I was going to reply to Brumsen, but I no longer see any point.

It's the same tired, circular reasoning, and "wooly talk" (as he put it) that I heard from so many philosophy students in class at college. Rather than actually attempting to find a solution to a problem, it was more important to them to "win" by talking the subject into the ground.

I understand philosophy. I've engaged enough professors on the subject and earned their respect. What Brumsen is doing is not philosophy, it is sophomoric argument for the sake of winning a debate.

I'm tired of it. I'll wait for the next thread where, hopefully, we can have an actual debate of the facts, instead of being asked to prove reality exists first. My .sig line still stands on that subject.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

I base the claim that it would be easier to fly down into the roof than into the side on my discussions with a friend who has over 20 years of experience as a commercial pilot, having flown both 757's and 767's.

And his name is...? I want to talk to him. And how many commercial airliners has he flown vertically at high speed into the ground?

His opinion concurs with other pilots who are on record saying that it is much easier to do.

Where are these type-certified pilots "on record"?

I have a dozen years or so experience with subsonic and supersonic aerodynamics and controllability, and I am currently working with Boeing on the controllability factors for the B-787. It is my opinion that a largely straight-down suicide dive would overspeed the airframe and render the aircraft uncontrollable and unaimable.

An inexperienced, irrational pilot? From the impossible maneuvers this pilot is alleged to have accomplished? LOL!

Hogwash. I have yet to hear a type-certified pilot call these maneuvers "impossible". They are atypical of how these aircraft are commonly flown. The amazement is that someone would fly it that way, not that someone could fly it that way.

I am not type-certified on the B-757 or B-767 although I have flown the full-cockpit commercial simulators manufactured by Evans and Sutherland and used by airlines to type-certify their pilots. Unlike your friend, I have the same experience as the hijackers -- I am trained in other aircraft, but I have to fly the Boeing by the seat of my pants and not by the book as a type-certified pilot would.

I can say that the novice pilot's intuition derived from other aircraft types is to overcorrect and overfly a commercial aircraft. That is, control movements are usually abrupt and excessive, causing excessing roll, pitch, and yaw rates and requiring considerable "jinking" to maintain a desired attitude and heading. The observed behavior of the 9/11 aircraft is fully consistent with an inexperienced pilot swerving around extensively trying to fly them. The notion that "only" an expert pilot could do such things is just a begged question.

From a cockpit visibility point of view (pun intended) the straight-down approach is considerably difficult to line up.

The most effective bet in this case is to fly the aircraft essentially the way it was designed to be flown. You can keep the aircraft reasonably within its flight envelope and in control, and you can keep the target centered in your windshield. This, in my opinion, is far preferable to a flight mode to which the pilot is utterly unaccustomed in any aircraft, and to which the airframe is not at all suited.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Heh, see this Post, I told him that directly, I am still waiting for his answer

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Previous attacks had not provoked the USA to go to war, maybe he was counting on the same thing happening. Or maybe he was trying to provoke the USA into war a an attempt to rally his "forces" around the cause of "stopping the Crusaders". He probably had plans for either contingency.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Taking things out of order here:

We engineers are not so dense as is supposed.

I don't think engineers are dense! I suggested earlier in this thread that "achievement in the environment" is the proper subject of study for philosophy. Who excels at achievement in the environment better than engineers? You don't know it, but quite a bit of your discussion about how engineers work, succeed, fail, and recover has become part of the foundation of my personal philosophy.

It's amusing you bring up structural engineering,

It may be amusing, but I know who I am talking to. I have a good idea of the subjects that interest you and expected you to write something that would serve as common ground for both of our views.

True, but the structural redundancy, however it is said to exist, is a property of the structure itself and not something that can be attributed to the structure by the arguments of others in a way that causes the property to change if the nature of the attribution changes.

Agreed. This is the common ground I was looking/desiring/motivating/intending/jonesing for. I am confident that I could round up from various philosophy forums plenty of people who would argue that because it is hard to point to structural redundancy in a building, that it exists, then, only as a subjective abstraction in the engineer's head. I'll pause while you entertain yourself with ways you could demonstrate the objectivity of structural redundancy to them...

Consider an engineer who goes on site to assess a building's redundancy. From the moment he studies the first structural members, he knows about the building's redundancy. He just doesn't know everything about it at first, and will never know everything about it. Because his knowledge is finite, we do not say that he is does not study the redundancy, or that he studies it indirectly, or that redundancy exists only in his head.

I said above that I knew you were interested in structural redundancy and predicted you would expand on what I had written. Yet, all I have seen from you over the years are words on my computer screen. I am proposing that the words you have fed out to us constitute the first fibers of your motives. If I am wrong about your motives or interests, it not because I have not seen them, but because I have not seen enough of them and/or I am not skilled enough in predicting behavior from a limited set of writings. And if you tell me what your true motives are, you are just feeding me more words.

Notice how this differs from the view where there are actions on the surface and "motives" underneath driving them. Motives are "attributed" only in the sense that we treat complex patterns of action is if there were a singular driving (or attracting) force behind them. (The point here is not necessarily to deny that such singular forces exist, but to suggest that they are not what we speak to when we speak of motives.)

An individual's motive is a thought. It exists inasmuch as a thought can be said to exist.

I suggest that you want to learn about the pawn by cutting it open.
Let's say a guy watches only Catherine Zeta-Jones movies. Sure he has thoughts about her, but to limit his motive to just his thoughts leaves Zeta-Jones out of the equation.

A group's motive exists according to a different and more problematic way of thinking. We're not considering an individual's motive.

The actions taken to delay the video to bait conspiracy theorists will likely be different than the actions taken to delay it so as not to influence any trial. (Although, I suppose they could delay the video for legal reasons knowing full well that conspiracy theorists will make fools of themselves anyway.) It is the actions that are considered sinister--not just the private thoughts and feelings of the individuals as they carried out those actions.

But in the infrequent case where that husband's motives do demand first-class attention aside from his actions, how shall we reason about them?

Motives are an aspect of the actions and the contexts they occur in, just like redundancy is an aspect of the building and how it responds or would respond to various environmental stresses. One way we reason about motives to apply our experience of observing how actions played out in other cases.

And if the argument is written such that motives are argued first, and then upon that conclusion is based an assertion that action was taken, how shall that supplant evidence of the action?

The husband enjoys his wife's company when she is laughing. That is not enough to conclude that he has told her a joke.

But carrying it further, is the motive truly right in front of us? Doesn't this amount to attributing a motive of retribution to Johnny?

How about we use the term "classify" in this case? We classify the pattern of action and reaction here as "retribution" or "having the motive of retribution." We might be wrong, of course, because our knowledge and skill is limited. It would be like picking up an object thinking it is a pen, and upon clicking it, discovering it is really a mechanical pencil. You acquired one more piece of information that allowed you to overcome the ambiguity.

Now consider a homeowner who takes his landscaper to small claims court because the landscaper did not live up to their agreement. We say the homeowner also has the motive of retribution. But is there something common between Johnny and the homeowner? If there is, it is in the patterns of actions and reactions that take place.

A more interesting example would be if Bobby hits Johnny, but Johnny hugs Bobby back instead. Here an intent-based model can go many directions. We lack a singular, universal human rule by which to interpret Johnny's behavior confidently.

That's true. We haven't seen enough yet, either from Bobby and Johnny or from our experience in life to judge the action.

If Johnny were compelled to reveal truthfully his motive, we might hear such things as, "He is my brother; I take his abuse with familial patience," or "Bobby is autistic; he doesn't know he's not supposed to do that," or "Jesus said to love your enemies; and I want to be like Jesus."

Johnny's speech is additional action. It is not so much that Johnny "revealed" his motive, as it is we finally observed enough. What Johnny says does have to fit in with his prior and consequent actions. (There was one kid in high school, a real stoner, who came up to me one day and told me he loved Jesus and that I should follow Jesus too. I thought he was just teasing me. It was only later after observing him long enough that I realized he was dead-serious and that he really did become a born-again Christian.)

As you're aware, conspiracism relies greatly on an "appeal to motive" -- the notion that if someone had a motive to do something, he naturally did it whether the results are visible or whether it was even possible to do.

Yes, and your points are well-taken. We, too, introduce motive often, such as when we suggest Bart Sibrel is in it to sell videos, or Jack White does it to pump up his ego, etc. But of course, we verify that Sibrel sells videos and we observe the repeated pattern of him pushing his videos before we make the charge.

Would anyone care to comment on this poll?

Being completely beyond the bounds of this board, no I don't care to comment. I would appreciate though, if you were to give some hard evidence (hard as in physical) that what hit the Pentagon was NOT AA flight 77

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Sure.

You have a poll that was paid for by two conspiracy sites. I wouldn't expect the poll to show anything that would not be in their favor.

The headline claims 70 million people want a new investigation. The article mentions that they polled 1200 people. Where did the 70 million figure come from? That's quite a leap of statistics.

Without actually seeing the questions that were asked, anything that is mentioned in the article is that supports their idea is suspect.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Why they pulled it out of their collective hat.

Posting that poll isn't just an example of Brumsen's "lack of objectiveness", it's a demonstration of his personal bias.

First, the terrorists only have to keep the plot secret up to the time of the attack. The conspirators have to keep the plot secret for (at a minimum) the rest of their lives. Additional attacks necessitate additional conspirators and additional evidence, either of which could give away the conspiracy. This risk is much worse if "they" have to use a missile or something else besides a 757 to attack the Pentagon.

Second, the consequences of discovery for the conspirators are much worse. Should the terrorists be discovered, the likely worst result would be failure of that particular operation (or at least that part of it) and the loss of several operatives who were obviously expendable anyway. Should the conspiracy be discovered, the conspirators will all face lengthy prison terms or death sentences, plus massive damage to their political agenda.

So, multiply the much worse potential consequences by the much lengthier period of secrecy required, and the conspirators' incremental risk becomes quite large, and clearly the small incremental gain is not worth it.

The Pentagon hit by an inside element makes perfect sense - if you consider it as a military operation. That allows you the benefits of essentially making yourself a target of your own attack. Why do that? It instantly appears to make the military one of the victim, and makes the idea that they actually did it such a far-fetched notion as to be prepostorous. "How can you have the nerve to accuse us? We're the victims here!"

- The Pentagon was hit on the only side where renovations of structural reinforcement had just been done. The section was far less populated with workers as a result.

- They can control the target point and scope of damage with more precision using a missile instead of a large, cumbersome 757.

- They can immediately control any incriminating evidence because it's all within their vicinity...

Visual Evidence

We know for a fact that all the outside perimeter videos and photos were confiscated within minutes after the hit. Over 5 years later, none of them have been released. And how many video cameras would have been in normal day-to-day operation, in and around the Pentagon itself on 9/11? They are obviously claiming that only one caught anything on tape - the few frames they have released that essentially show nothing.

Physical evidence

- First hand reports in the immediate aftermath said there was virtually nothing on site that indicated a 757 had crashed there - no wings, no tail section, no seats, no luggage, no engines, no passengers. Nothing but small scraps of metal which were of unidentifiable origin.

- Has the FAA / NTSB done a mandatory accident investigation? Have they re-constructed the plane in a hangar? If they have, I haven't seen or heard of it.

Eyewitnesses

Again, taking it as being a military operation, there is the distinct advantage of being able to support your claim with planted witnesses from within your ranks. Despite this, the Pentagon witnesses still gave widely varying and often conflicting accounts of what hit the building.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html

There has, through confiscation and withholding, a thoroughly effective restriction of the strongest and most reliable evidence (physical and visual) from the public.

I was completely unaware that we were now doing engineering based on votes by the general public. I will now have to rethink my current projects and arrange for some opinion surveys. Makes me wonder why I wasted all that time in school when all that's needed is a show of hands.

Serious comment? I'd be much more interested in the opinions of those who know something about the subject, like, oh, structural engineers and architects. Can you link to a poll that shows 50% of them do not think the "official story" is sufficiently accurate?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Three words: argumentum ad populum.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

About a quarter of Americans polled think the Sun orbits the Earth.

Would anyone care to comment on...?

Comment, no. But I'll ask why it's relevant.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Considering the plane was delibrately flown into the building, why would the FAA / NTSB have to do an accident investigation? It would have been considered a criminal investigation, which I would assume would be out of the FAA's jurisdiction.

edit -- spelling

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

And a majority of American high-school students can't locate America on an unmarked map of the world.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I'm sorry, but do you often spew outright lies like this? Perhaps you'd like to check the original topic of this thread.

I'm amazed that none of what you say here is relevent to the heading of "visual evidence". Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that what you were about to provide was visual evidence for why the Pentagon aspect of the "story" was suspicious.

That's because immediately after the impact, the section of the Pentagon that "swallowed" the plane was engulfed in flames. Still, there were a number of pieces of the plane found on the lawn. I know you can find the pictures.

What about the planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 was an accident?

Wow. You can't do much more reaching than this...

We know for a fact that all the outside perimeter videos and photos were confiscated within minutes after the hit.

Securing evidence promptly pending a criminal investigation is normal. You simply insist without evidence that it must be for some other purpose. Affirmed consequent.

Over 5 years later, none of them have been released.

This has already been discussed ad nauseam. Another affirmed consequent.

And how many video cameras would have been in normal day-to-day operation, in and around the Pentagon itself on 9/11?

Begging the question.

They are obviously claiming that only one caught anything on tape...

Begging the question that there should be more.

...the few frames they have released that essentially show nothing.

Begging the question that the video should have shown more.

First hand reports in the immediate aftermath said there was virtually nothing on site that indicated a 757 had crashed there...

Cherry-picking. You were provided other first-hand reports that confirmed the presence of aircraft wreckage.

Has the FAA / NTSB done a mandatory accident investigation?

Non-sequitur; this was not an accident.

Have they re-constructed the plane in a hangar?

For what purpose?

This is just one of your standard vague, handwaving comparisons. Because other accident investigations sometimes reconstruct the aircraft, this one "should" have too. Knee-jerk assumption: not all investigations require reconstruction. For what specific purpose do you claim AA-77 should have been reconstructed?

Again, taking it as being a military operation, there is the distinct advantage of being able to support your claim with planted witnesses from within your ranks.

Wishful thinking. You're simply offering excuses for why the evidence differs from your belief.

Despite this, the Pentagon witnesses still gave widely varying and often conflicting accounts of what hit the building.

Variance and conflict is normal in eyewitness testimony. The majority of the testimony is consistent. Further, you now have a tautology.

You make enormous presumptive leaps about evidence you say should be available but supposedly isn't, and about the nature of evidence you have neither seen nor heard. Pure FUD.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Add to that the fact that both have supported the FBI investigation.

By coming down on the Pentagon roof, I mean flying the plane down on the roof at an inclined trajectory, not a nose dive straight down. A downward angled approach is much more technically feasible, while causing greater damage and higher numbers of casualties

By coming down on the Pentagon roof, I mean flying the plane down on the roof at an inclined trajectory, not a nose dive straight down.

Okay.

A downward angled approach is much more technically feasible...

Unsupported. What is the name of the type-qualified pilot who claims this?

...while causing greater damage and higher numbers of casualties

Please address the reason I gave for disagreeing with that.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So what do you see as the most reasonable and effective procedure for handling an airplane that was destroyed in a criminal act? Don't retain the debris as evidence for an investigation - just throw all the debris into a big scrap heap and recycle it?

What debris, Turbonium? The link you gave a few posts earlier (post 369, link to Davesweb) claims that all debris was vaporized. Now you say that it was all thrown away and recycled. It would be nice if you agreed with the sources you give to support your claims, otherwise it gets very hard to see what is in your theory, and what isn't.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I'm sorry, but do you often spew outright lies like this? Perhaps you'd like to check the original topic of this thread.

I'm sorry, but what are you spewing about? I said outside perimeter videos and photos were confiscated and not released- Citgo, Sheraton, etc. The only release has been the one from the single Pentagon camera.

So what do you see as the most reasonable and effective procedure for handling an airplane that was destroyed in a criminal act?

Begging the question. You imply that the aircraft should have been recovered and reconstructed. Why? For what specific purpose?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I said outside perimeter videos and photos were confiscated and not released- Citgo, Sheraton, etc.

It is not clear in your first statement that "outside perimeter" records was intended to refer to the privately-operated cameras.

In any case, if the government confiscates something from a private citizen, it is not allowed to release it to the public. When the government is finished with it, it is returned to the private owner who may do with it what he wishes.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What debris, Turbonium? The link you gave a few posts earlier (post 369, link to Davesweb) claims that all debris was vaporized. Now you say that it was all thrown away and recycled. It would be nice if you agreed with the sources you give to support your claims, otherwise it gets very hard to see what is in your theory, and what isn't.

I linked it because it was in reference to witness accounts and the site has a compilation of them from various sources. The site may have articles about little green men or something, but it's not relevant to the Pentagon witnesses.

Furthermore, the story that it "vaporized" originated with the Government itself. They changed that story later and claim they have reconstructed it in a hangar, IIRC.

Care to answer my question about what should be done with the debris?

The site may have articles about little green men or something, but it's not relevant to the Pentagon witnesses.

Irrelevant. If you cite a source you wish us to consider reasonably authoritative, and that source gives evidence that contradicts another of your claims, you have the responsibility to reconcile that evidence with your claim. Otherwise it's cherry-picking.

Firthermore, the story that it "vaporized" originated with the Government itself.

Specifically with whom? Even when an airframe has sustained massive damage, I certainly wouldn't say it had "vaporized".

They changed that story later and claim they have reconstructed it in a hangar, IIRC.

I'm confused. On one hand you say it's suspicious that the aircraft wasn't reconstructed, and now you say it was. What exactly is your claim?

Care to answer my question about what should be done with the debris?

Your burden of proof. You seem to be arguing that the aircraft debris was treated improperly or suspiciously. You have the burden of proof, therefore, to show what should have been done with it and why.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Begging the question. You imply that the aircraft should have been recovered and reconstructed. Why? For what specific purpose?

TWA Flt. 800 was reconstructed in an investigation - and was destroyed in a criminal act. Was it struck by a missile or did it have a bomb onboard the plane? Reconstructing the plane will help find out.

For our example, could there have been any bombs on board Flt.77 that detonated at the time of impact? We don't know if we don't retain all the debris for evidence. Would it be relevant to finding out exactly what happened? It seems obvious to me that it would.

- Has the FAA / NTSB done a mandatory accident investigation? Have they re-constructed the plane in a hangar? If they have, I haven't seen or heard of it.

I'll deal with the rest of your factoids later, but for now two observations.

First, here is the entire NTSB "report" on American 77.

Again, taking it as being a military operation, there is the distinct advantage of being able to support your claim with planted witnesses from within your ranks. Despite this, the Pentagon witnesses still gave widely varying and often conflicting accounts of what hit the building.

Yes, let's just add a lot more people who can give away the conspiracy should they choose not to go along. How were these "planted" witnesses recruited? Was there a sign-up sheet posted by every water cooler in Wedges 1 and 2 that said "Wanted: Volunteers to Become Accessories to Treasonous Conspiracy," or something like that??

Thousands of people work in the Pentagon, and a lot of them know what cruise missiles look like. What was the plan in case someone who hadn't been co-opted saw the missile and tried to talk to the media?? What if someone in a passing car happened to be taking tourist snapshots or video of the building??

One last point (for now): The evidence that WTC 2 was struck by an airliner is incontrovertible. If "they" could hit WTC 2 with an airliner, why couldn't "they" also hit the Pentagon with one??

Please explain these huge holes in your theory.

[edit: quoting and smiley]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor