[Merged] Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced? [Archive]

Reheat

3rd August 2007, 10:24 PM

It's been reported that Hani had approximately 600 hours of flight time when he crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon. To me, that doesn't really sound very inexperienced. Can anyone here give me a rough estimate of how many hours an Air Force pilot would have to acquire before he/she was allowed to take control of a similarly sized transport? Or a commercial airline pilot for that matter?

I realize that the training would probably be more intense, but anything for comparison would be helpful. Any links or resources would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

I think beachnut and I are the only two AF Pilots here and we're old guys - retired. An AF Pilot gets in the vicinity of about 200 hours of flying time prior to receiving AF Wings (graduation). That time has varied over the years, so that's an approximate number. It's now split into two different tracks - fighter/bombers versus heavy tanker/transport. After graduation the fighter/bombers group go for specialized training in their individually assigned aircraft. For the single seat type fighters the Pilot will achieve Aircraft Commander status much faster than the others. They get something in the neighborhood of 100 hours or so prior to being "turned loose" with their own aircraft. Although they fly and "command" their own aircraft, they are wingmen and are still fairly closely supervised for a period of time. That period of time of close supervision would entirely depend upon the individual level of pilot proficiency and judgment.

The heavy guys would receive about the same amount of specialized training in their individual aircraft and then fly as a co-pilot until such time as their proficiency level and judgment justify an upgrade to Aircraft Commander. Many would do that with less than 600 hours, but it's best to allow beachnut to elaborate on that as I never flew heavies in the AF.

If Hanjour actually had 600 hrs of flying time in anything he would have been very easily capable of doing what he did. He would have been very capable even with less hours as the others were. What he did was crash an aircraft into a building, not fly it safely within FAA standards!

Don't attempt to equate what the instructors said about his ability to fly a small aircraft which he likely intended to rent as that did not directly correlation to what he actually did on 911. The instructors were determining if he was safe and could fly to acceptable FAA type standards. You must remember that he was not required to meet FAA standards on 911 - he crashed. :jaw-dropp Fortunately, that's not an FAA standard.

If I'm not mistaken he only made two turns and they were not level turns. He had studied the cockpit layout of a 757 and was motivated enough not to be intimidated by the numerous instruments, tits, and knobs.

I've given you what you asked for, but don't try to correlate an AF Pilot's flying time or ability to what any of the hijackers did on 911. There is very little (if any) correlation as the AF does frown on Pilots who crash their aircraft into buildings. :D

ADD: He would have been required to show his logbook prior to flying with any one of the instructors where he attempted to rent an aircraft.

Reality Believer

3rd August 2007, 10:33 PM

beachnut

4th August 2007, 12:07 AM

It's been reported that Hani had approximately 600 hours of flight time when he crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon. To me, that doesn't really sound very inexperienced. Can anyone here give me a rough estimate of how many hours an Air Force pilot would have to acquire before he/she was allowed to take control of a similarly sized transport? Or a commercial airline pilot for that matter?

I realize that the training would probably be more intense, but anything for comparison would be helpful. Any links or resources would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Anyone in the world could fly a 757/767 into a building. I took kids who never flew, into a simulator after 9/11, they flew into buildings, first time. No misses. A guy published a video showing a low time small plane pilot in a 757 or 767 simulator and he hit the Pentagon first time, and every time he tried.

At pilot training in the USAF in 1974 we would get 200 hours of flight time and come out fully trained. It took 5 or 10 flights in a big jet and you could land and fly under the Captains supervision. By 600 to 1000 hours you would be ready to fly in all weather and be real safe as the Captain. The guy in the left seat.

But you could get in a 757/767 and take the plane in flight and hit a building as big as the WTC, and the Pentagon is way too big to miss.

600 hours is over kill to do 9/11. The terrorist were over trained. But then if you were going to fly a jet like that, what would you do. Hani not being able to land a C-172 was not a big deal, he was only interested in getting to the runway, not landing. His goal was not to learn to land but kill people by crashing into something. Getting a C-172 to the runway is good enough to learn the pointing aspect of flying. What does not move in the windscreen is where you hit. I bet they were taught that, every pilot is taught a version of what does not move is where you hit. Does that make sense?

Flying is easy, takeoffs and landings and running the systems can be hard. Go to the airport and take an intro flight. See how easy it is! I wish everyone would. In the 70s a lot more people went flying and tried to learn, Go see for yourself. If you try, just ignore the instruments, look outside and fly the plane. Learning all the instruments is hard, but you do not really need them. (sort of)

Reheat - did a good job and beat me to some of this. I have talked to some 757/767 Captains who are also in the AF Reserves, who worked with me while I was on active duty, and after 9/11 they agreed it would be an easy task to do the flying seen on 9/11. If you hear the truth movement lies, you must remember there are thousands if not millions of pilots who do not agree with the handful of pilots in the truth movement.

Boone 870

4th August 2007, 02:53 PM

Corsair 115

4th August 2007, 03:19 PM

I am not a pilot, but I had the opportunity to spend an hour in an FAA qualified, full motion MD-11 simulator. I can say that a novice could adequately take control of an airborne aircraft and drive it into the broad side of a barn. Hell I almost landed a few times successfully. The simulators are one awesome ride.Indeed they are! Back when I was 16 many moon ago, my dad, who was a flight instructor at the time, got me some time in an honest-to-goodness 737 simulator for my birthday. He set it up with me on a landing approach and then I flew it from there and landed it. I eyeballed it in all the way in each time, and the printouts afterwards showed I did a fairly good job of flying the correct glide slope.

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.At the other end of the scale, it's possible to wind up with a lot of hours with a long career. My dad ended up with over 33,000 hours in his log book when he finally stopped flying.

beachnut

4th August 2007, 03:20 PM

Thanks for the replies everyone. I personally don't have any doubt that Hani did not have enough experience and ability to do what he done that day, but a lot of people like to say that he was an inexperienced pilot and could not have pulled off the maneuvers that he did. I will have to look around a bit more and see if I can figure out a reason why he had trouble landing the 172.

Maybe there was a difficult final approach to the runway or he had few hours in that aircraft type.
No, go fly and see for yourself. Anyone can have a bad day and flunk. Go take a flight, and see the difference between landing and being able to crash into the runway. Hani had no real motive to be a good pilot, just a killer who can point a plane. If you have not flown for a while you may be rusty. Hani "flew" large aircraft simulators, and if he had flown the sim, he may of been leveling off at 20 or 30 feet to land, not a good idea in a small plane but in the big jet 20 or 30 feet is where you want your butt so the wheel are on the ground, not underground. One my first rookie flight in a big jet, the instructor told me to level off at 20 feet above the runway, then he said "pull it", the throttles, and we touched down with a wisper. My first landing in large jet was perfect. Beleive me, if I went in a small plane and forgot the "picture" and leveled off at 20 feet a time or two, no one will rent me a plane until I prove I can land. With training, in an hour I will have the picture and be renting the plane.

Go fly and see why there is a problem landing. An intro flight cost 100 buck or so in a 172. Go do a Hani test flight, see how you are better than 4 terrorist pilots and better than every single 9/11 truth pilot by default.

Get up, get money, go to airport, get an intro flight. Find a small airport away from the city. You can do it today, get out the phone book or look it up. go fly

DGM

4th August 2007, 04:06 PM

beachnut

4th August 2007, 04:44 PM

Your instructor wanted you to do a controlled demolition on the plane?:D
He said pull the power. I pulled the throttles back, and we watched the plane land. I saved my CD landings for later surprises.

Boone 870

4th August 2007, 05:15 PM

R.Mackey

4th August 2007, 05:19 PM

While I have your attention, I have heard a theory that claims flight 77 would have "balloned" over the Pentagon because of the aerodynamics of high-speed flight and close proximity to the ground. Any thoughts? I personally don't buy into that one because I've seen a video on liveleak of a French KC 135 buzzing troops while going very fast and extremely low.

It's total crap. The argument goes that the "ground effect" at low altitude would lead to an increase in lift, and for some reason this is supposed to mean the aircraft would always have a positive rate of climb at that altitude and the speeds reported.

Any plane can dive through the ground effect. Any plane can also reduce angle of attack, overcome ground effect with the elevator, use spoilers to reduce the lift, etc. Anyone who makes this argument has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

apathoid

4th August 2007, 05:26 PM

Reheat

4th August 2007, 05:42 PM

It's total crap. The argument goes that the "ground effect" at low altitude would lead to an increase in lift, and for some reason this is supposed to mean the aircraft would always have a positive rate of climb at that altitude and the speeds reported.

Absolutely correct! It's funny how so many armchair experts can express an opinion about something they know nothing about and others believe it because it was said in a loud confident tone of voice.

Ground effect is most prominent at high angles of attack i.e. landing. It's takes all of 30 seconds to find that kind of information via Google, so ignorance is no excuse for the CT Internet junkies.

BTW, I have flown at SUPERSONIC speeds very close to mother earth both over land and over water with no ill effects other than a sore neck from trying to watch the scenery go by real fast.:wide-eyed It does create a hellofa wake and rooster tail over water and dust devils over dry sand or loose soil, but is otherwise hardly noticeable.

apathoid

4th August 2007, 06:31 PM

You know, it occured to me that I hadn't seen this "ground effect" argument from PFT, and so thought that I might be able to use them as a debunking source for this particular claim........so I did the requisite Googling and quickly I remembered why I have so much disdain for these morons.

......Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off..........

Yeah, he planned it exactly like that and executed this planned maneuver flawlessly.:rolleyes:

So, who pulled off this stunt?

Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.

Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon."

So the guy they use as a source of Hani's ineptitude actually debunks them by saying that Hani would have no problem pulling off the maneuver. So, that's that right? Well, no - Robbie then attacks the credibilty of this instructor and calls him an "inexperienced pilot". Sheesh

Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.

beachnut

4th August 2007, 06:36 PM

Thanks Beechnut. Just to give you a little background information about myself, I have roughly 30 hours of flight time. All of the instruction that I received happened when I was 16 years old. I do remember that on my first flight the instructor walked me through everything from pre-flight to engine shutdown without him having to touch anything, including the controls. That flight included three touch and goes and I went on to solo with less than seven hours total flight time.

Anyway, I totally agree with you that the actual flying part is easy and the difficult part is learning aeronautical rules. That is why I wanted someone in the know to give me an idea of how many hours an Air Force pilot would have to acquire before being turned loose with his own aircraft.

While I have your attention, I have heard a theory that claims flight 77 would have "balloned" over the Pentagon because of the aerodynamics of high-speed flight and close proximity to the ground. Any thoughts? I personally don't buy into that one because I've seen a video on liveleak of a French KC 135 buzzing troops while going very fast and extremely low.
Yes, most 9/11 truth are blowing smoke... You flew, you could have taken you trainer, and crashed into most anything as accurate as you fly the first time. You flew the first time, the terrorist trained for a long time, you could have done it the first time and the p4t are unable to imagine it happening.

The KC-135 will hit the Pentagon with a problem, just point it. I would rather fly a 757/767, they would be easier to control than older models of airliners or the older 707 based KC-135. That tanker was only 20 or 30 feet above the ground as it buzzed the guys in the desert. They could have crashed by just letting the plane down like you would fly when you learned. As you suspected, the 9/11 truth movement is making up lies about the flying.

The opinions you are getting here are what greater than 99 percent of all pilots would tell you. And you are one of those. The pilots who make up lies are a pathetic minority.

Spins

6th August 2007, 11:13 AM

ETA: And here's one of beachnut.......:D

YZT4BdI7STEOMG that's insane!

MikeW

6th August 2007, 12:43 PM

Keep in mind this footnote to chapter #7 in the 9/11 Commission Report:

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).

Hanjour rented planes a few times from these people at the end of August 2001.

FatesWebb

6th August 2007, 12:54 PM

No, go fly and see for yourself. Anyone can have a bad day and flunk. Go take a flight, and see the difference between landing and being able to crash into the runway. Hani had no real motive to be a good pilot, just a killer who can point a plane. If you have not flown for a while you may be rusty. Hani "flew" large aircraft simulators, and if he had flown the sim, he may of been leveling off at 20 or 30 feet to land, not a good idea in a small plane but in the big jet 20 or 30 feet is where you want your butt so the wheel are on the ground, not underground. One my first rookie flight in a big jet, the instructor told me to level off at 20 feet above the runway, then he said "pull it", the throttles, and we touched down with a wisper. My first landing in large jet was perfect. Beleive me, if I went in a small plane and forgot the "picture" and leveled off at 20 feet a time or two, no one will rent me a plane until I prove I can land. With training, in an hour I will have the picture and be renting the plane.

Go fly and see why there is a problem landing. An intro flight cost 100 buck or so in a 172. Go do a Hani test flight, see how you are better than 4 terrorist pilots and better than every single 9/11 truth pilot by default.

Get up, get money, go to airport, get an intro flight. Find a small airport away from the city. You can do it today, get out the phone book or look it up. go fly

but the problem that people have with hani being the pilot on 9/11 isnt that he flew a plane into a building, it was the maneuvers that the plane took before that occurred..

The thing being questions is DID he LEGITIMATELY get those 600 hours??

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said.

he could not solo a cessna 150...

So what was this maneuver? that this "pilot" preformed?

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"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." [NATCA]

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] 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.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]

The steep turn [of Flight 77] was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. [CBS News]

I normally provide audio links, etc, but the forum will not allow new members to do this..

So that is why people question hanjours flight abilities...

Corsair 115

6th August 2007, 01:06 PM

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. Reread the quote from the controller. Note the bolded portion.

"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." [NATCA] The reason it's described as military is NOT the maneuvers in and of themselves, but rather no pilot would ever fly a commerical passenger jetliner in that manner.

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. Why is a 270° right turn extraordinary? You do realize, don't you, that the 270° figure only describes the amount the aircraft turned, it does NOT describe how hard the aircraft was turning. To know how hard the turn was, you need to know how long that 270° turn took. Knowing that allows one to determine the rate of the turn, that is, how many degrees of heading change per second. A 270° change in heading executed in a thirty seconds is a sharper turn than is a 270° change executed in two minutes.

defaultdotxbe

6th August 2007, 01:10 PM

"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." [NATCA]
as the last 2 sentences indicate, this doesnt necessarily refer to the skill required, but rather that a passenger jet being flown in this manner is unusual and unsafe (unsafe =/= impossible)

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] 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.
look at this graphic of the flight path
http://911myths.com/assets/images/77FlightPath.jpg
does it look liek it was heading to white house? (im assuming you know where washington DC is relative to the pentagon)

ill give you answer: its near impossible to tell what he is headed "directly" for until hes pratically right there, the long turn was a relatively simple maneuver to lose altitude

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]
you can post links if you leave off the http:// part, i would like to know who the "aviation souces" are

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]
except hanjour was trained on a 757, not a 727, so there was no "jump" to be made

The steep turn [of Flight 77] was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. [CBS News]
correct, there was no fight for control going on

hanjours own flight instructor has said he has no doubt that hanjour could have hit the pentagon, it seems he would know the most about his skills, correct? (ill post a link when i can find it)

ETA: im having trouble finding a primary source (just getting a bunch of unsourced quotes on CT websites) but this is what Marcel Bernard said of Hanjour:

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot." and "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.

AMTMAN

6th August 2007, 01:16 PM

Anyone in the world could fly a 757/767 into a building. I took kids who never flew, into a simulator after 9/11, they flew into buildings, first time. No misses. A guy published a video showing a low time small plane pilot in a 757 or 767 simulator and he hit the Pentagon first time, and every time he tried.

At pilot training in the USAF in 1974 we would get 200 hours of flight time and come out fully trained. It took 5 or 10 flights in a big jet and you could land and fly under the Captains supervision. By 600 to 1000 hours you would be ready to fly in all weather and be real safe as the Captain. The guy in the left seat.

But you could get in a 757/767 and take the plane in flight and hit a building as big as the WTC, and the Pentagon is way too big to miss.

600 hours is over kill to do 9/11. The terrorist were over trained. But then if you were going to fly a jet like that, what would you do. Hani not being able to land a C-172 was not a big deal, he was only interested in getting to the runway, not landing. His goal was not to learn to land but kill people by crashing into something. Getting a C-172 to the runway is good enough to learn the pointing aspect of flying. What does not move in the windscreen is where you hit. I bet they were taught that, every pilot is taught a version of what does not move is where you hit. Does that make sense?

Flying is easy, takeoffs and landings and running the systems can be hard. Go to the airport and take an intro flight. See how easy it is! I wish everyone would. In the 70s a lot more people went flying and tried to learn, Go see for yourself. If you try, just ignore the instruments, look outside and fly the plane. Learning all the instruments is hard, but you do not really need them. (sort of)

Reheat - did a good job and beat me to some of this. I have talked to some 757/767 Captains who are also in the AF Reserves, who worked with me while I was on active duty, and after 9/11 they agreed it would be an easy task to do the flying seen on 9/11. If you hear the truth movement lies, you must remember there are thousands if not millions of pilots who do not agree with the handful of pilots in the truth movement.

Look at the Kamikaze pilots in WWII. They were young men given a bare minimum of training. Yet they were still able to crash their planes into targets that were not only moving but shooting back at them.

beachnut

6th August 2007, 01:22 PM

Look at the Kamikaze pilots in WWII. They were young men given a bare minimum of training. Yet they were still able to crash their planes into targets that were not only moving but shooting back at them.
Outstanding, some of them recruited in Okinawa were not taught how to land, they ran into the hills. Kind of a joke I have with a friend from Okinawa. Riding a bicycle is almost enough training for someone to aim a plane.

beachnut

6th August 2007, 01:57 PM

but the problem that people have with hani being the pilot on 9/11 isnt that he flew a plane into a building, it was the maneuvers that the plane took before that occurred..

The thing being questions is DID he LEGITIMATELY get those 600 hours??

he could not solo a cessna 150...

So what was this maneuver? that this "pilot" preformed?

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"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." [NATCA]

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] 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.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]

The steep turn [of Flight 77] was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. [CBS News]

I normally provide audio links, etc, but the forum will not allow new members to do this..

So that is why people question hanjours flight abilities...
What maneuvers? Are you totally inept at flying evaluation. I was a check pilot in the USAF. As an evaluator I would have to rate Hani's flight as poor. He could not hold a constant bank, he over-sped the aircraft, he was so sloppy on altitude control he would have been busted. FLUNKED. There were zero fancy maneuvers, here are the biggest things he did to make his mission more successful please pay attention this is the big thing he did that day. Hani pushed up the throttle when the Pentagon was about a mile or two away. Okay FatesWebb, this would be like when you get mad at mom and point the car at the garage and stop on the gas and run into the garage to smash it up. That was the big maneuver, Hani pushed up the throttle levers, WOW! There were no maneuvers. But smarty repeat parrot man of 9/11 truth, please show me one fancy maneuver that kid off the street could not do? Remember I have placed kids who never fly a large jet in a simulator and they hit buildings easy. Zero training, hit buildings. BTW clever parrot man, the simulator is harder to fly than the plane.

You must be one of those want to be "pilots" from p4t. Idiots with dumb ideas on 9/11. Good job.

Hani did get a commercial license, too bad you are too research challenged to find a singe fact yet.

No the maneuver was not at 500 mph, it was at a speed of 300 KIAS, you be wrong again. There is no one protecting the P-56 air space on 9/11. You can fly in and out, but you will be caught and punished. Like loose your pilots license. Most pilots are not terrorist.

Listen real close brain child who parrots BS from 9/11 truth dolts. The ATC people thought he was military, because they are use to seeing planes doing 150 KIAS, not 300 KIAS. End of story. That was it brilliant parrot for 9/11 truth. They are not use to seeing a large plane go fast in their area. End of story. There is not a thing the plane did that was like a fighter jet military thing. But going twice as fast as normal traffic is something the military has a wavier to do, so the only other planes ATC ever saw on that scope that go 300 KIAS are the military jets, and on 9/11 flight 77. BTW, 300 KIAS is a perfect cruise speed, and you are wrong about 500 mph.

Tight turn. LOL, no it was 25 to 35 degrees of bank like a lazy passenger jet turn. The only difference was planes at 7,000 feet are not suppose to be doing 300 KIAS, they are limited to 250 KIAS, it is a law. WOW 270 degrees? Do not turn around it is 180, and all the way is 360 degrees, wow. Vanished from screens? When you fly low you vanish from radar. So? The plane did hit the Pentagon, and some idiot terrorist was flying the jet.

Name the aviation sources that said the stupid 270 degree sloppy turn and easy decent had to be done by some expert pilot. Sorry, I have seen all the data, and it was down by a low time pilot, not good maneuvers, just plan old sloppy flying, even you could do. Unless you are a p4t, those guys can not fly anything very well because they have problems with the real world. Hani had studied the 757, turning off the transponder is very easy. Oops.

Russ Wittenberg is a truther. I have talked to 7 757/767 captains, they all agree, no training was needed to do what Hani did. Sorry you been ace out by 757 Captains. Poor Russ is wrong on this one, go tell him you believed him, and you are wrong too. It took him time because he is challenged to find facts, poor Russ.

Ever pilot with the ability to think logically and rationally, agree Hani was capable of flying a 757 into the Pentagon. It is a big target, even an idiot who can not land could hit the Pentagon. You need to go fly and stop being such a fool believing liars.

Unless you are JDX with a sock puppet, you could do better than this tripe you post. It is all BS. Do not bring tapes of these idiots saying the things you just posted. It is waste of time. Instead go find some pilots, not in the truth movement, and ask them. If you are too lazy, then that explains why you just post lies form 9/11 truth, they must be doing your thinking for you.

To prove your stuff is wrong all you need to do is go fly. It is so easy to hit something, but not as easy to land. That being said, there are some people, you could be one, who are so good at flying, there is not a thing they do not get the first time. But Hani was not a great pilot, he was average or below. He took over a jet in the air. He took a while to figure out he was going the wrong direction. He flew average stuff, lined up on the Pentagon, pushed up the throttles and almost hit the ground as he crashed into the Pentagon. I agree Hani sucks as a pilot, but then crashing a jet is not my idea of great flying. Go find some facts and stop the hearsay and lies from 9/11 truth, and pilot for truth. You are using data from liars.

AMTMAN

6th August 2007, 02:08 PM

defaultdotxbe

6th August 2007, 02:24 PM

Hani pushed up the throttle when the Pentagon was about a mile or two away. Okay FatesWebb, this would be like when you get mad at mom and point the car at the garage and stop on the gas and run into the garage to smash it up. That was the big maneuver, Hani pushed up the throttle levers, WOW!
i read an article about a year ago that said that even this was a mark of a novice pilot

the author speculated that hanjour aimed the nose of the plane at the "bullseye" formed the center courtyard and concentric rings of the pentagon (which seems reasonable) and when he got lined up a pushed the throttle all the way up

however, inexpereinced as he was he failed to account for the increase in lift coming with the increase in speed, and as he got closer he realised hed overshoot the target, and quickly pushed the nose down (and overcompensating at that) and slamming into the ground floor

unfortunately i lost the link, and as i said the author was simply sepculating, but it makes as much sense as anything else IMO

Mince

6th August 2007, 02:49 PM

Was Hani Hanjour really inexperienced?

I'm not sure I can answer this, but I do know, given a solo opportunity, he crashed his plane into a very low building. That's a little indicative.

Boone 870

6th August 2007, 05:52 PM

Good point Mince. I guess he was good enough to hit the Pentagon, but not good enough to hit it on the way in to DC and not good enough to avoid hitting light poles.

fezzic

6th August 2007, 06:08 PM

Doesn't really matter whether he or any of the other hijackers were "experienced" which normally would mean (to me) that they would be able to handle a variety of aircraft behavior and procedures or "inexperienced".

What matters is that they were qualified (generally) to operate the aircraft including systems like transponders, radios, and navigation. They were familiar with piloting the aircraft. Anything else they might have known is irrelevant since they didn't intend to make flying a career nor did they actually intend to survive their experience.

Reality Believer

6th August 2007, 10:49 PM

A popular claim is that flight 77 made an "impossible" fighter like maneuver at the end, just before crashing into the Pentagon.

Here is a clip, in real time, from the NTSB animation that shows the last 4 minutes of the flight that is essentially the 270 degree turn.

I am not a pilot, but have been a passenger plenty of times, and this animation, to me, does not seem much more aggressive than good hard turn to intercept the glide slope on a final approach. Certainly not "fighter jet" territory.

aP3EMnCx4yI

jaydeehess

7th August 2007, 06:54 AM

Flt 77 never exceeded 1 g in its turn, its desent rate was certainly not all that great and the turn was by no means steeply banked. The plane did not get to 500 MPH until the straight line aim at the Pentagon.

The "ground effect" arguement is only made by people unwilling to research how this would affect an aircraft trimmed for cruise, with wheels up and flaps retracted and going 3.5 times normal landing speed.

Spins

7th August 2007, 08:07 AM

Well if that's the case since most modern fighters are built to deliberately sustain 9g turns the assertion that Flight 77 made an "impossible" fighter like maneuver is pure nonsense.

All harps back to this (http://www.911myths.com/html/military_plane.html) quote from Danielle O'Brien at Dulles ATC which was taken out of context by conspiracy theorists.

JamesB

7th August 2007, 08:34 AM

as the last 2 sentences indicate, this doesnt necessarily refer to the skill required, but rather that a passenger jet being flown in this manner is unusual and unsafe (unsafe =/= impossible)

look at this graphic of the flight path
http://911myths.com/assets/images/77FlightPath.jpg
does it look liek it was heading to white house? (im assuming you know where washington DC is relative to the pentagon)

ill give you answer: its near impossible to tell what he is headed "directly" for until hes pratically right there, the long turn was a relatively simple maneuver to lose altitude

you can post links if you leave off the http:// part, i would like to know who the "aviation souces" are

except hanjour was trained on a 757, not a 727, so there was no "jump" to be made

correct, there was no fight for control going on

hanjours own flight instructor has said he has no doubt that hanjour could have hit the pentagon, it seems he would know the most about his skills, correct? (ill post a link when i can find it)

ETA: im having trouble finding a primary source (just getting a bunch of unsourced quotes on CT websites) but this is what Marcel Bernard said of Hanjour:

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot." and "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.

That is from CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/17/se.18.html

O'CONNOR: Hanjour didn't come back, and while landing a Cessna is far different from landing a 757, Bernard says keeping it in the air isn't.

BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility.

Kent1

7th August 2007, 10:45 AM

That is from CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/17/se.18.html

O'CONNOR: Hanjour didn't come back, and while landing a Cessna is far different from landing a 757, Bernard says keeping it in the air isn't.

BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility.
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

Woman taught 9/11 hijacker how to fly

The manager of a US flight school told of the terrible moment she realised she had helped to train Hani Hanjour, the September 11 hijacker who flew a jet into the Pentagon.

"I knew in my heart that Hani was part of it," Peggy Chevrette said yesterday at the death penalty trial in Alexandria, Virginia, of al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

She told of her dread as the attacks unfolded.

"On 9/11 my husband told me that a plane had gone into one of the Twin Towers, then before I left for work, the second plane went in.

"On my way to work, the third plane had gone into the Pentagon.

"I remember crying ... knowing that our company helped to do this."

Chevrette, manager of a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona, said she had telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) three times to express concerns that Hanjour's piloting skills that were so bad she thought he would injure himself or others. But no action was taken, she said.

Witnesses told yesterday how, despite poor piloting skills and bizarre airborne antics, the hijackers had evaded detection by authorities as they learned to fly in the US in the months before the strikes.

jaydeehess

7th August 2007, 11:35 AM

So, what did the controller mean by their thinking it must be a military pilot? Well 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, only fighters do that thus the statement that this looked like a fighter manouver perhaps.
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.

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 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

7th August 2007, 11:40 AM

The military pilots here have noted that the landing of a Cessna requires one to level out at a height of only a few feet off the ground while a large aircraft requires that one do it while still 30 feet off the ground(the pilot that is) since at that height the wheels touch the runway.

I note also that a light Cessna would be much more greatly affected by wind than a heavy on final. A change in wind speed or direction of a few MPH will cause a Cessna to pitch, yaw or drift quickly compared to the effect on a large heavy aircraft and this will be accentuated on landing since the plane's airspeed is so low. If Hanjour had trouble landing the Cessna it could also be that he had great difficulty with even a slight crosswind or wind gusts that simply would not be much of an issue with a large Boeing and easily corrected for.

Spins

7th August 2007, 02:20 PM

Reheat

7th August 2007, 03:25 PM

So, what did the controller mean by their thinking it must be a military pilot?

I think this has already been pointed out, but I'll mention it again.

Guys, it obvious what the Dulles Controller meant regarding this comment. There is an ICAO Speed Limit as follows:

Below 10,000 feet ASL indicated airspeed is limited to 250 knots;

Below 3,000 feet AGL within 10 NM of a controlled airport indicated speed is limited to 200 knots unless authorized to do so in an air traffic control clearance.

Military Fighters/Trainers whose Flight Manual calls for higher speeds ARE EXEMPT from these restriction.

AA77 was exceeding this speed and that would have been obvious to an experienced Air Traffic Controller. In her experience the ONLY aircraft who exceeded the speed limit were military, hence her comment. The turn was perfectly normal except AA77 was violating the speed limit during the turn. That's all.

jaydeehess

7th August 2007, 10:29 PM

Who are you replying to, me? If so I was actually agreeing with you that a 1g turn isn't exactly a fighter like manoeuvre because they (fighter jets) are designed to pull a constant 9g in turns, if Flight 77 pulled a 9g turn then fair enough that would be a valid description/comparison. I mentioned the quote from Danielle O'Brien at Dulles ATC because that's where, as far as I'm aware, the fighter jet manoeuvre conspiracy theory originated, they deliberately quoted her out-of-context.

I was merely adding to the observation, not taking issue with anything you posted, Spins.
A CT will not allow that the quote means anything other than a high g turn even once shown that the math illustrates that it was not.

print-only discourse causes emotive disconnects, sorry.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 01:35 PM

This is the first in a series of posts where I detail the many contradictions in the official story. Do not bother posting in this thread if you're going to attack me personally, not address the substance of my post, or are on my ignore list (i.e. Arus808, Rwquinn, Beachnut, and Bobert).
.

Consider the following quotes:
[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.[1]

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.[2]

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.[3]

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 [Danielle] O'Brien. [4]

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. [5]

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.

Now consider the following quotes:
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. [6]

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.[7]

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. [8]

Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner. [9]

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. [10]

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. [11]

[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. [12]

Hence, from the above, we can derive:
~A. Hani Hanjour, the pilot 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

PhantomWolf

12th September 2008, 01:44 PM

Can someone check Radical's calendar please, I swear he's lost half the 8.

twinstead

12th September 2008, 01:49 PM

It’s frequently claimed that the 9/11 attacks required more flying experience than the alleged hijackers possessed, and therefore they couldn’t have been controlling the planes. Giulio Bernacchia takes a different view, though, and as an experienced pilot (air force, then airline Captain), simulator instructor and examiner, it’s perhaps worth listening to what he has to say.

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

I guess it all depends on who ones 'experts' are.

twinstead

12th September 2008, 01:51 PM

Oh, and there's these guys: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

Jonnyclueless

12th September 2008, 01:52 PM

Radical, do a search on the forum first. All of those completely untrue statements have been thoroughly debunked many years ago. The problem are your "sources". "sources" say that Santa Claus is real too. But what you really mean by "sources" is Pilots For Twoof, a known 9/11 conspiracy cult.

Simply taking quotes form reliable sources them and putting them into a collage to create false information is about as dishonest as a crackpot can get.

PhantomWolf

12th September 2008, 01:54 PM

CHF

12th September 2008, 01:55 PM

Isn't "Pilots for Truth" run by a guy who sued his former airline cuz he thought there were explosives planted on all passenger jets?

Mince

12th September 2008, 01:57 PM

Yeah, well, you know, if I'm going to condemn, indict and convict several people of heinous mass murder, I think I'll do it on the basis of empirical evidence, not speculation, personal incredulity, YouTube videos and Google searches.

Thanks for the OP, anyway...I guess.

Mince

12th September 2008, 01:59 PM

Isn't "Pilots for Truth" run by a guy who sued his former airline cuz he thought there were explosives planted on all passenger jets?

Uh huh. And you've yet to definitively prove that there are not explosives planted on all passenger jets.

lapman

12th September 2008, 02:00 PM

Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner. Turned out that this one was 100% correct.

I see a whole lot of straw grasping in the OP. All of us real pilots know that it's all a bunch of garbage. The conspiracy liars claim that a commercial rated pilot could fly a large, stable aircraft into a huge building while some kids, with as little as 200 hours of training, could fly incredibly unstable fighters into a moving ship through a barrage of flak and AAA fire.

twinstead

12th September 2008, 02:00 PM

Twin, if Radical was truely interested in reality he'd have used the search feature, this topic has been done to death and beyond in the past 5 years, there are probably more threads on it that hot suppers on the Titanic, it won't make the slightist difference to him.

Yea, I know, but the whole smugness of the OP, posted as if we'd never heard of this stuff, just got to me. I say bring on volume 2, maybe it's actually something that hasn't been done to death.

16.5

12th September 2008, 02:01 PM

R-L COMMANDS:

"This is the first in a series of posts where I detail the many contradictions in the official story. Do not bother posting in this thread if you're going to attack me personally, not address the substance of my post, or are on my ignore list (i.e. Arus808, Rwquinn, Beachnut, and Bobert)."

So it has been ordered so it shall be DONE!

Anyhow, folks, lets shut this one down quick:

Hey, R-L use the search feature:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2830591#post2830591

Read and Learn.

WildCat

12th September 2008, 02:07 PM

Can someone check Radical's calendar please, I swear he's lost half the 8.
Haven't you heard?

qooC9nI4XBk

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:13 PM

Predictably, I recieved almost nothing but "mere assertions" in response to my OP. Where are the rebuttals demonstrating the falsity of any of the quotes I cited? Be specific.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 02:13 PM

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.If you read right after: Q: Where would they get these skills?
A:Boeing and Airbus both sell flight simulators and there are several training schools on the East Coast. You can qualify for a 757 or 767 for about $15,000. Investigators think a south Florida school may have inadvertently trained one terrorist pilot, and other simulator locations are being checked.

Which is exactly what they did, didn't they?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:19 PM

Nothing in that quote resolves the contradiction. It's still the case that Hanjour, who many attest was a terrible pilot, made a maneuver that experts say only a highly trained pilot could pull off.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:24 PM

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.

From Debunking 9/11 Myths:
"Hani Hanjour: The most experienced pilot of the four and the only Saudi, Hanjour, 29, obtained his private Pilot's license and commercial pilot's license in Arizona in 1999 before returning to the Middle East. He was recruited for the plot when Al Qaeda leaders learned he was a pilot. When Hanjour returned to Arizona in late 2000, he entered refresher training and Boeing 737 simulator training."

"Truthers" often misrepresent how experienced the 9/11 hijacker pilots really were and try to push them off as awful pilots who couldn't fly at all.

No misrepresentation at all. Consder:

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

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 02:28 PM

Is this going to be another thread where you repeat the same things over and over and over again?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:29 PM

If Hanjour actually had 600 hrs of flying time in anything he would have been very easily capable of doing what he did.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how your assertion squares with the following claims:

"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/...sses091901.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 declined to rent a plane to him without future training,’ Bernard said of Hanjour."

http://web.archive.org/web/200309080...s/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[I] 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/fullpag...56C0A9649C8B63

"[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/...in508656.shtml

beachnut

12th September 2008, 02:30 PM

Nothing in that quote resolves the contradiction. It's still the case that Hanjour, who many attest was a terrible pilot, made a maneuver that experts say only a highly trained pilot could pull off.

I was an instructor in a 300,000 pound jet aircraft. Anyone could do the simple maneuvers Hani did on 9/11, only people who are ignorant on flying issue and few fringe doltish pilots make up lies like you do.

Your experts are dolts.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how your assertion squares with the following claims:
Because you use hearsay and Reheat is a pilot. You present hearsay junk for something anyone can do. Hit the largest office building in the world.
Anyone off the street could fly as good as needed to crash into building, and not be able to land safely. Sorry, I have taken people flying in large jets, they were able to point the 300,000 pound plane with no problem, you are making up lies without experience or evidence. I have first hand experience with non pilots at the controls of planes and simulators.

You ideas are false, don't try to spew more hearsay and news stores and leave out the rest of the story.

lapman

12th September 2008, 02:30 PM

Nothing in that quote resolves the contradiction. It's still the case that Hanjour, who many attest was a terrible pilot, made a maneuver that experts say only a highly trained pilot could pull off.
You're "experts" make assumptions that are patently wrong. For instance, if Hani was a "highly trained" pilot, the turn would have never been made. As far as the turn is concerned, it is a basic flight maneuver (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/landing_in_baghdad.html) that ALL pilots learn. Of course, there are the lies like:
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.
It was a 330 degree turn. If your "source" can't even get the turn correct, how can anything else they say be credible? BTW, on my first solo, I had to make the "incredibly difficult" 360 degree turn while in the pattern at 1000' AGL.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:31 PM

Is this going to be another thread where you repeat the same things over and over and over again?

If that's what it takes to not be misrepresented, yes.

Are you going to address the contradiction I pointed out?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 02:31 PM

That would be "yes" then.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:38 PM

You're "experts" make assumptions that are patently wrong. For instance, if Hani was a "highly trained" pilot, the turn would have never been made.

Huh? How does that follow?

As far as the turn is concerned, it is a basic flight maneuver (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/landing_in_baghdad.html) that ALL pilots learn.

The "turn" wasn't the only aspect of the maneuver that made it difficult.

Of course, there are the lies like:
It was a 330 degree turn. If your "source" can't even get the turn correct, how can anything else they say be credible? BTW, on my first solo, I had to make the "incredibly difficult" 360 degree turn while in the pattern at 1000' AGL.

First observations can be wrong, which isn't all that surprising. But the claim that the maneuver performed was incredibly difficult has not been disputed in any mainstream news story I've come across.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 02:41 PM

First observations can be wrong

Says the one who keeps using accounts of "explosions" as gospel and literal truth. :rolleyes:

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:42 PM

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

Calcas

12th September 2008, 02:43 PM

I was an instructor in a 300,000 pound jet aircraft. Anyone could do the simple maneuvers Hani did on 9/11, only people who are ignorant on flying issue and few fringe doltish pilots make up lies like you do.

Your experts are dolts.

Because you use hearsay and Reheat is a pilot. You present hearsay junk for something anyone can do. Hit the largest office building in the world.
Anyone off the street could fly as good as needed to crash into building, and not be able to land safely. Sorry, I have taken people flying in large jets, they were able to point the 300,000 pound plane with no problem, you are making up lies without experience or evidence. I have first hand experience with non pilots at the controls of planes and simulators.

You ideas are false, don't try to spew more hearsay and news stores and leave out the rest of the story.

Since he stated that Beachnut was on ignore I thought I would quote his response for him.

Also, I love the way he cherry picks and leaves out pertinent info. For example, Daniele O'Brien said, "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."

Of course he ommitted the last sentence which completely explains the context. They thought (at first) it was a military plane because they weren't used to seeing airliners fly in such a manner. How hard is that to understand? How does that somehow bolster the CT position?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 02:44 PM

Them being "surprised" doesn't mean he didn't do it.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:44 PM

Says the one who keeps using accounts of "explosions" as gospel and literal truth. :rolleyes:

Stick to the topic. Will you address the claims in my post? (post 42)

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 02:45 PM

Since he stated that Beachnut was on ignore I thought I would quote his response for him.

Please refer him to post 42 and the links to the articles I posted there.

Tbone

12th September 2008, 02:47 PM

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

Good to know you don't think the President of the United States was involved in a conspiracy to attack itself.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 02:48 PM

Those links are almost seven years old, there has been a major investigation since then.

lapman

12th September 2008, 02:54 PM

Huh? How does that follow? A "highly trained" pilot would have timed the descent to fly directly into the Pentagon.

The "turn" wasn't the only aspect of the maneuver that made it difficult.
There is nothing difficult by said maneuver.

First observations can be wrong, which isn't all that surprising. But the claim that the maneuver performed was incredibly difficult has not been disputed in any mainstream news story I've come across.All of your quotes about the turn are based on faulty information. When all the real facts are looked at, it was not all that difficult.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:00 PM

A "highly trained" pilot would have timed the descent to fly directly into the Pentagon.
There is nothing difficult by said maneuver.
All of your quotes about the turn are based on faulty information. When all the real facts are looked at, it was not all that difficult.

Lapman, so you disagree with the "expert claims" made in the sources I cited, including one in the 9/11 Comission report.

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

Can you link me to some credible refutations of the claims in those sources I cited?

(Btw, I’ll state a fact that should be obvious to anyone who gives serious attention to post 43: the sources I cited include reports from the Washington Post, CBS news, Maryland Newsline, Greenbelt Gazette, and New York Times.)

Retrograde

12th September 2008, 03:02 PM

How good a pilot do you have to be to hit a huge target?

My flying experience has been almost entirely as a passenger - I've never managed to get a flight simulator to land in one piece. I've flown over the Pentagon, though, both before and after 9/11, and it's pretty hard to miss. It stands out: there aren't any other 29 acre, 921' on a side pentagonal buildings around there. It stands out. If the guy at the controls can steer the plane in the air he can steer it into the building.

We don't know if Hanjour hit where he was intending to, and he's certainly not talking. My own speculation is that he was supposed to target the Capitol (why? it's an iconic symbol of the US, on the highest spot in the area, with a large green space pointing right at it, and hitting it would take out most of one branch of the government causing an even greater blow to the US) but missed and went for a secondary target. Terrorists tend to strike where they will cause the most confusion and fear, and, Al Qaida post facto claims to the contrary, I don't think the Pentagon was that much in the American consciousness before 2001.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:02 PM

Those links are almost seven years old, there has been a major investigation since then.

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:03 PM

Stop repeating yourself.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:03 PM

How good a pilot do you have to be to hit a huge target?

Please see post 42.

lapman

12th September 2008, 03:04 PM

What part of "based on faulty information" are you failing to grasp? Even that quote is wrong. Hani did not make a high-speed dive into the Pentagon.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:06 PM

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

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:07 PM

Stop repeating yourself.

Then stop ignoring my posts. You claimed: "Those links are almost seven years old, there has been a major investigation since then."

And this was after I quoted page 334 of the 9/11 Comission report (the major "investigation" you referred to), which said "the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon."

Therefore, although the links I cited are "almost seven years old," they are by no means out-dated.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:08 PM

OK, so he was "surprised". So what?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:08 PM

What part of "based on faulty information" are you failing to grasp? Even that quote is wrong. Hani did not make a high-speed dive into the Pentagon.

What part of "link me to some credible refutations" do you not understand?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:10 PM

OK, so he was "surprised". So what?

You're not reading. He implicitly acknowledged the fact that Hanjour's piloting skills were very good - a claim supported by many other sources.

ktesibios

12th September 2008, 03:12 PM

Although he appears to be unwilling to notice it, reading this thread convinces me that R-L's claims have not merely been addressed, they've practically been put under an electron microscope, examined and found utterly wanting- in advance, no less, as the merger of threads makes clear.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:13 PM

You're not reading. He implicitly acknowledged the fact that Hanjour's piloting skills were very good.

Not necessarily.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:16 PM

I can say that a novice could adequately take control of an airborne aircraft and drive it into the broad side of a barn.

But not, according to experts, into the Pentagon the way Hanjour purportedly did.

"[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."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11

"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."

http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

"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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

"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 [Danielle] O'Brien."

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

"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."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Muga

lapman

12th September 2008, 03:16 PM

What part of "link me to some credible refutations" do you not understand?
What part of already (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/landing_in_baghdad.html) been (http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf) done are you failing to understand?

Calcas

12th September 2008, 03:19 PM

You're not reading. He implicitly acknowledged the fact that Hanjour's piloting skills were very good - a claim supported by many other sources.

Who cares?

Even IF we acknowledge that his piloting skills "were not very good" (which most of us do NOT acknowledge) then perhaps he just got lucky.

Regardless, Beachnut and other pilots have said how easy it is to take a Noob into a simulator and, once at altitude, teach someone to fly (and crash.)

Have you seen the Dutch video where complete novices went into a simulator and were able to hit the pentagon 3 out of 3 times?

Did you see the recent Mythbusters episode where both Jaime and Adam were able to LAND an airliner (simulator) simply by getting directions from someone on the ground even though neither of them have any experience?

Why would you think someone with 600 hours couldn't do it?

Seriously, this is old, and debunked ****. Can't you do any better?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:22 PM

What part of already (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/landing_in_baghdad.html) been (http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf) done are you failing to understand?

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/landing_in_baghdad.html?c=y&page=1

Point to a single sentence (if you can) that negates the claims I cited.

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

Same challenge. But, let's suppose you could with this one. What would that really tell us? You would only have one expert claiming - not arguing - that the sources I quoted are incorrect.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:26 PM

Who cares?

Even IF we acknowledge that his piloting skills "were not very good" (which most of us do NOT acknowledge) then perhaps he just got lucky.

Based on the quotes I provided, the claim that Hanjour "just got lucky" is highly implausible.

Regardless, Beachnut and other pilots have said how easy it is to take a Noob into a simulator and, once at altitude, teach someone to fly (and crash.)

Regardless, the numerous experts I cited and referenced said how difficult the Hanjour-dive is.

Have you seen the Dutch video where complete novices went into a simulator and were able to hit the pentagon 3 out of 3 times?

Did they make the same dive Hanjour purportedly did?

Did you see the recent Mythbusters episode where both Jaime and Adam were able to LAND an airliner (simulator) simply by getting directions from someone on the ground even though neither of them have any experience?

Why would you think someone with 600 hours couldn't do it?

Because of what the experts say. See post 42.

Seriously, this is old, and debunked ****. Can't you do any better?

It is old, but not yet debunked.

Tbone

12th September 2008, 03:27 PM

"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 [Danielle] O'Brien."

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

I was wondering where that quote was. You aren't worth the time.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 03:28 PM

Please see post 42.
Sorry please spell out with bank angle, speed, and the maneuver done that is too hard for Hani to do.

You can't so stop posting hearsay garbage from 9/11 truth failed idea bag of woo.

Why are you so ignorant of flying?

You have debunked ideas! Sorry, you can't even support your own ideas.

Debunked

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

As a pilot your ideas are nonsensical.

lapman

12th September 2008, 03:28 PM

But not, according to experts, into the Pentagon the way Hanjour purportedly did. Wrong

"[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."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11270 degree turn? Faulty information. Not credible.

"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."

http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm
270 degree turn? Faulty information. Not credible.

"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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtmlMade 2 days after the crash. No information known. Not credible.

"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 [Danielle] O'Brien."

http://911review.com/cache/errors/pentagon/abcnews102401b.html
Leaves out the important quote "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." So the ATCs were basing their opinion on how the plane was flown and not the piloting skills.

"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."

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#MugaThe Baghdad article shows how wrong this is. So far, you're batting zero.

16.5

12th September 2008, 03:29 PM

No, R-L, you are correct.

Lets call it a day.

Hani Hanjour was very inexperienced, of this there can be no doubt any longer.

I am certain that with him at the controls, the plane must surely crash.

Well done RL!! Huzzah!

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 03:30 PM

yeah your right RadicallyIllogical.. Hanjour flew in an unsafe manner and meant to take out that construction generator trailer and not only missed but failed to pull up over the pentagon for the cit flyover and a second go round.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:31 PM

Strange that he uses Bush as one of his "experts".

The highjackers focused on only three things: steering, navigation and speed. If you ignore everything else: takeoff, landing, altitude, passenger safety and comfort of course you'll fail the class.

Jonnyclueless

12th September 2008, 03:32 PM

So how does this prove Hani didn't fly the plane again?

beachnut

12th September 2008, 03:37 PM

This is the first in a series of posts where I detail the many contradictions in the official story. Do not bother posting in this thread if you're going to attack me personally,

Who needs to attack you; your ideas are pure junk!

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html
"People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!"
Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
You should not make up lies to a pilot who flies big jets. 7 years and you bring up stuff debunked in the same source if you read them. lol

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:38 PM

Wrong
270 degree turn? Faulty information. Not credible.
270 degree turn? Faulty information. Not credible.

As I pointed out, the fact that the "270 degree turn is wrong" doesn't mean the conclusion is incorrect.

Made 2 days after the crash. No information known. Not credible.

Mere Assertion.

"And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

What's not credible about this claim?

Leaves out the important quote

So the ATCs were basing their opinion on how the plane was flown and not the piloting skills.

One can determine the skill of a pilot by how he flies it.

The Baghdad article shows how wrong this is.

Mere Assertion. The Baghdad article doesn't even address flight 77.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:40 PM

"And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

What's not credible about this claim?

How can he know about the specifics of the maneuvers only two days after the event?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:41 PM

So how does this prove Hani didn't fly the plane again?

It doesn't. However, if the claims I cited are correct, then Hanjour most likely didn't pilot flight 77 because experts say he couldn't have.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 03:42 PM

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/landing_in_baghdad.html?c=y&page=1

Point to a single sentence (if you can) that negates the claims I cited.

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

Same challenge. But, let's suppose you could with this one. What would that really tell us? You would only have one expert claiming - not arguing - that the sources I quoted are incorrect.

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html
"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."
Source: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htmhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.47.0.1/t.gif (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm)

I am an expert as is Reheat we flew jets in the USAF. I instructed people in flying the KC-135, a four engine jet harder to fly than the 757/767. Your ideas are all wrong, but go ahead act like a person who can't think for them selves or use real evidence and testimony to find the truth.

Anyone could hit the Pentagon, only the p4t pilots say they can't. They are worse than the terrorist pilots; and you are a terrorist apologist tying to blame the US for the attacks. How pathetic.

I know hundreds of pilots in person, who agree with Reheat and I.

So you have .0001 percent of all pilots on your side. Not a good sign for your ideas; failed ideas.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:44 PM

How can he know about the specifics of the maneuvers only two days after the event?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

Check the date again and learn how to count.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:45 PM

It doesn't. However, if the claims I cited are correct, then Hanjour most likely didn't pilot flight 77 because experts say he couldn't have.

Again, not necessarily.

Since his only focus was to steer the plane and crash it at high speed at the ground, then it is not incomprehensible that he failed a flying class.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 03:45 PM

It doesn't. However, if the claims I cited are correct, then Hanjour most likely didn't pilot flight 77 because experts say he couldn't have. http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html debunked by me and others;
"Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001."
Source: http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.htmlhttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.47.0.1/t.gif (http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html)
(continues to "Report-244)
You are quote mining and cherry picking. How many pilots have you asked who are not p4t dolts?

If you would read the sources for the lies found in 9/11 truth, even you could comprehend you are spreading false information and being an apologist for terrorist.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:46 PM

Again, not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. If experts are correct in asserting that Hanjour could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did, then it's highly likely that he didn't.

defaultdotxbe

12th September 2008, 03:48 PM

But not, according to experts, into the Pentagon the way Hanjour purportedly did.

"[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."http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11
yes, hanjour was a trained pilot, anything else?

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 03:50 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

Check the date again and learn how to count.

At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn

Did you get that? Hanjour missed the largest and uniquely shaped office building in the world!

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:53 PM

Yes, necessarily. If experts are correct in asserting that Hanjour could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did, then it's highly likely that he didn't.

Again, you ignore my point. You're just going to keep repeating the same things and the same quotes again and again.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:54 PM

yes, hanjour was a trained pilot, anything else?

Yep.

"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

beachnut

12th September 2008, 03:56 PM

Yes, necessarily. If experts are correct in asserting that Hanjour could not have flown 77 into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did, then it's highly likely that he didn't.

I have flown for over 35 years. I taught other how to fly KC-135s a four engine jet in the USAF like a 707. I believe the KC is harder to fly than a 757/767, the new planes have very good flight controls that take out some of the bad qualities of response that made it hard to fly large jets.

Radical logic has me on ignore. There are some good ideas here

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html (http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html)

And here: http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)

I took kids and put them in the simulator and they flew into buildings with ease.

I have let non pilots fly the KC-135, and they had no problems controlling the plane. Some people can't keep anything under control, they may have problems flying for sustained periods. It is easy to crash into a building than land!

Radical logic is spreading old debunked cherry picked, quote mine, junk on Hani. Not a thing done flying on 9/11 required pilot skills;

Sad, the terrorist were pilot who persevered and learned to fly 1,000 times better than Radical logic is at understanding 9/11.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 03:57 PM

Again, you ignore my point.

I only ignored the point that was irrelevant.

In response to my statement which said: "However, if the claims I cited are correct, then Hanjour most likely didn't pilot flight 77 because experts say he couldn't have."

You wrote: "Again, not necessarily."

I won't repeat again why it has to be "yes, necessarily."

Kent1

12th September 2008, 03:58 PM

Yep.

"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
As shown previously in this thread, his flight school trainers Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard do not share the same doubt as you. In posts such as 35,36.

16.5

12th September 2008, 03:59 PM

Please see post 42.

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

Lapman, so you disagree with the "expert claims" made in the sources I cited, including one in the 9/11 Comission report.

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

Can you link me to some credible refutations of the claims in those sources I cited?

(Btw, I’ll state a fact that should be obvious to anyone who gives serious attention to post 43: the sources I cited include reports from the Washington Post, CBS news, Maryland Newsline, Greenbelt Gazette, and New York Times.)

Please refer him to post 42 and the links to the articles I posted there.

"As a former pilot, the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon." (9/11 Comission Report page 334)

I have flown for over 35 years. I taught other how to fly KC-135s a four engine jet in the USAF like a 707. I believe the KC is harder to fly than a 757/767, the new planes have very good flight controls that take out some of the bad qualities of response that made it hard to fly large jets.

Radical logic has me on ignore. There are some good ideas here

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html (http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html)

And here: http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)

I took kids and put them in the simulator and they flew into buildings with ease.

I have let non pilots fly the KC-135, and they had no problems controlling the plane. Some people can't keep anything under control, they may have problems flying for sustained periods. It is easy to crash into a building than land!

Radical logic is spreading old debunked cherry picked, quote mine, junk on Hani. Not a thing done flying on 9/11 required pilot skills;

Sad, the terrorist were pilot who persevered and learned to fly 1,000 times better than Radical logic is at understanding 9/11.

Bumped for RL

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 03:59 PM

Argument ad nauseam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam) is not a valid form of argument.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:00 PM

Did you get that? Hanjour missed the largest and uniquely shaped office building in the world!

That is a mystery, but, again, irrelevant to the contradiction I pointed out.

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

If ~A is true, then, as experts say, he couldn't have flown 77 into the Pentagon.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:02 PM

Argument ad nauseam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam) is not a valid form or argument.

You asserted that my claim was not necessarily true, and I showed how your claim is wrong. Demonstrating ad nauseam that you are wrong doesn't mean I haven't shown the falsity of your claim.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:02 PM

That is a mystery, but, again, irrelevant to the contradiction I pointed out.

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

If ~A is true, then, as experts say, he couldn't have flown 77 into the Pentagon.

Again, you have to take into consideration that he didn't care for take off, landing, altitude and passenger safety.

That made him a bad pilot.

I expect this to be ignored again, and RL to post the same quotes and links again.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 04:06 PM

That is a mystery, but, again, irrelevant to the contradiction I pointed out.

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

If ~A is true, then, as experts say, he couldn't have flown 77 into the Pentagon.

No mystery at all. he missed and possibly panicked. Making the turn as tight and as quick as possible because the longer he was in the air. the more chance (in his mind ) he could be blocked from his target by intercepts If he saw the c-130

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:07 PM

As shown previously in this thread, his flight school trainers Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard do not share the same doubt as you. In posts such as 35,36.

http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

All the article shows is that Peggy thought "Hani was part of it," NOT the he flew flight 77 into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did.

The article goes on to say: "Chevrette, manager of a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona, said she had telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) three times to express concerns that Hanjour's piloting skills that were so bad she thought he would injure himself or others."

So, it's simply false that Peggy doesn't doubt the piloting skills of Hanjour. She definitely does.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 04:07 PM

That is a mystery, but, again, irrelevant to the contradiction I pointed out.

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

If ~A is true, then, as experts say, he couldn't have flown 77 into the Pentagon.

WRONG

A non pilot could fly a 757 into the Pentagon without training of any kind!

C. !!!!!! LOL

Radical logic? LOL

you are using faulty logic RL

Hani did not do anything special, his turns were typical big plane slow junk. Normal poor flying can crash a plane into a building. Most pilots land on a runway, no wonder Hani hit the Pentagon, he couldn't land anyway, the perfect terrorist.

Why are you a terrorist apologists?

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:09 PM

http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=55&fArticleId=3171841

All the article shows is that Peggy thought "Hani was part of it," NOT the he flew flight 77 into the Pentagon the way he allegedly did.

The article goes on to say: "Chevrette, manager of a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona, said she had telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) three times to express concerns that Hanjour's piloting skills that were so bad she thought he would injure himself or others."

So, it's simply false that Peggy doesn't doubt the piloting skills of Hanjour. She definitely does.
You're kidding right?
"I remember crying ... knowing that our company helped to do this."

Witnesses told yesterday how, despite poor piloting skills and bizarre airborne antics, the hijackers had evaded detection by authorities as they learned to fly in the US in the months before the strikes.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:09 PM

No mystery at all. he missed

Missed intentionally or unintentionally?

and possibly panicked.

Possibly, you are speculating.

Making the turn as tight and as quick as possible because the longer he was in the air. the more chance (in his mind ) he could be blocked from his target by intercepts If he saw the c-130

None of this address the contradiction I pointed out.

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

If ~A is true, then, as experts say, he couldn't have flown 77 into the Pentagon.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:10 PM

Any bets on how long this thread is going to be?

15 pages? 20?

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 04:10 PM

That is a mystery, but, again, irrelevant to the contradiction I pointed out.

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

If ~A is true, then, as experts say, he couldn't have flown 77 into the Pentagon.

What contradiction?

Some guys hijack a plane and fly it into a building. Is that so hard to understand?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:11 PM

You're kidding right?
"I remember crying ... knowing that our company helped to do this."

No, I am not kidding.

"Chevrette, manager of a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona, said she had telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) three times to express concerns that Hanjour's piloting skills that were so bad she thought he would injure himself or others. "

Therefore, it's not the case that she doubted Hanjour's piloting skills. She took action based on the firm belief that they were bad.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:13 PM

beachnut

12th September 2008, 04:13 PM

Yep.
"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."

"His flying skills were so poor overall that [instructors] declined to rent a plane to him without future training," Bernard said of Hanjour.
Darn, all Hani had to do was aim and get near the tiny airport runway so small you would not believe the Pentagon as hundreds of times bigger! Do you ever check your pathetic junk ideas?

Future training. They would rent if he could be trained to land properly on the tiny runway. It was small!

But then 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)

Your own Bernard says he can hit the Pentagon. You are a cherry picking false information hearsay expert on this.

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:13 PM

No, I am not kidding.

"Chevrette, manager of a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona, said she had telephoned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) three times to express concerns that Hanjour's piloting skills that were so bad she thought he would injure himself or others. "

Therefore, it's not the case that she doubted Hanjour's piloting skills. She took action based on the firm belief that they were bad.

Nothing of which refutes what I stated.
I also added.
Witnesses told yesterday how, despite poor piloting skills and bizarre airborne antics, the hijackers had evaded detection by authorities as they learned to fly in the US in the months before the strikes.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:13 PM

What contradiction?

Some guys hijack a plane and fly it into a building. Is that so hard to understand?

Contradiction: (A ^~A)

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Is that more explicit for you?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:16 PM

Nothing of which refutes what I stated.

Actually, it does. You previously said: "As shown previously in this thread, his flight school trainers Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard do not share the same doubt as you."

Based on what they and other experts have said, I doubt the claim that Hanjour's piloting skills were very good. Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard DO share the belief that Hanjour's piloting skills were very bad.

Hence, they share the same doubt as me.

I also added.
Witnesses told yesterday how, despite poor piloting skills and bizarre airborne antics, the hijackers had evaded detection by authorities as they learned to fly in the US in the months before the strikes.

What does this have to do with Hanjour's alleged super-ability to fly 77 into the pentagon? Or with the claim that he was NOT a very good pilot at all?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:18 PM

Is it my accent?

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:20 PM

Actually, it does. You previously said: "As shown previously in this thread, his flight school trainers Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard do not share the same doubt as you."

Based on what they and other experts have said, I doubt the claim that Hanjour's piloting skills were very good. Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard DO share the belief that Hanjour's piloting skills were very bad.

Hence, they share the same doubt as me.

What does this have to do with Hanjour's alleged super-ability to fly 77 into the pentagon?
Oh, well then silly me I thought you had strong doubts that Hani couldn't of done it.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:22 PM

There is reason to doubt that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon, yes.

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:25 PM

There is reason to doubt that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon, yes.
So then they don't share the same doubts as you?

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 04:26 PM

Contradiction: (A ^~A)

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Is that more explicit for you?

NO, it is not.

Explain why you belief there is a contradiction here and more to the point explain exactly what on earth you are talking about. Explain your so called theory.

Go on, I defy you. Go on just spell it out.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:27 PM

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:28 PM

NO, it is not.

Explain why you belief there is a contradiction here and more to the point explain exactly what on earth you are talking about. Explain your so called theory.

Go on, I defy you. Go on just spell it out.

If you don't see how A^~A is a contradiction, then I give up.

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:32 PM

Kent, you previously said: "As shown previously in this thread, his flight school trainers Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard do not share the same doubt as you."

How have you shown this? Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard believe that Hanjour was a terrible pilot, which is what other experts have also claimed.

It is also claimed by many experts that the pilot who flew 77 into the pentagon must have been very good (see post 42).

Don't you see the contradiction?
Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:34 PM

So then they don't share the same doubts as you?

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 04:34 PM

There is reason to doubt that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon, yes.
No, anyone could fly a 757 into the Pentagon. A low time single engine pilot hit the Pentagon the first time in a 757 simulator.

The only pilots who can't hit the Pentagon are p4t pilots; they are not as good at flying as the terrorist; p4t said so.

Even your sources, if you research them, debunk your idea on Hani.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 04:35 PM

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
Too bad, they said more! Sad to see the truth covered up by you.
… 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)

Bernard says he can hit the Pentagon

DEBUNKED

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:36 PM

Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem.

Again, if it's true - as many experts say - that the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon was highly skilled, then it's probably not true that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon because his trainers say he was terribly skilled.

Address the contradiction.

Dave Rogers

12th September 2008, 04:39 PM

Contradiction: (A ^~A)

A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Is that more explicit for you?

Your logic is incorrect. There isn't a binary choice, of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible". Nor is there a simple linear scale of ability. Piloting is a complex set of skills in a wide variety of different situations. The expert quotes you cite are overall appraisals of Hanjour's skill, making no attempt to differentiate between different areas of ability. For example, a pilot who is able to control an airplane in flight, navigate accurately and execute turns, climbs and dives with reasonable precision, but is unable to take off, land or communicate effectively with air traffic controllers, might reasonably be described as a terrible pilot, yet be able to execute the maneuvers seen from flight 77 on 9/11. Therefore your argument is rejected, as it is based on the gross and unrealistic oversimplification that piloting skill may be expressed on a one-dimensional scale.

Dave

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:40 PM

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 04:42 PM

If you don't see how A^~A is a contradiction, then I give up.

What about if he was a medico pilot? You know some guy who was good enough to grab the controls and fly a plane and think “Oh Crap I missed my target better turn round and try again”? Is that possible RL?

Where, in your black and white world of good and bad, right and wrong, does that sit RL?

Don’t give up LC, I am fascinated by your theories, oh wait you haven’t got one right?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:50 PM

Your logic is incorrect. There isn't a binary choice, of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible". Nor is there a simple linear scale of ability. Piloting is a complex set of skills in a wide variety of different situations. The expert quotes you cite are overall appraisals of Hanjour's skill, making no attempt to differentiate between different areas of ability. For example, a pilot who is able to control an airplane in flight, navigate accurately and execute turns, climbs and dives with reasonable precision, but is unable to take off, land or communicate effectively with air traffic controllers, might reasonably be described as a terrible pilot, yet be able to execute the maneuvers seen from flight 77 on 9/11. Therefore your argument is rejected, as it is based on the gross and unrealistic oversimplification that piloting skill may be expressed on a one-dimensional scale.

Dave

My logic is not incorrect, nor am I assuming a "binary choice of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible."

I've studied piano for many years, and I know from experience of course that everyone has their "specializations"--it could be that I play Bach better than my friend, though she plays Chopin better. Nevertheless, a "terrible" pianist who can barely get through scales cannot play either.

The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 04:51 PM

Again, if it's true - as many experts say - that the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon was highly skilled, then it's probably not true that Hanjour flew 77 into the Pentagon because his trainers say he was terribly skilled.

Address the contradiction.

It is not true, there is no need for experience or even a pilot to hit the Pentagon. Failure is yours, or are you just repeating the lies that fool you?

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

As I pilot, I find you have failed.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:52 PM

The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.

They don't refer to anything he specifically wasn't good at, except that he didn't speak or write in English well enough, which was of no consequence for him anyway.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:53 PM

Lets try this again,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I could care less about his exact skill set. I'm not shocked about contradictions. I think I've addressed that fine on post 141. As have others.

No, you haven't addressed the contradiction.

"Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem. " (post 141)

Where did you even attempt to resolve it?

here it is again:
---------------------
A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
-----------------------

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:55 PM

Beachnut is obviously on ignore, so let me quote him:
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)

Bernard says he can hit the Pentagon

DEBUNKED

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:55 PM

They don't refer to anything he specifically wasn't good at,

Irrelevant. If numerous experts assert that Jane was a horrible teacher, even going so far as to question the authenticity of her teacher's licence, then I don't have to know exactly which aspects she was bad at. It's enough to know that she was very bad.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 04:55 PM

My logic is not incorrect, nor am I assuming a "binary choice of the form "All pilots are either good or terrible."

I've studied piano for many years, and I know from experience of course that everyone has their "specializations"--it could be that I play Bach better than my friend, though she plays Chopin better. Nevertheless, a "terrible" pianist who can barely get through scales cannot play either.

The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.

Funny stuff.

Yes it is hard to fly; but piano!

Anyone can play a piano bad and hit the Pentagon with it! LOL

your logic has failed you

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html (http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html)

Kent1

12th September 2008, 04:57 PM

No, you haven't addressed the contradiction.

"Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

I've seen it, so what. We don't don't what gauge is used to determine what one can do or not do. I would guess his flight trainer would be a good judge there. Two of them clearly don't have a problem. " (post 141)

Where did you even attempt to resolve it?

here it is again:
---------------------
A=Hani Hanjour was a highly skilled pilot.

~A=Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot.

Both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard, as well as other experts, believe that ~A is true and A is false.

But it's also the case, as I pointed out, that experts believe the pilot who flew 77 into the Pentagon must have been highly skilled. Therefore, if Hanjour flew 77 into the pentagon, then he must have been highly skilled.

But Hanjour was not highly skilled - in fact, he was terrible - as both Peggy Chevrette and Marcel Bernard claim.
-----------------------
I stand by what you quoted, and I'm happy with the answers that others have posted. Sorry it wasn't to your satisfaction but I'm happy, now then....I'll ask once last time...
Again, so its clear,... do YOU have strong doubts that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 04:58 PM

Irrelevant.

Yes it is relevant. If he didn't master take-off, landing, the english language, altitude control or anything else like passenger safety that would make him a terrible pilot and still allow him to perform his tasks to steer the plane and ram it against the Pentagon.

So of course he would be a danger at the helm of a plane, but that was the whole point wasn't it, to crash the plane?

Of course you'll keep ignoring this.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:58 PM

Beachnut is obviously on ignore, so let me quote him:

May have been true about the WTC towers, but not about the Pentagon. To hit the latter, as experts say, you don't just "point and hit."

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 04:58 PM

false choice logical fallacy noted (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/falsedilemmas.html),

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."[ (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour#cite_note-frank-24)

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 04:59 PM

I stand by what you quoted.

Point to where you "addressed" my contradiction.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:01 PM

May have been true about the WTC towers, but not about the Pentagon. To hit the latter, as experts say, you don't just "point and hit."

In Beachnut's link he specifically is talking about Hanjour.

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

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:02 PM

Yes it is relevant. If he didn't master take-off, landing, the english language, altitude control or anything else like passenger safety that would make him a terrible pilot and still allow him to perform his tasks to steer the plane and ram it against the Pentagon.

So of course he would be a danger at the helm of a plane, but that was the whole point wasn't it, to crash the plane?

Of course you'll keep ignoring this.

The claims of experts I cited made it clear that the 77-dive was an advanced maneuver. How well did Hanjour fare in the "advanced" classes?

Dave Rogers

12th September 2008, 05:03 PM

I've studied piano for many years, and I know from experience of course that everyone has their "specializations"--it could be that I play Bach better than my friend, though she plays Chopin better. Nevertheless, a "terrible" pianist who can barely get through scales cannot play either.

Your experience on the piano is utterly irrelevant, and your reference to it unworthy of comment. Flying involves many very different skills, and takeoffs and landings are generally understood to be the most difficult. A pilot who can fly straight and level, execute turns, and navigate, but can't take off or land safely, could correctly be described as an awful pilot. Therefore, none of the expert quotes exclude the possibility that aspects of Hanjour's flying were competent.

The quotes I cited suggest that Hanjour was that bad - so bad, in fact, that instructors questioned whether his pilot's licence was genuine.

Hypothetically, this would be a reasonable assessment even if his only shortcoming was an inability to land without causing serious damage to his airplane. Therefore there is no contradiction established.

Show me a single quote that suggests that Hanjour was specifically incompetent at the relatively simple areas of flying straight and level, executing turns, climbs and dives, and navigation. Then you can set those against Marcel Bernard's expert assessment that Hanjour's skill level in those specific areas was sufficient to carry out the maneuvers observed.

When you've got a quote saying that, I may want to respond. On the other hand, you could keep on repeating your logically flawed analysis in the hope that that will prove something.

Dave

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:04 PM

In Beachnut's link he specifically is talking about Hanjour.

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

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

Jonnyclueless

12th September 2008, 05:05 PM

It doesn't. However, if the claims I cited are correct, then Hanjour most likely didn't pilot flight 77 because experts say he couldn't have.

Please don't lie. Experts do NOT say he couldn't have. That is an outright lie, and the quotes you took out of context do NOT say that.

If you have some evidence that Hani didn't fly the plane, then please share it. So far you have not done this.

Jonnyclueless

12th September 2008, 05:07 PM

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

Once again you are lying by saying that experts say it was performed with military precision. most experts do NOT say this and say that a child could have performed those moves. To sit here and take a few quotes out of context to claim that the professional pilot opinion was that he could not have done it is a lie.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:07 PM

The claims of experts I cited made it clear that the 77-dive was an advanced maneuver. How well did Hanjour fare in the "advanced" classes?

Pilots in this very thread have stated that it wasn't a particurlarly difficult maneuvre.

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."

But that doesn't change the fact that Bernard was talking about Hanjour.

You can't have it both ways.

Jonnyclueless

12th September 2008, 05:08 PM

The claims of experts I cited made it clear that the 77-dive was an advanced maneuver. How well did Hanjour fare in the "advanced" classes?

And you intentionally leave out the experts that make it clear the dive was an easy maneuver. How honest is that?

Kent1

12th September 2008, 05:08 PM

Point to where you "addressed" my contradiction.
Well, I'm done. I gave you one more try.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 05:11 PM

"he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it"

Again, the "point-and-hit" technique does not describe the 77-dive into the Pentagon, which experts say was performed with "almost military precision."
Not one expert said so! The only people that say this are evidence free truthers.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html (http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html)

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

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 05:12 PM

What about if he was a medico pilot? You know some guy who was good enough to grab the controls and fly a plane and think “Oh Crap I missed my target better turn round and try again”? Is that possible RL?

Where, in your black and white world of good and bad, right and wrong, does that sit RL?

Don’t give up LC, I am fascinated by your theories, oh wait you haven’t got one right?

RL ?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:12 PM

Maybe it would be best if RL took Beachnut out of ignore?

Anyway:
Not one expert said so! The only people that say this are evidence free truthers.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)

http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html (http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html)

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

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:15 PM

Your experience on the piano is utterly irrelevant,

But my point isn't. If Hanjour was that bad, then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - let alone the advanced maneuvers.

Flying involves many very different skills, and takeoffs and landings are generally understood to be the most difficult.

Note the key word "generally." Many experts believe the 77-maneuver was also very difficult as well.

A pilot who can fly straight and level, execute turns, and navigate, but can't take off or land safely, could correctly be described as an awful pilot. Therefore, none of the expert quotes exclude the possibility that aspects of Hanjour's flying were competent.

Except that his trainers thought his skills were so poort that they questioned the authenticity of his licence - hence strongly implying that he didn't know the basics.

Hypothetically, this would be a reasonable assessment even if his only shortcoming was an inability to land without causing serious damage to his airplane. Therefore there is no contradiction established.

Show me a single quote that suggests that Hanjour was specifically incompetent at the relatively simple areas of flying straight and level, executing turns, climbs and dives, and navigation. Then you can set those against Marcel Bernard's expert assessment that Hanjour's skill level in those specific areas was sufficient to carry out the maneuvers observed.

When you've got a quote saying that, I may want to respond. On the other hand, you could keep on repeating your logically flawed analysis in the hope that that will prove something.

Dave

"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 05:17 PM

But my point isn't. If Hanjour was that bad, then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - let alone the advanced maneuvers.

Note the key word "generally." Many experts believe the 77-maneuver was also very difficult as well.

Except that his trainers thought his skills were so poort that they questioned the authenticity of his licence - hence strongly implying that he didn't know the basics.

"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

So he was a crap pilot, right?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:17 PM

Please don't lie. Experts do NOT say he couldn't have. That is an outright lie, and the quotes you took out of context do NOT say that.

If you have some evidence that Hani didn't fly the plane, then please share it. So far you have not done this.

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.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:18 PM

If Hanjour was that bad,

None of your links say specifically how bad he actually was, in which aspects of piloting specifically.

then he would have been incapable of excelling in any aspect of piloting - much less the advanced maneuvers.

Not true, as we've said again and again, once the plane is off the ground and you don't have to bother with passenger safety, air control communication and landing, the rest of the flight is relatively easy.

You keep ignoring this.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:19 PM

so even with documented 600 hours flight time you cannot perform those maneuvers unless you are fluent in English?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour

Claim

Hani Hanjour had poor piloting skills, and couldn't have executed a 270° (or 330°) turn that the aircraft made before its final approach in hitting the Pentagon.
Fact

The main concerns that flight instructors had about Hani were his poor English language skills and behavior problems.

"He didn't do his homework, didn't attend on time and he would sort of come and go," said Duncan Hastie of Cockpit Resource Management.[20] (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour#cite_note-19)

"He wasn't the greatest of students in terms of his attitude, but most of that was his lack of ability to communicate in English, and I don't speak Arabic." said one of his flight instructors in Arizona.[5] (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour#cite_note-chen-4)

Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix, "Hanjour's English was so poor that it took him five hours to complete a section of a mock pilot's oral exam that is supposed to last just a couple of hours."[21] (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour#cite_note-20)
Hani Hanjour did have a commercial pilots license, as well as instrument rating. Many concerns expressed about his ability had to do with his poor English language skills. The FAA requires commercial pilots to be able to speak and write fluently in English.[22] (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour#cite_note-21)
The New York Daily News spoke with an expert who said, "steering a large jet into a huge building wouldn't require a great deal of skill because taking off and landing are the most difficult maneuvers. A few hours in a twin-engine plane or a decent simulator could get you there."[23] (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour#cite_note-22)

beachnut

12th September 2008, 05:20 PM

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:21 PM

Pilots in this very thread have stated that it wasn't a particurlarly difficult maneuvre.

Pilots referenced in the sources I quoted (on the record and in reputable newspapers) stated that it WAS a particularly difficult maneuver. So there.

But that doesn't change the fact that Bernard was talking about Hanjour.

You can't have it both ways.

I never denied that Bernard wasn't talking about Hanjour. What I deny is that the "point-and-hit" technique is applicable to the flight 77 dive, as many experts testify.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 05:23 PM

so even with documented 600 hours flight time you cannot perform those maneuvers unless you are fluent in English?

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour
Or play a piano;

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:24 PM

Pilots referenced in the sources I quoted (on the record and in reputable newspapers) stated that it WAS a particularly difficult maneuver. So there.

No, your quotes date from a few days after the event, when people didn't know the specific flight trajectory and circumstances.

I never denied that Bernard wasn't talking about Hanjour. What I deny is that the "point-and-hit" technique is applicable to the flight 77 dive, as many experts testify.

But Bernard is an expert, an expert you keep citing. Yet as Beachnut has shown, agrees that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the Pentagon.

You can't have it both ways.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:25 PM

and landing, the rest of the flight is relatively easy.

You keep ignoring this.

Except that the flight 77 dive was NOT easy--you keep ignoring this.

"[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." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11

"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."

http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

"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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

"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 [Danielle] O'Brien."

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

"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."

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

"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:26 PM

the last moments of flight 77 sure look like a point and hit to me

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_final_maneuver.png

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:27 PM

RL, none of your links work, and you'll be reported if you post the same links over and over again. You've posted them five times already.

That is spamming.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:28 PM

And you intentionally leave out the experts that make it clear the dive was an easy maneuver. How honest is that?

1. Show me the links to reputable sources that quote experts denying the claims I cited.

2. On what basis do you deny the sources I cited?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:32 PM

Yet as Beachnut has shown, agrees that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the Pentagon.

Misrepresentation. He does not say this.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:33 PM

Misrepresentation. He does not say this.

He does, quite literally.

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.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:34 PM

RL, none of your links work, and you'll be reported if you post the same links over and over again. You've posted them five times already.

That is spamming.

You keep ignoring my point. You said: "the rest of the flight is relatively easy"

With respect to the flight-77 dive, that is not the case, as I need to keep repeating.

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 05:34 PM

LC RL, what exactly is your point?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:38 PM

You keep ignoring my point. You said: "the rest of the flight is relatively easy"

With respect to the flight-77 dive, that is not the case, as I need to keep repeating.

One of the links (the CBS one (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml)) you keep relinking to says this:

Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.Which of course was shown to be wrong.

That's what happens when you only retain sources a few days after the events. You only get first impressions.

There has been a detailed analysis and investigation into this flight after september 21, and there is no doubt it was flight 77 flown by Hanjour.

But I suspect you'll keep referring to this sept 21 2001 article, because it fits with your worldview.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:38 PM

He does, quite literally.

"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,"

I don't see the word "any" there.

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.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:38 PM

whats so difficult about flight 77s point and dive? Flight 93's dive was steeper and even upside down.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:39 PM

Which of course was shown to be wrong.

Fine. Show that the experts who said the flight-77 dive was difficult are wrong.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:40 PM

"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,"

Yes, the Pentagon is a building.

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.

No, because he was talking about Hanjour and the Pentagon specifically.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:41 PM

LC RL, what exactly is your point?

That there is a contradiction.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:42 PM

Yes, the Pentagon is a building.

No, because he was talking about Hanjour and the Pentagon specifically.

The Pentagon building was not specified.

Point to where he specifies the Pentagon.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:43 PM

Fine. Show that the experts who said the flight-77 dive was difficult are wrong.

Why don't you ask the experts in this thread?

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:43 PM

That there is a contradiction.

a contradiction of opinion only weeks after the event before data was analyzed

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:44 PM

The Pentagon building was not specified.

Point to where he specifies the Pentagon.

He was talking about Hanjour. Hanjour flew into the Pentagon.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:46 PM

The Pentagon building was not specified.

Point to where he specifies the Pentagon.

Oh then he meant all the other example buildings in the world which were smaller? Do you see how this does not help your case?

beachnut

12th September 2008, 05:46 PM

Pilots referenced in the sources I quoted (on the record and in reputable newspapers) stated that it WAS a particularly difficult maneuver. So there.

I never denied that Bernard wasn't talking about Hanjour. What I deny is that the "point-and-hit" technique is applicable to the flight 77 dive, as many experts testify.
A 330 degree turn is just an ordinary turn. He used 25 to 40 degree of bank, usually about 30, which is normal! The turn took for ever, it was just like an airliner turn! He used 300 KIAS, the speed a 757 loves to fly at!

Only idiots would say it was a difficult maneuver!

MarkyX

12th September 2008, 05:47 PM

2. On what basis do you deny the sources I cited?

The first link you posted was made on September 12th, 2001

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:47 PM

Why don't you ask the experts in this thread?

The so-called experts in this thread are contradicted by experts on other sites and news sources.

Why take their word simply because they post on this site?

(btw, before you misrepresent me, I am NOT saying that I firmly believe the experts I cite - only that there are enough serious questions with the official story due to the contradiction that the issue is worth further investigations).

You, however, dismiss all the experts who disagree with you and think the case has been resolved.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:48 PM

a contradiction of opinion only weeks after the event before data was analyzed

And the data has been analyzed. What do the experts now say? present your links.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:49 PM

A 330 degree turn is just an ordinary turn. He used 25 to 40 degree of bank, ususally about 30, which is normal! The turn took for ever, it was just like an airliner turn!

Only idiots would say it was a difficult maneuver!

Which sounds exactly like my very first jumbo jet flight out of Newark liberty in which every flight banks over Newark bay because of noise abatement.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:50 PM

He was talking about Hanjour. Hanjour flew into the Pentagon.

Again, he did not say that Hanjour could have flown into the pentagon the way he allegedly did - only that he had enough skills to fly into "a building" using the generic "hit and aim" technique.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:51 PM

And the data has been analyzed. What do the experts now say? present your links.

done
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4031665&postcount=177

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:51 PM

The first link you posted was made on September 12th, 2001

So what? That doesn't make it untrue - early information can withstand the test of time.

Also, you haven't delt with my other sources.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:52 PM

The so-called experts in this thread are contradicted by experts on other sites and news sources.

Why take their word simply because they post on this site?

Because they are here at your disposal, and you started this discussion. This means you want to talk about it, and you want people's opinions. This is a discussion forum, the word 'discussion' implies that you consider other people's opinions, especially people who know more about a subject than you.

You haven't done that.

You keep to your initial idea and keep posting the same things over and over again, which is the equivalent of sticking your fingers into your ears and singing "la la la la".

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:52 PM

So what? That doesn't make it untrue - early information can withstand the test of time.

Also, you haven't delt with my other sources.

those other links are broken

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:53 PM

done
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4031665&postcount=177

I'm not going to take forum posts seriously. Point me to credible news articles that dispute the findings I cited.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:54 PM

those other links are broken

Check them again. If they don't work, check post 42

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:55 PM

I'm not going to take forum posts seriously.

Then what are you here for?

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 05:56 PM

I'm not going to take forum posts seriously. Point me to credible news articles that dispute the findings I cited.

well then I'm not going to take your forum posts seriously. my post has a link to a source listing the articles you ask for.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:57 PM

Because they are here at your disposal, and you started this discussion. This means you want to talk about it, and you want people's opinions. This is a discussion forum, the word 'discussion' implies that you consider other people's opinions, especially people who know more about a subject than you.

Except all they're doing is asserting that "I'm wrong" and that's it. Also, since I don't know them, I don't know if they're really "experts" - so their credibility from the outset is questionable.

Why take their word simply because they post on this site?

Also, why dismiss out of hand all the experts who disagree with you?

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 05:57 PM

That there is a contradiction.

NO THERE IS NOT.

A guy jumps into a cockpit, flies a plane and slams it into a building.

Where is the contradiction?

PS why are you ignoring the thread, I started for you?

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 05:59 PM

Also, why dismiss out of hand all the experts who disagree with you?

Bernard doesn't agree with you. He says there is not doubt in his mind that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the building.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 05:59 PM

well then I'm not going to take your forum posts seriously.

If I simply assert my opinion without citing credible sources, then I don't expect you to.

my post has a link to a source listing the articles you ask for.

No, I want specifics. I browsed through them and could find nothing that adequately addressed the expert claims I cited.

Give me a specific quote and a specific link, like I have in this thread.

beachnut

12th September 2008, 06:00 PM

Except that the flight 77 dive was NOT easy--you keep ignoring this.

"[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." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11

"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."

http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

"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."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

"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 [Danielle] O'Brien."

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

"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."

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

"After the attacks, for example, aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 -- a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon -- was the work of "a great talent . . . virtually a textbook turn and landing," the law enforcement official said. Hanjour, in fact, had piled up hundreds of hours of pilot training, but months before the attacks had failed to earn a rating to fly a Boeing 737 (the hijacked plane was a 757). His instructors became so alarmed by his crude skills and limited English they notified the FAA to determine whether his pilot's license was real. "

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/wpost091002b.html

"[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." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11)

WRONG. They were talking about the speed! All the planes they see that close are going 200 KIAS and less than 250 KIAS. 77 was going 300 KIAS, only military planes do this near the airport because they have WAIVERS TO DO IT.
Your news story is not right.

LOL; the tight pivot turn was over 26,000 feet wide! LOL You are being taken by news stories by non experts. As in not pilots!

LOL, the transponder, they had the 757 manuals! This is real funny, all pilots use transponders even bad pilots! Your posting pure stupid from non experts!

The turn was sloppy, your sources are wrong again!

The turn and descent from 7000 feet was easy, your sources are bad and wrong.

You posted the dumbest news articles on flying I have seen.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html)
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html (http://911debunker.livejournal.com/2647.html)
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf (http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf)

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:01 PM

Bernard doesn't agree with you. He says there is not doubt in his mind that Hanjour could have piloted the plane into the building.

Again, you misquoted him. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 06:03 PM

Again, you misquoted him. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Read it for yourself then:

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.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:05 PM

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 06:07 PM

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

Complete nonsense.

The Pentagon is a building. Bernard knows Hanjour is the one who flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Obviously you've got issues, so this is my last comment in this thread:

"It's much better to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has got it wrong because it doesn't share your point of view." aggle-rithm

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:11 PM

Complete nonsense.

The Pentagon is a building.

So is the Empire State Building. But neither were specified in the quote.

Bernard knows Hanjour is the one who flew the plane into the Pentagon.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

One can be aware of the offical story without endorsing it.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 06:12 PM

If I simply assert my opinion without citing credible sources, then I don't expect you to.

No, I want specifics. I browsed through them and could find nothing that adequately addressed the expert claims I cited.

Give me a specific quote and a specific link, like I have in this thread.

false choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)logical fallacy and moving the goalposts logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost)noted.

You know very well that other experts opinions conflicts with those who find the maneuvers incredulous. so instead you ask for specific counters to specific claims of specific individuals. Thus you hope to find the toe hold for which you have been searching seven years in an effort to lend credibility to a conspiracy fantasy to support your world view. you fail.

Arus808

12th September 2008, 06:14 PM

And this goes to show that RL is nothing more than a trool and another thread, in which he repeats the same thing over and over again

Now he is using the "semantic" tacitc, where unless the person is specifically stating the "Pentagon" then "a building" doesn't INCLUDE the pentagon.

what a cowardly, and pathetic invidual RL has shown himself to be.

Why dont you all just ignore this VERY apparent troll? Let this thread die. his questiosn were answered, EARLIER in the thread and spams and repeates the same thing over.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:14 PM

You know very well that other experts opinions conflicts with those who find the maneuvers incredulous.

Actually, I don't. Please cite a credible news article.

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 06:15 PM

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

he didn't need to specify the pentagon. since the entire world that wasn't living under the rock you live under knew that hanjour flew into the pentagon

A W Smith

12th September 2008, 06:18 PM

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:19 PM

he didn't need to specify the pentagon.

Actually, he did need to. How do we know he wasn't talking generically, that Hanjour could generally hit buildings with the aim-and-hit method, with the pentagon being an exception?

The one little quote provided is unclear.

Kent1

12th September 2008, 06:28 PM

Actually, he did need to. How do we know he wasn't talking generically, that Hanjour could generally hit buildings with the aim-and-hit method, with the pentagon being an exception?

The one little quote provided is unclear.

You are correct. I think we have posted enough that lurkers can decide for themselves. The trolls posts have degraded into logical fallacies and semantics. im done with this trolling moron.

I agree this is just too pathetic to continue. I'm done with him for good. It's like he wants to start some kind of new weasel award of the month thread. Something like the Stundies. This is beyond belief.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:29 PM

I personally don't have any doubt that Hani did not have enough experience and ability to do what he done that day, but a lot of people like to say that he was an inexperienced pilot and could not have pulled off the maneuvers that he did.

"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

jhunter1163

12th September 2008, 06:32 PM

Well, if you don't want that Stundie, I'll take it.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 06:33 PM

Kent, say what you want, but the fact remains: you (along with everyone else) have yet to point out the flaw in my argument--that there is a contradiction.

Arus808

12th September 2008, 06:35 PM

Actually, he did need to. How do we know he wasn't talking generically, that Hanjour could generally hit buildings with the aim-and-hit method, with the pentagon being an exception?

The one little quote provided is unclear.

you're playing the semantic game here; we all can see from the questions asked and answered that the instructor KNEW that there was only one building being alluded to, and that was the pentagon.

You are being wholly stubborn and ignorant to think that he was referring to any other building, as that IS the only building that one would ask about to a flight instructor, of a former student, who has been linked to the attacks on 9/11/2001. there were only 3 buildings that were hit. HE knew and WE knew that it wasn't the WTC towers. So tell us what other buildings were hit in on 9/11/2001 by planes.

jhunter1163

12th September 2008, 06:40 PM

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 06:45 PM

Let me get this straight.

What you are saying is if he was a good pilot he would have hit the target, first time, right?

But if he was a bad pilot he would have missed the target, first time round, right?

But if he was a good pilot he would have executed a perfect circle round, right?

But if he was a bad pilot, who missed the target, he would not be able do execute the circle, unless he was a good pilot, right?

So basically he was a good pilot until he saw the Pentagon, at which point he became a bad pilot and missed it but as soon as he did that he became a good pilot to execute the turn, but once he had done that he became a bad pilot, right?

Help me out here RL, what do you think?

Mancman

12th September 2008, 06:53 PM

I stand by what I said. He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

An utterly staggering post. Jaw agape!!

:eek:

You actually tried to turn the statement "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," into a claim that Hanjour could not hit the Pentagon. Amazing. Why are you trying to fool? You think anyone here will fall for your nonsense?

beachnut

12th September 2008, 07:31 PM

An utterly staggering post. Jaw agape!!

:eek:

You actually tried to turn the statement "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," into a claim that Hanjour could not hit the Pentagon. Amazing. Why are you trying to fool? You think anyone here will fall for your nonsense?

Did anyone point out the Pentagon is one of the biggest building in the world?

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 07:36 PM

Am I breaking any forum rules if I assert that this is the stupidest thing I have ever read?

Irrelevant--my statements remain unrefuted. Show the flaw in my logic.

He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

Again: Show the flaw in my logic. SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 07:42 PM

Help me out here RL, what do you think?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Sure. See posts 42, 118, 139, 142, 145, and 152 to get what I'm saying.

stateofgrace

12th September 2008, 07:57 PM

Sure. See posts 42, 118, 139, 142, 145, and 152 to get what I'm saying.

I see, so rather than answer questions you simply avoid them? I asked this...............

Let me get this straight.

What you are saying is if he was a good pilot he would have hit the target, first time, right?

But if he was a bad pilot he would have missed the target, first time round, right?

But if he was a good pilot he would have executed a perfect circle round, right?

But if he was a bad pilot, who missed the target, he would not be able do execute the circle, unless he was a good pilot, right?

So basically he was a good pilot until he saw the Pentagon, at which point he became a bad pilot and missed it but as soon as he did that he became a good pilot to execute the turn, but once he had done that he became a bad pilot, right?

Help me out here RL, what do you think?

You have not answered.

I have started a new thread for you, giving you the opportunity to answer questions again you have not answered.

If I was really skeptical I would assume you was simply repeating CT BS, which of you are not,are you?

Please remember I am Joe Public, they guy you are trying to sell your theories to, so on you go,

I look forward to your answers.

PS In future, rather than making yourself look like a complete fool quote entire posts when responding.

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 07:58 PM

Did anyone point out the Pentagon is one of the biggest building in the world?

It's also the shape of a target. ;)

gumboot

12th September 2008, 08:00 PM

Need I remind anyone that the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, and probably the easiest building on the friggen planet to identify from the air?

If you were such an incompetent pilot that there was only one building on the entire planet that you could hit, it would be the Pentagon.

ETA. Beaten by Beachnut and Pardalis! Curse you!

Pardalis

12th September 2008, 08:04 PM

ETA. Beaten by Beachnut and Pardalis! Curse you!

Nonsense, with people like Radical Logic, one needs to repeat this sort of thing a couple of times. :)

beachnut

12th September 2008, 08:11 PM

Irrelevant--my statements remain unrefuted. Show the flaw in my logic.

He said "a building"--not "the building." Moreover, he did not specify the Pentagon.

Therefore, his assertion is consistent with the claim that he couldn't have flown into the Pentagon.

Again: Show the flaw in my logic. SHOW IT. Don't just assert.
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.

radical_logic

12th September 2008, 08:23 PM

If you were such an incompetent pilot that there was only one building on the entire planet that you could hit, it would be the Pentagon.

Sorry, but the experts disagree with you.

[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.[1]

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. [2]

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. [3]

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 [Danielle] O'Brien. [4]

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. [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:

“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. “ [6]

“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.” [7]

“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.” [8]

“Ms. Ladner… feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.” [9]

“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.” [10]

“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.'' [11]

“[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. [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