Reply #38: It was a question, not an argument [View All]

An argument would look something like this:

"Truthers" say they don't know what happened on 9/11 but they know that the "official story" didn't happen, which is only to say that they disbelieve the "official story." If combined with the apparent (but only implicit) conclusion that "therefore 9/11 was an inside job," and devoid of any actual evidence that any particular part of the "official story" is not accurate, that would be an argument from incredulity, which is logically fallacious. Therefore, that argument does not really tell us anything at all about the truth of the conclusion or the events of 9/11.

There ya go: Now that you have an actual argument to work with, if it's a straw man because you really have some other argument you'd like to make, you could just say what it is. But to admit that you just don't know what happened is to admit that the "official story" could be correct, as far as you know.