[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[CptColumbo]

Let me qualify MSM OPINIONS.
The MSM isn't totally out of it, eg the towers did go down that day, as portrayed on MSM.
However, the MSM opinion that Moslem terrorists did it, is out.
You show me evidence that moslems did do it (hijack 175) and I'll show you evidence that they didn't.
Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

IMO, short of taking you back in time (which is currently impossible) I don't believe you would accept any photographic (security camera), eye witness accounts, and ATC data. You have choosen to adopt a higher standard of evidence that you are unable to achieve even remotely (no pun intended)with your own theory. Anything that disagrees with your version of events is tainted or mistaken. We've seen this before on many subjects.

As I told another CTer, there are only two things that you can be 100% certain of in this world:
1. That you exist.
2. That you have senses. They may not provide you with the correct data, but you know you have them.

Everything else you know is based on past experiences. For example:
Do you know with 100% certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow? Are you basing your answer on your past experiences (it always has before)?

This is why jurors are told to base their decisions on a "reasonable doubt." Rather than complete certainty.

Short of going back in time, it is impossible to answer every question about a given event. Hence, we are forced to rely on evidence, and analysis of that evidence by qualified experts in the needed diciplines.

All the evidence in this particular instance leads to only one reasonable conclusion. That 175 took off, was hijacked by extremists of a political and religious movement, and piloted by the same hijackers into one of the WTC towers. If you have evidence, other than conjecture to present, that these events did not occur, we would all be interested in seeing it. Without any evidence coming from you, your version of events hasn't even reached a hypothesis stage.

MEB-SG

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

1. Absolute proof = it happens every time = scientific law.
2. It happens every time, but every case cannot be shown = scientific hypothesis.

So is gravity a "scientific law" or a "scientific hypothesis"? It's impossible to show every case where gravity should apply.

4. Shown on the balance of probabilities (51-49) = legal civil guilt

In which country? In most places in the USA, the standard is "preponderance of evidence".

I say that 175 did not hit the south tower, because there is no evidence that it did and plenty of reasonable suspicion that it did not. Therefore on the balance of probabilities, 175 did not hit the south tower.

Worth a Stundie nomination?

 

[SOMERLED]

Here on Earth, what we call World War II ended with Japan's surrender. Hirohito accepted the terms on August 14, 1945, an attempted coup to sequester the emperor and continue the war was narrowly averted, and the actual documents were signed on the USS Missouri on September 2. The thousands of Americans and Japanese killed and wounded between the collapse of Nazi Germany and the dropping of the second atomic bomb suggest that your conclusion that the war was over is insupportable.

After May 5th 1945, the five continents of the world were no longer embroiled in war. Therefore it ceased to be a world war.

 

[SOMERLED]

I believe probable cause is needed to apply for a search warrant in the US, and enough probale cause to convince a judge that a search warrant is being executed properly. This would require the detectives to present all the evidence they have collected to this point and what they will be looking for. It is then up to the judge to determine if probable cause exists. He may elect to narrow the focus of the search warrant. For example, if you want to search for evidence in or around the suspects car, he may narrow your search to only the car or garage, rather than the entire property.

Probable cause has to be more than suspicion. It also has to involve the evidence that leads to that suspicion.

What is the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" ?

 

[SOMERLED]

Can anyone produce any evidence that 175 even took off that morning?

 

[SOMERLED]

I believe probable cause is needed to apply for a search warrant in the US, and enough probale cause to convince a judge that a search warrant is being executed properly. This would require the detectives to present all the evidence they have collected to this point and what they will be looking for. It is then up to the judge to determine if probable cause exists. He may elect to narrow the focus of the search warrant. For example, if you want to search for evidence in or around the suspects car, he may narrow your search to only the car or garage, rather than the entire property.

Probable cause has to be more than suspicion. It also has to involve the evidence that leads to that suspicion.

Is this before or after The Patriot Act?
We are struggling with definitions here. I'm certainly doing my best to achieve broad agreement.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let me qualify MSM OPINIONS.
The MSM isn't totally out of it, eg the towers did go down that day, as portrayed on MSM.
However, the MSM opinion that Moslem terrorists did it, is out.
You show me evidence that moslems did do it (hijack 175) and I'll show you evidence that they didn't.
Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

No. You, in your opening post, stated, "175 did NOT hit the South tower. A remote controlled flight from Offutt AFB did."

The easiest way you can begin substantiating your assertion is by doing one of the following:
* Using the visual record of the events, show that the plane could not have been UA Flight 175, or
* Concede that the plane that struct the tower is visually consistent with UA Flight 175; after which the next point of discussion can be raised

If you are unable to the first, and unwilling to do the second, then there is no point in this discussion going any further.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

Here is an interview with the air traffic controller who was handling United 175 when it was hijacked.



Here is a transcript of the air traffic control tape on which United 175 is cleared for takeoff from BOS. The transcript was obtained by the New York Times.

8:12:21 -- UAL175: Position and hold runway niner United one seventy five heavy.

8:13:26 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy runway niner cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.

8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five heavy.

8:13:34 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy contact departure.

8:14:36 -- UAL: Departure Uniteds one seventy-five heavy.

8:14:44 -- UAL175: Approach, United one seventy-five heavy with you out of twelve hundred.

8:14:46 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston departure radar contact. Climb and maintain one four thousand.

8:14:51 -- UAL175: One four thousand, United one seventy-five heavy.

8:15:41 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five, heavy turn right heading, two one zero.

8:15:45 -- UAL175: Turn two one zero, United one seventy-five heavy.

8:16:51 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five, heavy turn right, heading two seven zero.

8:16:54 -- UAL175: Turn to two seven zero, United one seventy-five.

8:17:09 -- Boston Departure Radar: United one seventy-five heavy, contact Boston approach. One two seven point two good day.

8:17:13 -- UAL175: Two seven point two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.

8:17:21 -- UAL175: Boston, good morning. United one seventy-five heavy out of eight thousand.

8:17:24 -- Boston Approach: United one seventy-five heavy, Boston approach. Fly heading two seven zero.

8:17:28 -- UAL175: Two seven zero on the heading, United one seventy-five.

8:19:09 -- Boston Approach: United one seventy-five heavy, contact Boston center one three three point four two.

8:19:13 -- UAL175: Three three four two, United one seventy-five heavy. Good day.

 

[Wolverine]

I propose that we follow already accepted proceedures.
The levels of proof are as follws,
1. Absolute proof = it happens every time = scientific law.
2. It happens every time, but every case cannot be shown = scientific hypothesis.

I propose you make an effort to improve your understanding of science and/or scientific terminology.

Science does not operate in absolutes, and "proofs" are for mathematics or syllogistic logic. Science deals with evidence -- it does not "prove" things.

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Further reading:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

 

[Belz...]

Before any response though, let's have an agreed definition of 'evidence'.

Basically, it's the opposite of what you've been doing, here. Instead of just claiming something, one should present evidence that his claims are true.

As for the definition of evidence, I'd just say that it's any objective piece of data that points to the truth value of a claim. By objective, I mean that gut feelings and the like are not acceptable in most cases.

I further propose that evidence starts with reasonable suspicion.

That's a very good example of what evidence is NOT.

I say that 175 did not hit the south tower, because there is no evidence that it did and plenty of reasonable suspicion that it did not.

That is nonsensical. Millions of people saw the plane hit the south tower. Thousands of which were ON SITE. In order for that plane NOT to be 175, you'd have to present evidence that contradicts that which we have.

As for "suspicion" that it did not, that is still not evidence. What you are saying, basically, is that you don't trust the official account. Well, that's just too bad.

Therefore on the balance of probabilities, 175 did not hit the south tower.

Unfortunately for you, and fortunarely for reality and our justice system, that's not how it works.

You show me evidence that moslems did do it (hijack 175) and I'll show you evidence that they didn't.

Somehow I doubt you will. I think your "evidence" will amount to you saying that it wasn't 100% sure to succeed, and therefore didn't happen. I guess D-Day was a hoax, too.

 

[Corsair 115]

Clouds move, clouds also vary in height from the ground. How can you be confident that at the moment you find yourself in the pilot's seat, you can even see the ground? How do you know that you won't actually be in cloud?

Excuse me, I'm a little confused by the above. What exactly is the point you are trying to raise? It would seem to go to the difficulty of navigation issue, but you are being somewhat vague.

As I said, just list, in point form if you like, what navigational issues that you think presented insoluble problems for anyone in command of the aircraft other than the assigned pilots.

If you are unfamiliar with the various ways aircraft can be navigated, do not hesitate to say so. There is no shame in being unfamiliar with it; most laypersons wouldn't be. Just ask some questions and myself or someone else will be able to explain that aircraft navigation is not some incredibly complex task that only experts can do. There are plenty of tools available to pilots which allow them to do relatively easily, and anyone can learn those tools with a bit of research.

I know this isn't strictly in the navigation bit, it is however relevant... (rest of quote trimmed for brevity's sake)

Those issues relate more to the logistics of taking over the aircraft, and as I've said, let's leave those aside until we've put the navigation issue to rest.

 

[Corsair 115]

After May 5th 1945, the five continents of the world were no longer embroiled in war. Therefore it ceased to be a world war.

Apolgoies for being blunt, malcolm, but that's a rather silly, astonishingly nitpicky way of assessing a term which has an accepted, and long-standing, meaning to everyone else.

It's like you proclaiming the term "car" is incorrect and we should all instead be using the original term, "horseless carriage."

 

[SOMERLED]

Perfect example of some serious errors in critical thinking and logic.

First of all- there is no such thing as evidence of and evidence against- "you show me x and I'll show you non-x" is a contradiction, and irrational. This is where your arbitrary definitions of "levels of truth" really hurt you. Additionally, this is a middle ground fallacy. You believe that sliding to the other end and claiming absolute disbelief is appropriate- and therefore you can claim that there is "evidence against", when really it's just your personal beliefs, as we can see from your next claim.

"Prove it even took off". This is not the voice of reason- this is philosophical skepticism- not to be confused with the skepticism you see here as it is applied to events. You could infinitely regress back to "prove you even exist" and we'll be here for years. The fact of the matter is, there is no valid reason to doubt that the planes took off- and even if there was, the burden of proof would be on you to support that claim.

Further reading:
Infinite Regression^WP
Burden of Proof^WP
Ambiguous Middle Ground Fallacy^WP

Absolutely not, you say that 175 hit the south tower. Show me any evidence that 175 took off.

 

[CptColumbo]

What is the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" ?

In legal terms.

Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof used in the United States to determine whether a brief investigative stop or a brief search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court determined that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion. As a result of the low threshold requirement for reasonable suspicion, the level of intrusiveness of the search and/or seizure allowed is lower than the level of intrusiveness allowed when a government agent has probable cause to suspect evidence of a crime will be found.

A good illustration of this is the continuum of a typical police/citizen interaction:

Consensual encounter between officer and citizen (no level of suspicion required): a stop initiated by the officer that would cause a reasonable person to feel that he/she is not free to leave (reasonable suspicion required) :arrest (probable cause required).

Probable cause is a relatively low standard of proof, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted. It is also used by grand juries to determine whether to issue an indictment. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgment remedy.

In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), determined that probable cause requires "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found." Courts vary when determining what constitutes a "fair probability," some say 30%, others 40%, others 51%.

 

[SOMERLED]

Basically, it's the opposite of what you've been doing, here. Instead of just claiming something, one should present evidence that his claims are true.

As for the definition of evidence, I'd just say that it's any objective piece of data that points to the truth value of a claim. By objective, I mean that gut feelings and the like are not acceptable in most cases.



That's a very good example of what evidence is NOT.



That is nonsensical. Millions of people saw the plane hit the south tower. Thousands of which were ON SITE. In order for that plane NOT to be 175, you'd have to present evidence that contradicts that which we have.

As for "suspicion" that it did not, that is still not evidence. What you are saying, basically, is that you don't trust the official account. Well, that's just too bad.



Unfortunately for you, and fortunarely for reality and our justice system, that's not how it works.



Somehow I doubt you will. I think your "evidence" will amount to you saying that it wasn't 100% sure to succeed, and therefore didn't happen. I guess D-Day was a hoax, too.

Why should I disprove that, of all the planes that were in the sky that morning, the one that hit tower 2 was 175.
You are the one that is saying 175 hit tower 2. Now prove it.

 

[pomeroo]

After May 5th 1945, the five continents of the world were no longer embroiled in war. Therefore it ceased to be a world war.

I'm afraid that your idiosyncratic opinion does not determine the dates of events in history. World War II ended with the Japanese surrender.

This is an important point, one that you will certainly ignore: the doctrine that the self constitutes the only independent reality is called solipsism. A study of epistemology usually begins with a discussion of solipism, and an acknowledgement that the doctrine has theoretical, rather than practical, significance. Real flesh-and-blood solipsists, e.g. Shirley MacLaine, are both extremely rare and quite insane.

 

[SOMERLED]

Basically, it's the opposite of what you've been doing, here. Instead of just claiming something, one should present evidence that his claims are true.

As for the definition of evidence, I'd just say that it's any objective piece of data that points to the truth value of a claim. By objective, I mean that gut feelings and the like are not acceptable in most cases.



That's a very good example of what evidence is NOT.



That is nonsensical. Millions of people saw the plane hit the south tower. Thousands of which were ON SITE. In order for that plane NOT to be 175, you'd have to present evidence that contradicts that which we have.

As for "suspicion" that it did not, that is still not evidence. What you are saying, basically, is that you don't trust the official account. Well, that's just too bad.



Unfortunately for you, and fortunarely for reality and our justice system, that's not how it works.



Somehow I doubt you will. I think your "evidence" will amount to you saying that it wasn't 100% sure to succeed, and therefore didn't happen. I guess D-Day was a hoax, too.

Millions of people saw A plane hit the south tower. 175 was a civilian aircraft, how could it's wings cut through corrugated steel that was strong enough to hold a concrete floor in place.
If you have a steel wall, reinforced by a concrete floor resting on steel joists, connected at the other end to massive steel columns. How is a fold of aluminium going to make a dent in that. It isn't going to do anything other than drop to the ground like a thrown aaway piece of paper?
If it can't stand up to a bird in flight, how can it cut through the above structure?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=
Here's someone else who thinks as I do,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

 

[SOMERLED]

No. You, in your opening post, stated, "175 did NOT hit the South tower. A remote controlled flight from Offutt AFB did."

The easiest way you can begin substantiating your assertion is by doing one of the following:
* Using the visual record of the events, show that the plane could not have been UA Flight 175, or
* Concede that the plane that struct the tower is visually consistent with UA Flight 175; after which the next point of discussion can be raised

If you are unable to the first, and unwilling to do the second, then there is no point in this discussion going any further.

I have begun to show that the plane that struck tower 2 could not have beed 175. Rather than duplicate replies, allow me to refer you to, what should be, my previous post.

 

[SOMERLED]

Because you assert that 175 did hit the south tower, you can start by showing me some evidence that 175 even took off.

Here is an interview with the air traffic controller who was handling United 175 when it was hijacked.



Here is a transcript of the air traffic control tape on which United 175 is cleared for takeoff from BOS. The transcript was obtained by the New York Times.

The next contact with 175 was ...?

 

[SOMERLED]

Basically, it's the opposite of what you've been doing, here. Instead of just claiming something, one should present evidence that his claims are true.

As for the definition of evidence, I'd just say that it's any objective piece of data that points to the truth value of a claim. By objective, I mean that gut feelings and the like are not acceptable in most cases.



That's a very good example of what evidence is NOT.



That is nonsensical. Millions of people saw the plane hit the south tower. Thousands of which were ON SITE. In order for that plane NOT to be 175, you'd have to present evidence that contradicts that which we have.

As for "suspicion" that it did not, that is still not evidence. What you are saying, basically, is that you don't trust the official account. Well, that's just too bad.



Unfortunately for you, and fortunarely for reality and our justice system, that's not how it works.



Somehow I doubt you will. I think your "evidence" will amount to you saying that it wasn't 100% sure to succeed, and therefore didn't happen. I guess D-Day was a hoax, too.

What is the difference between 'objective' and 'subjective'?