View Single Post
  #5  
Old May 2nd 06, 08:26 PM posted to rec.travel.air,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 9/11 Smoking Gun! Flight 93 Rare News Footage From The Crash Site


"AJ" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here in the New York/New Jersey area we have a radio talk show hosted
by a gent named Lionel. During the course of his show he will present
a fact, event or cunundrum and ask simple questions. As the program
rolls on, other questions pop up to challenge your original thinking on
the subject. The odd thing is that he can ask a simple, perfectly
logical question and get responses from listeners that are far out of
balance to the question being asked.


On Usenet, we call this "thread creep" :-)

Recently he did a show about Flight 93. Noting all the photos (and
there aren't many of them) show a scorched hole in the ground, he
asked: "Based on the photographic evidence, where's the plane?" Having
been taught by Jesuits I recognized the "question everything" approach.
The responses to Lionel's questions were astounding. Everything from
an accusatory "Are you saying it never happened?" to long, torturous
explanations about aliens and the like filtered in. Remember, all he
asked was "Based on the photographic evidence, where's the plane?"

Now we have the original poster with his crackpot theory of the week.
When will it end?

AJ


This is in the same textbook with the political technique that throws out
something the speaker wants to have installed or approved or uninstalled and
disapproved as a question that demands an answer either negative or positive
about something that doesn't even exist :-)
It's a very clever gambit that if argued by the responder on either the
positive or negative side, accepts the basic premise that something already
exists, where in actuality, nothing yet exists.
Example;
The speaker wants to have a car bought and paid for by the taxpayers for his
personal use.
How to present the issue???
"It is the opinion of the committee that a blue car would be far better for
our intended purpose than a black one".
If the responder accepts this opening move and argues either way with a
response, the gambit has been accepted. The issue has been cleverly changed
from whether or not a car is necessary, to what color is best suited for the
car. What usually happens at this point is the injection of a counter
opinion on the car's color by another responder, and before long, the
initial speaker has simply laid back and let the responders (taxpayers in
this case) continue until a final decision has been reached on the color for
his new car.
What's notable is the fact that the speaker laying out the initial statement
about his "new car" could care less if it was black or blue!!
Welcome to the way the world works in politics, the law, diplomacy, almost
every conspiracy theory, and in most successful negotiations. :-))
Dudley Henriques