Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[Pardalis]

And round and round we go and do-si-do.

 

[stilicho]

Again, I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you?

So the relevant experts exclude those who issued his license, those who did the check rides, and those who verified it.

I have to admit, radical_logic, that I am stupefied. Only in a hopelessly insane world would a pilot's license be meaningless.

We are in agreement that nothing would falsify your beliefs. Right?

 

[chillzero]

Why won't you answer my question?



"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?

You have already recieved at least one warning for flooding the forum with repeated quotes, so stop it.

I did answer your question, if you would read properly. I said 'so what'. It implies a 'yes' - because of the dates you lay out, but clearly indicates my opinion that it doesn't matter whether it's yes or no.

You need to stop ignoring the information you have been given, and go read some other threads in this forum - particularly Gravy's links, which clearly indicate where the evidence can be found for just about every aspect of 911.

 

[beachnut]

The biggest building in the world? And a 40 foot runway! Which can a terrorist hit? You lack logic, mr logic man.

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.

Hard for the worse pilot in the world to miss the Pentagon.

The tiny runway, 40 feet wide, Hani could not land, but 1400 feet wide, he almost hit the ground! Anyone who thinks Hani could not almost miss the Pentagon is unable to use logic and connnect the dots to understand flying.

40 feet wide vs. 1400 feet ,,,

 

[radical_logic]

You have already recieved at least one warning for flooding the forum with repeated quotes, so stop it.

I did answer your question, if you would read properly. I said 'so what'. It implies a 'yes' - because of the dates you lay out, but clearly indicates my opinion that it doesn't matter whether it's yes or no.

"so what" doesn't necessarily mean 'yes,' but I'm glad you now made your answer explicit. Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

You need to stop ignoring the information you have been given,

What information have I ignored? Be specific.

 

[radical_logic]

So the relevant experts exclude those who issued his license, those who did the check rides, and those who verified it.

I have to admit, radical_logic, that I am stupefied. Only in a hopelessly insane world would a pilot's license be meaningless.

You didn't answer my question. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?

We are in agreement that nothing would falsify your beliefs. Right?

Read my prior responses.

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts

Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."

"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

Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia agrees:

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.

 

[chillzero]

"so what" doesn't necessarily mean 'yes,' but I'm glad you now made your answer explicit. Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

Hang on.
I answered your question at face value. Statement A was made before statement B. You made it relatively clear that this was the case.

That in no way relates to or supports your argument that Hanjour could not have made this crash - because that's what he did you know - not some amazing maneouvre. In fact I've already stated that he obviously did make the crash, so varied opinions on his piloting abilities are completely irrelevant.

Don't extrapolate things out of my posts that I did not say.

What information have I ignored? Be specific.

Most of it. Start reading.

 

[radical_logic]

Don't extrapolate things out of my posts that I did not say.

I didn't. Pay attention.

Hang on.
I answered your question at face value. Statement A was made before statement B. You made it relatively clear that this was the case.

That in no way relates to or supports your argument that Hanjour could not have made this crash - because that's what he did you know - not some amazing maneouvre. In fact I've already stated that he obviously did make the crash, so varied opinions on his piloting abilities are completely irrelevant.

This is what I ssaid: Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

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

I haven't extrapolated anything you didn't say.

Most of it. Start reading.

I have been. Why can't you be more specific?

 

[chillzero]

I didn't. Pay attention.



This is what I ssaid: Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

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

I haven't extrapolated anything you didn't say.

Yes you have. I merely ageed that given the information you provided, one statement was indeed made earlier than the other one. I made no assessment as to the validity of either statement.

I don't agree that he was either a good, mediocre, or terrible pilot. I don't have the ability to make that judgement. As I said, it really doesn't matter how good a pilot he was - he was good enough to get a licence, and also good enough to make the plane crash into one of the, if not the, biggest buildings in the area. Opinions on his abilities are irrelevant. Why do you keep ignoring that?

I have been. Why can't you be more specific?

 

[T.A.M.]

Exactly. He was of sufficient ability so as to obtain the license. I am pretty sure they aren't handing such licenses out with every purchase of a snickers bar.

But if he wasn't Captain Flyboy, then too bad, it was obviously an inside job...lol

TAM

 

[stilicho]

You didn't answer my question. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?

You answered your own question. Nothing can falsify your belief that, although licensed to operate a commercial airliner, Hanjour could not do so. In February of 2001, at the request of his instructor, the FAA verified Hanjour's license and offered to supply an English tutor to assist him. February 2001 is in between the issuance of the license and Hanjour's piloting of AA77 into the Pentagon.

Now, back to that expert you were going to name.

 

[jhunter1163]

Exactly. He was of sufficient ability so as to obtain the license. I am pretty sure they aren't handing such licenses out with every purchase of a snickers bar.
TAM

Check your Cracker Jacks. That's where I got mine.

 

[chillzero]

Check your Cracker Jacks. That's where I got mine.

[UK childhood]CRACKER JACK!!!![/UK childhood]

 

[radical_logic]

Yes you have. I merely ageed that given the information you provided, one statement was indeed made earlier than the other one. I made no assessment as to the validity of either statement.

I don't agree that he was either a good, mediocre, or terrible pilot. I don't have the ability to make that judgement. As I said, it really doesn't matter how good a pilot he was - he was good enough to get a licence, and also good enough to make the plane crash into one of the, if not the, biggest buildings in the area. Opinions on his abilities are irrelevant. Why do you keep ignoring that?

Here's why I only extrapolated inferences from what you said.

I said: 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?

Your answer is yes. Therefore, you agree that the "terrible skills" assessment came only months before 9/11. No instructor has said otherwise. Hence the "terrible skills" assessment is the most accurate assessement of Hanjour's abilities as a pilot before 9/11.

Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

Where's the flaw?

 

[radical_logic]

You answered your own question.

But you haven't answered mine. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?

 

[chillzero]

Here's why I only extrapolated inferences from what you said.

I said: 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?

Your answer is yes. Therefore, you agree that the "terrible skills" assessment came only months before 9/11. No instructor has said otherwise. Hence the "terrible skills" assessment is the most accurate assessement of Hanjour's abilities as a pilot before 9/11.

Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

Where's the flaw?

Try reading this a little slower.

I agreed that one assessment was made before the other, timewise. I did not agree with any assessment. Those assessments were made by other people - not me. I made no judgement on whether or not either of your statements were true. In fact I laid it out quite clearly in my last post that not only do I hold no opinion as to his skills, but that his skills levels don't matter given the events of 911. Your selective reading seems to have interfered with your ability to understand once again.

 

[Myriad]

uh...yeah. How can I possibly do it myself? Hence we need a new investigation to sort out all the problems.

What, precisely, is stopping you from doing it yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[radical_logic]

Try reading this a little slower.

I agreed that one assessment was made before the other, timewise. I did not agree with any assessment. Those assessments were made by other people - not me. I made no judgement on whether or not either of your statements were true. In fact I laid it out quite clearly in my last post that not only do I hold no opinion as to his skills, but that his skills levels don't matter given the events of 911. Your selective reading seems to have interfered with your ability to understand once again.

1. If you won't accept his instructor's assessment, then who's assessment would you accept?
2. His skill levels are certainly relevant if the quotes I cited are correct: that only a highly skilled pilot could accomplish the 77-dive.

 

[radical_logic]

What, precisely, is stopping you from doing it yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Time, limited resources, lack of journalistic credentials, lack of subpoena power.