ThePentaCON releases trailer

Hey toto.....

I have a question for you.

What's the difference between a strawman and a red herring?

I haven't been able to figure that one out.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps you missed this one:

[/b]
Click to expand...
we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence
Click to expand...

1. how many witnesses are in said body of evidence?

2. If they wouldn't forget what happened why did they and many others see the plane hit and not flyover?

3. Are you sending copies of the film to the witnesses to get feedback?
 
1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.
Click to expand...

All other eyewitnesses accounts who saw the plane hit the building also corroborate with eatchother AND they corroborate with the physical evidence.

2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean anything. Memory can be distorted over time.

3) The perfect vantage point.
Click to expand...

Perfect according to what, exactly? What is the perfect vantage point to see a plane coming in at full speed towards a low building?

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.
Click to expand...

And the other eyewitnesses, what makes them not credible?

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.
Click to expand...

Alot of the eywitnesses accounts that saw the plane hit the building were filmed on the spot, on 9/11.

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.
Click to expand...

The same goes for people who corroborate that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Not much there.
 
Lyte,

Why are you ignoring the mountain of physical evidence that supports the official story?

Why are you taking eyewitness testimony over physical evidence? Physical evidence > eyewitness testimony.
 
Lyte Trip said:
:D

Man you are quick with those debate tactic definitions!

Your skeptic vocabulary is second to none toto!

;)
Click to expand...

Logic is not a debate tactic, Lyte. Your appeal to flattery is not an adequate response to my question.

Now, please- answer the question.
 
Lyte Trip said:
They were all fooled into believing the plane hit the building.

None had to lie for our hypothesis to be correct.
Click to expand...
And how were they fooled? Why is it you are the only one in the world able to figure this out? Do you know that fact alone proves your claim false.
 
Hey toto.....

I have a question for you.

What's the difference between a strawman and a red herring?

I haven't been able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

A straw man is an argument you debunk that is very easily debunkable and doesn't necessarily give an accurate representation of an opinion. By debunking that easy-to-debunk point, you conceivably debunk the whole argument, even though that's not the case.

A red herring is simply a lead being followed in an investigation that leads nowhere.

Come on Lyte, I have four Coronas and two shots of Captain Morgan in me, and I was able to figure it out.


Also, please present your evidence that the Doubletree footage was faked. And please don't say anything about it being "grainy". I'm looking for actual, credible evidence of fakery.
 
apathoid said:
Flying into the Penatgon and flying on the north side of the Citgo are NOT mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not but what IS mutually exclusive is flying on the north of the citgo while toppling the light poles and damaging the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Hey toto.....

I have a question for you.

What's the difference between a strawman and a red herring?

I haven't been able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

This- for example- would be a red herring.

For information on the rest- you can check google.


Now, can you please answer my question.
 
chippy said:
A straw man is an argument you debunk that is very easily debunkable and doesn't necessarily give an accurate representation of an opinion. By debunking that easy-to-debunk point, you conceivably debunk the whole argument, even though that's not the case.

A red herring is simply a lead being followed in an investigation that leads nowhere.

Come on Lyte, I have four Coronas and two shots of Captain Morgan in me, and I was able to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Ahhh got it.

Thanks!

So does that mean that a red herring can't be a strawman and vice versa?
 
Lyte Trip said:
Perhaps not but what IS mutually exclusive is flying on the north of the citgo while toppling the light poles and damaging the building as outlined in the ASCE report.
Click to expand...

But you claimed there were no contradictions...


Again, how do you resolve these contradictions? What evidence did your investigation rule out- and by what means?

Not that difficult of a question, is it?
 
Totovader said:
This- for example- would be a red herring.

For information on the rest- you can check google.


Now, can you please answer my question.
Click to expand...

I forgot it.

But I will most likely lose interest by the time you repost it again anyway so I suggest you don't bother!
:p
 
~enigma~ said:
And how were they fooled? Why is it you are the only one in the world able to figure this out? Do you know that fact alone proves your claim false.
Click to expand...

Yes, please answer that Lyte.

Could they just as well have been fooled to believe that they saw the plane come in from the North of the CITGO?
 
Totovader said:
But you claimed there were no contradictions...


Again, how do you resolve these contradictions? What evidence did your investigation rule out- and by what means?

Not that difficult of a question, is it?
Click to expand...

It sounds like it's on the right track and I will try to answer but you need to clarify.

What contradictions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom