What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

a reply to: neutronflux

You're the one mixing up issues and using scarecrow arguments constantly?

What on Earth do Hani Hanjour's instructors have to do with knowing the truth about a plane hitting the Pentagon beyond understanding Hanjour wasn't capable of doing it?

I get you choose to believe the FDR and the narrative put forth while ignoring the fact that the pilot's skill didn't match his ability to maneuver that plane the way it has been suggested.

If you consider that he cannot fly with plane with his described lack of skill, then the rest of the data including FDR could have been manufactured. There are plenty of quotes that suggest the maneuver of the plane was thought to be a military aircraft from the air traffic controllers watching the plane, but you seem to like to work backwards.

originally posted by: m1kelowry
There are plenty of quotes that suggest the maneuver of the plane was thought to be a military aircraft from the air traffic controllers watching the plane, but you seem to like to work backwards.

You mean the quotes that cut off where the controllers say inconvenient things like "it's not safe or comfortable for the passengers"?

a reply to: m1kelowry

From the same document?
intelfiles.egoplex.com...

when Hanjour first began flying lessons at Arlzona AVlatlon Acaaemy, Hanjour already had some advanced training and a private pilots license

Your quote is blocked out at the end with a missing sentence or two addressing on going training.....


Additional quotes from the document....

Ranjour eventually passed his commercial with the FAA

he benefits of Hanjour, who has a commercial pilot's certificate and received training on a Boeing 737-200 simulator, training on AST-300 (the above noted simulator used at Sawyer), is that it would provide him confidence and improve his instrument skills which are to some degree transferrable to any aircraft to include a Boeing 757.

Sorry, the quote I was referring to was in the commission report...
www.911myths.com...

One 9/11 Commission footnote (to Chapter 7) is relatively positive. 170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52­57. 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).

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: m1kelowry

Who do you think was making the comment he couldn't fly straight?

You ignore the rest of your quoted report.

So? Now you get to choose the instructor comments? Ignore the stright quote has blocked out sections that might address additional training.

Ignored that Hanjour had additional training, gained a license, and a certificate.

Ignored the comment a flight instructor thought Hanjour had military training.

a reply to: m1kelowry

Not watching your propaganda. Form a thesis and a supporting argument like a big person.

a reply to: neutronflux

You won't watch anything I post and you don't read or consider anything else beyond the gov't's version of the story.

Stay ignorant and keep acting like the pilot could perform anything the FDR says, ignore what his instructors said, and believe that he could become an ace pilot in the 7 months between his last time known in flight school to 9/11.

You're either gullible or willfully ignorant.

a reply to: m1kelowry

When have you ever formed a rebuttal to the quotes I provide? Much less comment and counter argue the cited works that prove a jet hitting the pentagon is the only credible explanation?

You wouldn't even provide a link to the FBI document you quoted out of context. The one I quoted from and provided a link

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

he benefits of Hanjour, who has a commercial pilot's certificate and received training on a Boeing 737-200 simulator, training on AST-300 (the above noted simulator used at Sawyer), is that it would provide him confidence and improve his instrument skills which are to some degree transferrable to any aircraft to include a Boeing 757.

The work you referenced is not even worth quoting from? Not even worth setting up a context or argument? Is it the work that told you there was a missile system at the pentagon on 9/11? Something that totally ignores all flight 77 video has been released? Forms a false narrative of what cameras were available on 9/11 on where they were point.

The pentagon has a security system that monitors the sky, its called regional radar. But you want to ignore the radar data.

Remember this?

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
First Published January, 2011. Version 3, April 2016.

Conclusion
Clearly, the main theory, that a large plane such as a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, is by far the most plausible theory compared with the alternative theories. The main theory still has some unanswered questions, but it is much stronger than any of the alternative theories.
At present (November 2011) the available evidence points strongly to the main theory, and away from all the alternative theories which would require difficult explanations for staged events.
This analysis does not close the door on this issue or any other of the Pentagon issues55, but leaves it open for further research and evidence as indicated in the tables for each of the different theories. However, the essence of this paper is that the scientific method proves all alternatives to large plane impact virtually impossible. It is hoped that the 9/11 truth movement will accept these current findings and acknowledge the preeminence of the large plane impact theory at this time.
This acceptance would have the following benefits:
 Recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory according to an important principle in the scientific method
 Forestalling of a government disclosure about the Pentagon that undermines credibility of the truth movement and its well-developed WTC research results
 Minimizing public rejection of valid 9/11 evidence when it is presented at the same time as some of the more unlikely Pentagon damage theories.
Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank David Ray Griffin for inviting him to participate in forming Scientists for 9/11 Truth in the role of Coordinator, and to express appreciation to the Organizing Members of Scientists, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Frank Legge, and Kevin Ryan for accepting him in this role, and for the many invigorating, scientific discussions that ensued.
Special thanks are due to Frank Legge who guided the author’s initial inquiries into the Pentagon problem, who answered questions, engaged in discussions, provided support and reference material, and who wrote the paper1 that first caused the author to question the existing paradigm for the Pentagon.
The author also acknowledges a key insight by Niels Harrit, namely, the existence of an underlying paradigm in the Pentagon debate which appears to be confusing analysts. In response, the author has suggested an alternative paradigm to be considered as a precursor to the goal of achieving a higher level of consensus.
Thanks are also due to Elizabeth Woodworth for her support of the author’s preliminary and later efforts.
In addition, thanks are due to David Chandler for his recent writings on the Pentagon, and for his participation with the above-mentioned individuals in a group discussion that sparked this paper.
Credit is due to Debora Blake, whose creative graphics in the first rendition of the Scientists’ website, prompted the author to feature Frank Legge’s paper “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth” on the website.
The author acknowledges the pioneer work of Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley who, since 2004 and in opposition to the existing paradigm, have maintained that a large plane, most likely a Boeing 757, did indeed hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Lastly, the author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who read the paper and provided useful feedback and criticisms that, when responded to by the author, led to some significant new insights and improvements

a reply to: m1kelowry

In case you are unaware of it, the head of P4911Truth, Rob Balsamo, used to be here on ATS. He left after being confronted about his deception and outright lies. So, yeah, anything that comes from his group.....at this point I would believe CNN over them.

a reply to: Salander

And you still cannot get that simple fact straight. Rumsfeld, was not deposed on ANYTHING the day before. He gave a speech addressing an issue that the Pentagon had been dealing with for over a year and a half and was voicing his determination to change that. And, nor were the records destroyed. The only branch affected by the events of 9/11, was the US Army and even then, their records were backed up at several different locations.

Wonderful! We have the US fighting 25 wars all over the earth, and ready to get down with Russia in WWIII, so now China and India go at it with a bunch of nuclear weapons.

Its a wonderful world

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I think what continues to get lost in this thread is the discussion about what skill the pilot needed. It's in the title.

IMO it's conclusive that he needed a ton of skill to maneuver that size of jet. He had no training with that jet beyond a simulator and according to the last instructors to see him fly, 7 months prior to the incident, his skills were terrible and went beyond not knowing English.

They mention that his skills were so bad that they believe his pilots license may not be genuine.

I've used sports analogies in previous posts. You can say you are a lot of things but ultimately the golf course, the swimming pool, the ice rink, the baseball field, the boxing ring doesn't lie.

This guy could have all the paperwork in the world but he couldn't steer a Cessna let alone control a large plane. For anyone who says he could, I'd love to see your record as a pilot. It's no different than some idiot believing they could knock our Mike Tyson or beat up an MMA fighter.

a reply to: m1kelowry

What was the maneuver that needed a ton of skill?

a reply to: m1kelowry

I have provided quotes that a majority of instructors indicated Hanjour's English was his major problem.

You provided one quote he could only fly straight early in his career.

I provided a quote from an instructor that witnessed Hanjour land and the instructor thought Hanjour had military training, anothe instructor quoted that Hanjour had the skills to crash into the pentagon, another instructor that knew Hanjour was part of 9/11 once she learned of Events, Hanjour had 600 hours logged flight time, I referenced an article that stated how persons could use simulator time to practice crashing into targets, quoted from the FBI article you referenced that Hanjour had training in simulators that would give him confidence and skills to fly a 757, Hanjour had a private pilot's license, and a FAA commercial license.

I quoted articles the instructor that would not rent Hanjour a plane a third time was due to Hanjour's English and landing skills in a busy air corridor. The instructor said nothing about Hanjour's ability to maneuver an in flight aircraft.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: m1kelowry

What was the maneuver that needed a ton of skill?

They seem a bit vague on this point. I keep seeing it stated throughout this thread that the pilot wouldn't have been able to pull off "The Maneuver" but I still don't know what it was

a reply to: mrthumpy

Have you even read the last 20 pages ?

I has been mentioned several times.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: mrthumpy

Have you even read the last 20 pages ?

I has been mentioned several times.

Scanned certainly. What did I miss?

Easily answered...

If there was plane debris, then it was a plane.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Scanned certainly. What did I miss?

The fact that the maneuver wasn't that dramatic as the conspiracy crowd want you to believe.

But the conspiracy minded believe what they want and ignore real facts.