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

a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't fly one in that manner because it's not safe. Not because they CAN'T be flown that way. It's risky for the passengers because things are going to be thrown around the cabin, and there's some risk of the aircraft going out of control or into an overspeed situation.

He didn't have to be a great pilot. Only good enough to crash a plane. All of his instructors said something to the effect of them not being surprised he was involved and had no doubt he did it.

You're not a pilot but you know exactly what they need to do? It's not hard to control a plane, especially straight and level. You have to be careful making some maneuvers so you don't stall or go out of control, but the maneuvers you are taught in a small plane are basically the same with a large plane. You have to allow for higher speeds and weights, but the principals are the same in both.

a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't the specific engine. You said if it was a turbofan it proves the Pentagon story wrong. It's already been proven it couldn't be from a missile so it had to come from an aircraft. So how does it prove the story wrong if it's a turbofan.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You don't fly one in that manner because it's not safe. Not because they CAN'T be flown that way. It's risky for the passengers because things are going to be thrown around the cabin, and there's some risk of the aircraft going out of control or into an overspeed situation.

He didn't have to be a great pilot. Only good enough to crash a plane. All of his instructors said something to the effect of them not being surprised he was involved and had no doubt he did it.

You're not a pilot but you know exactly what they need to do? It's not hard to control a plane, especially straight and level. You have to be careful making some maneuvers so you don't stall or go out of control, but the maneuvers you are taught in a small plane are basically the same with a large plane. You have to allow for higher speeds and weights, but the principals are the same in both.

It's a step up going from a Cesna to fly a commercial airliner don't you think? He does have to be a good pilot because he's flying low level just above the ground (urban area) on approach towards the Pentagon. Only fighter jets or missiles fly like that straight and controlled.

This is just odd to me personally. Same month August 2001 just before 9/11. This is the evidence 9/11 commission used to claim Hanjour was the pilot. Notice the difference? He an expert pilot at one training school, at another he's a complete novice and can't land the Cesna or control it?

"Mr. Shalev stated that based on his observations, Hanjour was a "good" pilot. Mr. Shalev thought that Hanjour may have received training from a military pilot because of his use of terrain recognition for navigation. Hanjour told Mr. Shalev that he (Hanjour) had most recently trained in Florida as a pilot"

Same month
"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"

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

You didn't the specific engine. You said if it was a turbofan it proves the Pentagon story wrong. It's already been proven it couldn't be from a missile so it had to come from an aircraft. So how does it prove the story wrong if it's a turbofan.

I said it looked like a Turbofan disk, never said anything about a engine type. The stubby part sticking out just remained me of that.

We have no footage of a plane crashing at a pentagon. You have a security camera still of a blur white object.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Quote where the instructor thought he didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon. Oh, there are only quotes to the contrary.

And now you are covering up that Hanjour had commercial jet simulator training for a 737 that has similarities with 757 instrumentation and controls, rented time in simulators he could have practiced the pentagon run, and had 600 hours logged flight time.

And you still haven't stated what those impossible maneuvers are......

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Quote where the instructor thought he didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon. Oh, there are only quotes to the contrary.

And now you are covering up that Hanjour had commercial jet simulator training for a 737 that has similarities with 757 instrumentation and controls, rented time in simulators he could have practiced the pentagon run, and had 600 hours logged flight time.

And you still haven't stated what those impossible maneuvers are......

You only interrupting the discussion here. Don't you think it's important to find answers?

2 instructor thinks Hanjour is a novice and not experienced and another thinks hes a good pilot and had military training?

This is a deep a hole. You don't jump from novice to expert, just weeks.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Hespent several months in Arizona training in a 737 simulator. Smaller than a 757, but it still would have given him training in a fairly large and heavy aircraft.

And yet, all of those instructors have no trouble believing he did it, and he was able to rent an aircraft multiple times in New Jersey, flying through a busy air corridor.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Hespent several months in Arizona training in a 737 simulator. Smaller than a 757, but it still would have given him training in a fairly large and heavy aircraft.

And yet, all of those instructors have no trouble believing he did it, and he was able to rent an aircraft multiple times in New Jersey, flying through a busy air corridor.

This is just online information. And all the instructors said he's flying was terrible. One or two instructors or more reported him to the FAA believing he's licenses are fake.

When you find quotes by different instructors, same month, weeks away from 9/11 you have to sit up and say yes that's strange.

Was one flight school wrong about Hanjour and how is that even possible? This is real world stuff you don't progress from inexperienced pilot to expert (military) in mere weeks. Just not buying it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Quote where the instructor thought he didn't have the skills to crash into the pentagon. Oh, there are only quotes to the contrary.
..

Have numerous times in this thread. Can't land a Cesna, poor flying skills, can't control a small plane.

Two Hanjour pilots training at flight schools across America or the official narrative is bogus.

a reply to: Jacobu12


No deep hole at all. Hanjour had the flight time and training on flight controls that enabled him to used auto pilot as needed. Make one sloppy and slow five mile radius turn that took over two minutes to come about 300 degrees. Aim and perform a bumpy descent into the pentagon and work the throttles to wide open. And he still almost crashed short of a building larger than 24 football fields.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12


No deep hole at all. Hanjour had the flight time and training on flight controls that enabled him to used auto pilot as needed. Make one sloppy and slow five mile radius turn that took over two minutes to come about 300 degrees. Aim and perform a bumpy descent into the pentagon and work the throttles to wide open. And he still almost crashed short of a building larger than 24 football fields.

Do you not understand this is just online stuff that can't be verified?

The instructors met Hanjour, they observed him real time, Aug 2001 1 month from 9/11.

2 flight instructors opinion of him and skill level second week of August 2001

"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 172chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

How is this the same guy this instructor met? Hes' at the other flight school place second week of August, with just little over 3 weeks to 9/11.. This time he Hanjour a good pilot and may have received training from a military pilot
Mr. Shalev stated that based on his observations, Hanjour was a "good" pilot. Mr. Shalev thought that Hanjour may have received training from a military pilot because of his use of terrain recognition for navigation.

Where is the Traffic camera footage of the plane?
1.bp.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Jacobu12

Again, is it false Hanjour had over 600 hours of logged flight time.

Is it false that Hanjour had a pilot's license.

Is it false Hanjour had a FAA commercial certificate.

Is it false Hanjour had training on commercial jet instrumentation and controls from simulator training.

Is it false that Hanjour rented simulator time for additional training.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Can you quote a instructor that said Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a in air jet into the pentagon.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I always love how anything that says he did it is just online information that can't be verified, but anything that said he couldn't is unimpeachable. All those same instructors made comments about him doing it, yet those comments are ignored or passed of as "THEY made them say that".

He was a lousy pilot. No one disputes that. The radar evidence alone proves that. That doesn't mean he couldn't get lucky and hit some part of the building.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

I always love how anything that says he did it is just online information that can't be verified, but anything that said he couldn't is unimpeachable. All those same instructors made comments about him doing it, yet those comments are ignored or passed of as "THEY made them say that".

He was a lousy pilot. No one disputes that. The radar evidence alone proves that. That doesn't mean he couldn't get lucky and hit some part of the building.

I not surprised the 9/11 conspiracy has lasted as long as it has, you guys are defending it.

So we just going ignore he could not land or control a Cesna plane 3 weeks before 9/11? This a commercial plane he's not going to be lucky when he has not got the skill. There is an inconsistent narrative here. 3 instructors providing different accounts of skill level (cover up)

We got Ted Olson claiming he talked to hes wife, that can't be verified either. Pentagon cameras recording nothing or turned of? Where is the traffic footage from that day?

a reply to: Jacobu12

Tracing Trail Of Hijackers
By Thomas Frank
WASHINGTON BUREAU
September 23, 2001

web.archive.org...://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story

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.

www.baltimoresun.com...

Hani Hanjour came to Freeway Airport and asked to rent a plane. He went up with two flight instructors on three occasions, but Bernard eventually refused to rent him a plane because he barely spoke English - a requirement for flight certifications - and because of his poor flying skills.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Even so, as recently as last month, Mr. Hanjour still seemed to lack proficiency at flying, said a flight instructor in the Washington suburb of Bowie, Md. Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the school, said Mr. Hanjour showed up in Washington asking to rent a single-engine plane. But he was told that he had to prove his skills before being allowed to do so.

Mr. Bernard said Mr. Hanjour made three flights with two different instructors but was unable to prove that he had the necessary skills.

''He seemed rusty at everything,'' Mr. Bernard said.

Mr. Bernard said Mr. Hanjour spoke broken English, paid with cash and made no unusual statements. He listed his local address as a hotel in nearby Laurel, Md. And while his behavior was mosly unremarkable, Mr. Hanjour looked dejected when told that he would not be allowed to fly and left without saying a word.

Tracing Trail Of Hijackers
By Thomas Frank
WASHINGTON BUREAU
September 23, 2001

Here is the actual item from the news article

web.archive.org...://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story

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.

Notice there is actually nothing quoted by Baxter nor Conner. The paragraph was written by the author, using the author's opinion, and the author's interpretation of the event. There is nothing quoting Baxter or Conner. To say Baxter or Conner said anything in that paragraph is a intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Can you quote a instructor that said Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a in air jet into the pentagon.

He can't control a Cesna. Why would i believe he could to fly a commercial passenger jet?

a reply to: Jacobu12

As opposed to misquoting people, taking things out of context, ignoring physical evidence you mean?

So he couldn't land. When exactly was he going to land Flight 77? He needed enough skill to crash the plane. He didn't need to land it. The evidence all points to a poor pilot that barely managed to hit the building.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

Can you quote a instructor that said Hanjour didn't have the skills to crash a in air jet into the pentagon.

He can't control a Cesna. Why would i believe he could to fly a commercial passenger jet?

Can you cite a source that actually quotes Baxter or Conner that Hanjour couldn't maneuver a Cessna.

Not a news article that states the report's paraphrased opinion?