| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Problem with PentaCon Video; Perhaps the producers could answer | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 18 2008, 08:06 PM (1,141 Views) | |
| nicepants | Jan 28 2008, 05:16 PM Post #126 |
|
You claim: They all agree, that is the proof that this claim is correct. That is the DEFINITION of an argumentum ad populum: a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it
"The witnesses also agree that the plane hit the Pentagon." Hmm.......Are you sure that is not an argumentum ad populum? lol [/quote] It would be, if I claimed that their agreement was proof of their claim. But that's exactly my point. The witnesses agree on 2 things: - North of Citgo Flight Path - Pentagon impact By your logic, wouldn't both claims would be proven? Edited by nicepants, Jan 28 2008, 05:18 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Stundie | Jan 28 2008, 06:10 PM Post #127 |
|
I do not claim they ALL SAW the plane over the NORTH SIDE OF CITGO! They claim it! They all agree because they witnessed it. Its not a argumentum ad populum: I am not creating a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it. They don't just believe it, they WITNESSED it! and again, you are arguing with that voice in your head nicepants...I don't ever remember claiming that the witnesses didn't see the plane hit the pentagon. You are clearly going going mad here...I do not what else to say. Edited by Stundie, Jan 28 2008, 06:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 28 2008, 06:27 PM Post #128 |
|
You claim: They all agree, that is the proof that this claim is correct. <<-- argumentum ad populum
They CLAIM that it what they witnessed. If you have proof that this claim is correct, please present it.
According to CIT, the plane could not have hit the pentagon if it flew north of the citgo. |
|
|
|
| William Rea | Jan 28 2008, 06:35 PM Post #129 |
|
What I've read in this thread is pretty much all I know about the Pentagon crash and I've enjoyed reading it but I have a couple of things to raise. Looking at the pictures in Post #32 it strikes me that someone intent on doing maximum damage would try to impact the building perpendicular to the facade. If you look at the red line representing the South side flight path wouldn't you head for the face of the building with the car park in front of it if you were approaching from that side? In that sense the North side flight path makes more sense. Does the impact damage evidence support either approach angle? I am also unsure about how important this angle is in terms of the overall picture and how much it would discredit the official story. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 28 2008, 09:04 PM Post #130 |
|
Nicepants, again this will be the last feed for you in this thread. Eyewitnesses that say they saw something is not an argumentum ad populum. You are being absurd here because if you honestly believe this, then you must believe that any eyewitnesses accounts regardless of what they are witnessing are argumentum ad populum too. So when they say they witness a plane hit the pentagon, is that also a argumentum ad populum?? You are just picking and choosing to use this as an excuse not to admit that the witnesses state that the plane flew over the North Side because it doesn't fit with your personal beliefs about the the official story! Yet you state the opposite to support your personal belief in the official story that a plane hit the pentagon You are SO guilty of double standards in the application of criticism and therefore, you are a typical pseudoskeptic! Another problem with you ridiculous belief, is if all eyewitness accounts are not evidence but argumentum ad populum, then no eyewitness accounts can ever be taken as a fact. You can just imagine that Cheney kills Bush with 100's of witnesses around and when it comes to court, all the eyewitnesses are not taken as evidence because of argumentum ad populum! lol Do you realise how ridiculous that would be! I could go out and rob people some people without covering up my face, imagine if I got caught and someone points me out of a line up. I'll just shout "Argumentum Ad Populum."at the top of my voice and that should be enough for the police and the courts to clear me of all charges because the eyewitness accounts of me robbing them is not evidence, its Argumentum Ad Populum. lol To put it simply, these eyewitness nor do ANY EYEWITNESS accounts fall under Argumentum Ad Populum because they actually witnessed it! Now you are going to be very tempted to argue a toss over some point or another I've made, so go crazy. No doubt you'll feel that you are right in your use of Argumentum Ad Populum! Create any excuse you like, but you are still wrong as they all say it flew over the North Side. So please feel free to make yourself look stupid and carrying on with your ridiculous assertions and strawman tactics! Happy trolling! Edited by Stundie, Jan 28 2008, 09:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 29 2008, 12:04 AM Post #131 |
|
I love it, Stundie! This has been a great laugh. You should see the dizzying acrobatics he is trying in the Pentagon section. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 29 2008, 06:31 AM Post #132 |
|
The North Side does make sense and I would have to agree that impacting the building perpendicular would more than likely create more damage as it would be a more direct impact.
A good question, but beyond my area of expertise. So I will have to offer this one out to someone else. I think Pilots For Truth have investigated this so it might be worth having a look over there. From what I know, according to the guys at Pilots For Truth, they say the Flight Data Recorder data shows a different flight path from the one we are told by the 9/11 commission, which means none of the light poles were knocked down by AA77 as the commission states. The FDR data was requested under the Freedom Of Information Act and then analysed. I remember somebody (Could be Pilots For Truth) contacted NTSB to point the discrepancies, only to be given the cold shoulder. It was a recorded phone call and instead of addressing his issues, the guy at NTSB just kind of shrugs his shoulders and says they will get back to him. Overall, it does not match the official story. So the question is why is the data being fudged to create a new story. As I said, it's not an area that I am familiar with and I've not investigated it fully myself. I've found this though which might help. Cheers Stundie |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jan 29 2008, 06:46 AM Post #133 |
|
Hi Aldo, The acrobatics are nothing new, you should see some of Nicepants posts over at the SLC forum. One of the discussions "Can facts change" went on and on over a 4 month period. I told him that what we consider are the facts can change when new information is presented which changes what we thought was a fact! You should have seen him dance around that one, even bringing the same point up over and over in different examples. You should also see his criticisms of Gordons Ross paper, which all boiled down to him pointing out what may or may not be a spelling mistake. Sorry I'm derailing here, but my point is I've seen Nicepants in actions to know that he is an intellectual coward and dishonest with himself. If you ever get him to agree with you on anything, then please let me know as it'll be a 1st. I'll take a look. Cheers Stundie Edited by Stundie, Jan 29 2008, 06:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 29 2008, 09:42 AM Post #134 |
|
Read again for comprehension. I am not claiming that the eyewitness statements are argumentum ad populum. (I don't know why you always insist on arguing against a strawman instead of against my actual points.) Your statement: "They all agree, that is the proof that this claim is correct. " is an argumentum ad populum because you state that the claim is true because these people all agree. Agreement does not make something true. People can still be in agreement when they are wrong about something.....even eyewitnesses. Edited by nicepants, Jan 29 2008, 10:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 29 2008, 10:07 AM Post #135 |
|
The impact damage supports the OT flight approach angle. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
5:25 AM Nov 25
