Oh dear... you must have been reading Gilbert Ryle's the Concept of Mind. Or something closely inspired by it!
Where the key word is "can"; and with the provision that we talk about organisations, I have agreed to this - see (the end of) this post.

I know it's rather difficult to do given the topic, but please try to avoid political commentary on this forum.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Sorry to barge in, but regardless of what this conversation about motives results in, it won't change the (true) facts of what occured (and what is seen in the video).

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

No convincing story has been told about why this tape was (potential) evidence in Moussaoui's trial

No, you're merely claiming this because it suits you. Please explain how a videotape of a murder is not potential evidence in the trial of one of the alleged conspirators. Would you say the Zapruder film would not have been evidence in the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, had he lived long enough to have been tried for JFK's murder??

True, I am no expert here. But what I am assuming is that in order to justify withholding something because it might be a piece of evidence in a trial, it would fall upon DOJ to explain how it might be a piece of evidence. Otherwise the whole FOIA would be entirely teethless; any potential evidence of wrongdoing might then be withheld on the basis that it might be evidence in a trial picked at random.

And that's why Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense after the FOIA request was denied; the lawsuit was short-circuited by the decision to release the tape after the Moussaoui trial had ended.

Moreover, I am assuming that the explanation that the video was shot at 9/11 is not sufficient for witthholding it as potential evidence for a trial in which the defendent stands accused of having been able to prevent occurrences at that same date. It needs to be more to the point than that.

This is completely specious. What if Moussaoui had decided to claim that he was innocent because the Pentagon was actually hit by a cruise missile? Attempting to show that the crime in question was in fact committed by someone other than the accused's alleged co-conspirators is certainly a potential defense to a charge of conspiracy. Therefore, the US Government might well have needed to prove that a plane, rather than a missile, struck the Pentagon. Do you agree, Brumsen? How would the tape not have been evidence in this case?

Further, as I have attempted to point out to you several times, apart from any issues of its evidentiary value, release of the tape might at some point have come back to haunt the Justice Department due to potential claims that viewing the tape might have unduly influenced jurors to vote for the death penalty.

That either of the above scenarios might have been considered very unlikely by the prosecution in the Moussaoui case is no reason the tapes should have been released--again, why should the Justice Department take any risk at all merely to satisfy public curiosity?

__________________
--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

No. The only thing that can establish whether there was an act of wrongdoing is evidence. Supposition is not a substitute for evidence, ever. To make a convincing case you would first have to demonstrate that there is something untoward about witholding the tape. So far, other than your unsupported assertion otherwise, you have not done so.


And as a matter of specificity... I do believe the DoJ witheld the video not the DoD.

Just because you are not convinced does not mean it is not so. I am convinced by the explanation, that does not make it so either. Several people have offered many legal rationales for why the video was witheld. That you can't accept them is your own issue and has no bearing in why the tape was witheld.


I think Spitfire answered this sufficiently.


Just as there is a fact that my shirt is a certain color irrelevant of anyone's speculation about what color it might be; there is a specific motive for not releasing the tape that reason does not change dependent upon the person seeking the reason or what they prefer the motive might be. The tape was witheld because of A, B, C, or D... or perhaps a combination. Any speculation about or preference for A, B, C, or D does not in any way actually affect what the reason truly was. If the reason was A no amount of speculation that it could of, might of been B or C or D changes reality.

Absent any evidence to the contrary and finding the stated reason for witholding the tape consistent with my understanding of the law, I have no problem accepting the proferred "official" explanation.

Quite the contrary. Plato simply did not believe in empirical truth and rejected it outright. Something that runs contrary to scientific inquiry. At the end of the day Plato's philosophy can give us no useful information about the world we live in. Science has at its heart a quest to tell us more about the reality of the world we live in. Applying one to the other is, I believe, a fruitless exercise as the two methods of examing reality could not be more opposite.

Ummm, I'm sorry where exactly did I say that?

As much as I personally find the reason given for only now releasing the videos more than a little spurious, I actually view this news event as positive. That means they are now able to, and should, release any and all 9/11 Pentagon photos and videos in their possession to the public. The confiscated videos from Citgo, the Sheraton, et al. The videos recorded by other Pentagon cameras. Any other photos and videos they may have.

Why should we simply be expected to believe as an incontrovertible fact that every other piece of visual evidence is no better than the single video we do have, when absolutely none of it has ever been released? No matter - that's now a moot point. With the reason for previously withholding such evidence now expunged, we shouldn't have to accept the status quo.

Whatever the images show, either exceptional details or little to nothing at all, all of them can now be released to the public, and should be. It's time to put an end to the speculation and resolve this issue once and for all. I think the recent video release is encouraging, and can only help boost public support for full disclosure of the Pentagon evidence.

That's all well and good, Turbonium, but the problem is that there is a small yet vocal group of people who will not be satisfied by any gesture, no matter what, because they are predisposed to believe in a conspiracy.

And you must realize that predisposition, no matter what side of the ideological aisle it starts from, is anathema to good investigation, right? Even though I assume you remain dubious of the official story you should also be dubious of the 911 'truth' movement as well.

Regardless, I say scr*w it, let's just go have a few delicious domestic craft beers and talk about sports.

Regardless, I say scr*w it, let's just go have a few delicious domestic craft beers and talk about sports.

Cool--shall we meet in Toledo? So who do you like in the Bengals-Colts rematch?

__________________
--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

So, you feel that the government should toss aside all property rights to satisy you?

Hint: Citgo and Sheraton videos, even though confiscated for evidence, ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE US GOVERNMENT, and as such cannot be released by the US government. Look to the settlement of cases over the Zapruder film for an example of this.

You've circled a number of objects, which I think includes trees, part of the box in the foreground, and in one frame part of the fuselage of Flight 77. ~Ian

__________________
Goddard's Journal

Regardless, I say scr*w it, let's just go have a few delicious domestic craft beers and talk about sports.

You'll get no argument from me, twin - I'll get the first round. Cheers!

I've always felt that a plausible motive for government withholding of any Pentagon video is simply a matter of saving face. Suppose you had or gained control of video showing someone sucker punch you square in the face and falling back knocked out on your back. Would you want that video in the news? ~Ian

__________________
Goddard's Journal

Weeeeeeell, Bart is still selling the one of Buzz decking him so........

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Read a dictionary.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the story that best fits the evidence, here, is "it was potential evidence in a criminal proceedings."

Oh, I know. You don't believe that. However, since it is increasingly difficult to establish exactly what you do believe, you'll forgive me for not putting a lot of stock in that. I, on the other hand, have done a moderate amount of study of American jurisprudence. While in many US states the prosecution is legally obligated to share their evidence with the defense, they are rather strictly forbidden from sharing most of it with the general public, as this is at the very least considered tainting the jury pool, and it must've been very difficult as it was to find an at least theoretically unbiased jury.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Oh yeah, sure, since we have dictionaries where all truths about language are printed in black&white, we don't need any philosophy of language.

I'll bite. Why do we need philosophy of languange? What is its point?

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Why do we need philosophy of languange? What is its point?

It allows a bunch of people who can't get a job to pretend to be intellectual and keep playing at being students for the rest of their lives?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I'll try one more time. We know that the withholding was an act of the DoD. (or DoJ; doesn't matter to the argument here). Was it a malicious act? That can only be established by establishing the motive; that's what distinguish a justified act from an act of wrongdoing.

It appears that you just ignore what has been said earlier about the nature of motives. So since you don't offer any argument to say what was wrong with that, I'll just ignore what you say here, and restate that I disagree.

I took it that you implied that. So what exactly was the point of your 'sidebar'? Was it restricted to Platonic philosophy? Doesn't apply to anything I've said, then.

Well... for example to help settle the question as to what is to be regarded as the proper kind of evidence for establishing what someone's motive was. Dictionaries merely report how most people consider language to be used correctly. But often, as in this case, that use is conceptually muddled. Clearing up that kind of muddle is what philosophy of language does.

Ah, you're one of those people who believe ideas don't change the world? Think again.

What makes you think that those whose property these videos are would object to their release? Do you have any evidence that they do?

Well, I may be wrong here, but the case against Moussaoui was not centered only on the Pentagon attack, was it? So how would the video have unduly influenced jurors when the videos of the WTC towers being struck have been around for ages?
Moreover, does the tape actually prove that the Pentagon was struck by a plane? I have seen quite a lot of question marks about that here.
And how would earlier release have affected the proof that the Pentagon was struck by a plane?

Some of my questions here may be ignorant, but they are real.

Finally, it seems to me that you are rather downplaying the importance of this "public curiosity". But you'll say the opposite of me, of course.

But the sad thing is that "clearing up that kind of muddle" may be the intention, but the result is usually an even greater confusion. As can be seen in this discussion, there is quite some difference between what almost everyone understands when something is said, and what an ethicus or a philosopher may understand. I think it is safest in a discussion with people of all backgrounds to assume that what is intended is (one of the) dictionary meanings of a word, and not what some philosopher says its meaning is.

As for this video: it is not as if it overturns all previous theories and contradicst all evidence. It is just one more (small) piece of evidence that seamlessly fits into the official story. Now, if only the Scholars for truth had some small piece of evidence against the official story, and someone willing (and able) to defend it, then we could have a useful discussion.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Generally that will be the safe thing to do, yes. But sometimes it leads to trouble. In the case of motive, it's not simply a case of a philosopher saying the word doesn't have the meaning it's generally taken to have; rather, saying that it refers to a different type of thing than is generally believed. And that is the only way of rendering our use of language consistent.

Now on occasion that may lead to confusion. But such things may equally happen when scientists come with new insights; say, about food safety, or about how to avoid cancers. Now, is confusion in such cases a reason to stick with the old ways; or a reason to educate the confused?

Why do we need philosophy of languange? What is its point?

Let's say you wanted to study the role blueprints play in the development and production of a rocket. So, you track a single blueprint from the time it is drawn up to the time the rocket launches. At each step of the process, you study how the blueprint causes workers to act.

Think about the blueprint. It is nothing more than a piece of paper with ink markings on it. It is a dead, static object. Yet, there is all this dynamic and productive activity that surrounds it. And at the final stage, there is the wonderful rocket launch.

The words and phrases of language function in a similar way. Words are ink markings on paper, patterns of sounds, etc., but there is all this dynamic and productive context of action around them. The philosophy of language focuses on how we use language and the role it plays in our lives.

Modern philosophy (not just language), including but not limited to authors like Gilbert Ryle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Daniel Dennett, and cognitive psychologist JJ Gibson, baffles many people at first because it breaks away from the objective-subjective distinction we are all so used to. We are used to thinking of such philosophic matters in terms of "what goes on in the mind". The modern views tend have a wider scope that investigates an organism's achievement in the environment.

To illustrate the difference in viewpoints with a contrived example: Consider a bat chasing and catching a mosquito. A traditional focus might be on the "mental states" of the bat. A modern focus might consider the wider context of the mosquito, the atmosphere, and all the bat's guidance and flight systems that enable it to track and close in on the mosquito. The bat and its environment are considered as a system, and the bat's actions are not considered as reactions to "internal mental states", but as a dynamic feedback loop of closing the gap to the mosquito.

In the traditional view the end result of consciousness is a perception of the mosquito. In a modern view, the end result is the mosquito. (Edited to add: the mosquito in the bat's stomach!)

Note: I am not an expert on this subject. I'll let Brumsen correct anything I say. I just read this stuff for fun (or self-torture might be the better word).

Speaking of motives, how would you describe the motive(s) of Scholars for 9/11 Truth to which you still belong?

What are it's accomplishments to date?

Is it achieving it's purpose and goals?

Has it brought scientific, physical, or forensic evidence to the table which should change what has been concluded by the NIST investigations?

What do you see as your role in SF9/11T?

If SF9/11T were a business, would you consider it a successful business? Does it serve its customers and core consituency?

Speaking of motives, how would you describe the motive(s) of Scholars for 9/11 Truth to which you still belong?
In the widest sense, bringing to attention possible anomalies in the 9/11 story. In a narrower sense, doing so in order to push for a fair and complete public investigation. Or perhaps in order to push for an impeachment procedure.

What are it's accomplishments to date?
Not very many, in my opinion.

Is it achieving it's purpose and goals?
Who knows? If at all, slowly; see previous.

Has it brought scientific, physical, or forensic evidence to the table which should change what has been concluded by the NIST investigations?
I am not sure. There is one conclusion though which has been unsupported by NIST.

What do you see as your role in SF9/11T?
A very modest one. Connecting some of the stuff to engineering ethics codes. Helping think through fallacies, think about matters of burden of proof.

If SF9/11T were a business, would you consider it a successful business? Does it serve its customers and core consituency?
It is not a business, therefore I think this is a nonsensical question. Nothing to be said that hasn't been said above.

But there are importantly different contexts involved there. Bart is a lone individual who feels the need to persuade people that Buzz decked him. On the other hand, that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is generally presumed to be the case and apart from a few doubters, there's no need to persuade people of that. Given that, Uncle Sam may not be too eager to show "himself" getting sucker punched in the face. ~Ian

__________________
Goddard's Journal

But all the so-called anomalies have been explained to you over and over and over again. They aren't. People with actual qualifications in the actual fields involved agree that what you see is what you should see if, say, a Big Frickin' Plane full of fuel and travelling very fast hit a building. As soon as you can actually show an anomaly that anyone with any training thinks is an anomaly, maybe people will listen to you. Until then, you are just irritating people, which is, contrary to your apparent belief, more likely to stifle discussion!

And philosophy is all very well, but the simple fact is that the definition of the word is all you really need to know in order to define it properly, and the definition of "motive" is "a reason someone might do something." It is. I promise. You can look it up anywhere you like that gives definitions of words. The philosophy behind it is not being determined correctly if the word is being defined wrong.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Well, I may be wrong here, but the case against Moussaoui was not centered only on the Pentagon attack, was it?

Actually, it was centered on the Pentagon, because this was a US Government prosecution, as opposed to a New York, Virginia, or Pennsylvania state prosecution. The World Trade Center and the four airliners were not US Government property, and no Federal employees were killed outside of the Pentagon. The indictment charged Moussaoui with the following six criminal counts:

1. Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries

2. Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy

3. Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft

4. Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction

5. Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees

6. Conspiracy to Destroy Property of the United States

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution reads, in part:

As the indictment shows, the legal authority for counts 1 and 4 is based in part on the commerce clause. The legal authority for counts 2 and 3 is based primarily on the piracies and felonies clause. The Federal death penalty is a relatively recent law, and anti-death penalty judges might well be inclined to limit its application as much as possible. Such judges could conceivably rule the controlling statutes unconstitutional (for example, on the grounds that "on the high seas" implies that Congress does not have the authority to punish aircraft hijackings that take place exclusively over US territory, or that the tenuous connection to "commerce" does not allow imposition of the death penalty).

The legal authority for count 5 is based on on the necessary and proper [edit: (also known as the elastic)] clause, and it would be extremely difficult for even the most ardent death penalty opponent to argue that the US Government does not have a compelling interest in protecting its employees from being murdered while performing their duties.

The legal authority for count 6 is based on the exclusive legislation clause; the federal government clearly has the right to make any laws not otherwise unconstitutional affecting other needful buildings (e.g. the Pentagon); such laws obviously include prescribing the death penalty for the criminal damage to or destruction of such a building that results in loss of life.

So, in summation, two of the six counts of the indictment relate only to the Pentagon, and those two are least likely to be ruled unconstitutional. Thus the Pentagon attack was the main focus of the Justice Department's case.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. )

[edit: For those who don't regularly watch American television, these are plays on popular advertisements.]

So how would the video have unduly influenced jurors when the videos of the WTC towers being struck have been around for ages?

I believe this was one of the points Judicial Watch raised (or planned to raise) in its lawsuit; however, as I pointed out, there existed a very real (even if remote) possiblility that some court might so rule at some point.

Under the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, the accused has the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Moussaoui was tried in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which includes the Pentagon. Theoretically, an argument could be made that video of the Pentagon attack might influence jurors who live in Virginia more than watching the video of United 175 striking WTC 2 would.

This brings up another issue; when a person has been sentenced to death, his or her lawyers will frequently file appeals that may appear to have little or no chance of success, merely as a delaying tactic. Taking away some possible prextexts for such appeals might have speeded the process of getting Moussaoui from death row and into the execution chamber.

One final related point; one of the very few cases where the US provision against double jeopardy does not apply is when the federal government and one or more states have concurrent jurisdiction. So, theoretically, Moussaoui could be retried for murder and conspiracy in New York, Virginia, or Pennsylvania. New York's death penalty was recently ruled unconstitutional (i.e. in violation of the state's constitution) by that state's highest court, so Virginia would be a likely state for this. Note that this strategy was recently employed in the case of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, who, after being sentenced to life in prison at the conclusion of his federal trial, was retried on state murder charges in an (unsuccessful) attempt to obtain a death sentence. So the Justice Department might well have wished to avoid compromising a potential retrial by withholding the video.

Moreover, does the tape actually prove that the Pentagon was struck by a plane? I have seen quite a lot of question marks about that here.

First of all, what the tape actually shows would have been for a jury to have decided; that aside, as I have pointed out, assuming for the sake of argument that the tape has not been doctored, then, yes, it does prove that a plane hit the Pentagon. No missile could have created such a huge fireball, even had its explosive warhead been replaced with an extra tank of jet fuel (and if the warhead had been replaced with jet fuel, it couldn't have blown a hole in the wall as shown in the pre-collapse photos of the facade). Whatever hit the building was clearly moving well in excess of 100 mph, as it is only visible in one frame before the impact, so it couldn't have been any kind of a truck bomb. Any fuel container (basically a gasoline tanker truck would have been required) placed against the wall would have had to have been large enough to have been clearly visible in the video (not to mention visible to the numerous eyewitnesses) and bombs placed on the inside of the building to blow a hole in the wall would have scattered concrete fragments all over the outside.

[edit: upon reviewing the video and looking at the SolidWorks models again, it seems that it might just be possible to hide a gasoline tanker truck behind the control tower/fire station building; however, this would have been an astoundingly idiotic plan--not only would the entire heliport staff and any number of other Pentagon employees have been bound to notice, but the truck would also have been clearly visible from the highway and several other vantage points.]

And how would earlier release have affected the proof that the Pentagon was struck by a plane?

Again, for whatever reason, you are missing the point. If the jurors, who were not sequestered during the trial, were to have repeatedly watched the video, one could claim that this unduly influenced them to vote for the death penalty, as it could have inflamed their passions.

Some of my questions here may be ignorant, but they are real.

There is nothing wrong with your having and asking questions; the problem is with your clear presumption (or at least hope) that There Is a Conspiracy. Further, this is yet another example that flies in the face of your claim that expertise is of limited importance in this case.

Finally, it seems to me that you are rather downplaying the importance of this "public curiosity". But you'll say the opposite of me, of course.

Apart from the fact that you are overplaying public curiosity, balancing the public's right to know and the rights of the accused can often be problematic. However, there is nothing inherently suspicious about the Justice Department's erring well in favor of not risking giving Moussoui's lawyers any unnecessary grounds for appeals.

__________________
--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

Interesting... that definition is not problematic for me. But that definition does not say that a motive is an internal state, that the person having it has priority access to, and about which there is an absolute truth as discussed previously.