Shills??? MOD ALERT

Semantics is the study of meaning. You asked me to prove gravity to you. To do that it must be defined. I defined it by measuring it. You do not have to predict the measurement. You only have to observe it.

No. I specifically asked for evidence of shills on this forum.

This is a strawman and it sets up a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

1. I did not claim that physical evidence requires that I be able to "hold it." Touch is not the only way to observe physical evidence.

2. Listing tactics used by shills does not preclude the same tactics being used by people who are not paid by the government.

The following is an illogical structure of an argument.

A. Shills use tactic A
B. Tactic A exists on this forum
C. Therefore shills exist on this forum.

This is affirming the consequent fallacy. It neglects to account for or exclude the possibility that people other than shills use tactic A. Since the purpose of shills is to effectively promote a specific point of view, it stands to reason that anyone who wants to effectively promote a specific point of view might also use these same tactics.

So where's your evidence of the specific claim that people are paid by the government to argue with you here on this forum?

 

I argue the existance of shills from corporate, union, special interest(AIPAC, ATC, China, ect.), and government.

You conveniently leave out the fact that it is the context in which these tactics are deployed, that makes your claim to my evidence being a consequent fallacy false.

For instance the post history of many shill "skeptics" in this very thread being dominated by attempting to debunk CT's.

Who does this?

What real person has an interest in debunking ideas they find ludacris, spending hours apon hours, and even years discussing nothing but 9-11, and CT's they don't believe in.

Are we really to believe these people have no interests outside debunking CT's?

No interest in sports, or politics, or music, or religion, or any of countless other thread topics?

 

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

 

An individual such as yourself could familiarize yourself with the tactics I have posted in this thread, and quantify, and measure the existance of shills for yourself, as I have.

Please go spend some time on the Yahoo message boards for the stories they post, and tell me shills don't exist.

Well many like to claim these "CT's" would have more evidence and be exposed if they existed, so my question about the tactic of compartmentalization is in referance to whether you believe it is effective, and would address the earlier stated point.

 

The issue we are discussing is the context in which these tactics are used.

Tell me again how I am avoiding discussing issues?

 

And you've provided zero logical evidence for this argument. I've already pointed out the fallacy you employed. Hannibal was good enough to point out the use of a tactic from your own list. Using your own logic you are a shill because you used a tactic from the list.

Your argument is that shills have no interests? Where's the evidence for that?

 

You avoided discussing the logical fallacy you employed by questioning the motives of those that post. That is tactic #7 on your list.

Are you a shill?

 

The way you try to spin in circles really is amusing.

 

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.

 

You caught me. I am a shill.

Oh wait, this is what I have been trying to prove all along.

I call this game, I win.

 

That they exist in one context does not mean that they operate here.

If it seems that they gang up on you did it occur to you that this may be because your theories are so absurd and dangerous that any rational person would prefer that they not be promulgated without challenge?

People who see the ideas being sold by the tin foil brigade as a threat to public order, perhaps to civilization? As I pointed out, a lot of the major players in 9/11T are also firmly on board with blatant Nazis.

What gives you the idea that our interests are so limited? I know that two people here have extensive knowledge of aircraft accident and engineering, but have very active social lives. One has done extensive charity work in the Third World. I write poetry and spend a ot of time listening to world music. I am a student of world religions.

I am also a student of the white nationalist movement, because my survival and that of my grandsons may depend on squashing those people like the worthless vermin they are.

You have no idea of the wealth of experiences and interests the people opposing this tin-foil crap bring to the game here and in other venues.

 

Sure, but it sure does increase the likelyhood.

So then why don't they post in the fighter jet, or Boeing threads? Why no postings in the world events threads?

You post in all kinds of threads, you are not one of the people I am referring to here.

Good for you, you just reminded me that of all the tin-foiler, crack pot, non-sense I have heard, your fear of the KKK rising up again is one of the most absurd things I have heard!

Hint: This is one of the shill tactics I accused you of earlier in this post. I do believe in fighting fire with fire.

I certainly don't when their post history is nothing but debunking CT's. Funny how you just backed up my point of the context of the tactics that are being used.

 

Being that there is no quanta or unit involved in 'shill' I see no way to measure and quantify a shill. You hypothesis has not been subjected to the scientific method and is not suitable for scientific study. Again, i get the point you are trying to make but i find the logic of thr gravity shill comparison very dubious.

As for compartamentalization, i cant say that I know s great deal about the management of classified information by our gov't but I think its reasonable to assume that compartmentalizing an operation could be a useful tactic. With regards to 9 11 i do find the acute paucity of whistleblowers or incriminating documents/information to be telling. I think history has shown that the govt has an extremely poor track record of keeping secrets. Our nations most sensitive projects are commonly infiltrated and rapidly exposed ie the manhatten project. Compartmentalized or not, i think that if our govt was complicit in a vast condpiracy like the 9 11 attacks more or atleast some information would have come to light. In my opinion, most truthers make broad and sweeping excuses for the paucity of evidence, the lack of mainstream attention from journalists and the rejection of many tenets of the ct by the scientific community. Instead of rationalizing why the truth movement is still a marginal movement I think truthers should objectively assess the reasons why the 9 11 conspiracy theory hasnt become any more substanative yhan it was a decade ago. My primary complaint with those who advocate for a 9 11 ct is that there analysis often very subjective.

- - - Updated - - -

Being that there is no quanta or unit involved in 'shill' I see no way to measure and quantify a shill. You hypothesis has not been subjected to the scientific method and is not suitable for scientific study. Again, i get the point you are trying to make but i find the logic of thr gravity shill comparison very dubious.

As for compartamentalization, i cant say that I know s great deal about the management of classified information by our gov't but I think its reasonable to assume that compartmentalizing an operation could be a useful tactic. With regards to 9 11 i do find the acute paucity of whistleblowers or incriminating documents/information to be telling. I think history has shown that the govt has an extremely poor track record of keeping secrets. Our nations most sensitive projects are commonly infiltrated and rapidly exposed ie the manhatten project. Compartmentalized or not, i think that if our govt was complicit in a vast condpiracy like the 9 11 attacks more or atleast some information would have come to light. In my opinion, most truthers make broad and sweeping excuses for the paucity of evidence, the lack of mainstream attention from journalists and the rejection of many tenets of the ct by the scientific community. Instead of rationalizing why the truth movement is still a marginal movement I think truthers should objectively assess the reasons why the 9 11 conspiracy theory hasnt become any more substanative yhan it was a decade ago. My primary complaint with those who advocate for a 9 11 ct is that there analysis often very subjective.

 

Plenty of information since 9/11 has come to light. Many of the revelations, which have come through the press, have fueled conspiracy theories because of the level of controversy. I think you forget that the government has leveraging power, they can simply deny allegations altogether, which will comfort some people. Not to mention, the proverbial, and literal, walls that crucial records are hidden behind. Again, the government has the leveraging power.

 

So Sibel Edmonds, Valery Plame, and Brewster Jennings don't meet this criteria at all?

 

No doubt, I can name the document number that describes high level officials engaged in high treason, but all the FBI has to do is destroy it, and claim it never existed even when other released files referance this file number.

 

None of those players has explicitly taken the position that 9 11 was an inside job. Sibel Edwards has had some interesting things to say but she has never explicitly indicted the govt as being a party to the attacks. In sum, sibel edwards et al have made some claims that certainly undermine aspects of the govts official position on 9 11 but that in no way means that the govt was involved or allowed the attacks. Its important to note that given the complexities of foreign affairs/policy, domestic politics and our nations security apparatus the motives for deceit by our government are as enigmatic as they are numerous.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice

 

Nazis exist, and convincing useful idiots that 9/11 was a Mossad job serves their purposes. It is, therefore, far more likely that Da Twoof is a Nazi program, conducted by shills.

Actually, I am one of the experts in aircraft accident investigations.

OKC. You are doing a number 5.

Actually, it is all you bring to the table.

Funny how you just backed up my point of the context of the tactics that are being used.

 

Thanks for providing cryptome's fortune cookie expertise on this issue.

What's really interesting is how the vast majority of those "tactics" listed can be applied to debate forums all around the net. They aren't specific to suppressing the truth, but they are specific to human posting on the net. I could copypasta the Flame warriors list to align the various personas from cryptome's list.

Surprised they didn't slip most of that under the vast umbrella of cyber-disinhibition.....

 

The poster that pimptight refers too, when he talks about lack of posting history, is partially aimed at myself. He finds it unacceptable that the majority of my posting on these boards comes in the 9/11 CT section. He likes to point out that I don't post in other places, therefore I'm a shill. It's not important that he spends equal amounts of time discussing CT's, and accusing others of working for the government.

You can bring up the posting history all you want, the fact is that this is a political board. I am not huge into politics, and I joined this board specifically for the 9/11 CT boards. 9/11 interests me, and blasting twoofer theories is something that brings me entertainment. Now, if I desired, I could post in other portions of the boards.

I could run circles around you in conversation about baseball, and basketball. I am an avid Yankees and Miami Heat fan, I have been for years. I have vast knowledge in AMA Motocross.

I post in the 9/11 subforum because truthers don't get the right to (*)(*)(*)(*) on the graves of 3,000 with their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) conspiracy theories. I defend those that died that day from having their names run through the mud. Things like vicsisms, towers are empty, no planes, and all the other crap deserves to be combated. The intelligent reader, if there are any that read and don't post here, deserves to read the proper evidence. It's just as ridiculous that you're here posting this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) after 12 years than it is for me to be here defending it.

 

You still haven't addressed the fallacy you employed. You cannot use "context" to make an invalid course of logic logical.

Shills use tactics
People on the forum use tactics
People on the forum are shills.

A is B
C is B
Therefore C = B

Apples are Red
Ferraris are Red
Therefore Ferraris are Apples.

 

As stated on that link it is illegal for the gov't to spread propaganda among US citizens. While we certainly cant assume that our govt will always abide by its own laws Im hard pressed to believe that the govt would engage in illegal covert activities to argue against the wild and zany hypothesis put forth here by members like 'scott' and '9 11 was an inside job'. In essence, i think its pretty silly to think that even if domestic shills did exist that the discussion here on political would warrant the attrntion of our govt. In my opinion, those who think that their messages on this forum are so important that the gov't has dedicated an illegal covert op to oppose them are taken themselves to seriously at the least and at worst may be suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Jango, in the newspaper article u cited describing state department activities on foreign websites it explicitly stated that department officials always identified themselves as such.

 

I have never stated I believe 9-11 was inside job either.

This video below best sums up my position on 9-11.

[video=youtube;Ect-kgxBb4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=Ect-kgxBb4M[/video]

 

Well, I call your imaginary power to declare context has no effect on logic, and raise you the ability to crap thunder!

- - - Updated - - -

Let's have a thread poll, and see who thinks this explanation holds water!