Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[Dave Rogers]

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).

There's an obvious self-selection going on there, though. What news source will bother printing a story with the headline "Flying expert claims 9/11 suicide pilot didn't do anything all that tricky"? It's the news equivalent of "Dog bites man".

There's another level of self-selection going on here, too. When an expert, with specific experience of Hanjour's flying, does get quoted as saying that Hanjour could have flown an airliner into a building, you immediately start trying to pick holes in his assessment, by saying that he didn't specify which building. Why aren't you applying the same level of critical evaluation to the experts who suggest that Hanjour was a terrible pilot? It seems that you're only prepared to question the evidence that you personally disagree with.

Dave

 

[bje]

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.

You must be woefully ignorant of what we know about your tactics, RL. In fact you have brought up every debunked and strawman argument that AA77 could not have hit the Pentagon and then play the classic Truther game of ignoring the evidence demonstrating that it did and pretending that you don't have a position on it.

Nice try but no cigar.

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

You know full well that I deal with the logical extensions of your claims and you hate that.

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

Actually, I hit the nail on the head every time, because I ask you questions that go to the heart of your 9/11 Denial and show that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. For instance, this one, which you have persistently evaded:

You know, radical logic, there are so many unanswered questions and unresolved contradictions from DRG's own statements, I think it's better if you'd concentrate on resolving them for us.

Here's one of DRG's statements making the rounds. It's making 9/11 Truthers very nervous:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_xSQcdbJC_I4/...Poster-DRG.jpg

Can you tell us, radical logic, just who "they" are? If you can't, why not?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4039890&postcount=71

You see, you wish to limit any conversation or debate to only that which you think helps your desired conclusion while we won't let you ignore the implications of what you write or the evidence either.

 

[radical_logic]

You know full well that I deal with the logical extensions of your claims and you hate that.

Actually, I don't know that, but I would love it if you tried to deal with my argument. Address my e-mail to Mark Roberts.

<snip incoherent rant>

 

[bje]

Actually, I don't know that, but I would love it if you tried to deal with my argument. Address my e-mail to Mark Roberts.

<snip incoherent rant>

You mean: <snip inconvenient evidence>. Thanks for illustrating my case - and your hypocrisy - so well, RL.

 

[radical_logic]

There's an obvious self-selection going on there, though. What news source will bother printing a story with the headline "Flying expert claims 9/11 suicide pilot didn't so anything all that tricky"? It's the news equivalent of "Dog bites man".

I don't know of one mainstream news source, when commenting about Hanjour's flight, that described it as anything but difficult. Not one. But, according to you, I'm suppose to weigh that against the opinion of someone writing for "9/11 Myths" and give the latter more credibility. Really now.

There's another level of self-selection going on here, too. When an expert, with specific experience of Hanjour's flying, does get quoted as saying that Hanjour could have flown an airliner into a building, you immediately start trying to pick holes in his assessment, by saying that he didn't specify which building.

What's invalid about my point here? How do we know Bernard was referring to the Pentagon? And even if he was, keep in mind that comment was made 2 weeks after 9/11, so he might not have been aware of the alleged difficult trajectory.

Why assume Bernard was saying what you're claiming he's saying based on such an ambiguous sentence? One sentence. Why didn't the reporter ask him to clarify? "By 'a building' you mean, specifically, the Pentagon, right?"

Why aren't you applying the same level of critical evaluation to the experts who suggest that Hanjour was a terrible pilot? It seems that you're only prepared to question the evidence that you personally disagree with.

Dave

Because, unlike Bernard's highly ambiguous comment, those who claim that Hanjour was a terrible pilot (Bernard included) are crytal clear about that fact.

 

[radical_logic]

You mean: <snip inconvenient evidence>. Thanks for illustrating my case - and your hypocrisy - so well, RL.

Either deal with my argument or not. You have chosen not to.

 

[lapman]

I hope that was your apology for saying that I lied.

Yes

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

IIRC, none of them are pilots.

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

Immaterial. This only shows that they either ever attempted to research what really happened, or their statements where never published. Even if they did retract their statements, the terrorist apologist will only claim that they were "gotten to" and forced to make the retraction. The fact still remains that their statement is based on faulty information. Therefore their statements are false.

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.

This would be like saying that the majority of people are homosexual since so many speak out and so few proclaim their heterosexuality.

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."

The only contradiction is in your mind. As a pilot, I understand what it takes to make the simple descending turn. So, why don't you go to your local airport, take a demo flight and ask the instructor to let you perform a descending turn to that you will see for yourself how easy it is.

 

[radical_logic]

IIRC, none of them are pilots.

Seems like you stuck your foot in your mouth again.


"Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 120 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite. "




http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Immaterial. This only shows that they either ever attempted to research what really happened,

Nice way to beg the question. Because they don't agree with you, "they never attempted to research what really happened."

or their statements where never published.

If their retractions were never published, then we can't know if they retracted their statements, can we now?

Even if they did retract their statements, the terrorist apologist will only claim that they were "gotten to" and forced to make the retraction.

I hope you're not implying that I'm a "terrorist apologist." If you are, then this conversation ends with you on my ignore list.

The fact still remains that their statement is based on faulty information. Therefore their statements are false.

Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.

This would be like saying that the majority of people are homosexual since so many speak out and so few proclaim their heterosexuality.

Fallacious. Of the experts who studied Hani Hanjour's case, how many of them accept the official story? Can you honestly claim a majority? More importantly, can honestly claim there is a general consensus among the experts on this issue?

The only contradiction is in your mind. As a pilot, I understand what it takes to make the simple descending turn. So, why don't you go to your local airport, take a demo flight and ask the instructor to let you perform a descending turn to that you will see for yourself how easy it is.

Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.

 

[lapman]

Seems like you stuck your foot in your mouth again.


"Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 120 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite. "




http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Wrong. Not a single one of them say anything about the 330 degree turn.

Nice way to beg the question. Because they don't agree with you, "they never attempted to research what really happened."

No, because they say the same faulty statements over and over again that shows that they didn't do one iota of real research. Like Capt. Whittenberg, who is basing his opinion on only the 20/20 show he saw.

If their retractions were never published, then we can't know if they retracted their statements, can we now?

While true, it doesn't mean that they stand by their statements today either. Either way, an opinion based on faulty information is wrong no matter how strongly they stand by it.

I hope you're not implying that I'm a "terrorist apologist." If you are, then this conversation ends with you on my ignore list.

Are you one?

Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.

As an experienced pilot, I can make that assessment. Having also jumped into the cockpit of a MD-80 full-sized simulator and able to take-off, fly and land it with minor instruction while having zero previous flight time, I know first-hand how easy it really is to fly a "heavy."

Fallacious. Of the experts who studied Hani Hanjour's case, how many of them accept the official story? Can you honestly claim a majority? More importantly, can honestly claim there is a general consensus among the experts on this issue?

100% of the experts that actually studied Hani's case and base their opinion on the full body of evidence agree with the "official story." Not a single person on your list has. Yes, that includes the president.

Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.

Ok, then provide the contact info with an expert that has studied the full body of evidence and still, to this day, agrees with you.

 

[bje]

Either deal with my argument or not. You have chosen not to.

Either answer my question or explain why you are unable to.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

No, I am not saying 20 experts claim to affect the official story. I am saying that there are 20 alone just between experts who have posted in this thread and that have been given as examples in this thread.

And absolutely not am I saying that the minority would have to be less than 20. Son, are you on drugs? How do you come to that conclusion with out the use of chemical substances.

Now how many scientists have come out and said they support that the earth is round? Probably almost none. Yet we do have people who have come out and said they disagree that the earth is round. Does that prove the earth must be flat? After all there are more people who will claim the earth is flat than ones that have announced they believe the earth si round.


Do you understand that the reason you aren't taken seriously is that no one outside of your 9/11 cults is stupid enough to fall for these fallacies?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So out of the million and millions of pilots in the world, only 120 disagree? Wow, that's a pretty sad fact isn't it radical. Wow, 120 out of millions. And of course the ones you use also think that there is a soul catcher on the moon, that the planes were holograms, and that nuclear weapons brought down the towers. And you don't understand why people laugh at you guys?

 

[beachnut]

Seems like you stuck your foot in your mouth again.

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report.

What a joke! You have 0.001 percent of pilots who have ZERO evidence to support you failed idea about Hani. Your ideas are a joke, your experts are a joke.

You can't post a single piece of evidence, just hearsay and false ideas from you and your terrorist apologist buddies.

 

[stilicho]

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.

It's called "living the American Dream".

Every time I see a "shocking new" Alex Jones release, or a DRG book, or something like Mike Ruppert's Crossing The Rubicon, I am reminded of the South Park "truther" episode. Kyle says, simply and elegantly, "25% of Americans are retarded".

Like the guy wearing the 911truth.org black t-shirt in that episode, David Ray Griffin is annually "killed" by the government and is annually resurrected to continue the fight. There is so much free money out there that he really can't help himself. Believe me, I have been tempted sorely to produce my own piece of fiction and sell it, to sop up the excess income from "truthers" who require more than the lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy but aren't getting it from their careers or their personal lives.

 

[fezzic]

The issue of whether Hanjour was inexperienced (thread title) is actually not particularly relevant since training does not necessarily (IMO) equal experience. The question is whether, with his level of training, for I believe most everyone believes he had some degree of training, even if his expertise was in doubt, was adequate to do what he did. The relevant issue is the actual difficulty of carrying it out.

It was not as if he seriously stalled the aircraft and had to perform a recovery before flying it into the Pentagon. It was not as if he had to fly through a veritable obstacle course of large objects, collision with any of which would thwart his mission. It was not as if he was flying NOE (possibly under fire by intercepting fighters, if any had been able to get there) to get to the Pentagon.

It would seem that, aside from navigating to the vicinity of the Pentagon, he was required to turn, descend, and then fly the aircraft into the Pentagon. The actual difficulty of that maneuver is relevant. I would note that even if his chances of successfully carrying it out, given his state of training, was low, it was certainly greater than zero. All he had to be was lucky and he would do what he intended. If luck ran out for him (I am assuming for this statement that the maneuver was in fact comparatively difficult for his level of training) then he would pile into the ground and we'd be wondering how he could have been so stupid to attempt something so far (we would assume) beyond his skills.

So the question is what about his maneuver was supposed to be very difficult?

-The turn? What made it difficult?
-The descent? What made that difficult?
-The combination of the two? Why would that be particularly difficult?

In particular, what bad consequence(s) would likely have occurred?

Remember, he only had to be 'lucky' once in doing all this. He was not going to have to do it over, perhaps several times, in order to pass some test. It was pretty strictly pass/fail once. One might argue that he might have missed on his first attempt (hypothetically) and had to come around again, but he would hardly be likely to climb to 7,000 feet or whatever and repeat the turn and descent that some seem to think must have been very difficult. I certainly wouldn't have thought him to be that stupid.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Basically radical is trying to claim that it was impossible for Hani to have flown the plane. But the burden of proof is on him to prove that Hani could not fly the plane. It doesn't matter if every pilot on the planet did not believe he could make that maneuver.

 

[radical_logic]

Basically radical is trying to claim that it was impossible for Hani to have flown the plane.

This is, of course, a lie. I NEVER claimed this (read my e-mail to Mark Roberts, since you obviously didn't).

But what are the chances of you admitting your error? Probably about as slim as you agreeing to debate me here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123911

 

[radical_logic]

Wrong. Not a single one of them say anything about the 330 degree turn.

"Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report."

The 330-degree turn is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore, if they "expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report," and one of their criticisms is flight 77, then it stands to reason that they're aware of the 330-degree and judge it to be difficult.

No, because they say the same faulty statements over and over again that shows that they didn't do one iota of real research. Like Capt. Whittenberg, who is basing his opinion on only the 20/20 show he saw.

1. Again, I can't evaluate your claim that they're based on "faulty statements."
2. How do you know Capt. Whittenberg is basing his opinion only on the 20/20 show? Are you psychic?

While true, it doesn't mean that they stand by their statements today either.

Hence why I'm not taking a side on this issue.

Either way, an opinion based on faulty information is wrong no matter how strongly they stand by it.
Are you one?

Again, this is just your "expert" say-so...I'm sure any one of the experts on the above mentioned site would say otherwise. I just can't know.

As an experienced pilot, I can make that assessment.

Fine. And I'm not dismissing it. But from my point of view - the point of view of a non-expert - it would be irrational for me to take your word for it.

100% of the experts that actually studied Hani's case and base their opinion on the full body of evidence agree with the "official story." Not a single person on your list has. Yes, that includes the president.

How do you know none of the pilots I referenced didn't study the "full body of evidence?"

 

[beachnut]

"Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report."

The 330-degree turn is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore, if they "expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report," and one of their criticisms is flight 77, then it stands to reason that they're aware of the 330-degree and judge it to be difficult.

Oops. The 330 degree turn was not even at standard rate. It was slower. Therefore not difficult, but 330 sounds impressive.
NOW stand in the room facing a wall; turn around until you see the wall again. OOPS, you did a 360 degree turn. Was that difficult?

See, all your experts are idiots!

 

[dtugg]

"Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report."

The 330-degree turn is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore, if they "expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report," and one of their criticisms is flight 77, then it stands to reason that they're aware of the 330-degree and judge it to be difficult.

Wow, that is some of the worst logic I have ever heard.