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:1771 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.
Don't you find it frustrating to read some of that though? I wonder what the logical fallacy the respondent is using there.
I don't know as I'd call it frustrating because I kind of expect it but I'd like to ask them if they realize that not a single one of the alleged witnesses they point to was under oath. I think what they're doing there is called the "How dare you" gambit -- become incredulous and indignant: #2 at 25 rules of disinformation.