Since we haven't heard from Fissle nor JP on this subject (after being asked to render or explain thier own beilefs), dare I conclude that they have "banned" themselves?
When someone approaches a lively discussion with the intent, or temperment, to be the an unannounced devil's advoacate (a spoiler, if you will), then they will instinctively avoid taking any stand on anything - not risking becoming the target themselves of a counter-devil's advocate. If you never show any of your own cards,
taking care to always be cryptic or referential, then you can remain beyond close interrogation.
Fissle's comment about believing the planes crashing caused the collapse might have been a slip-up on his part. He must realize he can no more "prove" that belief than others here can "prove" our "belief" in contolled demolitions.
For the future, whenever a "spoiler" enters the debate, usualy with an innocent sounding question, they can be exposed by simply requesting what their own beleif is, and why. They will avoid giving a straight answer so as to not risk the vulnerability that the rest of us share by even discussing something we bascially "know" very little about.
Banning wasn't needed - exposing is more civil and effective.
Now I have two moe basic questions:
1) Does anyone have any reason to believe any airpalne was hijacked on 911? Other than hearing the pundits talk about it, was any evidence (eg. flight controller tapes) forthcoming to support the notion that any plane was hijacked (forcefully by persons on board the planes)?
2) Does anyone have any reason to believe there was anyone aboard any of the missing airplanes of arabian ethnicity? I haven't seen any evidence of any kind that supports such a beleif? Has anyone?
Without a positive response to these two questions, what can we say about all the talk about hijackings and arabs?
Mass hysteria? Mass gullibility? Stupidity? All three?
Contumacyman
|