Things You'll Never Hear a 9-11 Denier Say
David James at the JREF Forums came up with this idea for a thread, and it's still going strong with many humorous entries:
Gosh! Office fires really can get hot. Wow!
Metaphors, similes, and colloquialisms shouldn't be taken literally.
"When you put it that way, it does sound a little silly."
Let me put that quote into proper context.
Holy Crap! American Free Press is full of anti-semtic gibberish! Maybe I should stop using it as source material.
"Asking questions alone is meaningless. Here's my theory about what happened on 9/11."
I'm going with the simpler hypothesis.
Dear Mr. Structural Engineer...
And my personal favorite:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you realize what an idiot you've been.
posted by Pat @ 11:48 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
They got their own rules also :D
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation:
DisinformationRule1: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
DisinformationRule2: Become incredulous and indignant
DisinformationRule3: Create rumor mongers
DisinformationRule4: Use a straw man
DisinformationRule5: Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
DisinformationRule6: Hit and Run
DisinformationRule7: Question motives
DisinformationRule8: Invoke authority
DisinformationRule9: Play Dumb
DisinformationRule10: Associate opponent charges with old news
DisinformationRule11: Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
DisinformationRule12: Enigmas have no solution
DisinformationRule13: Alice in Wonderland Logic
DisinformationRule14: Demand complete solutions
DisinformationRule15: Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
DisinformationRule16: Vanish evidence and witnesses
DisinformationRule17: Change the subject
DisinformationRule18: Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
DisinformationRule19: Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
DisinformationRule20: False evidence
DisinformationRule21: Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
DisinformationRule22: Manufacture a new truth
DisinformationRule23: Create bigger distractions
DisinformationRule24: Silence critics
DisinformationRule25: Vanish
http://911review.org/Wiki/RulesOfDisinformation.shtml
Wow. Okay deniers. Please name one person that has proven to be a disinfo agent within the "truth movement".
Jiminey, the idea that they exist is the most egotistical idea out there.
I would be royally pissed if I found out my government wasted my money in using disinformation agents against the 9-11 "truth" folks. Talk about a waste of resources. If you want to discredit these twits just put two of them in the room together. It will take about five minutes for them to reach five different mutually exclusive theories about 9-11. None of which is based on anything more than their gut feelings.
The Woo-Woo Credo
How to be an Internet Woo-Woo
To be a proper woo-woo, you must follow these rules:
Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).
Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle. Mundane explanations (like saying that Roswell was a balloon) are for dullards and government drones. If you want to sleep with that curvaceous new-age chick, don't tell her you think astrology is bogus! (Non woo-woos may benefit from that advice temporarily).
Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity).
Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.
Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible. If you linger on one topic too long you may be asked to provide annoying things like "proof." Don't let that happen! Consult a creationist if you need practice with subject-changing.
If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.
Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series. They are very useful if you get cornered by a skeptic, and you need to come up with some sort of "scientific" explanation. e.g., Inertial Dampeners.
When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.
continues............http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm
I just don't get some of these:
Create rumor mongers
A "rumor monger" is a person. Are they suggesting that we create people out of thin air? Granted, some of us procreate, which is undoubtedly a foreign concept for Internet conspiracy fans. But the phrase still doesn't make sense.
Invoke authority
Conspiracy theorists love the "appeal to authority" fallacy, because they think it gives them free rein to disregard the testimony of people who actually know what they're talking about.
Unfortunately for them, "appeal to authority" is only a fallacy when the person being cited is not actually an authority on the topic at hand. Like, say, a retired philosophy professor talking about building demolitions, or a small-time radio host assuming that the world is actually run by secret cabals.
Question motives
And why the hell shouldn't we question your motives? You're arguing that the U.S. government slaughtered thousands of its own citizens, even though there is no real evidence of it.
Why? Why are you trying to deflect attention from the real culprits? Why are you demanding answers to long-since-answered conspiracy questions, when most people want to know what intelligence failures allowed this to happen? Whose side are you on, anyway?
Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
This is another favorite accusation of the CTs. But sometimes namecalling and ridicule are richly deserved. The debate usually goes like this:
CT: They used thermite to blow up the WTC.
DEBUNKER: The collapse does not resemble controlled demolition in any way.
CT: They used thermite to blow up the WTC.
DEBUNKER: The sulfur that was observed could have come from many other sources.
CT: They used thermite to blow up the WTC.
DEBUNKER: Thermite doesn't work that way.
CT: They used thermite to blow up the WTC.
DEBUNKER: They would have needed mountains of it.
CT: They used thermite to blow up the WTC.
DEBUNKER: It would have had to cut sideways through the building.
CT: They used thermite to blow up the WTC.
DEBUNKER: Forget it. You're an idiot.
CT: HAHA YOU CANT ANSWER MY QUESTION ALL YOU CAN DO IS CALL NAMES I WIN PWNED LOL.
If you don't like being ridiculed, try acting in a way that does not invite ridicule.
Associate opponent charges with old news
An attempt to poison the well. Many alleged proofs of conspiracy claims really ARE old news. They insist on citing vague personal accounts from newspapers on 9/12/01, over the tens of thousands of pages of scientific study that has been done since then.
Vanish evidence and witnesses
Yeah, like Lauro Chavez, and all the other proven frauds whom the CTs insist upon citing.
Demand complete solutions
What's wrong with that?
Silence critics
Yeah, by pulling your posting privileges when you're being a complete ass.
Hit and Run
Oh, I wish. I'm just glad the 9/11 Deniers don't protest any place where I happen to drive. I might be tempted to run some consumer tests on those tinfoil hats they're wearing.
Sorry for the long post, but these idiots really rile me up sometimes.
For some reason the whole link did not appear
http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm
Oh my God, this one cracked me up:
"My parents are really proud of me."
A really terrific post by triterope! Excellent job.
For some reason the whole link did not appear
http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm
Ah... classic memories....
Post a Comment
<< Home