Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

What, for the 10th time now? It's YOUR ARTICLE

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS? DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME ARTICLE YOU ARE USING AS A SOURCE DESPITE ME CONSTANTLY YELLING YOU THIS?

I am not sure how many times I have to keep repeating that, so just to be clear here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml


Again, quote the part of the article that supports this claim of yours: "you left out the most important parts of the quotes whcih explained as to WHY they felt the way they did and how it was more so about his language skills and othere non-flying related things."

But this is incorrect, as the article shows.

"They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told the Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license."

Therefore, they reported him mainly because his flying skills were "so bad."
 
Originally Posted by stilicho
I could crop your quote and state that you honestly don't know if Hanjour was at the controls of AA77. The quotes you used are neither from the man who certified Hanjour nor the man who validated his license. It's difficult for me to understand why you disagree with them. Your quotes are from others forming an opinion based on something other than the facts.

The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. Why are those quotes irrelevant?

They aren't irrelevant.

But you have to weigh those opinions against the facts that Hanjour was licensed and had that license validated by the FAA upon request.

Most of our disagreement is over the employment of adjectives (you use "terrible" while I use "licensed") in the portrayal of Hanjour's flying skills. Your term, "terrible", is subjective while mine, "licensed", is not.

Do you think the opinions of his instructors and the those at the flight school are more relevant than the fact that Hanjour was a licensed pilot?
 
Therefore, they reported him mainly because his flying skills were "so bad."

That article ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml ) is frequently seen on conspiracy sites to support the argument that Hanjour was a terrible pilot. If you stop at the end of the second paragraph, it supplies the impression that Hanjour didn't know how to fly. You've already agreed that you think he could fly in spite of that paragraph.

But, as another poster mentioned, you have to read the entire article to distinguish what it was about Hanjour that created the impression that he would have made a poor commercial pilot.

It's not a very well-written article, RL. That paragraph you continue to bold, for example, probably has one too many commas. Even if you edited it, you would expect an explanation about both his English and his flying skills:

They reported him because his English and flying skills were so bad that they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

There are plenty of details about Hanjour's English, as the article continues, but no details whatsoever about his ability to operate an aircraft. If the editor had been on the ball, he or she would have insisted on elaborating equally on both aspects of Hanjour's abilities. As it is, we are left to conclude that was "a very average pilot" whose "English wasn't very good".
 
There are more than two points on the continuum of pilot skill; there aren't just "highly skilled" pilots and "terrible" pilots.

They reported him because his English and flying skills were so bad that they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

This means that he was reported because of concerns as to whether he could operate a plane safely. As we saw on Sept.11, 2001, safety was the least of Hanjour's concerns.
 
I wonder why the following hasn't been posted by radical logic:
170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52¬57.
Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an
instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small
airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training
from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie
Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).
 
Johnnyclueless, I refuse to engage with you any longer in this thread. .

Then you have time to respond to this and keep in mind that the turn rate and the desent rate were never what one would consider 'high'.

So, what did the controller mean by their thinking it must be a military pilot? That the plane was desending at a higher forward speed than any commercial pilot would, and was in fact doing a much greater speed than any commercial pilot would be doing while approaching the ground. Commercial aircraft simply do not do low level at high speed, it frightens the passengers and shakes the plane up. Only fighters do that, thus the statement that this looked like a fighter manouver.

It was also turning to do what would look somewhat like an approach to National airport yet any commercial pilot would have gone much further out and reduced speed while turning and desending. A landing approach at that speed is also unsafe for a large commercial jet. Fighters often land faster than civilian aircraft.

However it must be kept in mind that Hanjour had nothing "safe" in mind for the aircraft or the souls on board. Low level unsafe flight? Sure, why not, after all one must fly low and fast if one's intent is to crash the plane and do maximum damage. Turn and desend at high forward speed? Sure, why not if one is intent on getting the aircraft to slam into a building as soon as possible. Hanjour never did anything that was technically particularily difficult. He did not even concern himself with such tasks as dropping the landing gear or extending flaps. He did many things that a pilot intent on staying alive and well and keeping his aircraft and passengers intact would not do, but those were not a concern to Hanjour.
 
They aren't irrelevant.

But you have to weigh those opinions against the facts that Hanjour was licensed and had that license validated by the FAA upon request.

Most of our disagreement is over the employment of adjectives (you use "terrible" while I use "licensed") in the portrayal of Hanjour's flying skills. Your term, "terrible", is subjective while mine, "licensed", is not.

Do you think the opinions of his instructors and the those at the flight school are more relevant than the fact that Hanjour was a licensed pilot?
A person may hold a license, but be considered "unsafe" for a variety of reasons (not being proficient in instrument-only flight or in poor weather conditions) that wouldn't have affected his ability to fly the plane on 9/11. Without clarification of in what way he was an unsafe pilot it is hard to say he was unable to complete his mission on 9/11.
 
Again, you keep ignoring:
"They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told the Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license."


"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix."

No I am not ignoring that because you keep posting it. But you are ignoring the rest of it and leaving out the quotes I provided (you know the quotes you keep saying that I am not providing even though they are in the posts you are responding to while claiming I am not using them?)

So you are taking only part of the quotes and making a conclusion and an accusation based on only part of the information. THAT is what makes you dishonest. We are not ignoring that in the OPINION of some people he was a bad pilot based on his english and academic skills. BUT we are ALSO reading the part about how when tested, he showed he was NOT a terrible pilot at all and had a valid lisc to PROVE he was not a terrible pilot.

You think you can twist the truth by excluding the truth and you don't think your behavior is dishonest? Seriously?
 
Again, quote the part of the article that supports this claim of yours: "you left out the most important parts of the quotes whcih explained as to WHY they felt the way they did and how it was more so about his language skills and othere non-flying related things."

But this is incorrect, as the article shows.

"They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told the Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license."

Therefore, they reported him mainly because his flying skills were "so bad."

Oh and can you cite which person there you are quoting please? Just give us the name of the person making this quote: "They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad"

And then tell us if you think you are being honest.
 
They aren't irrelevant.

But you have to weigh those opinions against the facts that Hanjour was licensed and had that license validated by the FAA upon request.

Most of our disagreement is over the employment of adjectives (you use "terrible" while I use "licensed") in the portrayal of Hanjour's flying skills. Your term, "terrible", is subjective while mine, "licensed", is not.

Do you think the opinions of his instructors and the those at the flight school are more relevant than the fact that Hanjour was a licensed pilot?

He was a licensed pilot, but also a terrible pilot. That isn't a contradiction. Moreover, the professional "opinion" of his instructors is certainly not "subjective"--or less so than the fact that he was "licensed."

Why are you downplaying the fact that, according to the quotes I provided, he was by all accounts a substandard pilot?
 
A person may hold a license, but be considered "unsafe" for a variety of reasons (not being proficient in instrument-only flight or in poor weather conditions) that wouldn't have affected his ability to fly the plane on 9/11. Without clarification of in what way he was an unsafe pilot it is hard to say he was unable to complete his mission on 9/11.

From the quotes I provided, it's clear that his instructors and those who knew him thought his flying skills were poor--so much so that they questioned the authenticity of his license. The flight 77 dive, however, according to the relevant quotes I provided, required the skills of a highly skilled pilot.

But don't take my word for it.

"Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. .."

" I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature. "





http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga
 
He was a licensed pilot, but also a terrible pilot. That isn't a contradiction. Moreover, the professional "opinion" of his instructors is certainly not "subjective"--or less so than the fact that he was "licensed."

Why are you downplaying the fact that, according to the quotes I provided, he was by all accounts a substandard pilot?
According to the article you linked to, one of his instructor's, the one who signed off on his license, found him to be "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." and "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

How can two "professional opinion" that are different from each other not be subjective?
 
Last edited:
What do they call the person who graduates last in their class in medical school? Doctor.

Similarly, the fact that Hanjour was a licensed pilot means he was just good enough to get a license. He didn't have to be a very good pilot; he wasn't concerned about passenger safety or comfort, wasn't worried about damaging the aircraft, wasn't worried about his job or his pension. He had a mission to carry out, and he did.
 
He was a licensed pilot, but also a terrible pilot. That isn't a contradiction. Moreover, the professional "opinion" of his instructors is certainly not "subjective"--or less so than the fact that he was "licensed."

Why are you downplaying the fact that, according to the quotes I provided, he was by all accounts a substandard pilot?

it IS a contradiction. YOU are trying to imply that he was a terrible pilot and thus incapable of flying the plane. The FAA lisc proves that he is not only NOT a terrible pilot, but that he is certified to be able to fly the plane.

You are using opinions and taking them out of context (the criticisms are about his english skills, not his flying skills) and trying to use that to dismiss legal certification that proves beyond any doubt that he is able to fly commercial planes.

Why are you downplaying that he was tested and verified legally and legitimately to be able to fly the plane?
 
A person may hold a license, but be considered "unsafe" for a variety of reasons (not being proficient in instrument-only flight or in poor weather conditions) that wouldn't have affected his ability to fly the plane on 9/11. Without clarification of in what way he was an unsafe pilot it is hard to say he was unable to complete his mission on 9/11.

I agree.

The conspiracy sites I've seen don't seem to acknowledge that Hanjour was licensed, that his license was verified, and that he was on AA77. "Radical_Logic", here, acknowledges two of three of those things. He then "supposes" that the third point is irrelevant. In light of the first two acknowledgements, it's obviously relevant whether he was on that flight.

It's certainly noteworthy that the article both radical_logic and johnnyclueless cite concludes with a statement that Hanjour was an average pilot with poor English skills. I wouldn't employ that article at all in trying to argue Hanjour was inexperienced. Its conclusion doesn't support that side of the debate.
 
Nothing the above says disputes the claim that the flight 77 dive was very difficult.

Except all the expert pilots who say it was not very difficult. To add insult to injury, children have tried it in simulators having never flown a plane before and were able to successfully hit the largest target in Washington just like Hani did.
 
"He was an average pilot" - One of Hani's instructors.
His lisc which proves he is a capable pilot was double-checked and verified and found to be legit.
The instructor who tested Hani and signed off on his ability to fly was given a lie detector test and passed.
 

Back
Top Bottom