Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[CHF]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?

The WTC and the Pentagon were some of the biggest office buildings in the world.

It's kinda hard to miss them.

 

[lapman]

Since the 9/11 Commission report is explicitly mentioned, is it not a reasonable assumption that those pilots are aware the current official story posits a 330 degree turn instead of a 270 degree one? Yes or no?

Irrelevant. Those "experts" that claim that only an "ace" could make that turn misrepresent what was done every time.

Even if true, the inference still wouldn't follow. He could have reinforced his belief from other sources besides the 20/20 program.

He makes no claim to have looked at anything else. So, by your standards, he has only looked at the 20/20 program and nothing else.

Oh come on. Many non-truthers hate the Bush administration.

It would be safe to say that the majority are not supporters of BushCo. I am one of them. However, I have put aside my feelings and looked at the full body of evidence instead of only looking for "anomalies" in order to justify my feelings.

Except this wouldn't do much good since the facts are so firecely disputed. How is that there can be experts who say the manuever was "extraordinary difficult" and other experts who say it was "relatively easy?" The gap is enormous, and thus the dispute is still over the facts.

The facts are only disputed by those that refuse to think objectively and look at the full body of evidence. Here is something that your "experts" forget to consider. If the pilot of the aircraft was such an expert, why didn't he time his descent so that the turn wouldn't have to be made? He flight path already was headed toward the side of the Pentagon that was hit. The 30 degree turn would have been easy.

 

[lapman]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?

You forget that both Hani and Atta got training on how to use the autopilot and navigation systems of airliners at the Pan Am simulators. Since all four were certified pilots, they all had training in navigation.

 

[TjW]

Where have I done that? I simply noted an unresolved contradiction (see my e-mail to Mark Roberts). I haven't taken a position on what happened or what didn't happen.

Oh, is that all you're worried about? Okay. I'll resolve the contradiction. The 'experts' who considered the maneuver difficult don't describe the actual maneuver as described in the report, and made in real life.

 

[HawksFan]

Being a "good" pilot requires 4 basic things:

1. Being able to get the aircraft into the air safely.
2. Being able to handle aircraft systems and engine/fuel management to safely keep the aircraft in the air.
3. Being able to clearly communicate with ATC and other aircraft, understand and follow ATC instructions, and the understand intentions of other aircraft.
4. Being able to get the aircraft back down on the ground in a safe and controlled manner.

It's quite clear that if Hani wasn't proficient at 1, 3, and/or 4 that said rental places would consider him a "terrible" pilot. After all the rental places are greatly concerned with getting their plane back in one piece, understandably. However it says nothing about his ability to take a plane already airborne and punch holes in the sky with it.

Which is all he really had to do.

Also, assuming for the sake of arguement that we grant the assumption that the turn was a difficult maneuver, what's to say Hani didn't just get lucky? Perhaps any other time and he augers into Arlington cemetary or the Potomac or wipes out a couple of hundred commuters on the freeway?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You could say Hani's landing could use a little work.

BTW Tweeter, do you realize that the Pentagon was not an intended target, but chosen last minute because Hani couldn't find his target? So he chose the biggest thing he could see, which was the biggest building in the area which was easily visible.

 

[A W Smith]

600 hours documented flight time, Thats equivalent to fifteen 40 hour work weeks in the air. in a variety of aircraft. Thats how much experience hani had before 9/11. and he didn't crash once. On that day A flight that lasted only about forty six minutes under his control. he willfully crashed it.

 

[gumboot]

You could say Hani's landing could use a little work.

BTW Tweeter, do you realize that the Pentagon was not an intended target, but chosen last minute because Hani couldn't find his target? So he chose the biggest thing he could see, which was the biggest building in the area which was easily visible.

My understanding is that the Pentagon target was intentional.

For what it's worth, I think the turn AA77 performs is actually indicative that Hani Hanjour was the most experienced of the 9/11 pilots. I suspect any of the others would have just nosed down and dive-bombed the building, but Hanjour had a bit more flying experience and realised he needed to bleed off some altitude and come in level.

 

[dudalb]

My understanding is that the Pentagon target was intentional.

For what it's worth, I think the turn AA77 performs is actually indicative that Hani Hanjour was the most experienced of the 9/11 pilots. I suspect any of the others would have just nosed down and dive-bombed the building, but Hanjour had a bit more flying experience and realised he needed to bleed off some altitude and come in level.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the Pentagon was the originally intended target or not. IMHO they probably had, at least informally, a primary and a secondary target. Certainly taking out the White House or the Capitol building would have had a bigger impact then the Pentagon would have,and cause a lot more casualties. We will probably never know, but I am sure the Pentagon was on their target list, we just don't know how high a priority it had.

 

[fezzic]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?

You forget that both Hani and Atta got training on how to use the autopilot and navigation systems of airliners at the Pan Am simulators. Since all four were certified pilots, they all had training in navigation.

I might add that since this was a planned event -- nobody is claiming that the hijackers assembled, some underwent pilot training, and seized control of the aircraft, all on the spur of the moment, are they? -- part of the planning would include being able to navigate to the vicinity of the planned targets. Even if the trained pilots were so stupid as to not understand the details of how to program in coordinates and use the system, the planners would have assembled that information even in the form of a check list of do this, then this, then this, etc. All actions being taken on faith. A possible security problem for the plotters, since a checklist could be discovered, but that possibility might be considered (if it ever had to be done this way) a calculated risk.

Navigation under the circumstances was not going to be an impediment to carrying out the plot.

 

[radical_logic]

Irrelevant. Those "experts" that claim that only an "ace" could make that turn misrepresent what was done every time.

Not irrelevant at all. First, you dismissed those experts on the basis that they had an incorrect understanding of the turn itself (that it was a 330 instead of a 270), and now you're saying, even if they are aware of the account in the 9/11 Commission report, that doesn't matter.

He makes no claim to have looked at anything else. So, by your standards, he has only looked at the 20/20 program and nothing else.

1. Your claim that the basis of his view is only the 20/20 program has been proven to be unfounded - and most likely false.

2. How is this "my standards?" In fact, it is reasonable to assume he understands the account provided in the 9/11 Commission Report, as explained before.

It would be safe to say that the majority are not supporters of BushCo. I am one of them. However, I have put aside my feelings and looked at the full body of evidence instead of only looking for "anomalies" in order to justify my feelings.

Justify this assertion. How do you know the experts who question the official story are "only looking for 'anomalies' in order to justify their feelings?" How did you determine this?

The facts are only disputed by those that refuse to think objectively and look at the full body of evidence.

This, of course, makes the experts who disagree sound like "crackpots," but you have given no evidence to suppose what you say is true. Have you interacted with any of them? I'm sure many would say the same about you.

Here is something that your "experts" forget to consider. If the pilot of the aircraft was such an expert, why didn't he time his descent so that the turn wouldn't have to be made? He flight path already was headed toward the side of the Pentagon that was hit. The 30 degree turn would have been easy.

This is why the experts on both sides need to get together and hash out the issue: in the meantime, non-experts like me will wait until a general consensus has been achieved.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

According to KSM the intended targets were the White House and the Capitol building, not the Pentagon. Those targets also make more sense than the Pentagon.The WTC was picked because of the symbolic impact they would have and that worked well. Hitting the Capitol and White house would have sent a bigger message than the Pentagon would it not?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Radical.

Again, if you had every pilot in the world thinking the maneuvers were difficult (as opposed to reality where you have a small group of people, only a couple of which are actually pilots), then it would still not prove Hani could not have flown the plane and it still would not be a contradiction.

 

[radical_logic]

I fail to see the ambiguity in Bernard's statement. If Hanjour could fly a plane into "a building", it seems difficult to argue that one of the largest buildings in the world is somehow excluded.

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Just because someone thinks a maneuver is difficult does not mean a well trained pilot with 600 hours of time (Hani) can't perform it.

As pointed out, the guy said he could hit a building. Pentagon = building. If we were in first grade, the rest of the class would get it.

 

[radical_logic]

So then you agree that Hani was flying flight 77? He either is or isn't. Which is it cowboy?

You haven't been paying attention, cowgirl. I agree: either Hani was flying flight 77 or he isn't. Which is it? My answer (for the 100th times): I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself: I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself:I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself: I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself:I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself: I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself:I DON'T KNOW

And what is it with idiots who think that when they lose a debate in one place then they accuse people of not being able to debate them somewhere else. What is there something magical about some other web link that allows you to debate there and not here? My God, the idiocy can be astounding.

Classic projection. You aren't scared, are you?

Also, you don't even understand what a contradiction is.

Accept my debate challenge and show me - don't just assert.

 

[radical_logic]

Just because someone thinks a maneuver is difficult does not mean a well trained pilot with 600 hours of time (Hani) can't perform it.

As pointed out, the guy said he could hit a building. Pentagon = building. If we were in first grade, the rest of the class would get it.

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

 

[lapman]

Not irrelevant at all. First, you dismissed those experts on the basis that they had an incorrect understanding of the turn itself (that it was a 330 instead of a 270), and now you're saying, even if they are aware of the account in the 9/11 Commission report, that doesn't matter.

It is irrelevant. As you have stated, the report talks about the 330 degree turn. In order for your "experts" to be contesting this, they would have to have read it. Your source, patriotsquestion, has nothing to do with any of them having actually read the report.

1. Your claim that the basis of his view is only the 20/20 program has proven unfounded.

When?

2. How is this "my standards?" In fact, it is reasonable to assume he understands the account provided in the 9/11 Commission Report, as explained before.

False. If he had read the report, then he would not have made the mistake. Therefore, the 270 degree, high speed stall, etc. mistakes conclusively prove that he, nor the others that talk about the Pentagon, hadn't even looked at the report at all.

Justify this assertion. How do you know the experts who question the official story are "only looking for 'anomalies' in order to justify their feelings?" How did you determine this?

Too many of them talk about the Bush administration. None of them actually address the report itself. They only parrot what the "Truth Movement" money mongers state.

This, of course, makes the experts who disagree sound like "crackpots," but you have given no evidence to suppose what you say is true. Have you interacted with any of them? I'm sure many would say the same about you.

Can't say I have. Have you?

This is why the experts on both sides need to get together and hash the issue out: in the meantime, non-experts like me will wait until a general consensus has been achieved.

Sounds great. Why don't you set that up. I would love to go.

 

[radical_logic]

According to KSM the intended targets were the White House and the Capitol building, not the Pentagon. Those targets also make more sense than the Pentagon.The WTC was picked because of the symbolic impact they would have and that worked well. Hitting the Capitol and White house would have sent a bigger message than the Pentagon would it not?

of course. But keep in mind that: the CIA has admitted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded (i.e. tortured).

 

[lapman]

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

The fact is that the Pentagon is a HUGE buildings. So "a building" would definitely include the Pentagon.