Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

funk de fino said:
Was that before or after he admitted planning the attacks?
Click to expand...

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."





http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
 
HawksFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even the type of aircraft matters. My grandfather was an extreme case. He had I don't know how many hundreds of hours flying but would never have been permitted to rent a plane; the only plane that he had ever piloted was his 1949 Ercoupe and he did not know how to use rudder pedals.
 
radical_logic said:
"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."





http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
Click to expand...

Did you know that KSM was interviewed along with Ramzi Binalshibh and that he admitted his role in 9/11 on Al Jazeera TV months before his capture. It's even availible on video I believe.
 
radical_logic said:
"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
Click to expand...

So prior to this he never admitted or cliimed responsibility for his role in the attacks?

ETA Phantom Wolf spoiled it
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
So prior to this he never admitted or cliimed responsibility for his role in the attacks?

ETA Phantom Wolf spoiled it
Click to expand...

I like to see the link to that video. But this raises a question: if he admitted responsibility for his role in the attacks, why did the CIA need to waterboard him to get out a confession? Obviously, they must have felt his previous statements weren't sufficient, or were unaware of them - which seems highly unlikely.
 
There is no "link" to the video, not everything on the planet is linkable yet, though I believe someone has linked to a place you can buy the video from Al Jazeera in the past which is why I said it was avalible on video. I doubt it will help you much watching it though as iirc it's in Arabic.

As to why they waterboarded him, it wasn't to get a confession about 9/11, they already wanted him for that, it was to get him to cough up what else he knew about AQ and it's operations.
 
radical_logic said:
Hence we need a new investigation.
Click to expand...
You need education and the skills to understand the investigations already completed. You and 9/11 truth are the only people in the world who can't understand 9/11. The terrorist understand 9/11, why don't you?

Hani was able to fly the plane into the Pentagon; the target was much larger and required no skill to hit, unlike landing requires skills, no just aiming.
 
radical_logic said:
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?
Click to expand...
Your arguments are crap. You quote things incompletely, incorrectly, and then toss your twisted analysis and opinion on top of it, utterly ignoring any counterpoints, those points USING YOUR OWN sources. It would seem you require a pilot fully checked out in 757s...one with a verified license... but one that couldn't hit that massive structure. No one could, in your bizzaro fantasy land.

If not HH, then who was at the controls?

Anyone can find contradictions of OPINION (especially when cherry picking), but that can't contradict the facts! You haven't, and you can't, not to anyone who lives in the real world.

It's been asked before, if not HH and his fellow not-so-merry band of suicidal young zealots, then WHO? It's okay to doubt the US gov't, it's okay to wonder if somehow there was a conspiracy...as of course there was, as their leader-in-spirit, OBL has admitted on video and audio himself.

If the radical "Islamic" BS artists can talk a young man or woman into wearing a bomb suit into a Israeli shopping mall or a U.S. military dining facility, how is what happened on 9/11 so hard for you to fathom. The flight skills bit? Answered...and answered...and answered, no matter if you like it or not.

But you've never answered the core question you raise, if not HH and AQ, (which you ignore all the evidence and self admissions of) THEN WHO RL!!

Please, lets have a theory of what YOU think REALLY happened that day.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
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?
Click to expand...


The initial targets were the White House (chosen by OBL and KSM), Pentagon (chosen by OBL) and WTC (chosen by KSM) covering government, military and economy. However Mohammed Atta determined that the White House would be too difficult to hit from the air due to its small size, and the Capitol was chosen instead.

Given that OBL's main beef was the presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon was an obvious target.
 
I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).
 
radical_logic said:
I like to see the link to that video. But this raises a question: if he admitted responsibility for his role in the attacks, why did the CIA need to waterboard him to get out a confession? Obviously, they must have felt his previous statements weren't sufficient, or were unaware of them - which seems highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they were waterboarding him to get a confession to 9/11? Have you stopped to think that Al Qeada being a group that continues to carry out attacks could have plans for more and that capturing the guy who mastermind those plots might be just the guy who could provide information to stop possible future attacks?

You guys have to remember that while all you think about is 9/11 and how you can turn 9/11 into something to further your personal agendas, this is not how the rest of the world thinks. So step outside of conspiracy world for a minute and try to understand how the real world thinks. The last thing the CIA would have cared about would be getting a confession to 9/11 from the guy since that isn't something in question.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).
Click to expand...

Wasn't the Capitol building the likely target for Flight 93?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).
Click to expand...



The selection of targets is relatively well documented. The Pentagon was included in KSM's original ten-aircraft hijacking plot which was eventually narrowed down to the 9/11 attacks.

The Capitol was a target, as I explained. UA93 was supposed to hit it.
 
radical_logic said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not the inference that's being made. Your claim is that Hani Hanjour was incapable of carrying out the maneuvers made by flight 77 on 9/11. Bernard's statement is evidence that he was capable of them. Bernard's statement is therefore evidence that your claim is not sufficiently supported by the evidence to constitute a serious contradiction.

Now, let's look at your supposed non sequitur in a little more detail, and indulge in the sort of excruciating over-analysis that fascinates conspiracy theorists and bores most sensible people rigid. We can assume, I hope, from Bernard's statement that Hanjour was capable of hitting some average, typical building. What, then, could we infer as to the size of building Hanjour was capable of hitting? Most buildings, in my experience, are of four storeys or fewer, and occupy a land area very much smaller than two square kilometres. The average building, therefore, would be very much smaller - and hence harder to hit - than the Pentagon. Therefore, we can infer from Bernard's statement that, in his expert opinion, Hanjour was capable of hitting the Pentagon.

Would you like to counter this with an explanation of why the Pentagon is in some sense harder to hit with an airliner than some average, typical building? Or would you, perhaps, like to speculate on why nobody asked Bernard, "Sure, you say he could hit a building, but does that mean you think he could hit one of the largest buildings in the world?" I know why I wouldn't bother asking a question like that, but you may feel differently about looking stupid.

Dave
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).
Click to expand...
I disagree. The attack was to show that we are vulnerable by flying the aircraft into the very symbols of our world power. The towers were the prominent symbol of our financial power, the Capitol of our political power and the Pentagon of our military power. Remember, they did attack a Marine base.
 
radical_logic said:
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.
Click to expand...


Given context of this thread (about Hanjour's piloting skills or general lack thereof), 'a building' versus 'any building' is a useless distinction and hardly 'an enormous non-sequitur'. Of course, one could postulate a situation where an extraordinary level of skill would be needed (and the aircraft's ability to perform the needed maneuvers might not be sufficient) but the thread is not about such a 'any building'.


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.
Click to expand...

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

From context (i.e. the presumed or assumed reason why he was being asked about Hanjour and from the fact that he was almost certainly aware of what Hanjour was supposed to have done), Bernard was talking about the hijacker (alleged, if you so prefer) Hanjour and commenting on whether Hanjour could have flown the hijacked airliner into a building which, from context, any reasonable person would conclude he meant the Pentagon.

When the subject being talked about is obvious, people don't often spend their time repeating the blindingly obvious. If there was any question or uncertainty on the part of the interviewer whether Bernard was referring to the Pentagon, he would have asked Bernard to clarify, "a building".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom