I disappear for a day the the thread has rushed ahead.
@JustLurking
Interesting find. This GPS system is similar to the areas of robotics the US army is researching for their ground vehicles, as it is under congress to make 1/5th of the army unmanned by 2015. Why such an early date given the lack of any real threat from any country has me worried. Think 'Trade Federation' from Star Wars in Episode One. It could be surmised that those men may have views which the government didn't like, although in all honesty this is speculation without proof, so a bit of research in their area of robotics might be neccessary to shed light.
Ironically, in my path for programming, I have built several types of AI.
@RainmanTime
I'll just quickly cover your points. This is my favourite method, quotation attack and Critical Analysis of the argument. It works by exposing contradictions and logical flaws in an argument (feel free to echo it back at me with no real understanding later on) -
No investigator in their right mind would align their evidence such that their argument for what happens "rests" on an eyewitness account, and you cannot showthat mine did.
then ignore WELL OVER 20 PEOPLE who witnessed and identified the 757 that was approaching the Pentagon before it struck
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Usage of Numbers of People - Appeal to common practices.
Exactly what makes this true?
Now, the rotor and lack of debris suggest the aircraft was small. The lack of damage around the scene suggests it was directed, something all planes do not do when they crash. The direct line suggests the craft was flying low, something any airplane, and pilot, would have great difficulty doing - do not forget the point of entry was almost at ground level. The level of penetration suggests the craft was designed for such a purpose, or was at least stronger than the standard type of aircraft. The most damaging part of an airplane is it's fuel tank and engines, which happens to be contained in the wings. The very wings missing from the scene. So why had the plane exploded?
Presenting a weaker argument from the opposition - Straw Man Attack.
You say that, but you do not show it. Anywhere in your response.
I cannot supply information not given.
Presenting a weaker argument from the opposition - Straw Man Attack.
You have not shown obstructions nor specifically shown a flight path that would meet with obstructions. Your are claiming a complete argument, but your argument is quite incomplete.
It is not neccessary for such information to be supplied for it to be known there are obstructions at ground level. Not namely the building itself. A flight path would be inherently flawed as information regarding the aircraft's path was withdrawn or altered, and condictory peices of information has been supplied. Given your claims on expertise in such an area, it is assumed you can extrapolate a flight path yourself.
Simply because I have neither supplied two peices of evidence does not mean the argument is 'incomplete'. All arguments, by your definition, would be 'incomplete' as they would need 100% of everything supplied, which would mean, by your definition, your argument is incomplete also has you have not supplied an image with a lack of obstructions and/or a suitable flight path to avoid any obstructions.
Evidence and reasoning only affect the strength of the argument.
Could you explain, technically, why it is "necessary" to slow down to control the aircraft in a maneuver? You might wish to write a book, because one of the most fundamental control analysis techniques we use is called a "constant speed manevuer". In addition, there are things called "automatic throttles" that are specifically designed to hold an airplane's speed constant in the face of not only disturbances but also when the airplane manevuers. Therefore, your statement above in bold is not correct.
However, for a plane to lower itself on a level line, it has to slow. The craft could not simply be pointed down as, at the point of the crash, the penetration holes were relatively level EG not angled. The craft would not have time to point itself down and level out as, if you say, it would still be going at the same constant speed, meaning there would be very, very little time for it to pull this off from the time of lowering itself from the highway to hitting the pentagon. Therefore, it must of slowed down.
Aside from the earlier statement in your paragraph (removed from the quote), this argument is sound. Kudos.
You gave your opinion and nothing more. (In a sidenote you also use the word "impossible" which is poor form, as this is always a very difficult adjective to prove.) You also related your belief in some sort of control requirement which is not a requirement. I fail to see the purpose in debating a person such as yourself who clearly is bending the truth and making statements, as if they are fact, that they cannot provide evidence to support.
Presenting a weaker argument from the opposition - Straw Man Attack.
Are you inferring Arlington is a crowded city? This is a non-sequitor. Please show me the "crowded city" in the verified flight path of AA 77 into the Pentagon.
We have already established the inherient flaws of the flight path. The rebuttal is simple, show me the flat land in the flight path of the AA 77.
It went over a freeway interchange by the time it got below 500 feet.
Hmm. Guess not.
The air cushion effect applies to any form of mass, even rolling hills.
Has it been shown rolling hills have a similar construction as buildings?
If it's different, please show us the effects on buildings. If it's the same, please show us the buildings that have a similar construction to rolling hills.
Please show me buildings in the AA 77 flight path into the pentagon. It went over a freeway interchange by the time it got below 500 feet.
Show me a flawless flight-path to work with.
Freeway is higher than the ground. A freeway is not the same as rolling hills, nor flat ground (in regards that it's not level in proportion with the rest of the ground).
That is false. There is no requirement for an assumption to be "hidden" as you claim. Here is the link to the dictionary definition of assumption, and it does not make the restriction that an assumption cannot be explicit.
The dictionary only applies to the general use of assumption. However, in your case, you have been using it to form an argument, which means it falls under the definition of logic.
2# Citation
"Logic A minor premise."
Premise meaning Reason. However, this is incorrect, as a reason is based on validity, meaning it is either one of two possible states - true or false. A reason cannot either be 'minor or major'.
3# Citation
"a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play""
This is the correct description of the usage of an assumption logically.
It is deemed implicit simply because it's held to be true, and therefore does not need to be stated. For example, I assume you are human - this does not need to be stated, and is therefore implicit. After all, if it's the same as a reason, why not just call it a reason?
I see no further reason for addressing all your statements which are not based in fact
Straw Man Attack!
