The FDR shows Hani was a bad pilot too, and the flying on 911 was bad, entry level as if they never flew heavy jets before. You debunk yourself and the source you had saying the flying had to be done by experts.Right from Newsday Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
You debunk yourself twice. First you have source that agree Hani was not a great pilot, I agree, and you don't understand that is why the flying was so bad, Hani was the pilot. Then you have MSM find experts who say it took an expert pilot to CRASH an aircraft into one of the biggest office building in the world. CRASH? LOL, it take zero skill to crash into a large building at any speed, any direction, any attitude.
We have crashing, which can happen at any speed, we have landing that happens at an exact speed +-5 knots. Crashing +- 400 knots. Not much skill for crashing related to airspeed, and Hani was speed, so was 175, and 93.
We have crashing, which can happen at any heading, any final course which hits the large building. We have landing, only one course can be used for landing, ONE. Any course of 360 degrees for crashing, only one course for landing on a runway, +- a few degrees, you don't want to run off the side.
We have crashing, any attitude, you can hit nose low, nose high, upside down, sideways, etc, any attitude which hits the building will be a crash. For landing there is one attitude, wing level or appropriate crosswind control, on course, etc. Landing hard to make all the parameters, crashing no parameters to meet.
Looks like you are a magnet for finding stupid claims on 911, weather from 911 truth, or the mainstream media, you find wrong stuff.
You have been mislead, crashing is easy, landing on speed so you can rent a Cessna is harder.
Too funny!! I would put this new truther in the same boat. 