When Your Right You Don't Have to Worry About Who Else Agrees With You ... Even When it's No One

Spartans of Truth ....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/183728944973010/

When I was in the second grade my teacher asked the entire class to raise their hands if they thought … "John ran." … was a sentence ... I proudly raised my hand because she had literally just got done telling us that it was ... After hearing her slowly walking around the classroom she came back to the front row and stood right in front of my desk and said … "Are you sure about that?" … I WAS … Very sure ... Until she motioned for me to take a good look around the classroom which until that moment I hadn't bothered to do ... I was shocked to see that not one other kid had raised their hand ... Not even my friends ... The teacher then said … "Johnathan ... I'll give you to the count of ten to change your mind!" and started counting very slowly … After an excruciating minute of giving the rest of the class including some of my best friends a few desperate "Someone else please, please, please agree with me!!" looks I reluctantly gave up at the count of eight and lowered my hand ... "That's too bad!!" … she said with a frustrated smirk on her face … "Because it IS a sentence!!" After seeing the angry and embarrassed look on my face she bent down and whispered something into my ear I have never been able to forget … "When your right you don't have to worry about who else agrees with you ... Even when it's no one" ….

The thing every serious 9/11 truther has to ask themselves at one point or another is ... If I've done my own research on the subject? ... Watched all the videos and listened to all the tapes? ... Spent the next several years after that backing your up research with serious thought and reflection of ALL the facts given from BOTH sides of the 9/11 "debate" and you are still FORCED to come to the logical conclusion that the official explanation is complete farcical nonsense? ... Then what does it matter what some brown-nosing ball sucker has to say about it?!! ….

Debunker: "So you base your entire kooky 'WTC Demolition conspiracy theory' on What amounts to ... A feeling!?" ... "A belief!!" ... "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!!" ... "LMFAO LOLOLOLOL ... Dumbshit!!!" ....

My simple reply: "If you consider almost nine years of thorough research on the subject including but not limited to reading every article, reading every journal entry, reading all the reports, watching every video, listening to every "debate", every interview, every audio tape … All followed up by several years of serious thought and reflection of ALL the facts given from BOTH sides … Backed up by fifteen years of my own personal hands on building experience including steel frame and welding work a … 'feeling'?? … But I didn’t ask you …."

FORMING MY COMMENTS WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS IS IMPORTANT ... Forming my comments without any questions left for my adversary to answer is a major component to a large portion of my "wins" ... Truthers run around today saying "I just have questions!" like that phrase will get them out of anything ... I say why is that? ... Cant look it up or what? ... Its like saying "Does gravity exist, I just have questions?" ... Well go outside and throw a rock and let me know how that goes ... If YOU in your capacity as a truther can't look something up about 911 enough to know for certain a debunker sure as hell isn't going to do it for you so why even ask? ... All you'll accomplish in the end by asking a "debunker" to clarify or elaborate on one of your many "questions" is losing the upper hand ... Even if you happen to have valid questions ... After all you will be up against the best and brightest propagandists money can buy in most of these situations your bound to get yourself into ... Never NEVER under-estimate your opponent no matter how solid you think your information is ... State an obvious fact even if it's a single seemingly non-important detail as long as its counter to a "debunker's" obvious lie ... Be sure that your fact is one that you personally know for certain is true and one that you can source all day till the cows come home if asked .. Then stick to it like glue ... If said "debunker" insults your intelligence ... well you didn't ask him did you? ...

When you finally have a "debunker" cornered and he has realized that you've given him enough rope to hang with he will often try to change the subject with what I call the "conspiracy grab bag" perhaps hoping he'll get a rise out of you or better yet get you off onto a completely different subject ....

Debunker:"I suppose you believe in aliens from outer space? ... Or that Israel is behind 911 you fucking anti-Semite?!! ... Are you a tin-foil hat wearing, Alex 'new world order' Jones watching, JFK'er too? ... Get a life you fucking moron!!"

DON'T LET THEM THROW YOU OFF YOUR MARK NO MATTER WHAT!!! ... They will try like hell ... Keep coming back to your one original small detail whatever it may be and ignore everything else or you will lose!! ... Always keep in mind that you don't have to be an expert in every little detail of 911, or the history of the world either for that matter, to beat these guys ... Don't let a"debunker" shop around till he finally gets you on a point you happen to know nothing about but perhaps feel obligated to defend for one reason or another ... He will clobber you with your own ignorance and thus render your one original factual detail long forgotten and therefore moot ... This situation is a real shame considering that you could have won this debate forty or fifty insulting comments ago had YOU simply stayed on track ... Always remember that "debunkers" react to YOU and what you say or don't say ... It's not the other way around ... Make him acknowledge the fact that he was wrong about your one particular detail before moving on to ANYTHING ELSE ... If after a plethora of high quality reference materials are given your "debunker" still won't acknowledge your one obvious fact as a fact then you've already won and there's really no sense in continuing on with your debate ... This type of "debunker" is most likely not there to debate anyway ... In most of these cases where you have a militantly ignorant "debunker" on your hands it's not because you're "not getting through to him" or that your information is "inadequate" in some way but rather because he's there making money off of each comment he makes ... Like any other paid propagandist would ... At this point it's best to quit while your ahead and he's behind ... And by quit I mean shut your hole ... He'll probably just insult you one more time and leave anyway no matter what you say ... Usually using some form of this excuse ....

Debunker: "I'm not like you ... I actually have a life you know ... I don't have time to play 'who gets the last word' with losers who live in their mother's basement and get up at noon ... I have to get up early tomorrow and be a productive member of society ... Later!!" ....

KNOWING WHAT KIND OF "SKEPTIC" YOUR UP AGAINST IS ALSO IMPORTANT!! ... Perhaps most important ... I have noticed in my many years of debating full-fledged "pentagon bloggers" that there appears to be two main types of skeptics ... One in an admirable role and one quite the opposite ... Therefore we have skeptics ... People who honestly disagree for one reason or another and who are therefore worth your time and effort ... And pseudo skeptics ... People who usually end up being nothing more than paid war supporting propagandists sent to intentionally disrupt, intimidate, and confuse you along with anyone else who happens to read your thread and who are therefore NOT worth your time and effort ... Knowing what kind of skeptic your up against right out of the gate will give you an important advantage so learn to spot the differences well ....

(quote from an unknown author)

Characteristics of a pseudo skeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt ...

2. Double standards in the application of criticism ...

3. The making of judgments without full inquiry ...

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate ...

5. Use of ridicule, threats of physical/emotional harm, or ad hominid attacks in lieu of arguments ...

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as "fakes", "fags", "fuckers", "losers", "hippies", "unpatriotic", "terrorist sympathizers" or 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science ...

7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof ...

8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof ...

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims ...

10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence ...

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it ...

12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims ...

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance) ...

14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority' ...

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths ...

16. Provides no references to reputable journal material and at the same time refuses to acknowledge that your reputable journal material exists "at all" even when it's provided to them ...

17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative ...

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics:

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudo skeptic ...

B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things ...

C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides ...

D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions ...

E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own ...

F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim ...

G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides ...

H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence ...

I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason ...

J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence ...

(End of quote)

Once you've stuck to your guns on your one simple and undeniable fact and you've identified the type of skeptic your up against be sure that you don't let your debate degrade into an argument over beliefs and opinions ... Make it clear at all times that you are NOT stating a "belief" ... THIS IS A FACT!!! ... As plain as the FACT that your "debunker" has a nose on his face ... You can see it but he can't ... Is it then a "belief" of yours when your say "Hey ... buddy ... there's a nose on your face!!" and he doesn't buy it and refuses to look in the mirror? ... NO!! ... It's still a fact whether your new "debunker" friend decides to acquiesce the point or not ....

DON'T JUST GIVE A LINK AND CALL IT GOOD ... Take the time to understand WHY it's true ... Once you've done that put the link aside and take some specific excerpts and post that instead ... You will then have your "debunker" in a position of having to be specific in his dismissals of your information ... You therefore take the "blanket dismissal" out of his arsenal which is one of his most effective tools ...

Debunker: "You twoofers don't have ONE shred of evidence to back up what you're saying!! ... Not ONE!! ... If you did it would be all over the news like yesterday ... Admit it your just a crackpot with nothing but bare assertions and opinions!!"

Average Truther: "well here's ONE shred of evidence ... (gives link to peer-reviewed paper)"

Debunker: "What did you get that off the internet? ... LOLOLOL ... You're a loser!! ... You believe everything you see on the Internet don't you? ... Seen Bigfoot lately?? ... LMAO ... MASSIVE FAIL!!"

Average Truther: "This paper came from a scientist who did years of study on the subject ... And it's peer-reviewed"

Debunker: "That "scientist" so-called was an alcoholic who got fired because he has obviously lost his marbles and this is NOT a peer-reviewed paper ... Anyone can post a paper there who is willing to pay the fee ... LMFAO!!!"

In one fell swoop your debunker, even though he was lying, now has you off-balance and therefore on the defensive ... He hasn't at this point even had to read let alone address what's IN said peer-reviewed paper ... Any action you take from this point on will make your comments on this thread look like a pathetic attempt to defend something that really needed no defense in the first place ... Here's how this exchange should have gone ....

Debunker: "You twoofers don't have ONE shred of evidence to back up what you're saying!! ... Not ONE ... If you did it would be all over the news like yesterday ... Admit it your just a crackpot with nothing but bare assertions and opinions!!"

Truther: "Well ... (gives specific, undeniable, short, and easy to understand excerpt from a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal entry that this truther already knows backwards and forwards) ...."

Debunker: "You just make that shit up or what? ... You're a fucking Idiot!!"

Truther: "Only a moron would think that I made that up and your obviously not a moron ... I got this information from an incredibly reliable source ... And here's something else I found interesting (Pastes another shockingly accurate and truthful fact from the same source that ties into nicely with the first pasted excerpt) ... THESE are NOT my opinions no matter how much you would like to think so ... THESE are FACTS!!"

Debunker: "Your obviously a fucking liar!! ... Does Bin Ladin pay you to be a terrorist sympathizer or do you bend over for him for free?!!"

Truther: "What specifically about this is a lie? ... (pastes another undeniably truthful excerpt) ... And as I said be SPECIFIC this time!"

Debunker: "KOOK!!"

Truther: "That's what I thought ... Nothing I've said here is even remotely close to being 'kooky' ... (pastes another excerpt)"

Debunker: "Do you sleep with your mother too? ... Cause I did!!"

Truther: "You having sex with my dead mother has absolutely nothing to do with this! ... (pastes another excerpt)"

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Now wasn't that a hell of a lot more fun?? ... At this stage just keep pasting excerpts until your "debunker" gives up and starts making some sense or leaves ... No matter what he says just ignore him ... If you get to the end of that source and your "debunker" is still being a nuisance move on to the next source ... There are plenty ... I know this technique is effective because I used it against the infamous "troyfromwestvriginia" on YouTube and mopped up the floor with him ... I was on his page and at an incredible disadvantage so if it worked against him it can work against your "debunker" ....

"SO, WHO DID IT THEN!?" ... Don't ever answer this question!!! ... First of all YOU don't have to ... Leave that question for your "debunker" friend to answer ... Remember that you are NOT an expert on investigating mass murders so do pretend to be ... In fact pretend to know nothing ...Your still on the fence ...

Truther: "Hell I'm on the fence about all this ... By all means persuade me ... Please ... Do me the favor of NOT being a truther anymore ...."

If you had the money, connections, authority, unlimited manpower, and unlimited resources you would have gotten the answer to that years ago ... That doesn't take pointing out provable factual errors out of your arsenal so don't let them act like they can get away with this type of maneuver on you for even a second ... If your on trial for murder and you've scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubt you didn't do it the prosecutor doesn't get to turn around and say ..."Well until you drag the real culprits here into court and make them confess in front of us we're still going to find you guilty anyway!" ... At least not unless your a terrorist suspect inside a the living hell of a military commission ... That's why military commissions are such an abomination to the human race as a whole ... So trust me ... Don't give your opinion about anything especially about those responsible in a debate with a "debunker" ... If you go down this road prepare yourself to fall off a cliff you could have avoided ...Add to that the fact that it's a step that is completely unnecessary and one you can win without taking ....

YOUR ON THEIR SIDE ABOUT ALL THIS ... Your just more than happy to point out a fact or two here and there to let them know your listening to what they are saying and your actually going to have the gall to check ... Point out the things you find wrong with what they are telling you ... Don't settle for a battle of the links with an insult chaser ... Make them be specific ... Make THEM tell you SPECIFICALLY WHAT is nutty or wrong with whatever it is your showing them and call them on it ... THEY won't do it in most cases unless they genuinely want to learn something which will be an important indicator for you in determining what kind of skeptic your up against ... If you are indeed up against a true skeptic be willing to admit when you're wrong and do it right away ... The sooner the better ....

LESS IS MORE ... You have TWO ears and in this day and age TWO eyes vs ONE mouth when communicating ... So an 80% listening and reading to 20% (or less) mouth ratio is ideal when dealing with "Debunkers" or anyone else for that matter ... Any time you can use their exact words against them you are obligated to do so ... In most cases their hypocrisy is so blatant that you will literally be able to cut and paste it ....

THE REDIRECT ... Debunkers when cornered like to say something completely dismissive of your well founded and factual argument by saying something completely untrue immediately followed by a question of their own to throw you and everyone who may be paying attention off topic ... For example ...

Debunker: Free fall is completely impossible and did NOT happen in the case of the wtc collapse ... What actually occurred was a gravitational collapse that was two thirds of free fall ... For free fall to happen there would have to be no resistance at all and that's simply impossible as there was indeed structural support from the lower floors(duh) ....

Truther: Well if you take into account a full second of motionlessness in the beginning and a full second after it's out of sight the collapse in it's entirety was indeed two thirds of free fall ... However this is misleading ... There was in fact a full two and a half seconds of full free fall acceleration involved here that does not get counted if you do your math in this way ... So for at least two and a half seconds there was free fall acceleration involved here ... That's about eight floors gone as fast as a rock falling through the air ....

Debunker: Your math there is just plain wrong, the question I have for you is who did it then if it wasn't the terrorist hijackers who flew the planes into those buildings ... How could "they" have possibly gotten thousands of tons of explosives past tens of thousands of people and a team of bomb sniffing dogs in broad daylight? ... It's just not possible ... You truthers just don't have your facts straight and it shows ....

Moderator/Third party: That's a valid question that you truthers like to try and dodge all the time ... I'd like an answer as well ... Who do you think did it then? ....

You see what he did there? ... At this point in most main stream debates I've seen the moderator would now choose to take the baton and run with it or just move on to something else entirely sighting "time constraints" thus purposely not giving the truther the chance to pound the debunker with the fact that he just said free fall was COMPLETELY impossible then covered himself with a complete lie when he was obviously caught in a situation where he would have to admit that a free fall event in fact DID happen ... Even if it was only two and a half out of six and a half seconds it should not have happened AT ALL ... This point alone should have won this debate right there but because the debunker was able to successfully "redirect" the truther's point was instead rendered moot ... Don't ever be afraid to say "Now wait a minute ... Back up here and acknowledge this!" ... Hold their feet to the fire and refuse to "move on" to something else ....

I have been in rigorous scientific debates with experts who know far more than me with vast resources at their disposal ... They all turn tail and run as soon as they realize they aren't going to buffalo me with a bunch of fancy equations and scientific jargon ... As long as you realize that a lie is a lie just like a pig is a pig no matter how much lipstick it wears you will find the flaw in their argument every time because I guarantee you there is one ... The only way a debate would ever get "too complex" is if you let it ... It's never happened on one of my threads or to one of my "students" ... But I can't be all things to all threads at all times and neither can you so choose your battles wisely... Above all else and most importantly remember this ... Once you choose your battle don't ever give up no matter what ... The most effective technique is to have a reputation for staying in it for the long haul every time ... Doing so will make "debunkers" clear a path for you more than anything else I could ever teach you ... It works!!! ... I should know .....