So, I was curious about these 25 rules of Disinformation that you are so fond of, just to see how many of them you yourself and your cohorts are in violation of.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org
Oh boy!
Quote:
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
This seems to be a favorite of yours, albeit it seems you have not entirely grasped the actual meaning and appropriate use of the strawman argument. I would refer you, again, to my "termites" post, or you could consult with Ant - I hear he is a specialist on the matter.
Quote:
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Oddly enough, you and ENT appear to favor this one as well, with ENT even boasting and claiming to intensify ad hominems and insults.
Quote:
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
Lookit what we have here - westozguy and ENT seem to favor this one as well. Instead of answering a simple question, they just throw up completely unrelated materials, and run off.
Quote:
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Architects; Engineers; Pilots; yep, these are all "authorities" that you invoke... You're certainly following the script well.
Quote:
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
What do we have here? I believe it is Number 12 that you are using to hide from having to answer the plane/crews/passenger question. Sounds a lot like your earlier "reply".
Quote:
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
Another favorite of yours - claiming we demand "complete" solutions, and then stating this to be "impossible proof". (no such thing, I'm just asking for one question to be answered). Seems a good companion to your other friend, the Strawman.
Quote:
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
You're all certainly big on that one, sometimes even completely foregoing facts altogether.
Quote:
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
Wow, a veritable cornucopia here - there's your "9/11 perps", eh? They just vanish, and so you don't have to answer the question.
Quote:
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Holy cow - another favorite. I ask a simple question, and in reply, you guys throw up a bunch of completely unrelated issues and statements.
Quote:
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
Another favorite of your group - from thermite charges that didn't exist, to claiming thermite being capable of feats that it can't do, to claiming clear fuselage wreckage is "no debris", and so on....
Quote:
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
"WE DEMAND THAT 9/11 BE INVESTIGATED BY THE COURTS AND THE CASE BE RE-OPENED"
(sound familiar?)
Quote:
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
Richard Gage; Jeff Rense; etc... all created "experts"
Quote:
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
I'm waiting for that one.
So, you are saying, then, that the government (uh, sorry, "Israel" - different govt) destroyed the planes, and killed the crew and passengers? Really? That's what you're going with?Quote: