Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[radical_logic]

Wow. I didn't see anybody address this gem of a lie. So, RL cherry picks quote from "experts" that base their claims on invalid data like the "270 degree turn" as "fact." He then goes on to post the Pentagon anti-aircraft missile battery lie. RL, you're only embarrassing yourself here.

Are you retarded? Does "white house" look like "The Pentagon" to you?

 

[TjW]

Are you retarded? Does "white house" look like "The Pentagon" to you?

So were these AA missiles installed before or after Frank Corder crashed an airplane into the White House?

If it was before, why wouldn't they use them?
If it was after, do you have evidence?
If it was after, and you don't have evidence, how do you know it's so?

 

[jaydeehess]

My e-mail to Mark Roberts below.



Dear Mark,
Griffin's newest book, 9/11 Contradictions, arrived a few days ago (Sept.11, to be exact!), and I read through most of it. One chapter I found interesting was the one about Hani Hanjour, in which Griffin attempts to detail a contradiction in the official account of Flight 77. The contradiction is as follows:

(i) Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.
:

post 441

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wait, so Griffin published a new book that pretty much has the same claims he made in his last couple of books? And these idiots keep buying them? What does he do, come up with a new cover every few years? I mean it's bad enough he just keeps publishing the same book over and over to rip off gullible people, but to keep publishing proven wrong information? That's just sad. Though not as sad as the people who buy it I guess.

 

[twinstead]

It appears there is indeed one born every minute

 

[lapman]

Are you retarded? Does "white house" look like "The Pentagon" to you?

Ok, I had a blond moment there. I sit corrected. However, the lack of credibility of your "expert's" statements still stand. They are basing their opinion of false information. That is shown by the 270 degree turn statements that is in most of your posts.

 

[radical_logic]

Ok, I had a blond moment there.



I sit corrected.

Is that an apology for saying that I lied?

However, the lack of credibility of your "expert's" statements still stand. They are basing their opinion of false information. That is shown by the 270 degree turn statements that is in most of your posts.

1. Those who understand the manuever as a 330-degree turn still maintain the difficulty of the dive.

2. Those who initially said the 270-degree turn was difficult never - to my knowledge - retracted their statements.

3. I'm going to quote a passage from my e-mail to Mark so that you know where I'm coming from.

"There are more, but I think the point is clear: according to the relevant experts, only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.

Now, I have found statements of a few experts who deny (i) and claim that the AA77 maneuver was in fact easy. There are, however, two things to note about this. First, those experts seem to be in the minority (which, of course, doesn't mean they're wrong). Second, and more importantly, there hasn't been any real interaction or debate between the experts who affirm (i) and those who deny it.

Hence, there seems to be an unresolved contradiction here. Isn't, then, the claim that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon at least questionable on reasonable grounds? Perhaps the official story will ultimately win the day, but it looks to me like we have mystery."

 

[radical_logic]

post 441

I'm going to quote a passage in my e-mail to Mark so that you know where I'm coming from.

"There are more, but I think the point is clear: according to the relevant experts, only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.

Now, I have found statements of a few experts who deny (i) and claim that the AA77 maneuver was in fact easy. There are, however, two things to note about this. First, those experts seem to be in the minority (which, of course, doesn't mean they're wrong). Second, and more importantly, there hasn't been any real interaction or debate between the experts who affirm (i) and those who deny it.

Hence, there seems to be an unresolved contradiction here. Isn't, then, the claim that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon at least questionable on reasonable grounds? Perhaps the official story will ultimately win the day, but it looks to me like we have mystery."

 

[CHF]

radical logic,

a few years ago a Dutch documentary program looking into 911 conspiracies went to a flight school, found a pilot with about the same training as Hanjour, put him in a flight similator and told him to hit the Pentagon in the same way Flight 77 did.

The student replicated the attack three times in as many tries.

Just sayin....

 

[twinstead]

If only a skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon, and it wasn't Hanjour, then what exactly is that supposed to show? Some highly-skilled secret suicide pilot? Some kind of advanced remote control?

I also don't agree that the experts who claim the maneuver was easy (well, not easy, but easy enough for Hanjour to have made) are in the minority.

 

[radical_logic]

radical logic,

a few years ago a Dutch documentary program looking into 911 conspiracies went to a flight school, found a pilot with about the same training as Hanjour, put him in a flight similator and told him to hit the Pentagon in the same way Flight 77 did.

The student replicated the attack three times in as many tries.

Just sayin....

I think I made it clear that I'm not a relevant expert, so it's simply impossible for me to evaluate the validity of what you're saying. All I know is: there are relevant experts who affirm that (i) is true, as well as those who deny it (but the latter, unlike the former, never seem to be quoted in the mainstream).

Would it, then, be rational for me - a non-expert - to accept the official account when there is a deep divide on this issue by the experts?

 

[bje]

Hence, there seems to be an unresolved contradiction here. Isn't, then, the claim that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon at least questionable on reasonable grounds? Perhaps the official story will ultimately win the day, but it looks to me like we have mystery."

As always, you deliberately ignore that the preponderance of ALL of the other evidence, physical and eyewitness, converges on the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You cannot continue to pretend that you can ignore all that evidence inconvenient to you.

 

[radical_logic]

If only a skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon, and it wasn't Hanjour, then what exactly is that supposed to show? Some highly-skilled secret suicide pilot? Some kind of advanced remote control?

I have no idea. But, if the relevant experts are right, then it couldn't have been Hanjour and that conclusion is significant.

I also don't agree that the experts who claim the maneuver was easy (well, not easy, but easy enough for Hanjour to have made) are in the minority.

How do you know this? Have you done a head count? And if they are, let's say, in the majority, how a big of a majority is that?

 

[radical_logic]

As always, you deliberately ignore that the preponderance of ALL of the other evidence, physical and eyewitness, converges on the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You cannot continue to pretend that you can ignore all that evidence inconvenient to you.

1. I haven't asserted that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, so, as always, you deliberately ignore what I say and lump me in with everyone else.

2. As always, you deliberately ignore what I say so that you can avoid engaging my argument.

3. As always, you commit in fallacious reasoning almost everytime you comment on my posts.

4. As always, you will not admit that (1)-(3) is the case.

 

[CHF]

I think I made it clear that I'm not a relevant expert, so it's simply impossible for me to evaluate the validity of what you're saying. All I know is: there are relevant experts who affirm that (i) is true, as well as those who deny it (but the latter, unlike the former, never seem to be quoted in the mainstream).

Would it, then, be rational for me - a non-expert - to accept the official account when there is a deep divide on this issue by the experts?

Sorry RL, but I don't think anyone outside of the TM sees this "deep divide" among experts that you speak of.

We haven't seen or heard much disagreement from the tens of thousands of airline pilots of the world, just as we haven't seen much disagreement about the WTC from the world's engineers.

You'll always find a fringe group going against the grain (like the lunatics at P4T in this case) but that's all they are: a fringe group. Hardly a "deep divide."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"I have no idea. But, if the relevant experts are right, then it couldn't have been Hanjour and that conclusion is significant. "

But the far majority of experts do NOT concur that it was a difficult maneuver. All you are doing is looking at some people you feel are experts who tell you what you want to hear, and then dismissing any and all experts who tell you what you don't want to hear.

I we were to make a judgment going by expert opinion and not being dishonest, then we would have to conclude that the maneuvers made by flight 77 were not difficult.

You can't expect the rest of the world to cherry pick evidence just because you do radical. And you can't expect the rest of the world to just ignore the evidence that you ignore and the posts that you ignore. You can't expect the rest of the world to agree with falacious reasoning like yours. And you can't epect the rest of the world to accept non-evidence as evidence like you do.

 

[radical_logic]

Sorry RL, but I don't think anyone outside of the TM sees this "deep divide" among experts that you speak of.

We haven't seen or heard much disagreement from the tens of thousands of airline pilots of the world, just as we haven't seen much disagreement about the WTC from the world's engineers.

You'll always find a fringe group going against the grain (like the lunatics at P4T in this case) but that's all they are: a fringe group. Hardly a "deep divide."

What's the head count, then? How many experts who have actually studied Hanjour's case accept the official version of events? How many? Can you give me an approximate number?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You'e got about 10 or so that have directly responded in this very thread. Then you have about that many or more in the myths link that was provided over and over.

 

[radical_logic]

You'e got about 10 or so that have directly responded in this very thread. Then you have about that many or more in the myths link that was provided over and over.

I can't verify if your number is accurate (in fact, I have my doubts), but if it is, then you're claiming "about 20" experts accept the official story. Now, for the experts who disagree with the official to be in the minority, that number would have to be less than 20. Are you claiming that this is so?

 

[CHF]

What's the head count, then? How many experts who have actually studied Hanjour's case accept the official version of events? How many? Can you give me an approximate number?

Oh boy...this silliness again. Twoofers use the same logic when it comes to engineers and the WTC.

Here's the thing, RL....if an expert agrees with the given version of events then he/she really has no need to stand up and say "yes, I agree."

BUT, if they disagree with what is said to have happened then it becomes important for them to speak out. In other words, it is up to your side to gather lots of expert opinion against the "official story."

So far you're got the clowns at P4T. Keep trying.