Newsgroups: *rec.music.classical.guitar* From: *William D Clinger What makes you think we have been told the truth? Notwithstanding Jackson's beliefs, a definite article seldom belongs in front of the word "truth". In the real world, we are told truth mixed with error, spin, and deceit. The mixture is different for every witness and for every source of evidence. If we want to understand a complex event, we should consider all witnesses and sources of evidence, open our minds to the formation of theories that incorporate judgements as to what is signal (a less emotionally loaded word than truth) and what is noise, and reject implausible theories so we can give more time and attention to theories that deserve further consideration. In rare cases, we may emerge with a single theory in which we have complete confidence. More likely, we will narrow the field to a small number of more or less plausible theories, none of them fully worked out and none entirely satisfactory, in which case we still count ourselves lucky because we can think we have achieved some understanding. As I will illustrate using this thread's original post, the all-facts, no-theory mantra of Pilots for 9/11 Truth doesn't work very well. The problem with their approach is that you can't distinguish signal from noise by looking at isolated bits of evidence. To decide what is fact and what is not, you have to be willing to look at how the evidence fits together. To look at how the evidence fits together, you have to consider different arrangements of the evidence, which correspond to different theories. With the no-theory stance adopted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the necessary theories have become implicit hidden assumptions, which are harder to see and to evaluate than explicit assumptions and theories. Let's try anyway. From the PfT press release: > OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA It would have been much less misleading to have said that a few details of the official account are not consistent with data provided by the government. Of course, their press release wouldn't have garnered much attention had they put it that way. > All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to > have struck the light poles. I think they mean the altitude data taken from the flight data recorder (FDR). Everyone seems to agree that the altitude at the end of the FDR data is at least 300 feet higher than the height at impact. > The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being > able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense > "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the > Pentagon lawn. That is a deduction based on hidden assumptions and implicit theory. > The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact > time. Indeed. Several investigators who have been willing to look at the larger picture (eyewitness reports, the wreckage of Flight 77 including the FDR, the approach indicated by the downed light poles, etc) have concluded that the FDR data probably ends several seconds before impact, possibly a mile or more away from the Pentagon. What that should be so is a small mystery. You can attribute it to conspiracy or damage or whatever, but you'll need some kind of theory to attribute it to anything at all. > If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at > least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. That is a deduction based upon a theory that the FDR data ends very shortly before impact. That was the assumption made in the account presented by the 9/11 Commission, and it seemed like a reasonable assumption at the time of their report, but it no longer looks so reasonable. > In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these > documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they > contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth > has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not > support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official > government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the > Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. That is a misleadingly spectacular way to say that several details of 9/11 Commission's account appear to be incorrect. Many people who read that sentence will take it to mean that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is saying that experts have concluded that Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on 9/11. That, of course, would be theory, so PfT will deny they are saying any such thing. On the other hand, it certainly looks as though PfT wants you to think they have uncovered evidence that Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon. Is that truth? Or is it just incompetent writing? Skipping the press release's report of a one-second discrepancy between the time of impact as reported by the 9/11 Commission and the NTSB Flight Path Study, the press release concludes with this: > The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 > Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the > Pentagon. Again, it would have been more accurate to say the data provided by the NTSB does not agree with every single detail of the 9/11 Commission Report. I'm sorry, folks, but there just isn't much here. That PfT can generate so much publicity out of so little fact is a triumph of marketing, but it is not a major triumph for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Will