Okay, let's try this--any one person/group might have multiple theoretical motives to do something. However, there will almost certainly be one which is the deciding factor, overriding the consideration given to all the others. What's more, something an outsider might think of as a motive might never occur to the person actually doing the thing. I believe enough US law has been explained to you to show that the most likely motive for withholding the tape from public view before the trial was to give Moussaoui the fairest trial possible.

After all, at least some information about practically any criminal proceedings may possibly reach the media, from the largest trial to the smallest. That does not mean that the prosecution should release all of its information. I'm sure this is true in other countries as well. The goal is the fairest trial possible, and the less information the potential jury pool has before the start of the trial, the fairer that trial ought to be.

__________________
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!"

As SpitfireIX thought, and I agree, it would be a good idea, here's a 3-frame version of my previous animation, minus the circle. The object in question is directly above the the top-right corner of the foreground "box" on the right.

Edit: You know what. That first frame should not be at 16 seconds. I'll have a more correct version up shortly.

Edit: Alright. The "correct" version is up, same link.

To me it looks like that might be a dust plume kicked up by the nose of the plane hitting the ground. It plends with the tree in the back ground in the second frame then is oscured by a lot more dust in the third.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

A plume like that would, I imagine, have left a rather large and noticable gash in the lawn. There have been numerous photos, none of which show any significant damage to the lawn. It's just my unprofessional/non-expertise/layman opinion, but I don't think the plane actually hit the ground. Aside from a few witnesses claiming the plane "bounced" off the lawn, I haven't seen or heard of any physical evidence to support that idea.

Good work, Cl1mh4224rd. Your new version makes it quite clear that what we take to be the vertical stabilizer is not just part of the tree line.

__________________
--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

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

Oh I believe that ideas can change the world, if enough people subscribe to them, but I'm also one of those people that believe that I am the ultimate source of authority to the meaning of what I say or write and that it doesn't matter what a bunch of people sitting in a room somewhere dream up that I meant, it doesn't change my authority to set the meaning , and nor does it result in their expressed meaning for what I said circumventing my meaning for what I said.

Numerous times in this "discussion" I have seen you attempt to tell Jay what he meant to say. This is exactly the problem. You aren't an authority on what Jay says, or what I say or what the Pentagon or NIST says. Only the one that makes the statement is the Authority on its true and proper meaning.

This is one reason for formulaic writting. If you and I have an agreed upon meaning to a phrase of writting then I can use that to establish an unambiguous meaning to you. It doesn't matter if it's still ambiguous to others, their interuptation of the statement is still meaningless as it is without authority.

The same is true of motive. Regardless of any previous actions, the only person who is the authority on a motive is the person who undertook that motive. You might be able to speculate on a different motive, and in Court this is done a lot, but the only one that knows the turth of the motive is the person responsible for it. Regardless of how supported or logical your speculation may be, it's still just that, speculation.

This is true with an organisation as well. Only those involved in defining the motive of the organisation are and can be the true authority on what the organisation's motives are. Only those that head and pursue the directions for the S4T911 group truely know the group's motives. We can speculate on their motives by observing their actions and speech, but regardless of how plausable the story we concot about their actions, our speculation as to their motive does not supercede their own authority of their motive. Now if they are lying as to their motive we could be able to show that their claimed motive and their actions don't match and that our speculated motive is a better fit to their actions, but that still doesn't make us more authoritive as to their motive than they are. What it might mean is that once we have established our position and satisfied the burden of proof as to our speculation, that they will be responsible to show us why we are wrong and that their authority should still hold sway. But this is it. We have to satisfy the burden of proof -FIRST-. We can't just speculate and then claim that our speculation can be enforced onto them as their motive, yet this is exactly what you have continually done here, to NIST, to Jay and now to the Pentagon as well.

__________________
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

Using Google Earth, here is what it looks like from the Sheraton to the impact point at the Pentagon. The yellow line marks the point from the center of the Sheraton's roof to the impact point at the Pentagon in the distance. It is about .75 miles distant.

The thin black line on the right represents the aproximate path of AA77 just about over and parallel with Route 244 (Columbia Pike), before taking a slight left turn to the impact point.

In contrast, the security camera from which we have the published stills was no more than .15 miles from the impact point.

We don't know, if there was indeed a camera on the Sheriton roof, where on the roof it was located or what direction it was pointed. It would seem that 3/4 of a mile distance would not produce much of anything worthwhile in a photo of the impact. A camera pointed slightly up or level and in the right direction might capture AA77's approach or as it flew by the Sheraton but begs the question of why a camera would be pointed that way to begin with.

Well I think it's been clear for a while.

__________________
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 said "quite clear," thank you.

__________________
--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

If the latter, it has reached a conclusion already and another investigation would serve to accomplish exactly what?

I used the analogy for a reason. But I can equally use any membership organination, a non-profit, or any business. Simply, does it serve its members or customers with a product that has value to its members or customers?

SF9/11T markets itself as an organization that welcomes "everyone who has a serious interest in contributing to the success of ongoing investigations into 9/11....Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and s/he may no longer access the forum or be identified with S9/11T.

"Perhaps we should observe that, among the potential benefits of joining this society, you may become the subject of government surveillance and might even be placed on various lists of 'potential terrorists.'"

Given this, what value is there in membership to those joining? Helping get to the truth wherever it may lead, or serving the "objectives of the society?" What in your mind are the kind of things thatwould "undermine the objectives of the society"?

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.

These would to me seem to be contradictory. If they desire a "fair and complete public investigation" then until such is both conducted and the Presidency is found to be at fault, they cannot "push for an impeachment procedure." And if the "fair and complete public investigation" finds no fault, then to "push for an impeachment procedure" is unwarrented. Thus to even consider it as a goal or objective prior to having what they would consider "fair and complete public investigation" a smacks of nothing more than Political Adgenda and already formulated conclusions, which begs the question of what they would consider a "fair and complete public investigation?" Only an investigation that agrees with them?

__________________
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

"You will be given a fair trial, and then you will be shot."

__________________
--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

Perhaps. What I think Cl1mh4224rd refers to just doesn't appear to be solid in most examples of the video I've seen. If it was the vertical stabilizer, I expect it would have a sunlit forward edge as bright as the fuselage of Flight 77. But it does not. In this video clip it appears more solid than in any other example, and Flight 77 (the bright white object coming from the right edge of the frame) is very clear there too. In other examples the "object" in question looks more like noise or transparent.

It might be a lamp post caught by the camera as it was impacted and swinging over. Perhaps when upright in pervious frames it was thinner than a pixel and thus did not register, but as it's sweeping downward it was detected by the camera. In fact, notice that lamp posts were knocked down in a place that must be very close to the location that Flight 77 is seen in the video frame (see this and this). ~Ian

Pentagon and Flight 77: an animated size analysis

Duplicate post edit

OMG!! Why did they release the Pentagon video? Shouldn't they have held onto it until they catch bin Laden? Because if they put him on trial here, they'll need to confiscate virtually all the existing 9/11 footage! Do you realize what that means? Going door to door, to hundreds of millions of homes throughout the country, and taking everybody's hard drives, videotapes and DVD's! I shudder at the thought!

Umm... Pay close attention to the location of the sun with respect to the camera. You're going to get little to no reflection from the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. Given the plane's approach, the side of the stabilizer visible to the camera is going to be self-shadowed. In fact, due to the low angle of the sun, the fuselage of Flight 77 would also be self-shadowed and thus not appear to be bright white on the camera-facing side. You may get a shine from the top of the fuselage, but certainly not the whole thing. Smoke trailing behind the aircraft, however, would be free of such shadowing and thus illuminated by the sun, as is evident in the video.

Hitting a light post in a manner that would cause it to appear larger on the bottom and thinner on top would require an impact very low on the post. The only possible point on the plane that would be capable of this would be... nowhere. If the wings, the plane's engines would be plowed into the ground. It couldn't be the wings for a second reason: if the white object is Flight 77, then the nose of the plane would be what was impacting the post, and that just makes a low impact on the pole that much harder. Not to mention that all the images I've seen of damaged light posts shows the damage toward the toward the top. The images you link to clearly show the top of the post has been taken off.

I'm sorry, but it's extremely unlikely that the object you identify as Flight 77 is actually Flight 77.

Yes, they are contradictory. Which is why my "or" was an exclusive-or, as is usually the case.
However I disagree that "to even consider it" is as pernicious as you make it out to be. An impeachment is a kind of trial, is it not? So that is also some kind of public investigation.

Your last suggestion is pure projection.

And what evidence of misconduct, with respect to 9/11, is there to warrant serious consideration for impeachment proceedings?

An impeachment is a kind of trial, is it not? So that is also some kind of public investigation.

No, a trial isn't an investigation. A trial is to determine guilt and punishment if guilt is established based on the evidence found during an investigation. You would seem to be suggesting that Bush be tried for 9/11 without actually going through the steps required to actually show that he was in any way involved. That is what they call a witch-hunt. Throw them in the lake, if they float they're a witch, if they drown then they were innocent.

Your last suggestion is pure projection

You wish. People on this board make up their minds based on fact, not on political allegience or leaning. If an investigaton comes up with actual facts that implicate the US Govt then we're quite happy to look into it and on verification of the result accept it. Can you say that you are as willing to accept one that says they weren't involved? Oh, hang on I know the answer to that because you haven't accepted any of the reports and papers so far done on it that says they weren't, why would another one change that?

__________________
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

The impeachment procedure will surely not succeed if the evidence is found insufficient to establish guilt? Or so I would hope.

They would neither fail nor succeed, because they would never begin. The investigation has already been carried out.

Why do you persist in stating an opinion on a topic well outside your expertise?
edited to add: the denial that a person is authoritative as to their intentions and motives does not mean that anything goes; it does not mean that some people can dream up what you meant without any restrictions.

The converse has also happened. That's called a "discussion": one tries to understand what the other has said, and one way of checking whether one has succeeded is to reformulate in one's own words. Now of course, it happens plenty of times that one gets this wrong.

I interpret you as having meant "writing" and "interpretation".

Of course we can agree on meanings of words between us. However, it doesn't work if you then write a public statement using those words and intend them to mean the same as has been established between us.

See the above point on expertise.

I agree about the burden of proof. But we disagree, I think, about what that burden of proof consists in; about what it implies concretely.
By the way, you may have failed to notice that I conceded the point about the Pentagon.

Except, of course, that I - and a few others as well - would not accept that investigation as fair and complete.

Except, of course, that it's not all that clear that they actually want to catch bin Laden; and even less, if they were to catch him, that they'd want to try him. Because surely his guilt has been established beyond any reasonable doubt already, just as with all those poor sods held at Guantanamo without any trial?

Why do you persist in stating an opinion on a topic well outside your expertise?

You have no idea where my areas of expertise lie, besides, you yourself have already said that lack of expertise should not prevent a person from making statements, or have you changed your mind on that?

the denial that a person is authoritative as to their intentions and motives does not mean that anything goes; it does not mean that some people can dream up what you meant without any restrictions.

It doesn't matter if they have restrictions or not. It doesn't matter if their claims to meaning are plausible or not, if they are wrong they are wrong, and only the person or persons behind the motive or statment can say if they are wrong.

Of course we can agree on meanings of words between us. However, it doesn't work if you then write a public statement using those words and intend them to mean the same as has been established between us.

Of course it does. If I'm writing something in a way that we agree on, but it subsequently becomes public, the meaning of that writing doesn't miraculously change just because more people can read it. The meaning is still the same as we agreed on eariler even if others without the knowledge of that agreement might not fully understand what that meaning is. Take a legal
documant for example. My posting one on this board would not change what it means to a lawyer reading it and its meaning isn't different when read by a non-lawyer. A non-lawyer may not understand it, but that doesn't mean it had lost its meaning, or that the meaning has been changed through it's being made public. What it does mean is that those without the knowledge need to gain it before placing an interpretation onto it.

See the above point on expertise.

See the above answer.


OMG!! Why did they release the Pentagon video? Shouldn't they have held onto it until they catch bin Laden? Because if they put him on trial here, they'll need to confiscate virtually all the existing 9/11 footage!

They released it because they were forced to release it under the Official Information Act. It wasn't released because the trial has finished, but because via belonging to the Pentagon it is public property and thus under the law when it was requested, they had no choice but to release it.

Other 9/11 footage is owned by the Media. Under the 1st admentment the The US Government can't demand that they don't play their property even if it is likely to cause harm to potential Jury selection. Numerous crimes have been shown on TV by news organisations because they own the tapes of it. Whether they shoulkd or not is debatable, but while the US has freedom of the press enshrined in law, that's not going to stop.

__________________
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

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.

A few pages back I speculated that a missile would be too small to show up on the video, and the fact that something shows up in the video rules out that option. It didn't really provoke much response at the time because most of us were in the middle of a linguistics discussion, but I bring it up again here. Does anyone agree?

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

Why the "or" (interpreted, again, as exclusive-or)? Rhetorics, rhetorics...
Anyway, we covered these grounds in the scholars-thread already. You know, the one where I invited anyone interested in honest debate to join the SfT discussion board, without becoming a member... after which it became rather quiet.
To my mind, what would have to be considered as undermining, would be to be disruptive in the internal SfT debate - in the sense of being impolite, abusive, unscholarly - and to make public statements which discredit SfT.

It sounded quite reasonable to me, but I don't consider my judgment on this to be very weighty. BTW, another widely spread alternative hypothesis - and a more credible one, to my mind - is that it was not hit by a missile, but a military plane. See Loose Change.

If you disagree with my stand on expertise, then it would be inconsistent of you to persist in stating opinions outside your expertise. It is not inconsistent of me to point out your inconsistency. So no, I have not changed my mind.

So, what is your expertise? Just curious.

Thanks for acknowledging. I did see some speculation involving a smaller white aircraft, and I suppose the follow up question is: could that plane be capable of giving us what we see in the images (with reagrds to the plane's size, and the size of the fireball)?

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