It's the speed and angle needed to pulk off where it hit. If you've ever been there it had to clear the Hilton sign, the Air Force Memorial, drop 200ft and level out while going almost 600mph all in about 300 yards. It's mind boggling.
The amount of debris and wreckage from a plane crash is infinite. There are really no signs of any in any picture with no wing marks. You're telling me an engine that is mostly solid components and 14' tall hit the outer wall and didn't even make a scratch but a hollow fuselage went two layers deep and the reinforced wings that are essentially a blade couldn't even break a window?
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
The origin of the expression is unknown. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device.
Contents
1 Logical fallacy 2 Intentional device 3 History of the idiom 3.1 Real-world usage 4 See also 5 References
Logical fallacy
As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.[3] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.[1]
The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend you support this because we are in a budget crisis, and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic. Intentional device
In fiction and non-fiction a red herring may be intentionally used by the writer to plant a false clue that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.[4][5][6] For example, the character of Bishop Aringarosa in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is presented for most of the novel as if he is at the centre of the church's conspiracies, but is later revealed to have been innocently duped by the true antagonist of the story. The character's name is a loose Italian translation of "red herring" (aringa rosa; rosa actually meaning pink, and very close to rossa, red).[7]
A red herring is often used in legal studies and exam problems to mislead and distract students from reaching a correct conclusion about a legal issue, allegedly as a device that tests students' comprehension of underlying law and their ability to properly discern material factual circumstances.[8] History of the idiom The original red-herring story as told by William Cobbett in 1807: "When I was a boy, we used, in order to draw oft' the harriers from the trail of a hare that we had set down as our own private property, get to her haunt[9] early in the morning, and drag a red-herring, tied to a string, four or five miles over hedges and ditches, across fields and through coppices, till we got to a point, whence we were pretty sure the hunters would not return to the spot where they had thrown off; and, though I would, by no means, be understood, as comparing the editors and proprietors of the London daily press to animals half so sagacious and so faithful as hounds, I cannot help thinking, that, in the case to which we are referring, they must have been misled, at first, by some political deceiver."[10]
In a literal sense, there is no such fish as a "red herring"; it refers to a particularly strong kipper, a fish (typically a herring) that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked. This process makes the fish particularly pungent smelling and, with strong enough brine, turns its flesh reddish.[11] In its literal sense as a strongly cured kipper, the term can be dated to the mid-13th century, in the poem The Treatise by Walter of Bibbesworth: "He eteþ no ffyssh But heryng red."[12]
Prior to 2008,[11] the figurative sense of "red herring" was thought to originate from a supposed technique of training young scent hounds.[11] There are variations of the story, but according to one version, the pungent red herring would be dragged along a trail until a puppy learned to follow the scent.[13] Later, when the dog was being trained to follow the faint odour of a fox or a badger, the trainer would drag a red herring (whose strong scent confuses the animal) perpendicular to the animal's trail to confuse the dog.[14] The dog eventually learned to follow the original scent rather than the stronger scent. A variation of this story is given, without mention of its use in training, in The Macmillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases (1976), with the earliest use cited being from W. F. Butler's Life of Napier, published in 1849.[15] Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1981) gives the full phrase as "Drawing a red herring across the path", an idiom meaning "to divert attention from the main question by some side issue"; here, once again, a "dried, smoked and salted" herring when "drawn across a fox's path destroys the scent and sets the hounds at fault."[16] Another variation of the dog story is given by Robert Hendrickson (1994) who says escaping convicts used the pungent fish to throw off hounds in pursuit.[17]
According to a pair of articles by Professor Gerald Cohen and Robert Scott Ross published in Comments on Etymology (2008), supported by etymologist Michael Quinion and accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary, the idiom did not originate from a hunting practice.[11] Ross researched the origin of the story and found the earliest reference to using herrings for training animals was in a tract on horsemanship published in 1697 by Gerland Langbaine.[11] Langbaine recommended a method of training horses (not hounds) by dragging the carcass of a cat or fox so that the horse would be accustomed to following the chaos of a hunting party.[11] He says if a dead animal is not available, a red herring would do as a substitute.[11] This recommendation was misunderstood by Nicholas Cox, published in the notes of another book around the same time, who said it should be used to train hounds (not horses).[11] Either way, the herring was not used to distract the hounds or horses from a trail, rather to guide them along it.[11]
The earliest reference to using herring for distracting hounds is an article published on 14 February 1807 by radical journalist William Cobbett in his polemical periodical Political Register.[11][18][10] According to Cohen and Ross, and accepted by the OED, this is the origin of the figurative meaning of red herring.[11] In the piece, William Cobbett critiques the English press, which had mistakenly reported Napoleon's defeat. Cobbett recounted that he had once used a red herring to deflect hounds in pursuit of a hare, adding "It was a mere transitory effect of the political red-herring; for, on the Saturday, the scent became as cold as a stone."[11] Quinion concludes: "This story, and [Cobbett's] extended repetition of it in 1833, was enough to get the figurative sense of red herring into the minds of his readers, unfortunately also with the false idea that it came from some real practice of huntsmen."[11] Real-world usage
Although Cobbett popularized the figurative usage, he was not the first to consider red herring for scenting hounds in a literal sense; an earlier reference occurs in the pamphlet Nashe's Lenten Stuffe, published in 1599 by the Elizabethan writer Thomas Nashe, in which he says "Next, to draw on hounds to a scent, to a red herring skin there is nothing comparable."[19] The Oxford English Dictionary makes no connection with Nashe's quote and the figurative meaning of red herring to distract from the intended target, only in the literal sense of a hunting practice to draw dogs towards a scent.[1]
The use of herring to distract pursuing scent hounds was tested on Episode 148 of the series MythBusters.[20] Although the hound used in the test stopped to eat the fish and lost the fugitive's scent temporarily, it eventually backtracked and located the target, resulting in the myth being classified by the show as "Busted".[21]
It's the speed and angle needed to pulk off where it hit. If you've ever been there it had to clear the Hilton sign, the Air Force Memorial, drop 200ft and level out while going almost 600mph all in about 300 yards. It's mind boggling.
The amount of debris and wreckage from a plane crash is infinite. There are really no signs of any in any picture with no wing marks. You're telling me an engine that is mostly solid components and 14' tall hit the outer wall and didn't even make a scratch but a hollow fuselage went two layers deep and the reinforced wings that are essentially a blade couldn't even break a window?
Don't be dense.
Don't forget the part about how it hit a section of the building that wasn't even occupied. Don't you think that the Muslims who are smart enough to pull all that technical flying off would be smart enough to research the building and hit a better part.
It's the speed and angle needed to pulk off where it hit. If you've ever been there it had to clear the Hilton sign, the Air Force Memorial, drop 200ft and level out while going almost 600mph all in about 300 yards. It's mind boggling.
The amount of debris and wreckage from a plane crash is infinite. There are really no signs of any in any picture with no wing marks. You're telling me an engine that is mostly solid components and 14' tall hit the outer wall and didn't even make a scratch but a hollow fuselage went two layers deep and the reinforced wings that are essentially a blade couldn't even break a window?
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
The origin of the expression is unknown. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device.
Contents
1 Logical fallacy 2 Intentional device 3 History of the idiom 3.1 Real-world usage 4 See also 5 References
Logical fallacy
As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.[3] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.[1]
The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend you support this because we are in a budget crisis, and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic. Intentional device
In fiction and non-fiction a red herring may be intentionally used by the writer to plant a false clue that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.[4][5][6] For example, the character of Bishop Aringarosa in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is presented for most of the novel as if he is at the centre of the church's conspiracies, but is later revealed to have been innocently duped by the true antagonist of the story. The character's name is a loose Italian translation of "red herring" (aringa rosa; rosa actually meaning pink, and very close to rossa, red).[7]
A red herring is often used in legal studies and exam problems to mislead and distract students from reaching a correct conclusion about a legal issue, allegedly as a device that tests students' comprehension of underlying law and their ability to properly discern material factual circumstances.[8] History of the idiom The original red-herring story as told by William Cobbett in 1807: "When I was a boy, we used, in order to draw oft' the harriers from the trail of a hare that we had set down as our own private property, get to her haunt[9] early in the morning, and drag a red-herring, tied to a string, four or five miles over hedges and ditches, across fields and through coppices, till we got to a point, whence we were pretty sure the hunters would not return to the spot where they had thrown off; and, though I would, by no means, be understood, as comparing the editors and proprietors of the London daily press to animals half so sagacious and so faithful as hounds, I cannot help thinking, that, in the case to which we are referring, they must have been misled, at first, by some political deceiver."[10]
In a literal sense, there is no such fish as a "red herring"; it refers to a particularly strong kipper, a fish (typically a herring) that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked. This process makes the fish particularly pungent smelling and, with strong enough brine, turns its flesh reddish.[11] In its literal sense as a strongly cured kipper, the term can be dated to the mid-13th century, in the poem The Treatise by Walter of Bibbesworth: "He eteþ no ffyssh But heryng red."[12]
Prior to 2008,[11] the figurative sense of "red herring" was thought to originate from a supposed technique of training young scent hounds.[11] There are variations of the story, but according to one version, the pungent red herring would be dragged along a trail until a puppy learned to follow the scent.[13] Later, when the dog was being trained to follow the faint odour of a fox or a badger, the trainer would drag a red herring (whose strong scent confuses the animal) perpendicular to the animal's trail to confuse the dog.[14] The dog eventually learned to follow the original scent rather than the stronger scent. A variation of this story is given, without mention of its use in training, in The Macmillan Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases (1976), with the earliest use cited being from W. F. Butler's Life of Napier, published in 1849.[15] Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1981) gives the full phrase as "Drawing a red herring across the path", an idiom meaning "to divert attention from the main question by some side issue"; here, once again, a "dried, smoked and salted" herring when "drawn across a fox's path destroys the scent and sets the hounds at fault."[16] Another variation of the dog story is given by Robert Hendrickson (1994) who says escaping convicts used the pungent fish to throw off hounds in pursuit.[17]
According to a pair of articles by Professor Gerald Cohen and Robert Scott Ross published in Comments on Etymology (2008), supported by etymologist Michael Quinion and accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary, the idiom did not originate from a hunting practice.[11] Ross researched the origin of the story and found the earliest reference to using herrings for training animals was in a tract on horsemanship published in 1697 by Gerland Langbaine.[11] Langbaine recommended a method of training horses (not hounds) by dragging the carcass of a cat or fox so that the horse would be accustomed to following the chaos of a hunting party.[11] He says if a dead animal is not available, a red herring would do as a substitute.[11] This recommendation was misunderstood by Nicholas Cox, published in the notes of another book around the same time, who said it should be used to train hounds (not horses).[11] Either way, the herring was not used to distract the hounds or horses from a trail, rather to guide them along it.[11]
The earliest reference to using herring for distracting hounds is an article published on 14 February 1807 by radical journalist William Cobbett in his polemical periodical Political Register.[11][18][10] According to Cohen and Ross, and accepted by the OED, this is the origin of the figurative meaning of red herring.[11] In the piece, William Cobbett critiques the English press, which had mistakenly reported Napoleon's defeat. Cobbett recounted that he had once used a red herring to deflect hounds in pursuit of a hare, adding "It was a mere transitory effect of the political red-herring; for, on the Saturday, the scent became as cold as a stone."[11] Quinion concludes: "This story, and [Cobbett's] extended repetition of it in 1833, was enough to get the figurative sense of red herring into the minds of his readers, unfortunately also with the false idea that it came from some real practice of huntsmen."[11] Real-world usage
Although Cobbett popularized the figurative usage, he was not the first to consider red herring for scenting hounds in a literal sense; an earlier reference occurs in the pamphlet Nashe's Lenten Stuffe, published in 1599 by the Elizabethan writer Thomas Nashe, in which he says "Next, to draw on hounds to a scent, to a red herring skin there is nothing comparable."[19] The Oxford English Dictionary makes no connection with Nashe's quote and the figurative meaning of red herring to distract from the intended target, only in the literal sense of a hunting practice to draw dogs towards a scent.[1]
The use of herring to distract pursuing scent hounds was tested on Episode 148 of the series MythBusters.[20] Although the hound used in the test stopped to eat the fish and lost the fugitive's scent temporarily, it eventually backtracked and located the target, resulting in the myth being classified by the show as "Busted".[21]
It's the speed and angle needed to pulk off where it hit. If you've ever been there it had to clear the Hilton sign, the Air Force Memorial, drop 200ft and level out while going almost 600mph all in about 300 yards. It's mind boggling.
The amount of debris and wreckage from a plane crash is infinite. There are really no signs of any in any picture with no wing marks. You're telling me an engine that is mostly solid components and 14' tall hit the outer wall and didn't even make a scratch but a hollow fuselage went two layers deep and the reinforced wings that are essentially a blade couldn't even break a window?
Don't be dense.
Don't forget the part about how it hit a section of the building that wasn't even occupied. Don't you think that the Muslims who are smart enough to pull all that technical flying off would be smart enough to research the building and hit a better part.
It was Col. Mustard, in the study, with a candlestick.
The last thing I will say on it, was when it initially happened they had us locked down with no TV's. I didn't even see it on TV until almost Thanksgiving. An intel guy came in and told us both towers had been hit by jumbo jets, obviously, and said these exact words; "The Pentagon was hit by a helicopter or something very small."
Couple that with what I have seen being on crash recovery from small fighters to space shuttles there is no way a jet of that size hit that building. It just didn't happen. Obviously something did happen, but it wasn't what the media said. You can't have a 7,000+ pound mostly titanium projectile hit the side of a building at extreme speed without ANY signs of damage but hollow sheet metal just blasts right through it.
Think about it, those wings and engines would have just been laying on the ground outside the building. They didn't leave a mark, no fire, no nothing.
I don't care what happened there that day, but it wasn't what the news told you. It just doesn't match.
I keep looking for Titanium and don't see it. @GrandpaSankey, help!!!!
You don't think that Boeing is in on it? Boeing doesn't release their true specs on planes and you all believed at it was 757 when in reality it was a 747. The government told us it was a 757 to make the lack of debris more palatable.
Comments
The amount of debris and wreckage from a plane crash is infinite. There are really no signs of any in any picture with no wing marks. You're telling me an engine that is mostly solid components and 14' tall hit the outer wall and didn't even make a scratch but a hollow fuselage went two layers deep and the reinforced wings that are essentially a blade couldn't even break a window?
Don't be dense.
And.....disagree.
Couple that with what I have seen being on crash recovery from small fighters to space shuttles there is no way a jet of that size hit that building. It just didn't happen. Obviously something did happen, but it wasn't what the media said. You can't have a 7,000+ pound mostly titanium projectile hit the side of a building at extreme speed without ANY signs of damage but hollow sheet metal just blasts right through it.
Think about it, those wings and engines would have just been laying on the ground outside the building. They didn't leave a mark, no fire, no nothing.
I don't care what happened there that day, but it wasn't what the news told you. It just doesn't match.
Come on.
Also true: the government confiscated 70+ surveillance videos of the area and destroyed them.
It's the classic "I was there" thing.