Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[radical_logic]

Somehow I feel that if the Pentagon wasn't in the way HH would've crashed anyways.

No one cares how and what you feel. Will you address the contradiction I pointed out in this thread?

[beachnut]

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[1]

[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=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
LOL!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
Number 1 is junk! 1 down, 9 to go.

"1. But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said."

Debunked, this story was posted on 12 September! The day after.
Things wrong in the news story.
a. The pivot was so tight, wrong, it was a big 5 mile turn. FIVE MILES WIDE, is not a tight turn. So tight? LOL
b. 270 degrees is wrong, it was 330 degrees, see there was only hearsay, word of mouth data. This was later refined.
c. Using a news story to support Hani can't do it the day after is PURE JUNK

The C-130 say 77 right in front of them and at that time 77 did over bank to about 40 degrees, which an airliner rarely does, but it was only for a moment, then the 5 mile wide turn continued at 20 to 30 degrees, kind of sloppy, proving Hani was at the controls and still a poor pilot. But that is what poor pilots do, crash! Maybe they gave Hani the biggest target for a BIG reason!

[bynmdsue]

No one cares how and what you feel. Will you address the contradiction I pointed out in this thread?

Your contradiction only exists in your head.Try stepping out into the daylight.

[radical_logic]

Your contradiction only exists in your head.

Except it doesn't.


A. Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A. Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Contradiction: (A ^~A)

[bynmdsue]

You've left reality for a rhetorical argument that will not benefit anyone but the pharmaceutical companies producing your anti-psychotic meds.

I feel sorry for you.I really do.

[beachnut]

[2] http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0...a03-293072.htm (http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0...a03-293072.htm) 13 September 2001

"Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision. "

Bad news, this is tripe too. This article was made on the 13th.
a. These reporters had no idea the terrorist had flight training, and all the terrorist pilots know about transponders, they had to use them. They had technical manuals for the 757/767 planes, they knew how to turn off transponders.
b. Again the tight 5 mile turn and the wrong degrees. Not correct; but 77 was speeding at 300KIAS, the limit in the area they were over would normally see slow speed. But 300 KIAS is a very good speed for the 757, the plane loves to fly at this speed.
c. This article was questions and answers, this question was about training, Yes, the terrorist had training. You can't use this for anything.

2 down, 8 to go.

[TjW]

Radical_logic:
Do you know what a standard rate turn is?
Was Hani Hanjour's 330 degree, ~3 minute turn wider or narrower than a standard rate turn?

[gumboot]

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.


All of your "experts" except one is a journalist. Excuse me if I refrain from accepting the unsupported claims of American journalists. The only "expert" you cite is an Air Traffic Controller, so not in any way an expert on pilot ability, and they only support your stupid claim if you totally fail to understand what they're saying anyway.

Here's a collection of real experts:

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

There was nothing remotely difficult about what Hani Hanjour did in AA77. Nothing. The most difficult thing the hijackers had to do was muster the will to sacrifice their lives for a cause. That's a feat that few humans can achieve, but it's something Radical Islamic Terrorists have by the bucketful.

[gumboot]

Even 40 degrees is not a particularly steep turn. I've experienced turns that steep in airliners (that were not hijacked) plenty of times. as for the rate of descent - AA77's departure was more rapid than its final descent, and everyone knows descending is much easier than ascending due to our friend gravity.

[beachnut]

Even 40 degrees is not a particularly steep turn. I've experienced turns that steep in airliners (that were not hijacked) plenty of times. as for the rate of descent - AA77's departure was more rapid than its final descent, and everyone knows descending is much easier than ascending due to our friend gravity.
And he only went to 40 degrees for a short time, the average bank for the 5 mile wide turn, not so tight, was 30 degrees, just above standard rate, but Hani was all over the bank angle. Bad pilot hits 900 to 1400 foot wide building vs.40 foot runway.

This is sad someone uses news reports, hearsay as some sort of bible for flying.

[gumboot]

And he only went to 40 degrees for a short time, the average bank for the 5 mile wide turn, not so tight, was 30 degrees, just above standard rate, but Hani was all over the bank angle.

Anyone who claims the pilot had to be gifted should really watch the NTSB video. I was quite shocked at just how sloppy Hanjour's handling was during that turn. He was, as you say, all over the place.


This is sad someone uses news reports, hearsay as some sort of bible for flying.

"This is sad" pretty much sums up the Truth Movement.

[radical_logic]

All of your "experts" except one is a journalist.

False. It's journalists quoting statements by experts.







Here's a collection of real experts:

[QUOTE=gumboot;4032393]
They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

How do you know that Mr. XX and Mr. Michael X are "real experts?"



"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

If qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.


That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

Again, if qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

[gumboot]

False. It's journalists quoting statements by experts.

No it isn't. Of the four one cites "sources", one isn't sourced at all, another sources "investigators" and a last one cites the quote that's the fifth quote. And not one of those journalists actually directly quotes anyone.


How do you know that Mr. XX and Mr. Michael X are "real experts?"

The point is that they are directly quoted. None of your "sources" do that.


If qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

No it isn't. The only thing consistent with the statement is that AA77 was flown dangerously. That goes without saying.


Again, if qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

No it isn't. See above.

A butcher and a physician are both quite capable of amputating a limb. The latter does it with substantially more skill and precision than the former.

[Jonnyclueless]

I have done so, by providing the relevant quotes and articles. Show how I've taken those quotes out of context, as you assert. SHOW IT.

The quotes you are talking about describe the manuvers in a way to show they were not ones normally made by those planes. That is because those planes are carrying passengers and making those moves would upset passengers.

What was NOT meant by those quotes you used, was to imply that those moves were too difficult for Hani to make. You are intentionally taking them out of context in this way and trying to make false implications. By putting them all together and then adding your OPINION and trying to pretend that your opinion is the same as what the people making those quotes are saying. That is essentially a lie because you are doing it with the intent to mislead people.

And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE. There is no debate about this issue, it is completely false. The only way you can falsify it is with your trick of trying to mislead people as to what people making those quotes are saying, and using them out of context.

[Jonnyclueless]

Except it doesn't.


A. Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A. Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Contradiction: (A ^~A)

Incorrect. He was neither highly skilled, nor terrible.

you reached the conclusion of being a skilled pilot using false statements that don't in any way say he was skilled pilot.

You reached the conclusion about him being a terrible pilot by using quotes out of context and applying them to his overall flying ability. you intentionally leave out the parts where he continues training and gets so good that he gets a commercial pilots lisc. You are cherry picking all the stuff that tells you what you want, and ignoring everything that puts a dent in your conspiracy. For example:

For him being very skilled, you use only quotes that describe the maneuver and misunderstand what they are actually saying. You then ignore all experts who clear this up and show otherwise.

For him being a terrible pilot, you ONLY use quotes from people talking about certain points in his training and ignore all following training and leave out all quotes from instructors that mention that he was actually pretty decent as a pilot (made by some of the same people who also said he was terrible, but at different points of time).

[radical_logic]

The quotes you are talking about describe the manuvers in a way to show they were not ones normally made by those planes. That is because those planes are carrying passengers and making those moves would upset passengers.

What was NOT meant by those quotes you used, was to imply that those moves were too difficult for Hani to make.

Here's what I said. Hence, from the above, we can derive:
A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.

Is it not true that, from the quotes, one would have to be a highly skilled pilot to accomplish the flight 77 dive?


You are intentionally taking them out of context in this way and trying to make false implications.

This charge implies that I was intellectually dishonest. Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it.



By putting them all together and then adding your OPINION

False.

A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.
~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

They were derived completely from the statements I quoted. Show otherwise.



And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE.

You are simply wrong.

"Freeway 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."

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm


"Marcel Bernard, the airport manager and chief flight instructor, told FBI agents investigating last week's suicide attacks that one of their suspects in case, Hani Hanjour, had flown with flight instructors on three occasions over the last six weeks…His flying skills were so poor overall that [instructors] declined to rent a plane to him without future training,’ Bernard said of Hanjour."

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

"Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine."

"Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner."

"A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly."

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot…'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63

"[Managers] 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."

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

You do not need to keep reposting the same posts and links. Post them, then refer to post numbers if you need to.

[Pardalis]

How many more times are you going to post those links?

[radical_logic]

How many more times are you going to post those links?

Until people stop making statements like this: "And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

[jaydeehess]

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.

[jaydeehess]

Once at low level any 16 year old, 90 pound cheer leader with a whim for suicide could pilot a 757 into a building 1400 feet wide. Parallel parking would be harder.

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's what I said. Hence, from the above, we can derive:
A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.

Is it not true that, from the quotes, one would have to be a highly skilled pilot to accomplish the flight 77 dive?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. First of all you are reading into the quotes and not reading them for what they are really saying. Furthermore, you are selectively choosing quotes that give this impression, while ignoring the ones that show just the opposite. So you sue quotes of supposed experts, ONLY when they tell you it required expertise, and you leave out all the quotes of experts saying otherwise. So again, the answer to your question is NO.

And in reverse, if I were to take quotes from only experts who say that the moves do not require one be highly skilled, and I then asked you if the quotes showed that one would NOT have to be highly skilled, what would you say?



This charge implies that I was intellectually dishonest. Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it.

Hello? I already DID. Did you bother to read? Admit you are are being dishonest or retract your whole argument.




False.

A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a highly skilled pilot.
~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

They were derived completely from the statements I quoted. Show otherwise.

True. You used selective quotes, and then you used your opinion on the interpretation of them. You are then pretending they are representative of, well of what we don't know. But if you are trying to show that the official story is conflicting, then you have failed again. The statements YOU used absolutely do NOT show a contradiction, but they show you are being dishonest in your argument.

half the survivors of the Titanic said the boat split in half, and half of them say it went down whole. using those quotes, would that mean that there is a contradiction as to what actually happened, and thus a conspiracy theory?

You're using ONLY quotes about the moved being difficult, while ignoring the ones that show it was NOT difficult. THIS is you being dishonest.

Then you use quotes that imply hani being a bad pilot, and you ignore and leave out all the ones that showed he was NOT a bad pilot. THIS is you being dishonest.

You are simply wrong.

That is YOU wanting to pretend I am wrong because you are being caught in your dishonesty again.

"Freeway 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."

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm


"Marcel Bernard, the airport manager and chief flight instructor, told FBI agents investigating last week's suicide attacks that one of their suspects in case, Hani Hanjour, had flown with flight instructors on three occasions over the last six weeks…His flying skills were so poor overall that [instructors] declined to rent a plane to him without future training,’ Bernard said of Hanjour."

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

"Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine."

"Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner."

"A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly."

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot…'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63

"[Managers] 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."

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

Why are you taking all the quotes referring to before he completed his training? Huh? answer the question. Why are you leaving out the quotes referring to him getting his commercial pilots lisc which requires testing which he passed. Why do you leave those quotes out? Why do you leave out the quotes from some of those people you quoted that go on to say how much he improved/ Why do you leave out the quotes that refer to him getting several pilots lisc? Why do you neglect to mention that some of those quotes were simply in reference to his language skills and not his piloting skills?

you are a con artist. please stop being so dishonest here.

[Jonnyclueless]

Until people stop making statements like this: "And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

So then we can be sure you are most definitely INTENTIONALLY being dishonest. Good to clear up any possibility of this simply being a case of ignorance.

[radical_logic]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. First of all you are reading into the quotes and not reading them for what they are really saying.

Tell me what the quotes I cited are "really" saying.


Furthermore, you are selectively choosing quotes that give this impression, while ignoring the ones that show just the opposite.


Such as?


So you sue quotes of supposed experts,


Suppose it's true that you can find experts who take either side. On what basis do you claim to know that the experts who say that (i) the 77 dive is extremely difficult and (ii) Hanjour was a terrible pilot are wrong?


"And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

Prove that it is "absolutely 100% completely FALSE." Prove it.


ONLY when they tell you it required expertise, and you leave out all the quotes of experts saying otherwise.

Again, such as?



And in reverse, if I were to take quotes from only experts who say that the moves do not require one be highly skilled, and I then asked you if the quotes showed that one would NOT have to be highly skilled, what would you say?


All I'm claiming is that there is a contradiction among what people (in the know) say. If there are experts who claim that critics are wrong, we still have an unresolved contradiction.





Hello? I already DID. Did you bother to read? Admit you are are being dishonest or retract your whole argument.

No, you did not support your claim. I will ask again: Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it. Point to where you did this.




The statements YOU used absolutely do NOT show a contradiction,

Asserting this doesn't make it true. I went to great lengths to show that there IS a contradiction among the statements I quoted, but you never addressed my argument.




You're using ONLY quotes about the moved being difficult, while ignoring the ones that show it was NOT difficult. THIS is you being dishonest.

1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show that the move is not difficult. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that the 77-dive is difficult? Yes or no?


Then you use quotes that imply hani being a bad pilot, and you ignore and leave out all the ones that showed he was NOT a bad pilot. THIS is you being dishonest.


1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show Hani was nothing but a substandard pilot. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that Hani was a bad pilot? Yes or no?



Why are you taking all the quotes referring to before he completed his training? Huh? answer the question.


"Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales. "

"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."

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

So, it's established that he was a terrible pilot only "months" before he allegedly flew 77 into the pentagon. If you have quotes which purport to show his extraordinary improvement in the intervening months, I'm all ears.



Why are you leaving out the quotes referring to him getting his commercial pilots lisc which requires testing which he passed. Why do you leave those quotes out? Why do you leave out the quotes from some of those people you quoted that go on to say how much he improved/ Why do you leave out the quotes that refer to him getting several pilots lisc?

Answer: I'm unaware of these quotes. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.



Why do you neglect to mention that some of those quotes were simply in reference to his language skills and not his piloting skills?


WHERE in ANY of the quotes I cited was reference made ONLY to Hanjur's bad language skills and NOT to his piloting skills? Where?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by gumboot http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4032393#post4032393)
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

If qualified, this statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown into the Pentagon.

http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour%20License%20AP.pdf
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

You're confusing the fact that Hanjour had a pilot's license with some opinions that he shouldn't have been issued one. Surely you don't deny that Hanjour was licensed to operate multi-engine aircraft prior to SEP 11, 2001. The evidence shows the name of the person who certified him and the name of the person at the FAA who confirmed that his license was valid.

That's usually enough to convince anyone that Hanjour could fly. Does it convince you?

[radical_logic]

http://www.crono911.net/public/doc1/Hanjour%20License%20AP.pdf
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

You're confusing the fact that Hanjour had a pilot's license with some opinions that he shouldn't have been issued one. Surely you don't deny that Hanjour was licensed to operate multi-engine aircraft prior to SEP 11, 2001. The evidence shows the name of the person who certified him and the name of the person at the FAA who confirmed that his license was valid.

That's usually enough to convince anyone that Hanjour could fly. Does it convince you?

1. The fact that his trainers questioned the authenticity of his license reflects their very low opinion of his piloting abilities. But I cited other statements that directly support the claim that they thought he was a terrible pilot.

2. The point is, according to relevant experts, he was a terrible pilot. Therefore, he could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon, because that would have been too difficult a task for him to accomplish.

[stilicho]

1. The fact that his trainers questioned the authenticity of his license reflects their very low opinion of his piloting abilities. But I cited other statements that directly support the claim that they thought he was a terrible pilot.

2. The point is, according to relevant experts, he was a terrible pilot. Therefore, he could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon, because that would have been too difficult a task for him to accomplish.

You didn't answer the question. Given the evidence and the names of the people who certified him and validated his license upon request, are you convinced now that Hanjour could fly?

[radical_logic]

You didn't answer the question. Given the evidence and the names of the people who certified him and validated his license upon request, are you convinced now that Hanjour could fly?

According to the AP report, he was certified in 1999, and in one of the news articles I cited (CBS I believe), it was reported that he had terrible abilities only "months" before 9/11.

So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact.

[Jonnyclueless]

Tell me what the quotes I cited are "really" saying.

I already DID, but clearly you don't bother to read.

Such as?

Have you been bothering to read the thread? Because several times I have given you clear examples. Please don't play dumb.


Suppose it's true that you can find experts who take either side. On what basis do you claim to know that the experts who say that (i) the 77 dive is extremely difficult and (ii) Hanjour was a terrible pilot are wrong?

What do you mean suppose it's true. The only truth is that most experts agree that the moves were not difficult. And shouldn't you be asking that question to yourself? The fact that post after post have provided you with real experts (as opposed to indirect and unaccounted quotes) and still sit there thinking that they don't exist pretty much says it all. You're in denial.

I would base it on the fact that most of your quotes are NOT saying that it was difficult, you're simply adding that part, the fact that you are intentionally being dishonest and avoiding all the experts who say otherwise and ignore the silent majority who would clearly speak out if they saw something wrong. And again, the fact that Hani got several pilots lisc which all required professional testing and that those flying tests be passed proves beyon any doubt or any quotes that he was certainly a competent pilot.

Can you explain how he could have passed all his test is he was such a bad pilot?


"And you try to claim that the general consensus among experts is that he could not have made those moves and that he was a bad pilot. That is absolutely 100% completely FALSE."

Prove that it is "absolutely 100% completely FALSE." Prove it.

As soon as you prove that the Easter Bunny is real. That's a double-negative and I cannot prove something that does not exist. If you want to prove it, then the burden is on you. Go ahead and try prove that the general consensus amoung pilots is that the maneuver was difficult. Not among a few select quotes kid. This is about as dishonest as you can get.

Again, such as?

Again, you have been provided with many examples in this very thread and have chosen to ignore them.

And again back to your lying. If I found one expert who claimed the easter bunny was real and pointed out that you cannot find any experts that are claiming the easter bunny is not real, does that prove the easter bunny is real? Can you see how your lying is too obvious?


All I'm claiming is that there is a contradiction among what people (in the know) say. If there are experts who claim that critics are wrong, we still have an unresolved contradiction.

No there is no contradiction, you're simply making one when there isn't one. With billions of people in the world, there is technically a contradiction in everything in existence. Some people say the earth is flat, some say it's not. Contradiction. Some people say the big bang is true, some say it's false, contradiction. Some people say the Titantic split in half, some say it did not.

What you are doing is trying to cast doubt because you lack any evidence for your own beliefs. You cannot prove any of your crackpot theories so all you can do is try to use dishonest arguments to try to imply that the research done by REAL researchers is wrong. And like most frauds you do it with absurd speculation and assumptions.


No, you did not support your claim. I will ask again: Support your claim that I took those quotes "out of context," or retract it. Point to where you did this.

yes I did. Anyone who can't see where I pointed this out in my posts is a complete utter idiot. Admit you are being dishonest here or retract your argument. Read my posts, I did it in several, including the one you are responding to.


Asserting this doesn't make it true. I went to great lengths to show that there IS a contradiction among the statements I quoted, but you never addressed my argument.

And again, I have shown you at least 3-4 times now why they are not a contradiction. Simply saying they are a contradiction does not make it so. I have addressed your argument repeatedly. Are you on drugs?



1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show that the move is not difficult. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

Now you are lying because this thread contains many many examples by many different people, some of them being experts themselves.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that the 77-dive is difficult? Yes or no?

No, that is not what they are saying. Though there of course are people who do think it was difficult. And there are people from those same groups of experts who also think that there is a submarine tunnel to Las Vegas, and a machine on the moon that captures peoples souls, and that the planes on 9/11 were holograms. They're called nut jobs.

1. I'm was unaware of quotes which purport to show Hani was nothing but a substandard pilot. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

That's because you only research 9/11 cult websites. If you did real research you would see some of the people pointing out he was a decent pilot are some of the same ones you are quoting as saying he is bad. So when you leave out the aprts where they go on to say "But he kept going and became good enough to get his lisc" (paraphrasing), it's pretty dishonest.

And my charge still stands because your dishonesty also lies in your intention to find only what you want to hear. If you were honest, you would be looking at all the information and not simply researching only sources that tell you what you want to hear. And before you start mentioning the sources for the individual quotes, it's that you got those quotes compiled by crackpot web sites who were the ones who left out the key information. This is the same as lying. It's called quote mining, and the site that did the mining is the source. My guess is XXXtruth.org.

2. Do you admit that the quotes I cited DO claim that Hani was a bad pilot? Yes or no?

Once again, No. Because you are taking them out of context. Many of those same people you quoted also go on to say he ended up being a decent pilot. Do you admit that the quotes people here have cited from experts claim that he was not a bad pilot?



So, it's established that he was a terrible pilot only "months" before he allegedly flew 77 into the pentagon. If you have quotes which purport to show his extraordinary improvement in the intervening months, I'm all ears.

Are you serious? How many times have you been provided with those quotes in this thread already? 6 or 7 times now? And you ignore them all!

But again, aside form you ignoring all of this, how do you explain him getting a commercial and private pilots lisc?

And notice how your quotes do NOT say he was a terrible pilot months before the attack. It says he was reported. You're then taking the quote form the reporter who is making assumptions. Also note this part:

"Reacting to the alert in January 2001, an FAA inspector checked to ensure Hanjour's 1999 license was legitimate and even sat next to him in one of the Arizona classes. "

So though he was reported, it was checked to make sure he had a legit lisc. It also goes on to explain that the reports were due to his english skills, NOT his flying skills. The complaints were about him not showing up on time and not doing homework, not about his flying skills.

But you ONLY took the quotes that you wanted and left this stuff out. That is called LYING.


Answer: I'm unaware of these quotes. Hence there goes your dishonesty charge.

Some of them are in your OWN sources. And you have been provided with the quotes at least 6 or 7 times in this thread. YOU are as dishonest as it gets.


WHERE in ANY of the quotes I cited was reference made ONLY to Hanjur's bad language skills and NOT to his piloting skills? Where?

For example, the one you jsut provided above. Not the quote you sued did not, but that's because you left out the most important parts of them. If you actually read the page you linked to and got your quote form, you would see them. But you didn't bother to do that. you just found the list o quotes and links form some crackpot cult website, and didn't bother to even read through the sources. Because you aren't interested in any kind of facts, you're just interesting in these crackpot theories.

If you haven't even bothered to read your own sources, then how do you expect to make these arguments?

[Jonnyclueless]

According to the AP report, he was certified in 1999, and in one of the news articles I cited (CBS I believe), it was reported that he had terrible abilities only "months" before 9/11.

So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact.

There you go being dishonest again. If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case. You were convinced he was a bad pilot before you even found the article because it's the only way you can support your crackpot theories.

His problem according to your own source was his poor english skills, his tardiness, and not doing all his homework. Something that does indeed make a bad student, but does not mean he was a bad pilot months before the attack. He had a commercial AND private pilots lisc, which require being tested by an expert.

[Jonnyclueless]

1. The fact that his trainers questioned the authenticity of his license reflects their very low opinion of his piloting abilities. But I cited other statements that directly support the claim that they thought he was a terrible pilot.

2. The point is, according to relevant experts, he was a terrible pilot. Therefore, he could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon, because that would have been too difficult a task for him to accomplish.

1) The fact that his lisc was checked officially and found to be legitimate reflects that your claims are baseless.

2) According to real experts he was not a terrible expert. What you keep doing is taking quotes from people referring to his language skills, tardiness, and work ethic 9why should he have cared, he just needed to hit a building, not be great at landing), and then trying to pretend they are talking about his piloting skills.

[radical_logic]

Johnnyclueless, I refuse to engage with you any longer in this thread. Every time I ask to you support an assertion, you retort by saying "I already DID, but clearly you don't bother to read." I read your posts again but do not find where you have supported them. Hence I need to repeat my questions, to which you give the same dishonest dodge.

I can deal with pricks, but it's a waste of time to write long responses to those who won't interact with them.

[radical_logic]

There you go being dishonest again. If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case.


This is what I mean. I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, but your counter is only to say "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty. Thanks for proving my point.

[stilicho]

So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact.
So the next question is obvious: Was he at the controls of AA77 on the morning of SEP 11, 2001?

You have already agreed with the evidence that he was a licensed pilot and that he could fly.

I feel we are making progress here.

[radical_logic]

So the next question is obvious: Was he at the controls of AA77 on the morning of SEP 11, 2001?

Answer: I don't know. But, if the quotes I cited are correct, then it is highly unlikely that he piloted 77 into the pentagon.


You have already agreed with the evidence that he was a licensed pilot and that he could fly.


True, though I qualify my claim by adding that he could only fly "badly" or "terribly," since that is what the relevant experts say and imply.

[Jonnyclueless]

This is what I mean. I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, but your counter is only to say "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty. Thanks for proving my point.

No one can possibly be this stupid. Did ya see where I quoted your article as well? ya see, if you leave out the important parts that completely contradict your claims, it kinda has a factor in your honesty.

So when you quote the part just saying "He was terrible" and then leave out the part that says "Because of his language skills and his tardiness" you're not exactly being honest are you?

When you take quotes and say "There was questions about the legitimacy of his commercial lisc", and then leave out the part that says "His lisc was checked and found to be legit" you're not exactly being honest are you?

Thank YOU for proving MY point, which is pretty much that you are a fraud.

[Jonnyclueless]

Johnnyclueless, I refuse to engage with you any longer in this thread. Every time I ask to you support an assertion, you retort by saying "I already DID, but clearly you don't bother to read." I read your posts again but do not find where you have supported them. Hence I need to repeat my questions, to which you give the same dishonest dodge.

I can deal with pricks, but it's a waste of time to write long responses to those who won't interact with them.

And I am getting tired of continually supporting my assertions and providing concise examples that leave no confusion just for you to respond that i did not each time. Either you grown up and stop playing pretend here, or give it a rest. How can you be reading the posts when I clearly have provided support many times and on the same exact points?

how many times do I need to keep repeating myself? if you would bother to read, you would see the answers and you wouldn't need to keep asking the same questions that have been addressed, not only by me, but many others.

But the fact that you sit here and saying things like "I am not aware of such quotes" when dozens of people in this very thread have provided you with such quotes IN this thread, well that says it all.

When people have provided you with quotes of expert pilots and you claim they have not, it pretty much shows you are either lying or simply not reading. And to make it worse, some of those people providing the quotes and examples are themselves expert pilots.

[radical_logic]

No one can possibly be this stupid. Did ya see where I quoted your article as well? ya see, if you leave out the important parts that completely contradict your claims, it kinda has a factor in your honesty.

So when you quote the part just saying "He was terrible" and then leave out the part that says "Because of his language skills and his tardiness" you're not exactly being honest are you?

When you take quotes and say "There was questions about the legitimacy of his commercial lisc", and then leave out the part that says "His lisc was checked and found to be legit" you're not exactly being honest are you?

Thank YOU for proving MY point, which is pretty much that you are a fraud.

Thanks, again, for proving my point.

Whereas I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, your counter is to say nothing but "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4032724#post4032724)
So the next question is obvious: Was he at the controls of AA77 on the morning of SEP 11, 2001?

Answer: I don't know. But, if the quotes I cited are correct, then it is highly unlikely that he piloted 77 into the pentagon.


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.

http://www.flight77.info/docs/Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

That's the first page of the passenger manifest indicating that Hanjour was on AA77 that day. I figure you will accept that he was on that flight as well.

Then we will have an understanding that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that he was on AA77 on SEP 11, 2001.

[Corsair 115]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but has anyone yet raised the Kamikazes of WWII? Most of them were given relatively little training before being sent up. But considering their job was to crash into U.S. Navy ships, a lot of piloting skill wasn't required. Kamikazes were by their nature expendable, so giving them any degree of sophisticated training would be a waste of resources.

[radical_logic]

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?


http://www.flight77.info/docs/Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

That's the first page of the passenger manifest indicating that Hanjour was on AA77 that day. I figure you will accept that he was on that flight as well.

Then we will have an understanding that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that he was on AA77 on SEP 11, 2001.


Suppose it's true that he was on AA77 that day. We still have the following problem:

1. Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown 77 into the pentagon the way it allegedly did.

2. Hani Hanjour, according to the relevant experts, was a terrible pilot.

[Jonnyclueless]

Thanks, again, for proving my point.

Whereas I actually QUOTE the article to support my claim, your counter is to say nothing but "Wrong. Go read it again." Hence your dishonesty.

Thank you again for proving my point where you continue to not read. And you didn't quote a source there. Just like you prtend I didn't quote any sources. Please stop lying.

[radical_logic]

you didn't quote a source there.

Post 266 refutes your lying ass.


Just like you prtend I didn't quote any sources. Please stop lying.

Sorry, but you haven't.

[Jonnyclueless]

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




Suppose it's true that he was on AA77 that day. We still have the following problem:

1. Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown 77 into the pentagon the way it allegedly did.

2. Hani Hanjour, according to the relevant experts, was a terrible pilot.

No, the quotes were not all form his instructors, and 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.

1. INCORRECT. Please stop making this up. According to experts it was not a difficult maneuver.

2. INCORRECT. Please stop lying. According to the sources you provided, that is not the case. According to your source, the validity of his lisc was checked and verified as legitimate. Thus he was NOT a terrible pilot, but rather a pilot qualifed to fly a commercial plane.

[Jonnyclueless]

Post 266 refutes your lying ass.

And my response to that post shows not only am I not alying, but that you certainly are.



Sorry, but you haven't.

yes I have, as have others. Stop lying. I used YOUR sources. And I quoted them. It's in this thread for everyone to read. Also, many other people here have provided numerous quotes and sources to show you pilots that claim it requires very little skill to perform those maneuvers. Expert pilots themselves have posted into this very thread claiming that it was not difficult.

Him getting a legit commercial pilots lisc proves he was not a terrible pilot. Please stop lying.

[radical_logic]

No, the quotes were not all form his instructors,


"The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. "
Never said they ALL were from them. Stop it with the misrepresentation.




and 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.

Quote where the article supports this claim or shut up.


1. INCORRECT. Please stop making this up. According to experts it was not a difficult maneuver.

Not incorrect. See the quotes listed in post 42.


2. INCORRECT. Please stop lying. According to the sources you provided, that is not the case.

Mere assertion. Quote where the articles show that "that is not the case." (You won't, of course).

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's another quote form your sourece:

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." "

Did the guy who signed off on his pilots lisc say he was a terrible pilot?

[radical_logic]

Stop lying. I used YOUR sources. And I quoted them.

No, you didn't.

I said: "So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact."

You said: "If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case."

and: "And you didn't quote a source there [from the CBS article]."

I quoted the CBS article where I showed indeed that that was the case (post 266). Hence my charge of lying stands.

Show where you quoted the CBS article I cited that showed that that was not the case, as you assert?

[Jonnyclueless]

"The quotes were from his instructors and those from his flight school. "
Never said they ALL were from them. Stop it with the misrepresentation. [quote]

Again, not all of them/




[QUOTE]Quote where the article supports this claim or shut up.

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

You know, that article which you keep posting over and over. now go look at the post number for this post. And every time you keep asking for a source and claiming I am not providing one, just remember that post number. Now that I have copied and pasted it repeatedly in one post instead of my pasting it just once in many individual posts, maybe you won't miss it now?

maybe?

Maybe?



Not incorrect. See the quotes listed in post 42.

And now read the actual sources and look at the stuff you left out of your quotes. AND look at the quotes provided by many posts in this thread. look at the many posts by actual expert pilots who have been responding to this thread.

Mere assertion. Quote where the articles show that "that is not the case." (You won't, of course).

I am using the same articles as you which show you to be wrong. Your own sources show you are wrong. Expert pilots who have posted in this thread have shown that you are wrong. Some of the people you quoted have also shown you to be wrong because you left out all of their quotes.

[Jonnyclueless]

No, you didn't.

I said: "So, I'm convinced that he was a bad pilot. Could he fly? Yes. But not very well - terribly, in fact."

You said: "If you were to read the actual CBS article, you would see that is NOT the case."

and: "And you didn't quote a source there [from the CBS article]."

I quoted the CBS article where I showed indeed that that was the case (post 266). Hence my charge of lying stands.

Show where you quoted the CBS article I cited that showed that that was not the case, as you assert?

So you can there see where I am referring to your CBS article can you not? Just just copy pasted some replies of mine where I am referring to a specific source (which is one you provided).

Again???

Again??

OK time for ignore. You're too much of an idiot to be worth this much trouble. I am not going to keep repeating the same things over and over so you can get out of lying. READ YOUR OWN SOURCE ARTICLE. Not just the selective quotes you cherry picked, THE WHOLE THING.

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

Is the perfect example of you taking the quote o one person saying he was a bad pilot, and then ignoring the part where they explain why. That's an example of a source you use to cherry pick a part where one person says they question his lisc, but then ignore the part that shows his lisc was investigated and found to be legit. That's the source you sue to say he was a bad pilot and then ignore the part that says he was an average pilot by the instructor who actually tested him for his lisc.

[radical_logic]

Here's another quote form your sourece:

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." "

Did the guy who signed off on his pilots lisc say he was a terrible pilot?

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."

[radical_logic]

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."

[Arus808]

why are you guys still engaging thsi intellectual fraud?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4032760#post4032760)
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?

[stilicho]

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".

[jhunter1163]

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.

[Mancman]

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).

[jaydeehess]

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.

[CptColumbo]

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.

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

[radical_logic]

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?

[radical_logic]

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

[CptColumbo]

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[s]" that are different from each other not be subjective?

[radical_logic]

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'.

Nothing the above says disputes the claim that the flight 77 dive was very difficult.

[jhunter1163]

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.

[jhunter1163]

"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 wasn't an amateur. He was a licensed commercial pilot.

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

[stilicho]

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.

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

[Jonnyclueless]

"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.

[radical_logic]

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."

"a very average pilot, maybe struggling a bit."

""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."


First, you need to take the other quotes in that article into account which say his skills were "so bad." Second, you need to take the other quotes I provided into account (post 42) which also say he had very poor piloting skills. Third, keep in mind the fact that the "very average pilot" assessment could have been made before his school reported him for his poor performance (which means he went from "very average, maybe struggling a bit" to "poor"). Fourth, even if the "very average pilot" assessment was made after all the reports about his performance (which means he went from "poor" to "very average, maybe struggling a bit"), it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

[chillzero]

it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

Are you assuming that every single metre of that maneouvre was specifically planned out beforehand and adhered to?

[radical_logic]

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.

Here's why: just because he was "on AA77" doesn't mean he was in the cockpit of AA77. In other words, it doesn't follow from the claim that he was on AA77 that he was flying it.



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.

See my previous post.

[Jonnyclueless]

"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." - Radical Logic

Please tell us which instructor made that quote.

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's why: just because he was "on AA77" doesn't mean he was in the cockpit of AA77. In other words, it doesn't follow from the claim that he was on AA77 that he was flying it.


Just because some of the instructors thought he was a bad pilot due to his english skills, does not mean he was incapable of making the maneuvers. Also, the flight manifest is far from the only evidence of him lying the plane.

And all the evidence shows that he was flying the plane. Do you have any evidence that shows someone else was flying the plane?

[stilicho]

This is going to be another marathon thread where he keeps to his original idea no matter what we say.

...

And no matter what radical_logic said himself by agreeing that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that his license was verified by the FAA.

The thread was done at that exact point because those acknowledgements answer the question of the thread title in full.

[stilicho]

Here's why: just because he was "on AA77" doesn't mean he was in the cockpit of AA77. In other words, it doesn't follow from the claim that he was on AA77 that he was flying it.
You now acknowledge he was on AA77? You stated previously that you considered that to be hypothetical.

[radical_logic]

...

And no matter what radical_logic said himself by agreeing that Hanjour was a licensed pilot and that his license was verified by the FAA.

The thread was done at that exact point because those acknowledgements answer the question of the thread title in full.

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible.

[radical_logic]

You now acknowledge he was on AA77? You stated previously that you considered that to be hypothetical.

I made no such acknowledgment. I simply explained why him being on flight 77 is irrelevant.

[CptColumbo]

"a very average pilot, maybe struggling a bit."

""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."


First, you need to take the other quotes in that article into account which say his skills were "so bad." Second, you need to take the other quotes I provided into account (post 42) which also say he had very poor piloting skills. Third, keep in mind the fact that the "very average pilot" assessment could have been made before his school reported him for his poor performance (which means he went from "very average, maybe struggling a bit" to "poor"). Fourth, even if the "very average pilot" assessment was made after all the reports about his performance (which means he went from "poor" to "very average, maybe struggling a bit"), it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.No, it means that two different people had different opinions of his flying ability.

[radical_logic]

No, it means that two different people had different opinions of his flying ability.

Why don't you want to address the substance of my post?


First, you need to take the other quotes in that article into account which say his skills were "so bad."

Don't simply ignore them.

Second, you need to take the other quotes I provided into account (post 42) which also say he had very poor piloting skills.

If you read post 42, you will see that more than one person had a low opinion of Hanjour's skills.


Third, keep in mind the fact that the "very average pilot" assessment could have been made before his school reported him for his poor performance (which means he went from "very average, maybe struggling a bit" to "poor").

Again, you ignore this. If the assessment that his skills were "very average" was made BEFORE the assessment that they were "so bad," then suggests that he got WORSE.



Fourth, even if the "very average pilot" assessment was made after all the reports about his performance (which means he went from "poor" to "very average, maybe struggling a bit"), it's still the case that he was NOT considered highly skilled--and hence not skilled enough to accomplish the flight 77 dive.

Again, you ignore this. Why?



"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible.

[Myriad]

Considerable evidence has been presented that executing a wide, descending, sloppy, irregular turn followed by hitting a building with an over quarter mile wide profile in a modern jetliner is in fact not difficult for any licensed commercial pilot even if relatively poorly skilled. This evidence includes a preponderance of expert opinion as well as actual experiments in simulators.

That resolves the supposed contradiction.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[radical_logic]

Considerable evidence has been presented that executing a wide, descending, sloppy, irregular turn followed by hitting a building with an over quarter mile wide profile in a modern jetliner is in fact not difficult for any licensed commercial pilot even if relatively poorly skilled. This evidence includes a preponderance of expert opinion as well as actual experiments in simulators.

That resolves the supposed contradiction.

Respectfully,
Myriad

First, in this thread, I've seen only one - maybe two - alleged expert say that the dive wasn't difficult. In some of the links I was given, there were quotes like: "expert Michael (last name withheld) says blah blah..." So it's hard to take those quotes seriously, especially when they aren't even made in any reputable news article.

Second, I've provided a lot of quotes (from mainstream sources, no less) suggesting that the dive was difficult and not at all easy. Therefore, if there is a "a preponderance of expert opinion," then it should be easy to give me much more than one expert who disagrees with all the quotes I cited.

Third, even if you could provide me with many experts who disagree with the experts referenced in the news articles I cited, that doesn't make them correct. We still have a disagreement among experts.

[Pardalis]

... and on, and on...

[chillzero]

First, in this thread, I've seen only one - maybe two - alleged expert say that the dive wasn't difficult. In some of the links I was given, there were quotes like: "expert Michael (last name withheld) says blah blah..." So it's hard to take those quotes seriously, especially when they aren't even made in any reputable news article.

Second, I've provided a lot of quotes (from mainstream sources, no less) suggesting that the dive was difficult and not at all easy. Therefore, if there is a "a preponderance of expert opinion," then it should be easy to give me much more than one expert who disagrees with all the quotes I cited.

Third, even if you could provide me with many experts who disagree with the experts referenced in the news articles I cited, that doesn't make them correct. We still have a disagreement among experts.

and with all that in mind, what's your response to post 322?

[radical_logic]

Are you assuming that every single metre of that maneouvre was specifically planned out beforehand and adhered to?

I don't see why I need to assume that.

Again, according to the relevant experts, the flight 77 dive was very difficult to perform - only a highly skilled pilot could pull it off. Hanjour, according to the relevant experts, was not by any stretch of the imagination a highly skilled pilot.

[radical_logic]

and with all that in mind, what's your response to post 322?

Will you please address the following?


"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

[radical_logic]

... and on, and on...

Please address post 337.

[stilicho]

Again, you ignore this. If the assessment that his skills were "very average" was made BEFORE the assessment that they were "so bad," then suggests that he got WORSE.
From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Hanjour was a licensed pilot. His license was verified by the FAA. You agree with that.

But now you "suggest" that he was not only too poor a pilot in 1999, but that he became a worse pilot by 2001.

As others have asked on other 9/11 threads I have to ask you: What would it take to falsify your beliefs? So far it appears that it isn't having a commercial pilot's license nor having that license verified by the FAA.

What is it exactly that it would take?

[radical_logic]

From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Hanjour was a licensed pilot. His license was verified by the FAA. You agree with that.

But now you "suggest" that he was not only too poor a pilot in 1999, but that he became a worse pilot by 2001.


Where's the flaw in my argument? Was the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible? Yes or no? I've shown how the answer is 'yes.'


As others have asked on other 9/11 threads I have to ask you: What would it take to falsify your beliefs? So far it appears that it isn't having a commercial pilot's license nor having that license verified by the FAA.

What is it exactly that it would take?

For a relevant expert to say otherwise.

[Pardalis]

Please address post 337.

I think you should take a break, you've been at this for two days straight (http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=89122), at this rate you're going to snap.

[stilicho]

For a relevant expert to say otherwise.

Name the expert.

[radical_logic]

Will you please address the following?


"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

[Myriad]

First, in this thread, I've seen only one - maybe two - alleged expert say that the dive wasn't difficult. In some of the links I was given, there were quotes like: "expert Michael (last name withheld) says blah blah..." So it's hard to take those quotes seriously, especially when they aren't even made in any reputable news article.

Second, I've provided a lot of quotes (from mainstream sources, no less) suggesting that the dive was difficult and not at all easy. Therefore, if there is a "a preponderance of expert opinion," then it should be easy to give me much more than one expert who disagrees with all the quotes I cited.

Third, even if you could provide me with many experts who disagree with the experts referenced in the news articles I cited, that doesn't make them correct. We still have a disagreement among experts.


Okay, suppose there were a new investigation. How would the investigators resolve this perceived disagreement between experts?

Do you think they might ask more experts, making sure each expert they ask receives all the relevant information available (unlike most of the ones you cite which were too soon after the event to have all the information), including the FDR data, radar tracking data, and the full reports from all of Hanjour's U.S. instructors?

Do you think they might even go back and re-ask the same experts who appear to be disagreeing, to clarify and update their positions based on all the information?

Hold on, let me do that investigation for you and get back to you.

Or, wait, even better, you do it yourself, so you won't have to wonder if I'm reporting the results truthfully or not. Is anything stopping you?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[radical_logic]

Name the expert.

huh? If you can find an expert who testifies to Hanjour's great piloting skills, I'm all ears. I don't know of any.

[radical_logic]

Or, wait, even better, you do it yourself, so you won't have to wonder if I'm reporting the results truthfully or not. Is anything stopping you?

Respectfully,
Myriad

uh...yeah. How can I possibly do it myself? Hence we need a new investigation to sort out all the problems.

[chillzero]

Will you please address the following?


"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

So what?
Look, basically, whatever skill level he had is rendered moot by the evidence that supports the fact that he flew the plane into the building.

[Jonnyclueless]

Now Radical is just plain trolling. he is intentionally ignoring all the questions that if answered would prove him wrong. He is also using the quote of him being a terrible pilot and claiming that it is being stated by instructors. That is a 100% lie. That quote is NOT from any instructors but simply a quote by the articel author and being taken out of context.

Now his argument is that the statements made by the instructors while being questions AFTER 9/11 mean that somehow they trump the statements made while he was training. Aside form this absolute dishonest absurdity of his, ALL the quotes were taken AFTER 9/11, including the instructor saying he was an average pilot.

This is nothing but plain fraud and dishonesty in Radicals arguments.

[Jonnyclueless]

huh? If you can find an expert who testifies to Hanjour's great piloting skills, I'm all ears. I don't know of any.

but you can find an expert who claims he was an average pilot, and you have penty of experts who state that the maneuvers were not difficult. On top of that you have hard evidence (as opposed to opinion) that he was a capable pilot and certified to fly. A feat the requires a pilot ot be competent at flying and not terrible.

[radical_logic]

So what?

I appreciate a direct answer to my question.

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?




Look, basically, whatever skill level he had is rendered moot by the evidence that supports the fact that he flew the plane into the building.

I'm open to the evidence. What is it?

[stilicho]

huh? If you can find an expert who testifies to Hanjour's great piloting skills, I'm all ears. I don't know of any.
Whoa there, cowboy.

You said a relevant expert would falsify your beliefs that Hanjour was an inexperienced pilot. Who is that expert?

I don't have to find him or her, buckaroo. You do.

[Jonnyclueless]

1 vote for AAH. There is clearly no possibility for productive debate here.

[radical_logic]

Whoa there, cowboy.

You said a relevant expert would falsify your beliefs that Hanjour was an inexperienced pilot. Who is that expert?

I don't have to find him or her, buckaroo. You do.

Again, I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you?

[Jonnyclueless]

Whoa there, cowboy.

You said a relevant expert would falsify your beliefs that Hanjour was an inexperienced pilot. Who is that expert?

I don't have to find him or her, buckaroo. You do.

But he doesn't believe one to exist, so he isn't obligated. however, it's a completely dishonest argument because now he is trying to argue that one has to be an excellent pilot to perform the maneuvers, which is a completely false claim. he need only be an average pilot and not even that. And we have an expert instructor who does clarify that. We also have his commercial pilots lisc which proves beyond opinion that he was more than capable.

BUT, even if there was not a single expert to verify his flying ability, and even if he didn't have a pilots lisc to prove beyond any doubt that he was a capable pilot, it still does NOT prove he was not able to make the maneuvers.

[chillzero]

I'm open to the evidence. What is it?

Well, you are in the right place. Start reading this subsection.

[Pardalis]

But he doesn't believe one to exist, so he isn't obligated. however, it's a completely dishonest argument because now he is trying to argue that one has to be an excellent pilot to perform the maneuvers, which is a completely false claim. he need only be an average pilot and not even that. And we have an expert instructor who does clarify that. We also have his commercial pilots lisc which proves beyond opinion that he was more than capable.

Not to mention his own expert he keeps referring to, Bernard, who says he could do it also.

[radical_logic]

Well, you are in the right place. Start reading this subsection.

Why won't you answer my question?



"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

[Jonnyclueless]

Not to mention his own expert he keeps referring to, Bernard, who says he could do it also.

And that the quote he is using to claim Hani was a terrible pilot is NOT from any of his instructors, but simply by the article author base on the instructors criticism of his English and tardiness, not his actual flying ability.

[radical_logic]

Not to mention his own expert he keeps referring to, Bernard, who says he could do it also.

Nope, this claim is simply false. I've explained why.

[Jonnyclueless]

Nope, this claim is simply false. I've explained why.

It's not false and Radical used false claims to try and explain it.

[Pardalis]

And round and round we go and do-si-do.

[stilicho]

Again, I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you?
So the relevant experts exclude those who issued his license, those who did the check rides, and those who verified it.

I have to admit, radical_logic, that I am stupefied. Only in a hopelessly insane world would a pilot's license be meaningless.

We are in agreement that nothing would falsify your beliefs. Right?

[chillzero]

Why won't you answer my question?



"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license."

Now here's the question: when did he get his pilot's license?

Answer: April 15 1999.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...y=daryl_strong

Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

You have already recieved at least one warning for flooding the forum with repeated quotes, so stop it.

I did answer your question, if you would read properly. I said 'so what'. It implies a 'yes' - because of the dates you lay out, but clearly indicates my opinion that it doesn't matter whether it's yes or no.

You need to stop ignoring the information you have been given, and go read some other threads in this forum - particularly Gravy's links, which clearly indicate where the evidence can be found for just about every aspect of 911.

[beachnut]

The biggest building in the world? And a 40 foot runway! Which can a terrorist hit? You lack logic, mr logic man.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77hanicntlandpentagoncan.jpg
40 foot runway, or Pentagon. If you had to hit something, which could you be sure of hitting if money was involved and you were immortal?

Albeit, the Pentagon is a short runway, only over 1400 feet long, but it beats 40 feet in all dimensions I can think of.

40 feet wide? When 933 to over 1400 feet wide target!? LOL

""… 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" <A href="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm" target=_blank>http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm""

You are saying they were not talking about the Pentagon? But just a building? Yet one of the largest building in the world he can't hit, but a little building he can? That is your logic?

You have no expert to back up your ideas... You have lot of hearsay news stories.
Hard for the worse pilot in the world to miss the Pentagon.

The tiny runway, 40 feet wide, Hani could not land, but 1400 feet wide, he almost hit the ground! Anyone who thinks Hani could not almost miss the Pentagon is unable to use logic and connnect the dots to understand flying.

40 feet wide vs. 1400 feet ,,,

[radical_logic]

You have already recieved at least one warning for flooding the forum with repeated quotes, so stop it.

I did answer your question, if you would read properly. I said 'so what'. It implies a 'yes' - because of the dates you lay out, but clearly indicates my opinion that it doesn't matter whether it's yes or no.

"so what" doesn't necessarily mean 'yes,' but I'm glad you now made your answer explicit. Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.



You need to stop ignoring the information you have been given,

What information have I ignored? Be specific.

[radical_logic]

So the relevant experts exclude those who issued his license, those who did the check rides, and those who verified it.

I have to admit, radical_logic, that I am stupefied. Only in a hopelessly insane world would a pilot's license be meaningless.

You didn't answer my question. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?


We are in agreement that nothing would falsify your beliefs. Right?

Read my prior responses.

[A W Smith]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts
Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."



"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon


Experienced pilot Giulio Bernacchia (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Giulio_Bernacchia) agrees:

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

[chillzero]

"so what" doesn't necessarily mean 'yes,' but I'm glad you now made your answer explicit. Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

Hang on.
I answered your question at face value. Statement A was made before statement B. You made it relatively clear that this was the case.

That in no way relates to or supports your argument that Hanjour could not have made this crash - because that's what he did you know - not some amazing maneouvre. In fact I've already stated that he obviously did make the crash, so varied opinions on his piloting abilities are completely irrelevant.

Don't extrapolate things out of my posts that I did not say.


What information have I ignored? Be specific.
Most of it. Start reading.

[radical_logic]

Don't extrapolate things out of my posts that I did not say.



I didn't. Pay attention.

Hang on.
I answered your question at face value. Statement A was made before statement B. You made it relatively clear that this was the case.

That in no way relates to or supports your argument that Hanjour could not have made this crash - because that's what he did you know - not some amazing maneouvre. In fact I've already stated that he obviously did make the crash, so varied opinions on his piloting abilities are completely irrelevant.

This is what I ssaid: Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

I haven't extrapolated anything you didn't say.



Most of it. Start reading.

I have been. Why can't you be more specific?

[chillzero]

I didn't. Pay attention.



This is what I ssaid: Hence you agree that, according to all the relevant experts, the most accurate assessement of Hanjour as a pilot before 9/11 is that he was a poor one. Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

I haven't extrapolated anything you didn't say.


Yes you have. I merely ageed that given the information you provided, one statement was indeed made earlier than the other one. I made no assessment as to the validity of either statement.

I don't agree that he was either a good, mediocre, or terrible pilot. I don't have the ability to make that judgement. As I said, it really doesn't matter how good a pilot he was - he was good enough to get a licence, and also good enough to make the plane crash into one of the, if not the, biggest buildings in the area. Opinions on his abilities are irrelevant. Why do you keep ignoring that?


I have been. Why can't you be more specific?
:nope:

[T.A.M.]

Exactly. He was of sufficient ability so as to obtain the license. I am pretty sure they aren't handing such licenses out with every purchase of a snickers bar.

But if he wasn't Captain Flyboy, then too bad, it was obviously an inside job...lol

TAM:)

[stilicho]

You didn't answer my question. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?
You answered your own question. Nothing can falsify your belief that, although licensed to operate a commercial airliner, Hanjour could not do so. In February of 2001, at the request of his instructor, the FAA verified Hanjour's license and offered to supply an English tutor to assist him. February 2001 is in between the issuance of the license and Hanjour's piloting of AA77 into the Pentagon.

Now, back to that expert you were going to name.

[jhunter1163]

Exactly. He was of sufficient ability so as to obtain the license. I am pretty sure they aren't handing such licenses out with every purchase of a snickers bar.
TAM:)

Check your Cracker Jacks. That's where I got mine. ;)

[chillzero]

Check your Cracker Jacks. That's where I got mine. ;)

[UK childhood]CRACKER JACK!!!![/UK childhood]

[radical_logic]

Yes you have. I merely ageed that given the information you provided, one statement was indeed made earlier than the other one. I made no assessment as to the validity of either statement.

I don't agree that he was either a good, mediocre, or terrible pilot. I don't have the ability to make that judgement. As I said, it really doesn't matter how good a pilot he was - he was good enough to get a licence, and also good enough to make the plane crash into one of the, if not the, biggest buildings in the area. Opinions on his abilities are irrelevant. Why do you keep ignoring that?



:nope:

Here's why I only extrapolated inferences from what you said.

I said: Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

Your answer is yes. Therefore, you agree that the "terrible skills" assessment came only months before 9/11. No instructor has said otherwise. Hence the "terrible skills" assessment is the most accurate assessement of Hanjour's abilities as a pilot before 9/11.

Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

Where's the flaw?

[radical_logic]

You answered your own question.

But you haven't answered mine. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?

[chillzero]

Here's why I only extrapolated inferences from what you said.

I said: Therefore, the assessment that he was a "very average pilot" was made BEFORE the assessment that his skills were terrible. Does this inference follow? Yes or no?

Your answer is yes. Therefore, you agree that the "terrible skills" assessment came only months before 9/11. No instructor has said otherwise. Hence the "terrible skills" assessment is the most accurate assessement of Hanjour's abilities as a pilot before 9/11.

Therefore, you agree that ~A is true.

Where's the flaw?

Try reading this a little slower.

I agreed that one assessment was made before the other, timewise. I did not agree with any assessment. Those assessments were made by other people - not me. I made no judgement on whether or not either of your statements were true. In fact I laid it out quite clearly in my last post that not only do I hold no opinion as to his skills, but that his skills levels don't matter given the events of 911. Your selective reading seems to have interfered with your ability to understand once again.

[Myriad]

uh...yeah. How can I possibly do it myself? Hence we need a new investigation to sort out all the problems.


What, precisely, is stopping you from doing it yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[radical_logic]

Try reading this a little slower.

I agreed that one assessment was made before the other, timewise. I did not agree with any assessment. Those assessments were made by other people - not me. I made no judgement on whether or not either of your statements were true. In fact I laid it out quite clearly in my last post that not only do I hold no opinion as to his skills, but that his skills levels don't matter given the events of 911. Your selective reading seems to have interfered with your ability to understand once again.

1. If you won't accept his instructor's assessment, then who's assessment would you accept?
2. His skill levels are certainly relevant if the quotes I cited are correct: that only a highly skilled pilot could accomplish the 77-dive.

[radical_logic]

What, precisely, is stopping you from doing it yourself?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Time, limited resources, lack of journalistic credentials, lack of subpoena power.

[chillzero]

1. If you won't accept his instructor's assessment, then who's assessment would you accept?

I don't know, and I don't really care, because as I have repeatedly wasted effort on pointing out - all the evidence shows that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area.


2. His skill levels are certainly relevant if the quotes I cited are correct: that only a highly skilled pilot could accomplish the 77-dive.

However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area. Why keep ignoring this?

[Homeland Insurgency]

It requires 250 hours to obtain a commercial pilot license I believe and Hanjour had both a private and commercial piloting license and was the most experienced out of all of the 9/11 hijackers..

Wow he was at the head of the class huh? Do you grade on the curve by any chance?

[radical_logic]

However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area. Why keep ignoring this?

That claim is contradicted by the quotes I cited in post 42, which you continue to ignore.

Here's one of them.

"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

Why do you keep ignoring this?

[chillzero]

That claim is contradicted by the quotes I cited in post 42, which you continue to ignore.

Here's one of them.

"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

Why do you keep ignoring this?

I'm not ignoring it.
Opinions are over ruled by facts, you silly little man.

It doesn't matter how many people think he wasn't a good pilot. It doesn't change what he actually managed to DO.

[Homeland Insurgency]

That claim is contradicted by the quotes I cited in post 42, which you continue to ignore.

Here's one of them.

"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

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Don't forget Capt. Russ Wittenberg...

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

[radical_logic]

I'm not ignoring it.

Yes, you are. What do you make of his expert opinion?

You said: "However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area."

Clearly, NOT "all" the evidence points to that fact? See post 42.

But what evidence points to that fact? Evidence seems to show: (a) it takes a highly skilled pilot to accomplish to 77-dive, and (b) Hanjour was not a highly skilled pilot - not by a long shot.

What evidence refutes either (a) or (b)? SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

[Wolrab]

I don't know if it has been posted yet ( i didn't want to read repetitive posts for 5 or 6 pages) but further down, in one of the sources used there is this little ditty:


"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

I wonder why this wasn't included in the original posting. Hmm......

[radical_logic]

Don't forget Capt. Russ Wittenberg...

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Right!

And Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists". "

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Davis

[radical_logic]

I don't know if it has been posted yet ( i didn't want to read repetitive posts for 5 or 6 pages) but further down, in one of the sources used there is this little ditty:


"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

I wonder why this wasn't included in the original posting. Hmm......


I've addressed this quote already.

There is no indication that Bernard was referring to "the Pentagon" specifically when he said "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." Therefore, his statement is completely consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon.

[TjW]

But you haven't answered mine. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?

Could you explain why standard or above skills were required for Hanjour's feat?

[chillzero]

Yes, you are. What do you make of his expert opinion?

For the final time - I don't care about anyone's opinion when weighed up against the evidence of the day.


You said: "However all evidence points to the fact that he was good enough to crash into the biggest building in the area."

Clearly, NOT "all" the evidence points to that fact? See post 42.

But what evidence points to that fact? Evidence seems to show: (a) it takes a highly skilled pilot to accomplish to 77-dive, and (b) Hanjour was not a highly skilled pilot - not by a long shot.

What evidence refutes either (a) or (b)? SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

Clearly neither (a) nor (b) matter. Hanjour did undertake a dive that ploughed the plane into the Pentagon - unless you are claiming this never happened?

Hanjour has been named as the pilot given that he had the best piloting credentials of the hijackers - unless you are claiming one of the less qualified hijackers undertook the flight? Or perhaps one of the other passengers?

What exactly do you think occured if you are claiming that Hanjour did not fly this plane into the Pentagon? If you are not claiming that he didn't fly the plane, then what exactly is the point of this thread?

[radical_logic]

Could you explain why standard or above skills were required for Hanjour's feat?

I'm not an expert, so I could not explain why that dive is difficult. But the quotes I cited clearly indicate that experts do think that that dive is difficult. See post 42 for those quotes.

[chillzero]

I've addressed this quote already.

There is no indication that Bernard was referring to "the Pentagon" specifically when he said "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." Therefore, his statement is completely consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon.

But you ignored the fact that the Pentagon is a building, and therefore the quote is just fine. And, in fact the Pentagon is not just a building, but a REALLY REALLY BIG building, and therefore easier to hit than most.

[radical_logic]

For the final time - I don't care about anyone's opinion when weighed up against the evidence of the day.

What is that "evidence?" I've asked you several times to provide it to me, but you haven't. Be specific.




Clearly neither (a) nor (b) matter. Hanjour did undertake a dive that ploughed the plane into the Pentagon - unless you are claiming this never happened?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, clearly, (a) and (b) matter. What is the flaw in this argument?


Hanjour has been named as the pilot given that he had the best piloting credentials of the hijackers -


Which doesn't mean he was, by conventional standards, "good."


What exactly do you think occured if you are claiming that Hanjour did not fly this plane into the Pentagon? If you are not claiming that he didn't fly the plane, then what exactly is the point of this thread?

1. I don't know what did or did not happen. Hence, I am not claiming that Hanjour did not fly into the Pentagon - only that IF the above were true, then he could not have flown into the Pentagon. Note the distinction.
2. The point is to show that there is an unresolved contradiction in the official story.

[Wolrab]

I've addressed this quote already.

There is no indication that Bernard was referring to "the Pentagon" specifically when he said "he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." Therefore, his statement is completely consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon.
I can not believe you said that. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. If Hanjour could hit some other building, he could certainly hit the Pentagon. You are grasping at straws, badly.

[radical_logic]

But you ignored the fact that the Pentagon is a building, and therefore the quote is just fine.

"A building" doesn't necessarily mean "the Pentagon Building." This point stands.



and therefore easier to hit than most.

Once again, the experts seem to disagree. See the above quotes.

[beachnut]

"A building" doesn't necessarily mean "the Pentagon Building." This point stands.




Once again, the experts seem to disagree. See the above quotes.
Pentagon, largest building. This stands. My grandson understands, he is 4.

[radical_logic]

I can not believe you said that. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. If Hanjour could hit some other building, he could certainly hit the Pentagon. You are grasping at straws, badly.

Actually, I'm not. Read post 42 (since I'm not allowed to quote it anymore).

And here:

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."


Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".


"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

[Myriad]

Time, limited resources, lack of journalistic credentials, lack of subpoena power.


Wow, those are good excuses. I guess when the investigation never happens you'll have no reason to ever feel any regret that you didn't bother to do anything on your own initiative.

How much do postage stamps cost?

How much does a reasonably realistic PC passenger jet flight simulator cost? (It wouldn't be totally conclusive, but you could just try it yourself and get an approximate idea of how hard the maneuver is.)

How much does it cost to borrow books on principles of aviation from your local library?

Do journalistic credentials affect whether Hanjour had a valid pilot's license or not?

Does subpoena power change how difficult a flight maneuver is?

Your convenient excuses are just that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[A W Smith]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-09/10/article02.shtml



The militants were filmed in the Afghan city of Kandahar “a few months” before heading to the United States to carry out the attacks that left about 3,000 dead, the station claimed.

Meanwhile, over still photos of the hijackers, Bin Laden’s voice was allegedly heard naming some of the attackers in the September 11 strikes, including Egyptian Mohammad Atta who he said “led the group which destroyed the first tower” of the World Trade Center.

Describing the attacks as “the New York and Washington raids,” Bin Laden praised “the men who changed the course of history and cleansed the (Arab-Islamic) nation from the filth of treacherous rulers and their subordinates.”

Apart from Atta, Bin Laden named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”

[chillzero]

What is that "evidence?" I've asked you several times to provide it to me, but you haven't. Be specific.

I've told you where to find it. Go do your own research instead of takign the ***** here.




If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, clearly, (a) and (b) matter. What is the flaw in this argument?


The flaw is that he didfly the plane into the Pentagon.


Which doesn't mean he was, by conventional standards, "good."

So what?


1. I don't know what did or did not happen. Hence, I am not claiming that Hanjour did not fly into the Pentagon - only that IF the above were true, then he could not have flown into the Pentagon. Note the distinction.
2. The point is to show that there is an unresolved contradiction in the official story.

1. :rolleyes:

2. No there isn't.

"A building" doesn't necessarily mean "the Pentagon Building." This point stands.

Once again, the experts seem to disagree. See the above quotes.


And yet ... he still managed to do it.
Perhaps you should give some thought to the questions I posed about who did do it, if he didn't.

There is absolutely no logic to your position, and I really believe you don't actually believethe stance you have taken, and that you are merely trolling. Everything you need to know has been indicated in this thread already - very early on - but you ignore it and claim it hasn't been presented. If you had a reasonable argument you would be worth spending time on, but I am done wasting effort on you over this. It's completely ridiculous.

[Wolrab]

Actually, I'm not. Read post 42 (since I'm not allowed to quote it anymore).



Post 42 only has the first Bernard quote, you conveniently left out the one I posted. No one else quoted there is Bernard. You are being disingenuous. You are not grasping at straws, you are out and out lying. He meant the Pentagon. No one on the planet with a bit of English reading ability and comprehension would say different.

[radical_logic]

I've told you where to find it. Go do your own research instead of takign the ***** here.

I've looked and found nothing, but perhaps my research skills are poor. If that's the case, why not consider offering me a hand?





The flaw is that he didfly the plane into the Pentagon.

Begging the question. Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?


So what?

It matters because: If Hanjour was a terrible pilot, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?



1. :rolleyes:

2. No there isn't.


How is A ^~A not a contradiction?




And yet ... he still managed to do it.

What is the evidence for what? Please, I really want to know.

[radical_logic]

Post 42 only has the first Bernard quote, you conveniently left out the one I posted. No one else quoted there is Bernard. You are being disingenuous. You are not grasping at straws, you are out and out lying. He meant the Pentagon. No one on the planet with a bit of English reading ability and comprehension would say different.

1. You continue to ignore the other quotes I cited.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".


"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."

2. Asserting that he "meant" the Pentagon, when he only said "a building," does not suggest at all that he meant it. I'll rephrase my question.

Suppose the article went like this:

"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."

"However, Bernard then added, Hanjour could not have flew into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did."

Does this last statement contradict Bernard's previous statement? Yes or no?

[radical_logic]

I've told you where to find it. Go do your own research instead of takign the ***** here.





The flaw is that he didfly the plane into the Pentagon.


So what?



1. :rolleyes:

2. No there isn't.




And yet ... he still managed to do it.
Perhaps you should give some thought to the questions I posed about who did do it, if he didn't.

There is absolutely no logic to your position, and I really believe you don't actually believethe stance you have taken, and that you are merely trolling. Everything you need to know has been indicated in this thread already - very early on - but you ignore it and claim it hasn't been presented. If you had a reasonable argument you would be worth spending time on, but I am done wasting effort on you over this. It's completely ridiculous.

btw, you need to learn how to live up to your name and "chill."

[beachnut]

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]


[5]

Hence, from the above, we can drive:
A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot who is alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, much have been a highly skilled pilot.
Consider the following:
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

Hence, from these above, we can derive:
A. ~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot who is alleged to have flown flight 77 into the pentagon, was a terrible pilot.
Contradiction: (A ^~A)
[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=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml

RL's # 3 dumb news story! Date 21 September 2001. LOL, Not real support. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had

better flying skills than many investigators first believed. "


a. The steep turn was not a steep turn, the plane was anywhere from 10 degrees to 20 degrees to 35 degrees of bank. Steep turns are 45 degrees and 60 degrees, another news story is busted.
b. This is not a complex turn maneuver, it was sloppy, not smooth the bank varied back and forth. The turn rate was only 320 degrees in 3 minutes. This is standard junk, the stuff of first flight flying. Even RL would do this on his first flight, he may not be as good as Hani, but even RL can crash a plane into the Pentagon without skill. This news story is junk.

DEBUNKED -

[Wolrab]

The only one I was referring to was Bernard. The other people are not Bernard, therefor they are irrelevant. You lied about Bernard. You should admit that, then the others can be discussed. Bernard destroys your argument.

[radical_logic]

The only one I was referring to was Bernard. The other people are not Bernard, therefor they are irrelevant. You lied about Bernard. You should admit that, then the others can be discussed. Bernard destroys your argument.

No, it does not follow from what you quoted that Bernard was referring to the Pentagon, as I explained.

Suppose the article went like this:

"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."

"However, Bernard then added, Hanjour could not have flew into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did."

Does this last statement contradict Bernard's previous statement? Yes or no?

Don't dodge my question.

[Wolrab]

In some alternate universe maybe. In this universe, Bernard is quite sure Hanjour hit the Pentagon. Read his words, don't make up stuff he did not say.

[radical_logic]

In some alternate universe maybe.

Therefore, you admit, his statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon.


In this universe, Bernard is quite sure Hanjour hit the Pentagon. Read his words, don't make up stuff he did not say.

I'm not suggesting that Bernard said Hanjour DID NOT fly 77 into the Pentagon; rather, I'm suggesting that his statement does not say- as you do - that Hanjour DID fly 77 into the Pentagon.

[radical_logic]

Also, address the other quotes in post 42. And the following:

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".


"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."

[Wolrab]

From the vaunted POST 42 "[Managers] 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. "
From http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts



"Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot.

Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.

"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said.
Chevrette said that Hanjour's English was so bad that it took him eight hours to complete an oral exam that should've taken two hours."

Fish in a barrel.

[radical_logic]

From the vaunted POST 42 "[Managers] 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. "
From http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts



"Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot.

Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.

"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said.
Chevrette said that Hanjour's English was so bad that it took him eight hours to complete an oral exam that should've taken two hours."

Fish in a barrel.


huh? How does that address the quote? She clearly said she reported him because his pilot skills were poor. What's the problem?

[Wolrab]

Therefore, you admit, his statement is consistent with the claim that Hanjour could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon.


No. The big clue is "alternate universe". At present, there are no known alternate universes, so I at no time admitted that Bernard said something he has never said. It is clear from the context that he meant the Pentagon. He was not talking about the building I live in, he was not talking about your house, he was not talking about any other building than the Pentagon. His words could not be any more clear. Don't take my word though, give him a call and ask him because he is what's called in my world, a primary source.

[radical_logic]

No. The big clue is "alternate universe". At present, there are no known alternate universes, so I at no time admitted that Bernard said something he has never said. It is clear from the context that he meant the Pentagon. He was not talking about the building I live in, he was not talking about your house, he was not talking about any other building than the Pentagon. His words could not be any more clear. Don't take my word though, give him a call and ask him because he is what's called in my world, a primary source.

Once again, "a building" does not mean "the Pentagon building." You keep asserting he means this without any argument.

[chillzero]

Are you claiming that the Pentagon is not a building?

[Jonnyclueless]

Radical Logic's argument is basically pretending people have not addressed the issue and repeating that that he can't find where people address his requests, even while quoting some of them in his posts claiming nothing is addressed.

This is nothing but trolling.

[radical_logic]

Are you claiming that the Pentagon is not a building?

Nope, I am not claiming that at all. Don't misrepresent my position.

[Jonnyclueless]

huh? How does that address the quote? She clearly said she reported him because his pilot skills were poor. What's the problem?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Read the quote and stop lying. The quote does not say he was a bad pilot, the quote says his English skills were poor. I am sorry, but you are doing nothing but outright lying now.

[radical_logic]

Are you claiming that the Pentagon is not a building?

please address 403

[chillzero]

Nope, I am not claiming that at all. Don't misrepresent my position.

Then I don't follow your 'logic'.

You agree he could have hit a building.
The Pentagon is a building (and a huge one at that).
How do you derive from this that he could not have hit the Pentagon, being that it is, in fact, a building?

You post nothing but nonsense.

[Jonnyclueless]

please address 403


She addressed it the first several times you brought it up. Is there not some kind of TOS issue with repeating the same arguments over and over and lying about them being addressed?

[radical_logic]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Read the quote and stop lying. The quote does not say he was a bad pilot, the quote says his English skills were poor. I am sorry, but you are doing nothing but outright lying now.

You are so dumb.

"[Managers] 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. "

[radical_logic]

Then I don't follow your 'logic'.

You agree he could have hit a building.
The Pentagon is a building (and a huge one at that).
How do you derive from this that he could not have hit the Pentagon, being that it is, in fact, a building?

You talk nothing but nonsense.

That he could hit "a building" does not imply that he could hit "any building."

Please address 403.

[chillzero]

That he could hit "a building" does not imply that he could hit "any building."

Why not?
It does in everyone else's universe here.


Please address 403.
Done repeatedly, as already pointed out, repeatedly.

[Jonnyclueless]

You are so dumb.

"[Managers] 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. "

So now I know what it's like arguing with a grapefruit.

Now please tell us who that quote is from. Give us the name of that person you are quoting.

And how convenient of you to edit Peggy's quote where she specifies WHY she felt she couldn't believe he had a lisc. Her reason was HIS ENGLISH SKILLs.

Please stop lying grapefruit.

[radical_logic]

Why not?

Because it doesn't logically follow.


It does in everyone else's universe here.

Hence everyone else here is illogical.



Done repeatedly, as already pointed out, repeatedly.

No, you have not. Let's start with this one.

You claimed that there was a flaw in my argument. Well, what is it? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?

[Jonnyclueless]

Because it doesn't logically follow.



Hence everyone else here is illogical.




No, you have not. Let's start with this one.

You claimed that there was a flaw in my argument. Well, what is it? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[chillzero]

Because it doesn't logically follow.



Hence everyone else here is illogical.


Well then.

Have fun in your universe.

[radical_logic]

So now I know what it's like arguing with a grapefruit.

Now please tell us who that quote is from. Give us the name of that person you are quoting.

And how convenient of you to edit Peggy's quote where she specifies WHY she felt she couldn't believe he had a lisc. Her reason was HIS ENGLISH SKILLs.

Please stop lying grapefruit.

The managers of the Arizona Flight School reported Hanjour because they thought his pilot skills were bad. Peggy Chevrette was a manager of the Arizona Flight School. Therefore, it follows that Peggy reported Hanjour because she thought his pilot skills were bad.

[radical_logic]

Well then.

Have fun in your universe.

I do, it's quite radical.

But let's back to your dodge.

You claimed that there was a flaw in my argument. Well, what is it? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?

[chillzero]

And round and round we go and do-si-do.
:alc:

[radical_logic]

:alc:

Why the dodge? Why won't you address my argument head on like a rational debunker?


You claimed that there was a flaw in my argument. Well, what is it? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?

[chillzero]

No dodge - just not repeating myself again.

I'm not arguing with you any longer. Everything has been laid out clearly in this thread for rational onlookers. You aren't worth the repetition.

[stateofgrace]

I do, it's quite radical.

But let's back to your dodge.

You claimed that there was a flaw in my argument. Well, what is it? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?

So, the turn/dive could only have been made by a highly skilled pilot,right?

[TjW]

I'm not an expert, so I could not explain why that dive is difficult. But the quotes I cited clearly indicate that experts do think that that dive is difficult. See post 42 for those quotes.

You see, the problem is, I'm a pilot. I've looked at the flight path. It's entirely consistent with someone who doesn't like steep bank angles.

I've actually seen that behavior, first hand, from power pilot friends newly introduced to soaring, who are uncomfortable with the higher bank turns needed to stay in a thermal.

They know, intellectually, that they need to stay steep. But they don't, and then catch themselves... it makes for a very sloppy turn.
That was a very sloppy turn.

Strategically, a good pilot would not have needed that turn. He'd just have calculated a letdown point and started his descent from there. A straight-in approach gives the maximum time to line up.

If the requirements were to hit a particular wall of the Pentagon, it's more sensible to do the bulk of that maneuvering far away, and then fly a straight-in approach. If the flight is being remote-controlled by a government conspiracy, all these considerations apply in spades. For that matter, if it's a government conspiracy, why not take the time to make another approach? It's not like anyone's going to shoot you down. The military would be in on it.

So. Hanjour finds himself too high, and decides to make a 270 to lose altitude. Not an unreasonable decision. A "heavy" standard rate turn will complete a 270 in about 3 minutes. At higher speeds, though, it's going to be a higher bank than he's used to. Partway through the turn, he realizes he's going to be wide, and increases the bank -- but only to about 45 degrees, and it doesn't stay there. I've seen this before. Due to the futzing around, he has to fly more of a circle to line up.

So, I'm hard-pressed to see either great piloting or even an unusual response to a strange situation. (I'm pretty sure Hanjour hadn't previously done a standard rate turn at those speeds. Standard rate turns aren't needed in cruise, and approaches, which tend to use standard rate turns, are usually flown much slower.)

[Jonnyclueless]

The managers of the Arizona Flight School reported Hanjour because they thought his pilot skills were bad. Peggy Chevrette was a manager of the Arizona Flight School. Therefore, it follows that Peggy reported Hanjour because she thought his pilot skills were bad.

No, she thought his english skills were bad and that was her reason that she couldn't believe he had a lisc. I am asking you to show the name of the person you quoted as saying his english AND piloting skills were bad. It was NOT Peggy as you keep trying to lead people to believe. You keep putting two different quotes from two different people together to mislead people into thinking they are coming from the same person. That constitutes lying.

[Jonnyclueless]

You see, the problem is, I'm a pilot. I've looked at the flight path. It's entirely consistent with someone who doesn't like steep bank angles.

I've actually seen that behavior, first hand, from power pilot friends newly introduced to soaring, who are uncomfortable with the higher bank turns needed to stay in a thermal.

They know, intellectually, that they need to stay steep. But they don't, and then catch themselves... it makes for a very sloppy turn.
That was a very sloppy turn.

Strategically, a good pilot would not have needed that turn. He'd just have calculated a letdown point and started his descent from there. A straight-in approach gives the maximum time to line up.

If the requirements were to hit a particular wall of the Pentagon, it's more sensible to do the bulk of that maneuvering far away, and then fly a straight-in approach. If the flight is being remote-controlled by a government conspiracy, all these considerations apply in spades. For that matter, if it's a government conspiracy, why not take the time to make another approach? It's not like anyone's going to shoot you down. The military would be in on it.

So. Hanjour finds himself too high, and decides to make a 270 to lose altitude. Not an unreasonable decision. A "heavy" standard rate turn will complete a 270 in about 3 minutes. At higher speeds, though, it's going to be a higher bank than he's used to. Partway through the turn, he realizes he's going to be wide, and increases the bank -- but only to about 45 degrees, and it doesn't stay there. I've seen this before. Due to the futzing around, he has to fly more of a circle to line up.

So, I'm hard-pressed to see either great piloting or even an unusual response to a strange situation. (I'm pretty sure Hanjour hadn't previously done a standard rate turn at those speeds. Standard rate turns aren't needed in cruise, and approaches, which tend to use standard rate turns, are usually flown much slower.)

If you are an expert, then Radical Logic (lol) won't be able to see your post.

[beachnut]

I do, it's quite radical.

But let's back to your dodge.

You claimed that there was a flaw in my argument. Well, what is it? Which inference do you deny? Which premise is false?

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, what is the flaw in this argument?
Wow what a dive! Gee, at 34 minutes after the hour on 9/11 Hani took his jet from 8255 feet, to 2465 feet at 37 past the hour! A terrible rate of 2000 feet per minute. Wow. Not a great feat, your ideas are busted; you failed because you have no knowledge on flying.

The fantastic turn took 3 minutes. 320 degree turn took 3 minutes. Yet the standard rate turn would be 360 degrees in 2 minutes. So the turn was less than standard, not a turn showing expert flying, a turn less than standard. This busts your only an expert pilot can do what Hani did, it turns out any less than standard pilot can do what Hani did. This debunks you with math; I found 9/11 truth does not use math because they can’t. If you need help, ask.

[jaydeehess]

Once again, "a building" does not mean "the Pentagon building." You keep asserting he means this without any argument.

He said "a building" and the Pentagon is the one of the widest buildings in the entire world. So if Bernard says that Hanjour could hit a building then it stands to reason that he was in no way refering specifically to a structure larger than the building that Hanjour indeed di fly into, the Pentagon.

Your childish attempt to minimize this statement is duly noted by all.

[jaydeehess]

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots,
He exceeded Vmo, not the 'design limit'. The design limit is, IIRC 0.95 mach Beachnut might correct me on that if I am not.
make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

The math on the turn into the Pentagon indicates that the plane never had more than 1 g lateral and 2 g vertical (including the 1 g from gravity itself) This is the math that Newton came up with and I believe it before Wittenberg

Capt. Daniel Davis: "Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".

Logical fallacy sometimes known as the "Texas Sharpshooter" in which the arguement is that the result was exactly what had been intended. What intel does Davis have that it was wall/ground interface that Hanjour was specifically targeting?


"Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet.
Again the math shows that it was not in fact a tight turn
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.
Which he says after his first, incorrect statement.
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.
It in no way was a 'military manouver, it was a 33 fps desent and a 3 minute turn
And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
Which he says after another incorrect statement.
I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature."
Since the manouver he describes is not characteristic of the manouver performed his final statement is hardly one of authority.

[stilicho]

But you haven't answered mine. I don't know of any pilot who claims that Hanjour's skills, in the intervening months before 9/11, was anything but substandard. Do you? Yes or no?
Blow. My. Mind.

We aren't talking about the opinions of pilots. We are talking about what would falsify your beliefs. Let me get you on the right track.

I believe that Hanjour was an experienced pilot because of his documented flying hours, he held a commercial pilot's license, and had that license verified in the time between it was issued and SEP 11, 2001. To falsify those beliefs, you would have to explain thoroughly that each of those things were false. You wouldn't have to create an imaginary quotation by an imaginary person that has no name.

I hope this helps you understand the concept of falsifiability. It's an important one in determining whether your beliefs are valid or not.

[jaydeehess]

1. If you won't accept his instructor's assessment, then who's assessment would you accept?

How many times do you have to be told that this is irrelevent? He had sufficient familiarity with flight controls to have obtained a license and above that it only requires desire to accomplish crashing an aircraft into the largest office building in the world.

2. His skill levels are certainly relevant if the quotes I cited are correct: that only a highly skilled pilot could accomplish the 77-dive.

Addressed in my post above and I would be very, very suprised if everything I stated had not already been posted in this very thread, and read by you. That is, if we are to believe your protestations that you do indeed read the posts in this thread.

[Corsair 115]

If ~A is true, and if the 77-dive could only be performed by a highly skilled pilot, then it follows that Hanjour did not fly 77 into the Pentagon.Two things:

1) Diving an aircraft is in itself not hard. Just point the nose down and away you go. If you want to avoid building up too much speed in the dive decrease the throttle settings.

2) The aircraft did not actually dive into the Pentagon. If it had, then it would have hit the roof of the building. It didn't do that. It dived, pulled out, and then flew into the building nearly horizontal. Had the aircraft actually dived into the Pentagon, that would have required some very good piloting skill. For reference, look up the difference between dive bombing and glide bombing during WWII.

[TjW]

If you are an expert, then Radical Logic (lol) won't be able to see your post.
Oh, no. I don't claim to be an expert. I've never flown heavies, for example.
I'm just saying that flight track is consistent with what I've seen pilots do the first few times they need to fly high bank turns to stay in a thermal.

I don't see any incredible skill being demonstrated. Now, Patty Wagstaff, flying 360 degree turns while continuously rolling -- that's impressive. A sloppy descending turn, not so much.

[EventHorizon]

Now, Patty Wagstaff, flying 360 degree turns while continuously rolling -- that's impressive. A sloppy descending turn, not so much.

I was always more of a Jimmy Franklin guy (can't believe he's no longer with us). :(

[gumboot]

I find it hysterical that Conspiracy Theorists think there was anything difficult about what the hijackers did on 9/11.

I find it alarming that some apparently genuine pilots think they themselves could not perform such maneuvers. I hope none of them ever pilots and aircraft I am on, as I feel confident saying I am a better pilot than them. Beachnut, I'll get on board a bird with you at the wheel any day. :cool:

[Wolrab]

I think we can all agree that Hanjour, as a pilot, stunk, as evidenced by this:"really poor hygiene". Although he probably bathed ritually for his god, he was probably sweating buckets by the time he made his turn and final dive.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

[radical_logic]

My e-mail to Mark Roberts below.



Dear Mark,
Griffin's newest book, 9/11 Contradictions, arrived a few days ago (Sept.11, to be exact!), and I read through most of it. One chapter I found interesting was the one about Hani Hanjour, in which Griffin attempts to detail a contradiction in the official account of Flight 77. The contradiction is as follows:

(i) Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.
(ii) Hani Hanjour, the pilot who allegedly flew AA77 into the Pentagon, was a terrible pilot.

Clearly, (i) and (ii) both cannot be true, so we have a prima facie problem.

(ii) is supported by quotes like the following:

-----------------------------------
A. "Freeway 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. "

B. "Marcel Bernard, the airport manager and chief flight instructor, told FBI agents investigating last week's suicide attacks that one of their suspects in case, Hani Hanjour, had flown with flight instructors on three occasions over the last six weeks…'His flying skills were so poor overall that [instructors] declined to rent a plane to him without future training,' Bernard said of Hanjour."

C. "Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine."

D. "[Managers] 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"

(If you'd like a link to any of these quotes I can provide them).
----------------------------------------


Hence, it seems, the most accurate assessment of Hanjour's piloting abilities before 9/11 is that they were poor. I haven't found any sources which contradict (ii).

(i), on the other hand, is supported by these quotes below (again, I can provide the links to any of them):

-----------------------------------
E. "[J]ust as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west…Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm"

F. "Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision."

G. "The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

H. "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… And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that."
-----------------------------

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.

regards,
Spencer

[radical_logic]

Anyone curious to see his response and my follow-up?

[Wolrab]

You have been schooled on how Bernard has no problem with Hanjour hitting the Pentagon. Real pilots here have explained to you how Hanjour did absolutely nothing extraordinary in his maneuvering. Why do you continue down this path?

[chillzero]

Why are you bothering Gravy about it?

[stilicho]

Hence, it seems, the most accurate assessment of Hanjour's piloting abilities before 9/11 is that they were poor. I haven't found any sources which contradict (ii).

Sure you have. And you've posted them here. They are the images of his commercial pilot's license.

And one of your quotations contains a factual error. The turn was closer to 330 degrees than it was to 270 degrees. When you use quotes, you should try to find ones that support your contention rather than distract from it.

[twinstead]

It appears that claiming the 'hijackers didn't have good enough flying skills to pull 911 off' is possibly one of the stupidest arguments that the truther's have ever put forth.

But, then I look back at all the stupid 911 theories, and I think maybe it's just another equally stupid theory amongst a crapload of other similarly stupid theories.

[gumboot]

(i) Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.
(ii) Hani Hanjour, the pilot who allegedly flew AA77 into the Pentagon, was a terrible pilot.


(i) is false, thus making (ii) irrelevant.

[Pardalis]

Anyone curious to see his response and my follow-up?

No.

[Jonnyclueless]

Anyone curious to see his response and my follow-up?

Not really. Seeing as this is an issue that has been discussed on this forum to death for many years we all already know all of the answers form everyone. The only one who does not is you because this is your first time. Mark is no longer here because he does not see the point in repeating the same information over and over. We already know his response.

[radical_logic]

No.

I will respect this request.

[Dave Rogers]

I was away for a couple of days, and this train wreck ran to another six pages that I suspect I won't learn anything by reading. I just have two questions:

(1) Has Radical Logic advanced anything beyond his original false dilemma fallacy?
(2) Has anyone re-posted the bank angle data from the Flight 77 FDR that shows that, whatever someone watching from a radar screen may have thought about "military precision", Hanjour's turn was actually the extremely wobbly effort one would expect from a poor pilot flying at the limit of his ability? And if it was Beachnut, has anyone quoted it so RL can see it?

Dave

[lapman]

Also, if we are to take your claim seriously, then we must take seriously the claim that he could have hit the white house simply with the "aim-and-hit" technique despite the fact that it is guarded by anti-aircraft missiles.Wow. I didn't see anybody address this gem of a lie. So, RL cherry picks quote from "experts" that base their claims on invalid data like the "270 degree turn" as "fact." He then goes on to post the Pentagon anti-aircraft missile battery lie. RL, you're only embarrassing yourself here.

[radical_logic]

Wow. I didn't see anybody address this gem of a lie. So, RL cherry picks quote from "experts" that base their claims on invalid data like the "270 degree turn" as "fact." He then goes on to post the Pentagon anti-aircraft missile battery lie. RL, you're only embarrassing yourself here.

Are you retarded? Does "white house" look like "The Pentagon" to you?

[TjW]

Are you retarded? Does "white house" look like "The Pentagon" to you?

So were these AA missiles installed before or after Frank Corder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder) crashed an airplane into the White House?

If it was before, why wouldn't they use them?
If it was after, do you have evidence?
If it was after, and you don't have evidence, how do you know it's so?

[jaydeehess]

My e-mail to Mark Roberts below.



Dear Mark,
Griffin's newest book, 9/11 Contradictions, arrived a few days ago (Sept.11, to be exact!), and I read through most of it. One chapter I found interesting was the one about Hani Hanjour, in which Griffin attempts to detail a contradiction in the official account of Flight 77. The contradiction is as follows:

(i) Only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.
:


post 441 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4035075&postcount=441)

[Jonnyclueless]

Wait, so Griffin published a new book that pretty much has the same claims he made in his last couple of books? And these idiots keep buying them? What does he do, come up with a new cover every few years? I mean it's bad enough he just keeps publishing the same book over and over to rip off gullible people, but to keep publishing proven wrong information? That's just sad. Though not as sad as the people who buy it I guess.

[twinstead]

It appears there is indeed one born every minute

[lapman]

Are you retarded? Does "white house" look like "The Pentagon" to you?
Ok, I had a blond moment there. I sit corrected. :D However, the lack of credibility of your "expert's" statements still stand. They are basing their opinion of false information. That is shown by the 270 degree turn statements that is in most of your posts.

[radical_logic]

Ok, I had a blond moment there.



I sit corrected. :D


Is that an apology for saying that I lied?


However, the lack of credibility of your "expert's" statements still stand. They are basing their opinion of false information. That is shown by the 270 degree turn statements that is in most of your posts.

1. Those who understand the manuever as a 330-degree turn still maintain the difficulty of the dive.

2. Those who initially said the 270-degree turn was difficult never - to my knowledge - retracted their statements.

3. I'm going to quote a passage from 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."

[radical_logic]

post 441 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4035075&postcount=441)

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."

[CHF]

radical logic,

a few years ago a Dutch documentary program looking into 911 conspiracies went to a flight school, found a pilot with about the same training as Hanjour, put him in a flight similator and told him to hit the Pentagon in the same way Flight 77 did.

The student replicated the attack three times in as many tries.

Just sayin....

[twinstead]

If only a skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon, and it wasn't Hanjour, then what exactly is that supposed to show? Some highly-skilled secret suicide pilot? Some kind of advanced remote control?

I also don't agree that the experts who claim the maneuver was easy (well, not easy, but easy enough for Hanjour to have made) are in the minority.

[radical_logic]

radical logic,

a few years ago a Dutch documentary program looking into 911 conspiracies went to a flight school, found a pilot with about the same training as Hanjour, put him in a flight similator and told him to hit the Pentagon in the same way Flight 77 did.

The student replicated the attack three times in as many tries.

Just sayin....

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?

[bje]

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."

As always, you deliberately ignore that the preponderance of ALL of the other evidence, physical and eyewitness, converges on the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You cannot continue to pretend that you can ignore all that evidence inconvenient to you.

[radical_logic]

If only a skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon, and it wasn't Hanjour, then what exactly is that supposed to show? Some highly-skilled secret suicide pilot? Some kind of advanced remote control?


I have no idea. But, if the relevant experts are right, then it couldn't have been Hanjour and that conclusion is significant.



I also don't agree that the experts who claim the maneuver was easy (well, not easy, but easy enough for Hanjour to have made) are in the minority.

How do you know this? Have you done a head count? And if they are, let's say, in the majority, how a big of a majority is that?

[radical_logic]

As always, you deliberately ignore that the preponderance of ALL of the other evidence, physical and eyewitness, converges on the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You cannot continue to pretend that you can ignore all that evidence inconvenient to you.

1. I haven't asserted that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, so, as always, you deliberately ignore what I say and lump me in with everyone else.

2. As always, you deliberately ignore what I say so that you can avoid engaging my argument.

3. As always, you commit in fallacious reasoning almost everytime you comment on my posts.

4. As always, you will not admit that (1)-(3) is the case.

[CHF]

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?

Sorry RL, but I don't think anyone outside of the TM sees this "deep divide" among experts that you speak of.

We haven't seen or heard much disagreement from the tens of thousands of airline pilots of the world, just as we haven't seen much disagreement about the WTC from the world's engineers.

You'll always find a fringe group going against the grain (like the lunatics at P4T in this case) but that's all they are: a fringe group. Hardly a "deep divide."

[Jonnyclueless]

"I have no idea. But, if the relevant experts are right, then it couldn't have been Hanjour and that conclusion is significant. "

But the far majority of experts do NOT concur that it was a difficult maneuver. All you are doing is looking at some people you feel are experts who tell you what you want to hear, and then dismissing any and all experts who tell you what you don't want to hear.

I we were to make a judgment going by expert opinion and not being dishonest, then we would have to conclude that the maneuvers made by flight 77 were not difficult.

You can't expect the rest of the world to cherry pick evidence just because you do radical. And you can't expect the rest of the world to just ignore the evidence that you ignore and the posts that you ignore. You can't expect the rest of the world to agree with falacious reasoning like yours. And you can't epect the rest of the world to accept non-evidence as evidence like you do.

[radical_logic]

Sorry RL, but I don't think anyone outside of the TM sees this "deep divide" among experts that you speak of.

We haven't seen or heard much disagreement from the tens of thousands of airline pilots of the world, just as we haven't seen much disagreement about the WTC from the world's engineers.

You'll always find a fringe group going against the grain (like the lunatics at P4T in this case) but that's all they are: a fringe group. Hardly a "deep divide."

What's the head count, then? How many experts who have actually studied Hanjour's case accept the official version of events? How many? Can you give me an approximate number?

[Jonnyclueless]

You'e got about 10 or so that have directly responded in this very thread. Then you have about that many or more in the myths link that was provided over and over.

[radical_logic]

You'e got about 10 or so that have directly responded in this very thread. Then you have about that many or more in the myths link that was provided over and over.

I can't verify if your number is accurate (in fact, I have my doubts), but if it is, then you're claiming "about 20" experts accept the official story. Now, for the experts who disagree with the official to be in the minority, that number would have to be less than 20. Are you claiming that this is so?

[CHF]

What's the head count, then? How many experts who have actually studied Hanjour's case accept the official version of events? How many? Can you give me an approximate number?

Oh boy...this silliness again. Twoofers use the same logic when it comes to engineers and the WTC.

Here's the thing, RL....if an expert agrees with the given version of events then he/she really has no need to stand up and say "yes, I agree."

BUT, if they disagree with what is said to have happened then it becomes important for them to speak out. In other words, it is up to your side to gather lots of expert opinion against the "official story."

So far you're got the clowns at P4T. Keep trying.

[Dave Rogers]

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).

There's an obvious self-selection going on there, though. What news source will bother printing a story with the headline "Flying expert claims 9/11 suicide pilot didn't do anything all that tricky"? It's the news equivalent of "Dog bites man".

There's another level of self-selection going on here, too. When an expert, with specific experience of Hanjour's flying, does get quoted as saying that Hanjour could have flown an airliner into a building, you immediately start trying to pick holes in his assessment, by saying that he didn't specify which building. Why aren't you applying the same level of critical evaluation to the experts who suggest that Hanjour was a terrible pilot? It seems that you're only prepared to question the evidence that you personally disagree with.

Dave

[bje]

1. I haven't asserted that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, so, as always, you deliberately ignore what I say and lump me in with everyone else.

You must be woefully ignorant of what we know about your tactics, RL. In fact you have brought up every debunked and strawman argument that AA77 could not have hit the Pentagon and then play the classic Truther game of ignoring the evidence demonstrating that it did and pretending that you don't have a position on it.

Nice try but no cigar.

2. As always, you deliberately ignore what I say so that you can avoid engaging my argument. You know full well that I deal with the logical extensions of your claims and you hate that.

3. As always, you commit in fallacious reasoning almost everytime you comment on my posts. Actually, I hit the nail on the head every time, because I ask you questions that go to the heart of your 9/11 Denial and show that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. For instance, this one, which you have persistently evaded:

You know, radical logic, there are so many unanswered questions and unresolved contradictions from DRG's own statements, I think it's better if you'd concentrate on resolving them for us.

Here's one of DRG's statements making the rounds. It's making 9/11 Truthers very nervous:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_xSQcdbJC_I4/...Poster-DRG.jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/_xSQcdbJC_I4/SGLzwXKmnlI/AAAAAAAAAA0/MzJB7MnTGfc/s1600-h/Poster-DRG.jpg)

Can you tell us, radical logic, just who "they" are? If you can't, why not?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4039890&postcount=71
You see, you wish to limit any conversation or debate to only that which you think helps your desired conclusion while we won't let you ignore the implications of what you write or the evidence either.

[radical_logic]

You know full well that I deal with the logical extensions of your claims and you hate that.

Actually, I don't know that, but I would love it if you tried to deal with my argument. Address my e-mail to Mark Roberts.

<snip incoherent rant>

[bje]

Actually, I don't know that, but I would love it if you tried to deal with my argument. Address my e-mail to Mark Roberts.

<snip incoherent rant>

You mean: <snip inconvenient evidence>. Thanks for illustrating my case - and your hypocrisy - so well, RL.

[radical_logic]

There's an obvious self-selection going on there, though. What news source will bother printing a story with the headline "Flying expert claims 9/11 suicide pilot didn't so anything all that tricky"? It's the news equivalent of "Dog bites man".

I don't know of one mainstream news source, when commenting about Hanjour's flight, that described it as anything but difficult. Not one. But, according to you, I'm suppose to weigh that against the opinion of someone writing for "9/11 Myths" and give the latter more credibility. Really now.



There's another level of self-selection going on here, too. When an expert, with specific experience of Hanjour's flying, does get quoted as saying that Hanjour could have flown an airliner into a building, you immediately start trying to pick holes in his assessment, by saying that he didn't specify which building.

What's invalid about my point here? How do we know Bernard was referring to the Pentagon? And even if he was, keep in mind that comment was made 2 weeks after 9/11, so he might not have been aware of the alleged difficult trajectory.

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?"



Why aren't you applying the same level of critical evaluation to the experts who suggest that Hanjour was a terrible pilot? It seems that you're only prepared to question the evidence that you personally disagree with.

Dave

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

[radical_logic]

You mean: <snip inconvenient evidence>. Thanks for illustrating my case - and your hypocrisy - so well, RL.

Either deal with my argument or not. You have chosen not to.

[lapman]

I hope that was your apology for saying that I lied. Yes



1. Those who understand the manuever as a 330-degree turn still maintain the difficulty of the dive.IIRC, none of them are pilots.

2. Those who initially said the 270-degree turn was difficult never - to my knowledge - retracted their statements.Immaterial. This only shows that they either ever attempted to research what really happened, or their statements where never published. Even if they did retract their statements, the terrorist apologist will only claim that they were "gotten to" and forced to make the retraction. The fact still remains that their statement is based on faulty information. Therefore their statements are false.

3. I'm going to quote a passage from 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.This would be like saying that the majority of people are homosexual since so many speak out and so few proclaim their heterosexuality.

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."The only contradiction is in your mind. As a pilot, I understand what it takes to make the simple descending turn. So, why don't you go to your local airport, take a demo flight and ask the instructor to let you perform a descending turn to that you will see for yourself how easy it is.

[radical_logic]

IIRC, none of them are pilots.

Seems like you stuck your foot in your mouth again.


"Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 120 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite. "




http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html




Immaterial. This only shows that they either ever attempted to research what really happened,

Nice way to beg the question. Because they don't agree with you, "they never attempted to research what really happened."




or their statements where never published.


If their retractions were never published, then we can't know if they retracted their statements, can we now?



Even if they did retract their statements, the terrorist apologist will only claim that they were "gotten to" and forced to make the retraction.


I hope you're not implying that I'm a "terrorist apologist." If you are, then this conversation ends with you on my ignore list.



The fact still remains that their statement is based on faulty information. Therefore their statements are false.


Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.




This would be like saying that the majority of people are homosexual since so many speak out and so few proclaim their heterosexuality.

Fallacious. Of the experts who studied Hani Hanjour's case, how many of them accept the official story? Can you honestly claim a majority? More importantly, can honestly claim there is a general consensus among the experts on this issue?




The only contradiction is in your mind. As a pilot, I understand what it takes to make the simple descending turn. So, why don't you go to your local airport, take a demo flight and ask the instructor to let you perform a descending turn to that you will see for yourself how easy it is.

Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.

[lapman]

Seems like you stuck your foot in your mouth again.


"Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 120 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite. "




http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Wrong. Not a single one of them say anything about the 330 degree turn.

Nice way to beg the question. Because they don't agree with you, "they never attempted to research what really happened." No, because they say the same faulty statements over and over again that shows that they didn't do one iota of real research. Like Capt. Whittenberg, who is basing his opinion on only the 20/20 show he saw.

If their retractions were never published, then we can't know if they retracted their statements, can we now? While true, it doesn't mean that they stand by their statements today either. Either way, an opinion based on faulty information is wrong no matter how strongly they stand by it.

I hope you're not implying that I'm a "terrorist apologist." If you are, then this conversation ends with you on my ignore list. Are you one?

Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.
As an experienced pilot, I can make that assessment. Having also jumped into the cockpit of a MD-80 full-sized simulator and able to take-off, fly and land it with minor instruction while having zero previous flight time, I know first-hand how easy it really is to fly a "heavy."

Fallacious. Of the experts who studied Hani Hanjour's case, how many of them accept the official story? Can you honestly claim a majority? More importantly, can honestly claim there is a general consensus among the experts on this issue?
100% of the experts that actually studied Hani's case and base their opinion on the full body of evidence agree with the "official story." Not a single person on your list has. Yes, that includes the president.




Again, that may be the case, but as a non-expert, I have no way of evaluating your assessment. Talk to other experts - hash it out with them.Ok, then provide the contact info with an expert that has studied the full body of evidence and still, to this day, agrees with you.

[bje]

Either deal with my argument or not. You have chosen not to.

Either answer my question or explain why you are unable to.

[Jonnyclueless]

I can't verify if your number is accurate (in fact, I have my doubts), but if it is, then you're claiming "about 20" experts accept the official story. Now, for the experts who disagree with the official to be in the minority, that number would have to be less than 20. Are you claiming that this is so?

No, I am not saying 20 experts claim to affect the official story. I am saying that there are 20 alone just between experts who have posted in this thread and that have been given as examples in this thread.

And absolutely not am I saying that the minority would have to be less than 20. Son, are you on drugs? How do you come to that conclusion with out the use of chemical substances.

Now how many scientists have come out and said they support that the earth is round? Probably almost none. Yet we do have people who have come out and said they disagree that the earth is round. Does that prove the earth must be flat? After all there are more people who will claim the earth is flat than ones that have announced they believe the earth si round.


Do you understand that the reason you aren't taken seriously is that no one outside of your 9/11 cults is stupid enough to fall for these fallacies?

[Jonnyclueless]

So out of the million and millions of pilots in the world, only 120 disagree? Wow, that's a pretty sad fact isn't it radical. Wow, 120 out of millions. And of course the ones you use also think that there is a soul catcher on the moon, that the planes were holograms, and that nuclear weapons brought down the towers. And you don't understand why people laugh at you guys?

[beachnut]

Seems like you stuck your foot in your mouth again.

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


What a joke! You have 0.001 percent of pilots who have ZERO evidence to support you failed idea about Hani. Your ideas are a joke, your experts are a joke.

You can't post a single piece of evidence, just hearsay and false ideas from you and your terrorist apologist buddies.

[stilicho]

Wait, so Griffin published a new book that pretty much has the same claims he made in his last couple of books? And these idiots keep buying them? What does he do, come up with a new cover every few years? I mean it's bad enough he just keeps publishing the same book over and over to rip off gullible people, but to keep publishing proven wrong information? That's just sad. Though not as sad as the people who buy it I guess.

It's called "living the American Dream".

Every time I see a "shocking new" Alex Jones release, or a DRG book, or something like Mike Ruppert's Crossing The Rubicon, I am reminded of the South Park "truther" episode. Kyle says, simply and elegantly, "25% of Americans are retarded".

Like the guy wearing the 911truth.org black t-shirt in that episode, David Ray Griffin is annually "killed" by the government and is annually resurrected to continue the fight. There is so much free money out there that he really can't help himself. Believe me, I have been tempted sorely to produce my own piece of fiction and sell it, to sop up the excess income from "truthers" who require more than the lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy but aren't getting it from their careers or their personal lives.

[fezzic]

The issue of whether Hanjour was inexperienced (thread title) is actually not particularly relevant since training does not necessarily (IMO) equal experience. The question is whether, with his level of training, for I believe most everyone believes he had some degree of training, even if his expertise was in doubt, was adequate to do what he did. The relevant issue is the actual difficulty of carrying it out.

It was not as if he seriously stalled the aircraft and had to perform a recovery before flying it into the Pentagon. It was not as if he had to fly through a veritable obstacle course of large objects, collision with any of which would thwart his mission. It was not as if he was flying NOE (possibly under fire by intercepting fighters, if any had been able to get there) to get to the Pentagon.

It would seem that, aside from navigating to the vicinity of the Pentagon, he was required to turn, descend, and then fly the aircraft into the Pentagon. The actual difficulty of that maneuver is relevant. I would note that even if his chances of successfully carrying it out, given his state of training, was low, it was certainly greater than zero. All he had to be was lucky and he would do what he intended. If luck ran out for him (I am assuming for this statement that the maneuver was in fact comparatively difficult for his level of training) then he would pile into the ground and we'd be wondering how he could have been so stupid to attempt something so far (we would assume) beyond his skills.

So the question is what about his maneuver was supposed to be very difficult?

-The turn? What made it difficult?
-The descent? What made that difficult?
-The combination of the two? Why would that be particularly difficult?

In particular, what bad consequence(s) would likely have occurred?

Remember, he only had to be 'lucky' once in doing all this. He was not going to have to do it over, perhaps several times, in order to pass some test. It was pretty strictly pass/fail once. One might argue that he might have missed on his first attempt (hypothetically) and had to come around again, but he would hardly be likely to climb to 7,000 feet or whatever and repeat the turn and descent that some seem to think must have been very difficult. I certainly wouldn't have thought him to be that stupid.

[Jonnyclueless]

Basically radical is trying to claim that it was impossible for Hani to have flown the plane. But the burden of proof is on him to prove that Hani could not fly the plane. It doesn't matter if every pilot on the planet did not believe he could make that maneuver.

[radical_logic]

Basically radical is trying to claim that it was impossible for Hani to have flown the plane.

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://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123911

[radical_logic]

Wrong. Not a single one of them say anything about the 330 degree turn.



"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.



No, because they say the same faulty statements over and over again that shows that they didn't do one iota of real research. Like Capt. Whittenberg, who is basing his opinion on only the 20/20 show he saw.

1. Again, I can't evaluate your claim that they're based on "faulty statements."
2. How do you know Capt. Whittenberg is basing his opinion only on the 20/20 show? Are you psychic?



While true, it doesn't mean that they stand by their statements today either.

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



Either way, an opinion based on faulty information is wrong no matter how strongly they stand by it.
Are you one?


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.





As an experienced pilot, I can make that assessment.


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.







100% of the experts that actually studied Hani's case and base their opinion on the full body of evidence agree with the "official story." Not a single person on your list has. Yes, that includes the president.

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

[beachnut]

"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.
Oops. The 330 degree turn was not even at standard rate. It was slower. Therefore not difficult, but 330 sounds impressive.
NOW stand in the room facing a wall; turn around until you see the wall again. OOPS, you did a 360 degree turn. Was that difficult?

See, all your experts are idiots!

[dtugg]

"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.

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