Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

[radical_logic]

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

At least it's better than your mere assertion.

[gumboot]

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

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

What is the response to that?

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

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

[lapman]

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

The 330-degree turn is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Therefore, if they "expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report," and one of their criticisms is flight 77, then it stands to reason that they're aware of the 330-degree and judge it to be difficult. Now you're really grasping at those straws. Every one that made a statement stated what they disagreed with. Not a one described the turn as it really happened. Your contention is false.

1. Again, I can't evaluate your claim that they're based on "faulty statements."As already been shown be several of us, terms like 270 degree turn, steep turn, high speed, etc. are wrong. Therefore, those statements are based on faulty information.

2. How do you know Capt. Whittenberg is basing his opinion only on the 20/20 show? Are you psyhic?Unfortunately, the link is now dead on patriots. He specifically states that he saw the 20/20 program and that is what "changed his mind."




Hence why I'm not taking a side on this issue. I will do my best to respect that.




Again, this is just your "expert" say-so...I'm sure any one of the experts on the above mentioned site would say otherwise. I just can't know. The ones that feel the way they do for personal reason, e.g. they hate the administration, will fight tooth and nail to support their faulty ideals. The ones that truly feel the way they do based on the original information they had, will look at the read of the evidence and change their minds.

Fine. And I'm not dismissing it. But from my point of view - the point of view of a non-expert - it would be irrational for me to take your word for it.
No problem. This is why I recommended that you take a demo flight so you can see what it really takes.

How do you know none of the pilots I referenced didn't study the "full body of evidence?"The glaring mistakes in their statements as mentioned above.

[beachnut]

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

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

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

[6] http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
[7] http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html
[8] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E0DC1E31F937A35756C0A9649C8B 63
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
Four! No support for RL here. Failed again. Why does RL use news from 24 October 2001? Before all the facts are in.


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

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

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

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


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

[radical_logic]

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

Since the 9/11 Commission report is explicitly mentioned, is it not a reasonable assumption that those pilots are aware the current official story posits a 330 degree turn instead of a 270 degree one? Yes or no?



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

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





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

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



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

Except this wouldn't do much good since the facts are so firecely disputed. How is that there can be experts who say the manuever was "extraordinary difficult" and other experts who say it was "relatively easy?" The gap is enormous, and thus the dispute is still over the facts.

[dtugg]

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

[radical_logic]

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

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

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

Straight enough for you?

[beachnut]

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

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

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

[6] http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm (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 (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 (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[/quote (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml%5B/quote)]

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

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga (http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga)

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

[quote] The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. The turn was less than standard rate, not difficult. The turn bank averaged less than standard rate. Muga is full of crap on this! He should research the facts before making up lies!

And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult.This maneuver? A simple sloppy turn at 300 KIAS! A kid off the street could do this! Sad Muga exposes his failure to research 9/11 again!


When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall.
What is he talking about? 7000 feet is not high, it is low! High speed stall? You need to be at the edge of the envelope, 300 KIAS in a less than standard rate turn is in the middle of the envelope not a Chuck Yeager maneuver, it is first day learning to fly junk! Debunk, Muga exposes he is not up to speed on 9/11.

it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers.
Not one single military maneuver was done by 77, Muga is wrong each time he opens his mouth on 77. ... first day learning to fly junk!

Muga? Was it a joke?

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

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

there are 12 sources used to prove nothing

[dtugg]

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



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

[radical_logic]

Where have I done that? I simply noted an unresolved contradiction (see my e-mail to Mark Roberts). I haven't taken a position on what happened or what didn't happen.

[gumboot]

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

[dtugg]

Where have I done that? I simply noted an unresolved contradiction (see my e-mail to Mark Roberts). I haven't taken a position on what happened or what didn't happen.


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

[beachnut]

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

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/specialreports/stateofemergency/airportlosses091901.htm
Airport evaluated suspected hijacker Hani Hanjour when he attempted to rent a plane. He took three flights with the instructors in the second week of August, but flew so poorly he was rejected for the rental, said Marcel Bernard, chief flight instructor at Freeway.
Do you do real research? The real truth is -
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm)

This is the Pentagon and the freeway airport side by side, same scale.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77hanicntlandpentagoncan.jpg

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

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

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



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

7? The same SPAM as 6! See 6!

You are 7 down, totally debunked; 5 left.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tweeter]

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

[dtugg]

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

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

[beachnut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much – is this your best effort?

[Tweeter]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?

[dtugg]

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

[Jonnyclueless]

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

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


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

And what is it with idiots who think that when they lose a debate in one place then they accuse people of not being able to debate them somewhere else. What is there something magical about some other web link that allows you to debate there and not here? My God, the idiocy can be astounding.

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

[Dave Rogers]

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

I fail to see the ambiguity in Bernard's statement. If Hanjour could fly a plane into "a building", it seems difficult to argue that one of the largest buildings in the world is somehow excluded.

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

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

Dave

[CHF]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?

The WTC and the Pentagon were some of the biggest office buildings in the world.

It's kinda hard to miss them.

[lapman]

Since the 9/11 Commission report is explicitly mentioned, is it not a reasonable assumption that those pilots are aware the current official story posits a 330 degree turn instead of a 270 degree one? Yes or no? Irrelevant. Those "experts" that claim that only an "ace" could make that turn misrepresent what was done every time.
Even if true, the inference still wouldn't follow. He could have reinforced his belief from other sources besides the 20/20 program.
He makes no claim to have looked at anything else. So, by your standards, he has only looked at the 20/20 program and nothing else.

Oh come on. Many non-truthers hate the Bush administration.
It would be safe to say that the majority are not supporters of BushCo. I am one of them. However, I have put aside my feelings and looked at the full body of evidence instead of only looking for "anomalies" in order to justify my feelings.

Except this wouldn't do much good since the facts are so firecely disputed. How is that there can be experts who say the manuever was "extraordinary difficult" and other experts who say it was "relatively easy?" The gap is enormous, and thus the dispute is still over the facts.The facts are only disputed by those that refuse to think objectively and look at the full body of evidence. Here is something that your "experts" forget to consider. If the pilot of the aircraft was such an expert, why didn't he time his descent so that the turn wouldn't have to be made? He flight path already was headed toward the side of the Pentagon that was hit. The 30 degree turn would have been easy.

[lapman]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?
You forget that both Hani and Atta got training on how to use the autopilot and navigation systems of airliners at the Pan Am simulators. Since all four were certified pilots, they all had training in navigation.

[TjW]

Where have I done that? I simply noted an unresolved contradiction (see my e-mail to Mark Roberts). I haven't taken a position on what happened or what didn't happen.

Oh, is that all you're worried about? Okay. I'll resolve the contradiction. The 'experts' who considered the maneuver difficult don't describe the actual maneuver as described in the report, and made in real life.

[HawksFan]

Being a "good" pilot requires 4 basic things:

1. Being able to get the aircraft into the air safely.
2. Being able to handle aircraft systems and engine/fuel management to safely keep the aircraft in the air.
3. Being able to clearly communicate with ATC and other aircraft, understand and follow ATC instructions, and the understand intentions of other aircraft.
4. Being able to get the aircraft back down on the ground in a safe and controlled manner.

It's quite clear that if Hani wasn't proficient at 1, 3, and/or 4 that said rental places would consider him a "terrible" pilot. After all the rental places are greatly concerned with getting their plane back in one piece, understandably. However it says nothing about his ability to take a plane already airborne and punch holes in the sky with it.

Which is all he really had to do.

Also, assuming for the sake of arguement that we grant the assumption that the turn was a difficult maneuver, what's to say Hani didn't just get lucky? Perhaps any other time and he augers into Arlington cemetary or the Potomac or wipes out a couple of hundred commuters on the freeway?

[Jonnyclueless]

You could say Hani's landing could use a little work.

BTW Tweeter, do you realize that the Pentagon was not an intended target, but chosen last minute because Hani couldn't find his target? So he chose the biggest thing he could see, which was the biggest building in the area which was easily visible.

[A W Smith]

600 hours documented flight time, Thats equivalent to fifteen 40 hour work weeks in the air. in a variety of aircraft. Thats how much experience hani had before 9/11. and he didn't crash once. On that day A flight that lasted only about forty six minutes under his control. he willfully crashed it.

[gumboot]

You could say Hani's landing could use a little work.

BTW Tweeter, do you realize that the Pentagon was not an intended target, but chosen last minute because Hani couldn't find his target? So he chose the biggest thing he could see, which was the biggest building in the area which was easily visible.


My understanding is that the Pentagon target was intentional.

For what it's worth, I think the turn AA77 performs is actually indicative that Hani Hanjour was the most experienced of the 9/11 pilots. I suspect any of the others would have just nosed down and dive-bombed the building, but Hanjour had a bit more flying experience and realised he needed to bleed off some altitude and come in level.

[dudalb]

My understanding is that the Pentagon target was intentional.

For what it's worth, I think the turn AA77 performs is actually indicative that Hani Hanjour was the most experienced of the 9/11 pilots. I suspect any of the others would have just nosed down and dive-bombed the building, but Hanjour had a bit more flying experience and realised he needed to bleed off some altitude and come in level.


There has been a lot of discussion about whether the Pentagon was the originally intended target or not. IMHO they probably had, at least informally, a primary and a secondary target. Certainly taking out the White House or the Capitol building would have had a bigger impact then the Pentagon would have,and cause a lot more casualties. We will probably never know, but I am sure the Pentagon was on their target list, we just don't know how high a priority it had.

[fezzic]

Ok so its easy to fly and crash, got it.
But what about navigating to these targets, did they just fly until they saw something they wanted to hit? Is navigating easy?

You forget that both Hani and Atta got training on how to use the autopilot and navigation systems of airliners at the Pan Am simulators. Since all four were certified pilots, they all had training in navigation.


I might add that since this was a planned event -- nobody is claiming that the hijackers assembled, some underwent pilot training, and seized control of the aircraft, all on the spur of the moment, are they? -- part of the planning would include being able to navigate to the vicinity of the planned targets. Even if the trained pilots were so stupid as to not understand the details of how to program in coordinates and use the system, the planners would have assembled that information even in the form of a check list of do this, then this, then this, etc. All actions being taken on faith. A possible security problem for the plotters, since a checklist could be discovered, but that possibility might be considered (if it ever had to be done this way) a calculated risk.

Navigation under the circumstances was not going to be an impediment to carrying out the plot.

[radical_logic]

Irrelevant. Those "experts" that claim that only an "ace" could make that turn misrepresent what was done every time.

Not irrelevant at all. First, you dismissed those experts on the basis that they had an incorrect understanding of the turn itself (that it was a 330 instead of a 270), and now you're saying, even if they are aware of the account in the 9/11 Commission report, that doesn't matter.



He makes no claim to have looked at anything else. So, by your standards, he has only looked at the 20/20 program and nothing else.

1. Your claim that the basis of his view is only the 20/20 program has been proven to be unfounded - and most likely false.

2. How is this "my standards?" In fact, it is reasonable to assume he understands the account provided in the 9/11 Commission Report, as explained before.


It would be safe to say that the majority are not supporters of BushCo. I am one of them. However, I have put aside my feelings and looked at the full body of evidence instead of only looking for "anomalies" in order to justify my feelings.

Justify this assertion. How do you know the experts who question the official story are "only looking for 'anomalies' in order to justify their feelings?" How did you determine this?





The facts are only disputed by those that refuse to think objectively and look at the full body of evidence.

This, of course, makes the experts who disagree sound like "crackpots," but you have given no evidence to suppose what you say is true. Have you interacted with any of them? I'm sure many would say the same about you.



Here is something that your "experts" forget to consider. If the pilot of the aircraft was such an expert, why didn't he time his descent so that the turn wouldn't have to be made? He flight path already was headed toward the side of the Pentagon that was hit. The 30 degree turn would have been easy.

This is why the experts on both sides need to get together and hash out the issue: in the meantime, non-experts like me will wait until a general consensus has been achieved.

[Jonnyclueless]

According to KSM the intended targets were the White House and the Capitol building, not the Pentagon. Those targets also make more sense than the Pentagon.The WTC was picked because of the symbolic impact they would have and that worked well. Hitting the Capitol and White house would have sent a bigger message than the Pentagon would it not?

[Jonnyclueless]

Radical.

Again, if you had every pilot in the world thinking the maneuvers were difficult (as opposed to reality where you have a small group of people, only a couple of which are actually pilots), then it would still not prove Hani could not have flown the plane and it still would not be a contradiction.

[radical_logic]

I fail to see the ambiguity in Bernard's statement. If Hanjour could fly a plane into "a building", it seems difficult to argue that one of the largest buildings in the world is somehow excluded.

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

[Jonnyclueless]

Just because someone thinks a maneuver is difficult does not mean a well trained pilot with 600 hours of time (Hani) can't perform it.

As pointed out, the guy said he could hit a building. Pentagon = building. If we were in first grade, the rest of the class would get it.

[radical_logic]

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

You haven't been paying attention, cowgirl. I agree: either Hani was flying flight 77 or he isn't. Which is it? My answer (for the 100th times): I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself: I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself:I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself: I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself:I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself: I DON'T KNOW

I think I need to repeat myself:I DON'T KNOW



And what is it with idiots who think that when they lose a debate in one place then they accuse people of not being able to debate them somewhere else. What is there something magical about some other web link that allows you to debate there and not here? My God, the idiocy can be astounding.


Classic projection. You aren't scared, are you?



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

Accept my debate challenge and show me - don't just assert.

[radical_logic]

Just because someone thinks a maneuver is difficult does not mean a well trained pilot with 600 hours of time (Hani) can't perform it.

As pointed out, the guy said he could hit a building. Pentagon = building. If we were in first grade, the rest of the class would get it.

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

[lapman]

Not irrelevant at all. First, you dismissed those experts on the basis that they had an incorrect understanding of the turn itself (that it was a 330 instead of a 270), and now you're saying, even if they are aware of the account in the 9/11 Commission report, that doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. As you have stated, the report talks about the 330 degree turn. In order for your "experts" to be contesting this, they would have to have read it. Your source, patriotsquestion, has nothing to do with any of them having actually read the report.

1. Your claim that the basis of his view is only the 20/20 program has proven unfounded. When?

2. How is this "my standards?" In fact, it is reasonable to assume he understands the account provided in the 9/11 Commission Report, as explained before.False. If he had read the report, then he would not have made the mistake. Therefore, the 270 degree, high speed stall, etc. mistakes conclusively prove that he, nor the others that talk about the Pentagon, hadn't even looked at the report at all.



Justify this assertion. How do you know the experts who question the official story are "only looking for 'anomalies' in order to justify their feelings?" How did you determine this? Too many of them talk about the Bush administration. None of them actually address the report itself. They only parrot what the "Truth Movement" money mongers state.

This, of course, makes the experts who disagree sound like "crackpots," but you have given no evidence to suppose what you say is true. Have you interacted with any of them? I'm sure many would say the same about you.
Can't say I have. Have you?



This is why the experts on both sides need to get together and hash the issue out: in the meantime, non-experts like me will wait until a general consensus has been achieved.Sounds great. Why don't you set that up. I would love to go.

[radical_logic]

According to KSM the intended targets were the White House and the Capitol building, not the Pentagon. Those targets also make more sense than the Pentagon.The WTC was picked because of the symbolic impact they would have and that worked well. Hitting the Capitol and White house would have sent a bigger message than the Pentagon would it not?


of course. But keep in mind that: the CIA has admitted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded (i.e. tortured).

[lapman]

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.
The fact is that the Pentagon is a HUGE buildings. So "a building" would definitely include the Pentagon.

[funk de fino]

of course. But keep in mind that: the CIA has admitted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded (i.e. tortured).

Was that before or after he admitted planning the attacks?

[radical_logic]

Was that before or after he admitted planning the attacks?

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."





http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

[Metullus]

Being a "good" pilot requires 4 basic things:

1. Being able to get the aircraft into the air safely.
2. Being able to handle aircraft systems and engine/fuel management to safely keep the aircraft in the air.
3. Being able to clearly communicate with ATC and other aircraft, understand and follow ATC instructions, and the understand intentions of other aircraft.
4. Being able to get the aircraft back down on the ground in a safe and controlled manner.

It's quite clear that if Hani wasn't proficient at 1, 3, and/or 4 that said rental places would consider him a "terrible" pilot. After all the rental places are greatly concerned with getting their plane back in one piece, understandably.Even the type of aircraft matters. My grandfather was an extreme case. He had I don't know how many hundreds of hours flying but would never have been permitted to rent a plane; the only plane that he had ever piloted was his 1949 Ercoupe and he did not know how to use rudder pedals.

[radical_logic]

Sounds great. Why don't you set that up. I would love to go.

Hence we need a new investigation.

[PhantomWolf]

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."





http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Did you know that KSM was interviewed along with Ramzi Binalshibh and that he admitted his role in 9/11 on Al Jazeera TV months before his capture. It's even availible on video I believe.

[funk de fino]

"According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

So prior to this he never admitted or cliimed responsibility for his role in the attacks?

ETA Phantom Wolf spoiled it

[radical_logic]

So prior to this he never admitted or cliimed responsibility for his role in the attacks?

ETA Phantom Wolf spoiled it

I like to see the link to that video. But this raises a question: if he admitted responsibility for his role in the attacks, why did the CIA need to waterboard him to get out a confession? Obviously, they must have felt his previous statements weren't sufficient, or were unaware of them - which seems highly unlikely.

[PhantomWolf]

There is no "link" to the video, not everything on the planet is linkable yet, though I believe someone has linked to a place you can buy the video from Al Jazeera in the past which is why I said it was avalible on video. I doubt it will help you much watching it though as iirc it's in Arabic.

As to why they waterboarded him, it wasn't to get a confession about 9/11, they already wanted him for that, it was to get him to cough up what else he knew about AQ and it's operations.

[beachnut]

Hence we need a new investigation.
You need education and the skills to understand the investigations already completed. You and 9/11 truth are the only people in the world who can't understand 9/11. The terrorist understand 9/11, why don't you?

Hani was able to fly the plane into the Pentagon; the target was much larger and required no skill to hit, unlike landing requires skills, no just aiming.

[BazBear]

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?
Your arguments are crap. You quote things incompletely, incorrectly, and then toss your twisted analysis and opinion on top of it, utterly ignoring any counterpoints, those points USING YOUR OWN sources. It would seem you require a pilot fully checked out in 757s...one with a verified license... but one that couldn't hit that massive structure. No one could, in your bizzaro fantasy land.

If not HH, then who was at the controls?

Anyone can find contradictions of OPINION (especially when cherry picking), but that can't contradict the facts! You haven't, and you can't, not to anyone who lives in the real world.

It's been asked before, if not HH and his fellow not-so-merry band of suicidal young zealots, then WHO? It's okay to doubt the US gov't, it's okay to wonder if somehow there was a conspiracy...as of course there was, as their leader-in-spirit, OBL has admitted on video and audio himself.

If the radical "Islamic" BS artists can talk a young man or woman into wearing a bomb suit into a Israeli shopping mall or a U.S. military dining facility, how is what happened on 9/11 so hard for you to fathom. The flight skills bit? Answered...and answered...and answered, no matter if you like it or not.

But you've never answered the core question you raise, if not HH and AQ, (which you ignore all the evidence and self admissions of) THEN WHO RL!!

Please, lets have a theory of what YOU think REALLY happened that day.

[gumboot]

According to KSM the intended targets were the White House and the Capitol building, not the Pentagon. Those targets also make more sense than the Pentagon.The WTC was picked because of the symbolic impact they would have and that worked well. Hitting the Capitol and White house would have sent a bigger message than the Pentagon would it not?


The initial targets were the White House (chosen by OBL and KSM), Pentagon (chosen by OBL) and WTC (chosen by KSM) covering government, military and economy. However Mohammed Atta determined that the White House would be too difficult to hit from the air due to its small size, and the Capitol was chosen instead.

Given that OBL's main beef was the presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon was an obvious target.

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).

[Jonnyclueless]

I like to see the link to that video. But this raises a question: if he admitted responsibility for his role in the attacks, why did the CIA need to waterboard him to get out a confession? Obviously, they must have felt his previous statements weren't sufficient, or were unaware of them - which seems highly unlikely.

Why do you think they were waterboarding him to get a confession to 9/11? Have you stopped to think that Al Qeada being a group that continues to carry out attacks could have plans for more and that capturing the guy who mastermind those plots might be just the guy who could provide information to stop possible future attacks?

You guys have to remember that while all you think about is 9/11 and how you can turn 9/11 into something to further your personal agendas, this is not how the rest of the world thinks. So step outside of conspiracy world for a minute and try to understand how the real world thinks. The last thing the CIA would have cared about would be getting a confession to 9/11 from the guy since that isn't something in question.

[dtugg]

I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).

Wasn't the Capitol building the likely target for Flight 93?

[gumboot]

I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).



The selection of targets is relatively well documented. The Pentagon was included in KSM's original ten-aircraft hijacking plot which was eventually narrowed down to the 9/11 attacks.

The Capitol was a target, as I explained. UA93 was supposed to hit it.

[Dave Rogers]

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

That's not the inference that's being made. Your claim is that Hani Hanjour was incapable of carrying out the maneuvers made by flight 77 on 9/11. Bernard's statement is evidence that he was capable of them. Bernard's statement is therefore evidence that your claim is not sufficiently supported by the evidence to constitute a serious contradiction.

Now, let's look at your supposed non sequitur in a little more detail, and indulge in the sort of excruciating over-analysis that fascinates conspiracy theorists and bores most sensible people rigid. We can assume, I hope, from Bernard's statement that Hanjour was capable of hitting some average, typical building. What, then, could we infer as to the size of building Hanjour was capable of hitting? Most buildings, in my experience, are of four storeys or fewer, and occupy a land area very much smaller than two square kilometres. The average building, therefore, would be very much smaller - and hence harder to hit - than the Pentagon. Therefore, we can infer from Bernard's statement that, in his expert opinion, Hanjour was capable of hitting the Pentagon.

Would you like to counter this with an explanation of why the Pentagon is in some sense harder to hit with an airliner than some average, typical building? Or would you, perhaps, like to speculate on why nobody asked Bernard, "Sure, you say he could hit a building, but does that mean you think he could hit one of the largest buildings in the world?" I know why I wouldn't bother asking a question like that, but you may feel differently about looking stupid.

Dave

[TjW]

I know why I wouldn't bother asking a question like that, but you may feel differently about looking stupid.

Dave

As this thread shows clearly.

[lapman]

Hence we need a new investigation.
False. Showing that you're "experts" are flat out wrong is not a reason for launching a new investigation. There is nothing new to investigate.

[lapman]

I don't know if I agree about the Pentagon. It think OBL was well aware of the military being familiar with his plight. I believe he specified that one of his reasons for the attacks was the make the people of the US aware of what his cause was. Which is why to me the something like the Capitol building would be a much better target. Just the nature of terrorism generally lends towards hitting civilian targets instead of military ones. While I am sure this is mostly because it's easier to hit civilians than military, it also goes with the intent to terrorize the public (which isn't as well achieved with military targets).
I disagree. The attack was to show that we are vulnerable by flying the aircraft into the very symbols of our world power. The towers were the prominent symbol of our financial power, the Capitol of our political power and the Pentagon of our military power. Remember, they did attack a Marine base.

[fezzic]

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.


Given context of this thread (about Hanjour's piloting skills or general lack thereof), 'a building' versus 'any building' is a useless distinction and hardly 'an enormous non-sequitur'. Of course, one could postulate a situation where an extraordinary level of skill would be needed (and the aircraft's ability to perform the needed maneuvers might not be sufficient) but the thread is not about such a 'any building'.


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.

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

From context (i.e. the presumed or assumed reason why he was being asked about Hanjour and from the fact that he was almost certainly aware of what Hanjour was supposed to have done), Bernard was talking about the hijacker (alleged, if you so prefer) Hanjour and commenting on whether Hanjour could have flown the hijacked airliner into a building which, from context, any reasonable person would conclude he meant the Pentagon.

When the subject being talked about is obvious, people don't often spend their time repeating the blindingly obvious. If there was any question or uncertainty on the part of the interviewer whether Bernard was referring to the Pentagon, he would have asked Bernard to clarify, "a building".

[Disbelief]

Just because a pilot is capable of hitting "a building" doesn't mean he's capable of hitting "any building." This inference is an enormous non-sequitur.

How is it not? Tell me.

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

[jaydeehess]

I'm going to quote a passage in my e-mail to Mark so that you know where I'm coming from.

"There are more, but I think the point is clear: according to the relevant experts, only a highly skilled pilot could have flown AA77 into the Pentagon the way it allegedly did.

Now, I have found statements of a few experts who deny (i) and claim that the AA77 maneuver was in fact easy. There are, however, two things to note about this. First, those experts seem to be in the minority (which, of course, doesn't mean they're wrong). Second, and more importantly, there hasn't been any real interaction or debate between the experts who affirm (i) and those who deny it.

Hence, there seems to be an unresolved contradiction here. Isn't, then, the claim that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon at least questionable on reasonable grounds? Perhaps the official story will ultimately win the day, but it looks to me like we have mystery."


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

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