Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[Disbelief]

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.

By your "logic", doesn't this mean that he was actually incapable of hitting a building? I mean he never specifies which building, so that means that he really could not hit one.

 

[jaydeehess]

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."

Questionable, in the absolutly most strict sense, yes. The probability of the number of experts being correct also being the number of experts holding the minority opinion, very small.

To put it in context, at least one report of a virgin birth would introduce some probability of such an event occuring naturally (no medical science intervention) but it is a very low probability and one holding that this minority report being ture would be doing so based all but entirely on faith.