The curious case of Hani Hanjour

mr_fegelien

Hani Hanjour was quoted by many of his flight instructors as not having the ability to fly even a single engine Cessna yet he took control and crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon at around 530mph.

More puzzling yet was the fact that he didn't make the simple decision to crash the plane into the roof of the building, which would have almost certainly killed thousands. The Pentagon holds enough employees to make up the size of a small city. Around 20,000. What are the chances that a hijacker would turn a 200 ton aircraft travelling at a high speed just to hit a small strip of the Pentagon which was built to withstand a terrorist attack?

Did the 9/11 commission ever address these anomalies?

Overheal

That would have been too easy, since they could have easily hit the pentagon with a bunker buster in that case and just said it was a kamikaze/divebombing aircraft.

In all seriousness though why they did not attempt to dive-bomb is likely a matter of needing to guarantee they hit it. In reality flight 77 overshot the pentagon and had to drop altitude in a sweeping circular pass before ultimately only hitting the wall at a glancing angle.

Been a while since I’ve been in a flight sim but sure it might be interesting to test the scenario yourself and see if it isn’t exceedingly more difficult to divebomb the pentagon. Just be aware doing so might put you on a watch list :pac:

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Hani Hanjour was quoted by many of his flight instructors as not having the ability to fly even a single engine Cessna yet he took control and crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon at around 530mph.

More puzzling yet was the fact that he didn't make the simple decision to crash the plane into the roof of the building, which would have almost certainly killed thousands. The Pentagon holds enough employees to make up the size of a small city. Around 20,000. What are the chances that a hijacker would turn a 200 ton aircraft travelling at a high speed just to hit a small strip of the Pentagon which was built to withstand a terrorist attack?

Did the 9/11 commission ever address these anomalies?

Before we go into that, what's the conspiracy explanation for all of this?
In thr context of a conspiracy why did they get some one bad at flying? Why did they send them to flight school? Were they the ones actually flying? Why was the flight school allowed to make statements that contradict the official story?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

King Mob wrote: »

Before we go into that, what's the conspiracy explanation for all of this?
In thr context of a conspiracy why did they get some one bad at flying? Why did they send them to flight school? Were they the ones actually flying? Why was the flight school allowed to make statements that contradict the official story?

Presumably the idea is the flights were remote controlled.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Presumably the idea is the flights were remote controlled.

That's one theory, yup.
Some claim they were in the plane still, but it was taken over via remote control. Others claim it was another person entirely.

The question this begs is why they would send any of them to flight school in the first place?
I've never seen a conspiracy believer have an answer for this.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

King Mob wrote: »

That's one theory, yup.
Some claim they were in the plane still, but it was taken over via remote control. Others claim it was another person entirely.

The question this begs is why they would send any of them to flight school in the first place?
I've never seen a conspiracy believer have an answer for this.

The idea there would be the Arabs were duped themselves. This isn’t my theory. Although I do have some theories about 9/11 most of the conspiracies are far too complex to be true.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The idea there would be the Arabs were duped themselves. This isn’t my theory.

On the surface that could possibly make sense. But it would leave the hijackers going into a plane knowing they can't fly it, which would contradict the idea of the conspiracy there.

The problem with patchwork ideas like that is they run into problems with the rest of the other conspiracy ideas if you think them through.

mr_fegelien

King Mob wrote: »

On the surface that could possibly make sense. But it would leave the hijackers going into a plane knowing they can't fly it, which would contradict the idea of the conspiracy there.

The problem with patchwork ideas like that is they run into problems with the rest of the other conspiracy ideas if you think them through.

I find some credence to the no-hijacker theory. There's little first hand accounts of passengers, airport officers, strangers at the 3 airpots (Boston Logan, Washington Dulles, Newark) seeing the hijackers. Millions of people must travel at airports yet none/few have come forward seeing the hijackers on that day 18 years ago??

Also how did the black boxes get destroyed to the point where the cockpit voice recorders were unrecoverable? Are they not designed on aircraft to withstand extreme heat and pressure? It would play into the narrative of no hijackers if there were no people in the cockpit and no voices to record.

Dohnjoe

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Hani Hanjour was quoted by many of his flight instructors as not having the ability to fly even a single engine Cessna yet he took control and crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon at around 530mph.

Dutch TV show, they took a novice with around the same flight experience as Hani on a Boeing simulator, he was able to hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 attempts

Did the 9/11 commission ever address these anomalies?

The evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is pretty damning (physical, FDR data, radar, ATC comms, passengers/crew forensically identified post-fact, witness consensus)

As for Hani himself, there is little doubt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

No credible alternative explanations have ever surfaced

mr_fegelien

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Dutch TV show, they took a novice with around the same flight experience as Hani on a Boeing simulator, he was able to hit the Pentagon 3 out of 3 attempts

The evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon is pretty damning (physical, FDR data, radar, ATC comms, passengers/crew forensically identified post-fact, witness consensus)

As for Hani himself, there is little doubt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

No credible alternative explanations have ever surfaced

Funny because the documentary "The New Pearl Harbour" debunks the Dutch simulation as it doesn't offer specific speeds used and the airplane is coming in from a high angle. Another simulation proves that both the pilots and trainee with similar experience to Hanjour couldn't hit the Pentagon.

https://youtu.be/vHIVdd4GSlY?t=635

Dohnjoe

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Funny because the documentary "The New Pearl Harbour" debunks the Dutch simulation as it doesn't offer specific speeds used and the airplane is coming in from a high angle. Another simulation proves that both the pilots and trainee with similar experience to Hanjour couldn't hit the Pentagon.

https://youtu.be/vHIVdd4GSlY?t=635

You sound very familiar with this

If so, can you please explain what you believe happened, with evidence, thanks

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I find some credence to the no-hijacker theory. There's little first hand accounts of passengers, airport officers, strangers at the 3 airpots (Boston Logan, Washington Dulles, Newark) seeing the hijackers. Millions of people must travel at airports yet none/few have come forward seeing the hijackers on that day 18 years ago??

Also how did the black boxes get destroyed to the point where the cockpit voice recorders were unrecoverable? Are they not designed on aircraft to withstand extreme heat and pressure? It would play into the narrative of no hijackers if there were no people in the cockpit and no voices to record.

Ok, but before that, could you answer my question please?
Why fo you think did they send him to flight school ?

mr_fegelien

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, but before that, could you answer my question please?
Why fo you think did they send him to flight school ?

AFAIK, Hanjour had been in the States before the other pilot hijackers (Atta, Shehi, Jarrah) had even met in Hamburg or got radicalised (95-96). Perhaps they just trained him to kill off time.

I'm not claiming to be an expert in any of this, just looking at it from both sides. I half belief 9/11 conspiracies. I'm not totally convinced of the official story but I don't buy all the conspiracies either.

It sucks how much ambiguity there is about what really happened on that day. Maybe when we die, we'll finally know.

Dohnjoe

In fairness there have been countless thousands of people casting all sorts of doubt and muck on this whole thing since day 1. 18 years of the stuff.

Rather than wade through all that carefully crafted denial, a better approach is to attempt to find the self-supporting conspiracy theories and see how they match up against the widely established version of events. Personally, to date, I've found zero. The "cruise missile", "sky-warrior", "plane swerving at last second" and "remote controlled planes" are awful fare and it only seems to get worse after that

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

AFAIK, Hanjour had been in the States before the other pilot hijackers (Atta, Shehi, Jarrah) had even met in Hamburg or got radicalised (95-96). Perhaps they just trained him to kill off time.
.

That's not a very good explanation.
They sent him to a flight school knowing he couldnt fly and exposed the entire conspiracy just because they didnt want him to get bored?
Even if thats the case, why not just train him in a CIA facility or just buy him a nintendo 64 or something?

A lot of this ambiguity you're worried about doesnt really stand up when you look at it closely. For example your above explanation.

mr_fegelien

King Mob wrote: »

That's not a very good explanation.
They sent him to a flight school knowing he couldnt fly and exposed the entire conspiracy just because they didnt want him to get bored?
Even if thats the case, why not just train him in a CIA facility or just buy him a nintendo 64 or something?

A lot of this ambiguity you're worried about doesnt really stand up when you look at it closely. For example your above explanation.

Hey, I'm not saying I'm totally right but I'm just quoting what I've heard.

What's interesting though if someone can debunk this as well is why so few witnesses heard a deafening roar. The planes on 9/11 were 757's and 767's. The roar of Flight 11 and Flight 175 were heard all over Manhattan before the planes even hit the towers and they were flying at about an altitude of 1000 feet.

Flight 77 would have been hovering just a few inches from the grass of the Pentagon at 530mph and yet there's still ambiguity that it was a plane?? A 767's roaring engines at ground level would have brought the ears of everyone within a 10 mile radius to the jet.

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Hey, I'm not saying I'm totally right but I'm just quoting what I've heard.

What's interesting though if someone can debunk this as well is why so few witnesses heard a deafening roar. The planes on 9/11 were 757's and 767's. The roar of Flight 11 and Flight 175 were heard all over Manhattan before the planes even hit the towers and they were flying at about an altitude of 1000 feet.

Flight 77 would have been hovering just a few inches from the grass of the Pentagon at 530mph and yet there's still ambiguity that it was a plane?? A 767's roaring engines at ground level would have brought the ears of everyone within a 10 mile radius to the jet.

There is no ambiguity that it was a plane.
Lets stick to your initial point however.

You say you are just relaying what you heard, but your first post contained no quotes from these flight instructors.
I have seen these qoutes many times and I dont recall any of them saying that it was impossible or that he couldnt fly.
So could you provide the exact quotes ypu are refering to so we can see what the issue youre having is?

Cheerful S

There is a lack of information in 9/11 cover stories; clearly the pilots demonstrated a high level of flying ability on 9/11.

It is possible that the men involved had more training than the mainstream media suggests, since the mainstream information paints the pilots as useless. In an exchange program between Saudi Arabia and the United States, some of the subjects who hijacked planes had the same names as Saudi pilots involved in the exchange program. Having the same first and second names on military exchange programs is extremely unusual.

The US Embassy in Saudi Arabia in Jeddah's visa apartment, headed by Michael Springman in the 1980s, claimed Bin Laden and the CIA were in touch. CIA was recruiting Arabs and issuing strange visas to Saudi Arabians who wanted to attend training there for military purposes.

CIA in Jeddah vetted many of the less known 9/11 terrorists before they could get a visa, confirming the CIA network was watching over terrorists long before the attacks on September 11

The attack was supposedly planned by Bin Laden, but he didn't appear with any of the 19 guys. He liked the camera, and it is plausible that he would exploit them if they were really planned by him. The Bush family and Carlyle group are linked to the Bin Laden family, so Bin Laden was likely in contact with the Neo-Con cartel for decades. 

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814607#Comment_119814607

It's not a mystery, we know what happened. Indeed the CIA were watching some of the terrorists.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814637#Comment_119814637

A track record of covering for terrorists suggests something is amiss in the story. In twenty years, why haven't we seen the complete picture of the surveillance operation. Why is that? The fact that Richard Clarke would claim on video that someone directly within the CIA would have removed logs for him to not have them at the White House reveals that very high level people were preventing people from connecting the dots. The official story of 9/11 is not accurate because of all the problems with collapses, terrorist tracking, flight schools, and so on. Media reports have given us a sanitised version of what happened, but insider information shows a completely different picture. 

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814901#Comment_119814901

Like any agency it watches people and also loses track of them. It's not film/TV. The CIA **** up all the time, they aren't infallible.

Richard Clarke doesn't believe any conspiracy took place, he just believes the CIA lost track of the terrorists and didn't fully expose their own ****-up. You lift the views of a man who contradicts your beliefs.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119814959#Comment_119814959

During the video Clarke admitted that there was a conspiracy within the CIA to hide information about the hijackers' movements. The reason your confused and mistaken is that he provides a motive that they were recruiting these guys and turning them around ( double agent). He does not know whether his theory is true or not; he said there could have been other motives as well. A career politician in Washington would have a hard time believing that some in his government could perpetrate a false flag, so he went to explanatory ease in order to explain in own mind. There is no question that removing logs and files from a secured computer is a way to conceal information associated with some shady activities

That myth was invented by the CIA to cover its own asses. Never lost track of them because clearly involved in some way in this false flag at some level at top.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815063#Comment_119815063

Clarke made allegations that the CIA lost track of the hijackers and didn't admit it. Clarke also completely contradicts your conspiracy theory stuff.

Since you don't appear to care about facts or context or indeed reality, you've cherry-picked his views, distorted them and mashed them up into your conspiracy theory.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119815120#Comment_119815120

 He claims George Tenet, his best friend at the CIA, did not inform him about the Al Qeada high level operatives moving freely without government intervention.

Clarke also admitted that someone in higher authority had prevented these guys from appearing on terrorist watchlists, and all information about them was kept to a few CIA members.

Because the CIA refused to even discuss its activities with the 9/11 commission, we don't know what it all means. I am highly suspicious that this was an intentional deed to conceal the movements of the hijackers so that they could carry out the attack.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119889561#Comment_119889561

It's a government agency, not TV. These people fuckup and make mistakes.

You aren't "highly suspicious", you have a cemented belief it was an inside job regardless of what really happened. This belief is so strong you literally see things in photographs that aren't there. You glue whatever bits and pieces of nonsense you can find on Youtube and google together to make up some conspiracy diorama which changes every other month.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119889815#Comment_119889815

This is highly suspicious that guys who allegedly took over planes with boxcutters tracked all the way and didn't stop them

. Overhearing someone plan to steal your car, would you intervene to prevent it?

There was a long-term plan in place to use this event not to want the suspects to be caught, and it makes sense why they didn't get stopped because of what happened in building seven and the escalating events in the war on terror. 

The Nal

I love Cheerful quoting Clarke as a source when he clearly hasn't read his book and is just informed by the odd quote here and there hes picked up on crank sites.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890044#Comment_119890044

In his interview, he admitted that the CIA covered up terrorist movements before 9/11. Debunkers assume nothing conspiratorial ever occurs here and nothing to worry about. In order to believe the nonsense, you need to ignore all the scandals at the White House, the operation Gladio, the Iran- Contra affair, as well as lies about the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and scandals not mentioned here.,

. Anyone who read Operation Northwoods know that the military actually signed off on attacks against US cities in false attack in 60s and was only for Kennedy stopping it that would have gone ahead. I dont live in mindset that not bad factions here. Reality is even in current crisis we have unsolved NORD stream explosions lurking in the background of current crisis. 

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890288#Comment_119890288

Yep more waffle. You havent even read his book.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890029#Comment_119890029

They lost track of some of the guys. It's normal. Look at just about every major terrorist attack in Europe in the last decade or two. In almost every situation, the perpetrators were known to the authorities.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890597#Comment_119890597

'Flight 77' alleged terrorist passengers were the same individuals involved with the USS Cole ship attack in Yemen. They have entered the USA later and the CIA is aware of this. Despite being flagged as terrorists, the CIA has protected them for years. Comparing this to some guys with terrorist affiliations is not the same thing. It is impossible to arrest someone just because they attend a jihad lecture in a London Islamic center. Clearly there was a purpose in protecting them as they planning the largest attack on western country ever, their high profile raises a lot of questions because of their involvement in other terrorism events before 9/11. 

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890668#Comment_119890668

Flight 77 was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.

If something else happened, explain it with evidence.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890896#Comment_119890896

We've been here before. It missed the Pentagon, flew away somewhere (no one noticed) and the passengers have been in some sort of witness protection since.

At the same time someone went around knocking down lamposts and scattering plane and body parts all over the place. Which only took a minute or two.

Wake up FFS.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119890975#Comment_119890975

That was CS? I thought that was another one of them..

Notice how they never use their internet detective abilities to ever find out what happened, they only use it to deny the facts. Like moon hoaxers. And flat-earthers. And the Sandy Hook truthers. Wait, almost as if there's a pattern to this type of thinking..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119891046#Comment_119891046

It was him, but he flipped flopped on it a few times.

He came in claiming that the plane overflew the pentagon and an entirely different plane really hit it.

He was basing this entirely on the notion that for some reason the conspirators couldn't alter the information in the black box and that it was showing the plane flying too high and fast to hit the building.

He changed his mind and argument entirely when he realised this was painting him into a corner. I think he flipped back again later when he thought everyone forgot his original argument.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892295#Comment_119892295

It was also briefly a missile, then a large type of fighter jet.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892748#Comment_119892748

No he was claiming that it was a specific type of military jet and then later changed his mind to claiming that it was the same model as the real flight.

He always maintained that the people who believed the missile theory were crazy. He was just quoting from their sources to support his arguments.

Cheerful S

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119891046#Comment_119891046

The debate we had with Ruby, who has since disappeared, may be a reference to that. I cannot say with any certainty what caused the Pentagon attack. It might have been a large or small plane. Things i disagreed with Ruby about the flight path

The FDR ( Flight recorder) and radar turns picked up a plane heading to Washington and towards the Pentagon. There are some errors in the data that don't make sense.

There is no way that the official reports are factual. I suspect if it was flight 77, it was coming in at much slower speed than they claim, given that everything would have been zipping past his view as he was flying 500 mph an hour near ground allegedly.

The idea of lining up a target going 500+ mph an hour off autopilot makes no sense. Overfly the target instead.

Whether it was flight 77 or something else, I can't say for sure, but there is plenty of evidence that something hit the Pentagon. It wasn't a car bomb. Although I am not overly stubborn when it comes to this event, I believe that it is very possible that it was flight 77, but the official reports contain errors. 

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119892840#Comment_119892840

You aren't stubborn because even you have difficulty making something up for it.