Title: Re: WTC Tower 7: Examining Conspiricist Claims Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Mar 31, 2012 Author:- Post Date:2012-03-31 10:12:48 by Eric Stratton Keywords:None Views:670 Comments:39
Poster Comment:
I was just thinking, I wonder if any of the good people that work for the Gestapo/KGB (i.e. the CIA) or Motherland Sekurity in the soon to be Cyber Sekurity Center established by the same Zio-loving psychos and ignoramuses, ... [hi y'all!] ... ever watch any of these videos and are somewhat surprised at what they see.
Ah well, I guess we'll never know. LOL
Anyway, nothing to see here, move along, ... just another building that was gutted by fire and stood.
Yes, everything is fake. The people were fake, the witnesses were fake, the victims were fake, the buildings were fake, etc. Maybe New York City is fake and doesn't really exist?
You should stop insulting peoples' intelligence. Nobody is buying this "it's all fake" disinformation.
Don't you find it frustrating to read some of that though? I wonder what the logical fallacy the respondent is using there.
Yes, everything is fake. The people were fake, the witnesses were fake, the victims were fake, the buildings were fake, etc. Maybe New York City is fake and doesn't really exist?
You should stop insulting peoples' intelligence. Nobody is buying this "it's all fake" disinformation.
Don't you find it frustrating to read some of that though? I wonder what the logical fallacy the respondent is using there.
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.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
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.
Never forget that people who don't believe what is clearly obvious just through observing what they can see with their own eyes are not playing. No modern skyscraper has EVER fallen due to fire before or since 9/11 and yet on that day three did. And for those who argue "it was de plane boss, de plane" no plane hit the Salomon Bros. Bldg. (WTC 7). I guess it is all just some peculiar oddity about that day that we will never figure out.
Never forget that people who don't believe what is clearly obvious just through observing what they can see with their own eyes are not playing. No modern skyscraper has EVER fallen due to fire before or since 9/11 and yet on that day three did. And for those who argue "it was de plane boss, de plane" no plane hit the Salomon Bros. Bldg. (WTC 7). I guess it is all just some peculiar oddity about that day that we will never figure out.
It boils down to two problems really.
1. They're stupid or moral cowards who are unable or unwilling to look at what the evidence is rather than what the talking heads say it is.
2. A lot of the naysayers are one flavor of shill or another - spooks or hasbarfa.