The 9/11 Truther Credo.
a.k.a.: The 9/11 TWOOfer Credo
(Inspired by (and text in blue shamelessly stolen from) The Woo-Woo Credo.)
Google “9/11 truth”. Think, “Wooooo”. Keep clicking on googlebombed links. Think, “Woo” some more. Refer to your googling as “real research”. Keep thinking, “Woo”.
Connect the dots. Read about “holes in the official story”. Make leaps to conclusions between one “hole” and another. Those dots just don’t connect themselves, you know.
Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis). Instead, use Smacco’s Razor. “It couldn’t have been 19 hijackers – it must have been one big, corrupt gubmint/media.”
Fight strawmen valiantly. Repeatedly state that 9/11 was not caused by “Arabs in caves”, and that burning jet fuel alone did not bring down the buildings. Accuse your opponents of being George Bush-lovers, and dismiss their evidence accordingly.
Misuse technical terms as often as possible. The terms “squib” and “pyroclastic flow” are your friends.
Use one myth to support another myth.
“They were going to create a false-flag operation (Northwoods) in the Sixties therefore 9/11 was an inside job”.
“Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy therefore 9/11 was an inside job”.
“9/11 was an inside job therefore anyone who disagrees with me is a disinformation agent”.
Smoke weed copiously. You can never have enough paranoia and crazy thoughts.
Embrace paranoia. When someone uses facts to prove one of your claims wrong, call them a “disinformation agent”, “shill”, or say that they are “spinning”.
Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.
You must believe that the word "anomaly" means proof of sinister gubmint activity.
Use the word "anomaly" as often as possible. If you can’t spell it, say ‘holes in the official story’.
Pontificate, use diatribe and rhetoric. Call your opponents, “sheeple” and urge them to “wake up”. They may have gone to sleep during your rants. They also need urging to “connect the dots” as you have.
Use Caps-Lock in the word “TRUTH” wherever possible, or at least capitalize the first letter of “Truth”. Better still, SHOUT TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. Bystanders may be as easily swayed as you are, you hope.
Call the “official story” (the scientific, evidence-based, professional investigation and conclusion) the “official conspiracy theory” so that easily swayed people will, in one fell swoop, stop using logic, science and evidence to analyse the material.
Call yourself a “skeptic”, so that easily swayed people will, in one fell swoop, think you are using logic, science and evidence in your discussion.
Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.
Change the subject. When discussing the WTC, quote the reports of loud explosions and Steven Jones’ theory of therm*te, and then when someone points out those quotes are incompatible, refer to or post a long cut’n’pasted article from rense.com about Bush needing to be impeached.
Use incredulity.
Re: WTC7:
“I can’t believe that a WTC building not hit by a plane collapsed!”
So WTC1 & 2 collapsed?
“Er, no, they had to be demolished too.”
Ask questions. That makes it look as though you’ve done some thinking (or parroting).
Ignore answers. Keep asking the same questions. Think, “Wooooo”. It’s fun to say, “Wooooo”. 9/11 is all about fun, right? And feeling like you’re doing some “real research” and investigation. Because. They’re. Never. Going. To. Re-open. 9/11. Based. On. Your. “Investigation”.
Have inflated self-esteem. “All the structural engineers in the world are wrong, but I know the TRUTH”.
Derail. In discussion forums, when others are discussing a topic, introduce a 9/11 twoof-related question. When someone replies with a quick debunk, make a huge post uploading all your brain’s delusions, and expect everyone to debunk them succinctly yet in depth, and to not refer to physics, engineering, FEMA, NIST, etc, or 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics, Mark Roberts, Wikipedia, etc, etc. When they try, accuse them of being disinformation agents. If they don’t try, claim you’ve proven the “inside job”.
a.k.a.: The 9/11 TWOOfer Credo
(Inspired by (and text in blue shamelessly stolen from) The Woo-Woo Credo.)
Google “9/11 truth”. Think, “Wooooo”. Keep clicking on googlebombed links. Think, “Woo” some more. Refer to your googling as “real research”. Keep thinking, “Woo”.
Connect the dots. Read about “holes in the official story”. Make leaps to conclusions between one “hole” and another. Those dots just don’t connect themselves, you know.
Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis). Instead, use Smacco’s Razor. “It couldn’t have been 19 hijackers – it must have been one big, corrupt gubmint/media.”
Fight strawmen valiantly. Repeatedly state that 9/11 was not caused by “Arabs in caves”, and that burning jet fuel alone did not bring down the buildings. Accuse your opponents of being George Bush-lovers, and dismiss their evidence accordingly.
Misuse technical terms as often as possible. The terms “squib” and “pyroclastic flow” are your friends.
Use one myth to support another myth.
“They were going to create a false-flag operation (Northwoods) in the Sixties therefore 9/11 was an inside job”.
“Oswald didn’t kill Kennedy therefore 9/11 was an inside job”.
“9/11 was an inside job therefore anyone who disagrees with me is a disinformation agent”.
Smoke weed copiously. You can never have enough paranoia and crazy thoughts.
Embrace paranoia. When someone uses facts to prove one of your claims wrong, call them a “disinformation agent”, “shill”, or say that they are “spinning”.
Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.
You must believe that the word "anomaly" means proof of sinister gubmint activity.
Use the word "anomaly" as often as possible. If you can’t spell it, say ‘holes in the official story’.
Pontificate, use diatribe and rhetoric. Call your opponents, “sheeple” and urge them to “wake up”. They may have gone to sleep during your rants. They also need urging to “connect the dots” as you have.
Use Caps-Lock in the word “TRUTH” wherever possible, or at least capitalize the first letter of “Truth”. Better still, SHOUT TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. Bystanders may be as easily swayed as you are, you hope.
Call the “official story” (the scientific, evidence-based, professional investigation and conclusion) the “official conspiracy theory” so that easily swayed people will, in one fell swoop, stop using logic, science and evidence to analyse the material.
Call yourself a “skeptic”, so that easily swayed people will, in one fell swoop, think you are using logic, science and evidence in your discussion.
Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.
Change the subject. When discussing the WTC, quote the reports of loud explosions and Steven Jones’ theory of therm*te, and then when someone points out those quotes are incompatible, refer to or post a long cut’n’pasted article from rense.com about Bush needing to be impeached.
Use incredulity.
Re: WTC7:
“I can’t believe that a WTC building not hit by a plane collapsed!”
So WTC1 & 2 collapsed?
“Er, no, they had to be demolished too.”
Ask questions. That makes it look as though you’ve done some thinking (or parroting).
Ignore answers. Keep asking the same questions. Think, “Wooooo”. It’s fun to say, “Wooooo”. 9/11 is all about fun, right? And feeling like you’re doing some “real research” and investigation. Because. They’re. Never. Going. To. Re-open. 9/11. Based. On. Your. “Investigation”.
Have inflated self-esteem. “All the structural engineers in the world are wrong, but I know the TRUTH”.
Derail. In discussion forums, when others are discussing a topic, introduce a 9/11 twoof-related question. When someone replies with a quick debunk, make a huge post uploading all your brain’s delusions, and expect everyone to debunk them succinctly yet in depth, and to not refer to physics, engineering, FEMA, NIST, etc, or 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics, Mark Roberts, Wikipedia, etc, etc. When they try, accuse them of being disinformation agents. If they don’t try, claim you’ve proven the “inside job”.
Great additions!!! 