Tuesday, October 24, 2006

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.

11 Comments:

At 24 October, 2006 12:48, Blogger Jay said...

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

 
At 24 October, 2006 13:05, Blogger Abby Scott said...

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.

 
At 24 October, 2006 14:07, Blogger MarkyX said...

Ironically enough, those rules fit more what 9/11 Deniers do on a daily basis. Strawman, change subjects, and fit the "facts" to alternative conclusions?

Sounds like you guys.

 
At 24 October, 2006 14:38, Blogger SFC B said...

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.

 
At 24 October, 2006 14:59, Blogger Stevew said...

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

 
At 24 October, 2006 15:54, Blogger Triterope said...

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.

 
At 24 October, 2006 15:56, Blogger remdem said...

Inertial Dampeners

example:

"Wait, if the building fell at free fall, what about the debris falling around it? That looks like it's going faster."

CT Bad Response:"Gee, you may be right. I'll look into that and change my theory so as to account for your amazing observation"

CT OK Response:"UR DUMB DUMB DUMB GO PLAY WITH YOUR MOM SOME MOER!!!1"

CT Good Response:"Well, the military had installed Inertial Dampeners around the core but not the walls of the building. When the thermate went off and subjected the building to 55 Dylans of energy, the particle accelerators could not handle the matrical flux capacitors. It also did not help that Cheney personally turned off the containment field prior, so as to initiate explosive decompression at the lowest levels, and have fires burning at around 23 Joules."

NOW YOU KNOW, AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!!

 
At 24 October, 2006 17:18, Blogger Stevew said...

For some reason the whole link did not appear
http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm

 
At 24 October, 2006 18:06, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Oh my God, this one cracked me up:

"My parents are really proud of me."

 
At 25 October, 2006 06:21, Blogger pomeroo said...

A really terrific post by triterope! Excellent job.

 
At 25 October, 2006 11:19, Blogger telescopemerc said...

For some reason the whole link did not appear
http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm


Ah... classic memories....

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home