Jag har precis postad en länk till Greg Jenkins genomgång av filmen Pentacon i Länktråden. Rätt intressant, Jenkins gjorde också en, tycker jag, lysande intellektuell avrättning av Judy Wood (om Starwars vapnen som hon hävdar vaporiserade tornen från rymden).
Nu gör han samma sak med Pentacon och gör det bra, tycker jag.
Han tycks dock göra sig skyldig till samma sak när han på bloggens första sida postar ett uttalande från brandmannen John Schroeder:
Frågan är om alla vittnesmål gör gällande att det tog fem minuter mellan träffen och hissarnas exploderande? (Och varför skulle NWO/Bushkonspiratörerna smälla av bomben fem minuter senare och inte omedelbart efter?). Eller har jag missat något?
/S
Nu gör han samma sak med Pentacon och gör det bra, tycker jag.
Citat:
The film tries to make the case that four eyewitness statements are enough evidence to counter all other physical evidence (and implicitly, all other contradictory eyewitness statements).One of the main defects of the PentaCon is that it only considers four eyewitness statements—ignoring a very large body of eyewitness statements and previous research into the testimony.
Why is this significant?“Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING.”
(...)
Special pleading is not only used to ignore other evidence; it can be used to take certain portions of one statement from a witness as being true, while ignoring all contradictory evidence by the same and other witnesses
(...)
The PentaCon commits two special pleading arguments that reveal that their hypothesis is not a “smoking gun”:
1. There is no contradictory evidence.
2. These witnesses saw the plane fly north of the CITGO gas station, therefore it did not hit the Pentagon.
These two arguments are the entire basis of the film and are extremely suspect.The first claim is overwhelmingly disproved below with physical and eyewitness evidence that the filmmakers ignore or imply was faked without proving their case.The second claim is also a special pleading argument because the 3 of the 4 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Why is this significant?“Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING.”
(...)
Special pleading is not only used to ignore other evidence; it can be used to take certain portions of one statement from a witness as being true, while ignoring all contradictory evidence by the same and other witnesses
(...)
The PentaCon commits two special pleading arguments that reveal that their hypothesis is not a “smoking gun”:
1. There is no contradictory evidence.
2. These witnesses saw the plane fly north of the CITGO gas station, therefore it did not hit the Pentagon.
These two arguments are the entire basis of the film and are extremely suspect.The first claim is overwhelmingly disproved below with physical and eyewitness evidence that the filmmakers ignore or imply was faked without proving their case.The second claim is also a special pleading argument because the 3 of the 4 witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Han tycks dock göra sig skyldig till samma sak när han på bloggens första sida postar ett uttalande från brandmannen John Schroeder:
Citat:
As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
Frågan är om alla vittnesmål gör gällande att det tog fem minuter mellan träffen och hissarnas exploderande? (Och varför skulle NWO/Bushkonspiratörerna smälla av bomben fem minuter senare och inte omedelbart efter?). Eller har jag missat något?
/S
