to falsify your beliefs? So far it appears that it isn't having a commercial pilot's license nor having that license verified by the FAA.

What is it exactly that it would take?

For a relevant expert to say otherwise.