Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[chillzero]

1. If you won't accept his instructor's assessment, then who's assessment would you accept?

I don't know, and I don't really care, because as I have repeatedly wasted effort on pointing out - all the evidence shows that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area.

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.

However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area. Why keep ignoring this?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

It requires 250 hours to obtain a commercial pilot license I believe and Hanjour had both a private and commercial piloting license and was the most experienced out of all of the 9/11 hijackers..

Wow he was at the head of the class huh? Do you grade on the curve by any chance?

 

[radical_logic]

However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area. Why keep ignoring this?

That claim is contradicted by the quotes I cited in post 42, which you continue to ignore.

Here's one of them.

"Commander Muga: 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. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

Why do you keep ignoring this?

 

[chillzero]

That claim is contradicted by the quotes I cited in post 42, which you continue to ignore.

Here's one of them.

"Commander Muga: 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. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

Why do you keep ignoring this?

I'm not ignoring it.
Opinions are over ruled by facts, you silly little man.

It doesn't matter how many people think he wasn't a good pilot. It doesn't change what he actually managed to DO.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

That claim is contradicted by the quotes I cited in post 42, which you continue to ignore.

Here's one of them.

"Commander Muga: 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. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Don't forget Capt. Russ Wittenberg...

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

 

[radical_logic]

I'm not ignoring it.

Yes, you are. What do you make of his expert opinion?

You said: "However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area."

Clearly, NOT "all" the evidence points to that fact? See post 42.

But what evidence points to that fact? Evidence seems to show: (a) it takes a highly skilled pilot to accomplish to 77-dive, and (b) Hanjour was not a highly skilled pilot - not by a long shot.

What evidence refutes either (a) or (b)? SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

 

[Wolrab]

I don't know if it has been posted yet ( i didn't want to read repetitive posts for 5 or 6 pages) but further down, in one of the sources used there is this little ditty:


"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, 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."

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

I wonder why this wasn't included in the original posting. Hmm......

 

[radical_logic]

Don't forget Capt. Russ Wittenberg...

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Right!

And Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists". "

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Davis

 

[radical_logic]

I don't know if it has been posted yet ( i didn't want to read repetitive posts for 5 or 6 pages) but further down, in one of the sources used there is this little ditty:


"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, 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."

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

I wonder why this wasn't included in the original posting. Hmm......

I've addressed this quote already.

There is no indication that Bernard was referring to "the Pentagon" specifically when he said "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." Therefore, his statement is completely consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon.

 

[TjW]

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?

Could you explain why standard or above skills were required for Hanjour's feat?

 

[chillzero]

Yes, you are. What do you make of his expert opinion?

For the final time - I don't care about anyone's opinion when weighed up against the evidence of the day.

You said: "However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area."

Clearly, NOT "all" the evidence points to that fact? See post 42.

But what evidence points to that fact? Evidence seems to show: (a) it takes a highly skilled pilot to accomplish to 77-dive, and (b) Hanjour was not a highly skilled pilot - not by a long shot.

What evidence refutes either (a) or (b)? SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

Clearly neither (a) nor (b) matter. Hanjour did undertake a dive that ploughed the plane into the Pentagon - unless you are claiming this never happened?

Hanjour has been named as the pilot given that he had the best piloting credentials of the hijackers - unless you are claiming one of the less qualified hijackers undertook the flight? Or perhaps one of the other passengers?

What exactly do you think occured if you are claiming that Hanjour did not fly this plane into the Pentagon? If you are not claiming that he didn't fly the plane, then what exactly is the point of this thread?

 

[radical_logic]

Could you explain why standard or above skills were required for Hanjour's feat?

I'm not an expert, so I could not explain why that dive is difficult. But the quotes I cited clearly indicate that experts do think that that dive is difficult. See post 42 for those quotes.

 

[chillzero]

I've addressed this quote already.

There is no indication that Bernard was referring to "the Pentagon" specifically when he said "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." Therefore, his statement is completely consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon.

But you ignored the fact that the Pentagon is a building, and therefore the quote is just fine. And, in fact the Pentagon is not just a building, but a REALLY REALLY BIG building, and therefore easier to hit than most.

 

[radical_logic]

For the final time - I don't care about anyone's opinion when weighed up against the evidence of the day.

What is that "evidence?" I've asked you several times to provide it to me, but you haven't. Be specific.

Clearly neither (a) nor (b) matter. Hanjour did undertake a dive that ploughed the plane into the Pentagon - unless you are claiming this never happened?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, clearly, (a) and (b) matter. What is the flaw in this argument?

Hanjour has been named as the pilot given that he had the best piloting credentials of the hijackers -

Which doesn't mean he was, by conventional standards, "good."

What exactly do you think occured if you are claiming that Hanjour did not fly this plane into the Pentagon? If you are not claiming that he didn't fly the plane, then what exactly is the point of this thread?

1. I don't know what did or did not happen. Hence, I am not claiming that Hanjour did not fly into the Pentagon - only that IF the above were true, then he could not have flown into the Pentagon. Note the distinction.
2. The point is to show that there is an unresolved contradiction in the official story.

 

[Wolrab]

I've addressed this quote already.

There is no indication that Bernard was referring to "the Pentagon" specifically when he said "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." Therefore, his statement is completely consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon.

I can not believe you said that. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. If Hanjour could hit some other building, he could certainly hit the Pentagon. You are grasping at straws, badly.

 

[radical_logic]

But you ignored the fact that the Pentagon is a building, and therefore the quote is just fine.

"A building" doesn't necessarily mean "the Pentagon Building." This point stands.

and therefore easier to hit than most.

Once again, the experts seem to disagree. See the above quotes.

 

[beachnut]

"A building" doesn't necessarily mean "the Pentagon Building." This point stands.




Once again, the experts seem to disagree. See the above quotes.

Pentagon, largest building. This stands. My grandson understands, he is 4.

 

[radical_logic]

I can not believe you said that. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. If Hanjour could hit some other building, he could certainly hit the Pentagon. You are grasping at straws, badly.

Actually, I'm not. Read post 42 (since I'm not allowed to quote it anymore).

And here:

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."


Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".


"Commander Muga: 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. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

 

[Myriad]

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

Wow, those are good excuses. I guess when the investigation never happens you'll have no reason to ever feel any regret that you didn't bother to do anything on your own initiative.

How much do postage stamps cost?

How much does a reasonably realistic PC passenger jet flight simulator cost? (It wouldn't be totally conclusive, but you could just try it yourself and get an approximate idea of how hard the maneuver is.)

How much does it cost to borrow books on principles of aviation from your local library?

Do journalistic credentials affect whether Hanjour had a valid pilot's license or not?

Does subpoena power change how difficult a flight maneuver is?

Your convenient excuses are just that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-09/10/article02.shtml

The militants were filmed in the Afghan city of Kandahar “a few months” before heading to the United States to carry out the attacks that left about 3,000 dead, the station claimed.

Meanwhile, over still photos of the hijackers, Bin Laden’s voice was allegedly heard naming some of the attackers in the September 11 strikes, including Egyptian Mohammad Atta who he said “led the group which destroyed the first tower” of the World Trade Center.

Describing the attacks as “the New York and Washington raids,” Bin Laden praised “the men who changed the course of history and cleansed the (Arab-Islamic) nation from the filth of treacherous rulers and their subordinates.”

Apart from Atta, Bin Laden named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”