Merged Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[radical_logic]

Wow, that is some of the worst logic I have ever heard.

At least it's better than your mere assertion.

 

[gumboot]

This clinging to the ridiculous notion that AA77's maneuver was difficult is frankly pathetic. A bunch of ignorant fools have offered opinions on it that are not backed up by evidence and rely on appeals to their own (often dubious) authority, or are the fanciful inventions of journalists.

In contrast numerous aviation experts have provided detailed explanations for why the maneuver was not difficult, have provided other examples of similar performances, and have even gone as far as the demonstrate in a practical manner how such a maneuver was not difficult.

What is the response to that?

"I'm not an aviation expert so I can't comment on that, but what I do know is..."

Utterly pathetic. Such thinking is an embarrassment to the human race.

 

[lapman]

"Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report."

The 330-degree turn is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore, if they "expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report," and one of their criticisms is flight 77, then it stands to reason that they're aware of the 330-degree and judge it to be difficult.

Now you're really grasping at those straws. Every one that made a statement stated what they disagreed with. Not a one described the turn as it really happened. Your contention is false.

1. Again, I can't evaluate your claim that they're based on "faulty statements."

As already been shown be several of us, terms like 270 degree turn, steep turn, high speed, etc. are wrong. Therefore, those statements are based on faulty information.

2. How do you know Capt. Whittenberg is basing his opinion only on the 20/20 show? Are you psyhic?

Unfortunately, the link is now dead on patriots. He specifically states that he saw the 20/20 program and that is what "changed his mind."

Hence why I'm not taking a side on this issue.

I will do my best to respect that.

Again, this is just your "expert" say-so...I'm sure any one of the experts on the above mentioned site would say otherwise. I just can't know.

The ones that feel the way they do for personal reason, e.g. they hate the administration, will fight tooth and nail to support their faulty ideals. The ones that truly feel the way they do based on the original information they had, will look at the read of the evidence and change their minds.

Fine. And I'm not dismissing it. But from my point of view - the point of view of a non-expert - it would be irrational for me to take your word for it.

No problem. This is why I recommended that you take a demo flight so you can see what it really takes.

How do you know none of the pilots I referenced didn't study the "full body of evidence?"

The glaring mistakes in their statements as mentioned above.

 

[beachnut]

Radical logic lacks knowledge on flying; #4 not support

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
[2] http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml
[4] http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html
[5] http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

[6] http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html
[8] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml

Four! No support for RL here. Failed again. Why does RL use news from 24 October 2001? Before all the facts are in.

http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Yes, it is true, the only planes these controllers ever see doing 300 KIAS in their airspace are military jets with waivers to speed! Hani is flying at 300 KIAS because the Boeing plane loves to fly at 300 KIAS! It is a great speed, I know, I flew my Boeing (the USAF jet really) at 300 KIAS and it loved it. It is a perfect speed to fly.

This is just a news story, and you lack knowledge on flying and fail to understand this story is not support for your failed idea as you apologize for terrorist.


4 down, 6 to go! Not doing too good so far. Got some evidence to support your hearsay and false information?

 

[radical_logic]

Now you're really grasping at those straws. Every one that made a statement stated what they disagreed with. Not a one described the turn as it really happened. Your contention is false.

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?

Unfortunately, the link is now dead on patriots. He specifically states that he saw the 20/20 program and that is what "changed his mind."

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

The ones that feel the way they do for personal reason, e.g. they hate the administration, will fight tooth and nail to support their faulty ideals.

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

This is why I recommended that you take a demo flight so you can see what it really takes.

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.

 

[dtugg]

So radical, if Hani Hanjour wasn't flying the plane, who was? I am sure I won't get a straight answer but I will try anyway.

 

[radical_logic]

So radical, if Hani Hanjour wasn't flying the plane, who was? I am sure I won't get a straight answer but I will try anyway.

I'll give you two straight answers (this is probably the 20th time I'm repeating them).

1. I'm not claiming that Hani Hanjour wasn't flying the plane.
2. If he wasn't, then I don't know who was.

Straight enough for you?

 

[beachnut]

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
[2] http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml
[4] http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html
[5] http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

[6] http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html
[8] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml[/quote]

Five! No support for RL here. Do you even research this tripe first?
Pure hearsay looks like the next false information! From news stories to no evidence fools who say dumb stuff about 9/11.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

Muga, not close to what happen on 9/11.

The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet.

The turn was less than standard rate, not difficult. The turn bank averaged less than standard rate. Muga is full of crap on this! He should research the facts before making up lies!

And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult.

This maneuver? A simple sloppy turn at 300 KIAS! A kid off the street could do this! Sad Muga exposes his failure to research 9/11 again!

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall.

What is he talking about? 7000 feet is not high, it is low! High speed stall? You need to be at the edge of the envelope, 300 KIAS in a less than standard rate turn is in the middle of the envelope not a Chuck Yeager maneuver, it is first day learning to fly junk! Debunk, Muga exposes he is not up to speed on 9/11.

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.

Not one single military maneuver was done by 77, Muga is wrong each time he opens his mouth on 77. ... first day learning to fly junk!

Muga? Was it a joke?

No support from # 5. Muga just looks dumb talking about things without the facts or evidence to support his false statements.

Muga was on Alex Jones show. That is enough to discredit Muga by association with pure stupid; but he owns the stupid he made up on his own. 5 down, 7 to go! No support from any of your sources! Why? You also have no conclusion; no clue who flew 77! Just hearsay and talk.

there are 12 sources used to prove nothing

 

[dtugg]

1. I'm not claiming that Hani Hanjour wasn't flying the plane.

Then why the hell are you trying to prove that the flying was too difficult or whatever?

 

[radical_logic]

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.

 

[gumboot]

Claiming the contradiction is unresolved won't make it so. The matter is only unresolved by blind idiots who refuse to cooperate with reality.

 

[dtugg]

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.

As others have noted many times in this thread the contradiction is not unresolved despite what you and DRG say. The only reason to claim it is is to cast doubt whether or not Hanjour was really flying the plane. And of course it is much easier for you to just say that you are noting an unresolved contradiction than outright saying that it wasn't Hanjour.

 

[beachnut]

What does 6 offer? Pure junk you try to use as what?

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
Airport evaluated suspected hijacker Hani Hanjour when he attempted to rent a plane. He took three flights with the instructors in the second week of August, but flew so poorly he was rejected for the rental, said Marcel Bernard, chief flight instructor at Freeway.

Do you do real research? The real truth is -

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

This is the Pentagon and the freeway airport side by side, same scale.

Freeway airport is on the right, 40 foot wide airport; Pentagon 1400 feet wide! LOL, RL you have to be kidding!

40 foot target, he has 1400 feet to hit for real! Can he do it? BTW, you are not refused to rent because you can't hit the runway, you are refused to rent because the way you might hit the runway.

Hani hits, the once biggest building in the World, and he can't land on a 40 foot runway; failed logic to use this news story as a source when it is debunked by the person who is quoted.



[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html

7? The same SPAM as 6! See 6!

You are 7 down, totally debunked; 5 left.

... you have no real point! How truthy.

The next 5 are simple news stories with no real value to support Hani could not fly, but it actually proves he did fly 77; as does the FDR.

Irony, the Freeway airport flights, Hani is getting practice aiming at a 40 foot target, he can care less if he can land. In days he will kill non believers, his real goal!

He is practicing in the local area within 14 miles of the Pentagon.

All your sources are bogus to imply Hani can not fly 77 into the Pentagon. Even a kid off the street could fly better and hit a smaller target. Only pilots who agree with you can't hit any buildings in the safety of a simulator and brag about it; p4t.

But everyone knows your sources are proof of your ignorance on 9/11 and flying.

 

[Tweeter]

This thread makes me wonder if flying is so easy and you need not have any brains to do so , why arent we all pilots? Beachnut is a good example.

 

[dtugg]

This thread makes me wonder if flying is so easy and you need not have any brains to do so , why arent we all pilots? Beachnut is a good example.

Nobody is saying that anybody can be a pilot, just that crashing a plane into one of the largest buildings in the world is not very hard.

 

[beachnut]

This thread makes me wonder if flying is so easy and you need not have any brains to do so , why arent we all pilots? Beachnut is a good example.

No evidence but you have insults. … expected.
Nothing to add, but an insult.
You may be an exception, you may not be able to fly. Could was the key word.

Flying jets takes years to be a safe pilot who can handle all flying conditions. The VFR flying of 9/11 was not a difficult task. Had 9/11 been a cloudy day, not a single terrorist would have hit anything of value. The terrorist were the worst pilots I have ever seen besides p4t who can't think rationally. Your inability to think rationally as proven by your cumulative posts, may be indicative of your piloting skills.

You are self debunking terrorist apologist, no evidence, nothing to add to the thread; cool insult; thank you very much.

The kids I have taken on orientation flights could fly good enough to hit buildings on their first flight. A 757/767 is easier to fly than a beginning prop plane. The straight flying part that is. In a large aircraft I have had people fly with enough skill the first time, to hit buildings; they could not land, but flew close enough to hit the runway and crash. Same as hitting a building.

And you have but insults to offer, no facts or evidence, the true mark of 9/11 truth…

But alas, you missed the point; the flying done on 9/11, any moron can do. Do you think you could do it?

Thank you very much – is this your best effort?

 

[Tweeter]

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?

 

[dtugg]

It seems to me, all they would have to do is set the auto-pilot for Reagan National Airport for Flight 77, the Pentagon is very close. For Flights 11, and 175, they would set it to JFK International Airport which is close to the World Trade Center. When they got close, they would turn the auto-pilot off and simply aim the planes at the buildings. Doesn't seem very difficult. I could be wrong, somebody please correct me if I am.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

This is, of course, a lie. I NEVER claimed this (read my e-mail to Mark Roberts, since you obviously didn't).

But what are the chances of you admitting your error? Probably about as slim as you agreeing to debate me here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123911

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

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.

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

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why assume Bernard was saying what you're claiming he's saying based on such an ambiguous sentence? One sentence. Why didn't the reporter ask him to clarify? "By 'a building' you mean, specifically, the Pentagon, right?"

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.

Because, unlike Bernard's highly ambiguous comment, those who claim that Hanjour was a terrible pilot (Bernard included) are crytal clear about that fact.

Yet you've decided to discard Bernard's statement, choosing to see an ambiguity that isn't there, rather than looking for an explanation that incorporates both points of view. This is a classic conspiracist's fallacy; your preferred approach to resolving apparent contradictions is to reject evidence, rather than actually resolve the contradiction. It's quite possible for Hanjour to have been a terrible pilot - for example, to be incapable of landing a plane safely, which would be enough in an expert's judgement - yet be able to execute a rather shaky 330 degree turn and a gentle dive. You're simply choosing not to look for an explanation along those lines.

Dave