Change the word "perp" to "suspect" and the point stands without the fallacy.
There are two choices here.....
Either the official story is correct or the truth movement is correct in that it was an inside job.
For the sake of discussion if you can step outside of your bias for 2 seconds and hypothetically consider it was an inside job you will understand how all video data would have been vetted and/or manipulated.
Let's sum up, Lyte,
There are absolutely no--
ZERO--witnesses to your imaginary flyover. Nobody saw a plane head toward the Pentagon, then suddenly pull up and fly over it.
We all get the idea that if
someone HAD witnessed a flyover, it would have been a huge story.
NO STORY = NO FLYOVER
The forensic evidence destroys your fantasy. There is nothing in your bag of tricks that casts doubt on the physical evidence, i.e., aircraft wreckage and human remains.
Questions about your methodology remain. I asked you to draw a conclusion from a hypothetical example I gave. For obvious reasons, you ignored me. I will ask again, and will continue to ask until you respond:
Let's talk about your research skills. Imagine that two elderly women describe their experiences in a German concentration camp. Their descriptions of a particularly sadistic guard match right down to the mole on his left cheek, with a single difference: one woman claims that he had brown eyes; the other says they were blue. Now, which of the following does this suggest to you:
a) The Holocaust was a hoax;
b) Both accounts have been discredited;
c) One woman provides a definitive account; the other can be dismissed as hopelessly misleading.
d) One woman's memory--
for this precise detail--is more accurate than the other's, but both of them retain clear memories of the experience.
