Thursday, June 01, 2006

More Quote Mining

Watching Markyx's video I noticed an example of quote mining, that I missed before. The filmmakers do this a lot, where they take a select quote, or part of a quote, completely out of the context of what the people said in order to give an impression which is not supported by the speaker. Wally Miller, Ben Fountain, the air traffic controllers, are among some of the examples. In this case it is Marcel Bernard, a flight instructor at an airport where hijacker Hani Hanjour tried, unsuccesfully to rent a Cessna. Here is an excerpt from the interview they show, which starts at the 13:45 mark:

This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. And consensus was , he was very quiet, average, or below average piloting skills.

OK, so we get the idea that he probably wasn't the greatest pilot in the world, but it's not like he was going to be required to instrument land a 747 in the middle of a Minneapolis snowstorm in the middle of the night or anything, all he had to do was crash into the largest building in the world in broad daylight. I can do that with Microsoft Flight Simulator without even spilling my beer.

But regardless, we are left with the impression that he was too poor of a pilot to have done this. But here is an interesting question. Why didn't they just ask Marcel Bernard this, rather than inferring it? He was an instructor. He saw Hanjour fly personally. If anyone would be qualified to answer the question, it seems he would.

Oh wait, they did. For some strange reason it didn't make the movie though. Maybe it will be in Loose Change Version 3? Here is what the flight instructor had to say on the actual point at hand:

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.

Odd, that this somehow was left out of the movie. It almost makes you want to think they are trying to mislead us or something...


At 02 June, 2006 06:40, Blogger Unknown said...

Further to It:

The weather was clear and sunny. Washington isn't hard to find - and neither is a structure like the Pentagon.

At 02 June, 2006 06:42, Blogger Unknown said...


You can't use the link - too long for the frame. You need to use link tags.

At 02 June, 2006 08:05, Blogger shawn said...


At 02 June, 2006 15:12, Blogger Alex said...

Joan, your argument is something along the lines of saying that your average car driver wouldn't be able to hijack a bus and drive it into the side of a building because he doesn't know how to operate a bus or how to navigate with it. In other words, it's utter nonsense. He might not be able to paralel park the damn thing, but he could certainly steer it around and find the building he wants.

At 02 June, 2006 16:17, Blogger Alex said...


If only they had been planes made by Airbus instead of Boing....


Post a Comment

<< Home