Let's take a friendly look at our buddy Howard's posts on this thread alone in regards to their disinfo tactic use. This isn't meant as a personal
attack, but just a simple comparison.
These are the tactics that WeComeInPeace just posted.
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or
credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert
knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
On page 27, TheShroudOfMemphis posts these images showing an anomaly in the collapse of a WTC building:
Howard responds to these images by posting the following:
"Prove it. Offer conclusive proof that these so called blasts occured before
the collapses started."
The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534450 (post id: 1556343).
Howard thereby implies that for the graphics to be valid, the explosion would have had to have taken place
before the start of the collapse
(with "before" in bold in his original post).
In fact, the very video SoM linked to shows that the explosion takes place at the very start of the collapse,
not before it. With his remark,
Howard avoids addressing this graphic/video directly by simply suggesting it's invalid because it happened while the collapse was starting. SoM never
once suggested the blast happened before the collapse starting.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become
argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
After being absent from the thread for over 45 posts in which much evidence against the official story was successfully argued (extraordinarily fast
collapse speeds, little resistance from steel, cool fires, few destroyed columns, and a beginning into exploring the demolition squibs), Howard jumps
back onto the thread with a single rebuttal attempt, and doesn't look back to address any of the other information that had been presented since his
last visit, despite his old habit of showing up and making several consecutive posts doing just that.
The single rebuttal to the vast amount of into covered in the 45 posts he missed was directed towards a remark Misfit made regarding half of a floor
appearing to blow out. Howard's attempt to explain them:
"Easy, that is the mechcanical floor. That is the air being blown outward through the building HVAC intakes. The air is bing forced down and out
through the shafts in the core as the building collaspes."
The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534273 (post id: 1556166).
Howard then returns an hour later and produces the post you see under disinfo tacitc #1. Unlike earlier exhibited behavior, Howard does not go back to
address the unusual collapse times or the apparent lack of resistance from the steel frames of the buildings. Neither does he address the small number
of downed columns.
He is selective in his addressing of the evidence of cool fires.
The evidence posted regarding the cool nature of the fires was as follows:
A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as other skyscraper fires have seen. This specifically puts the fires around or
below 600 degrees Celsius.
B) The fires did not spread to other floors on their own account (ie, after the initial impact, and the elevator shaft doesn't count). Looking at
other skyscraper fires that did reach such temperatures, the fires began feeding on various materials and spread throughout the buildings.
C) There was not a single piece of steel photographed or taped at the WTC that day that was glowing even a dull red, either inside either building
during the fires, or during collapse, or after collapse, or at any other point on that day. I've already posted a chart showing what colors steel
will glow when placed at certain temperatures. They certainly did not reach the alleged temperatures according to that chart.
In responding to this (only after it was posted several times), Howard addresses only point A, posting diagrams showing windows that had been
"opened" over time at the WTC on 9/11 (page 28; post number: 1537063; post id: 1558956). He failed to show how many failed windows were "opened"
by heat-shattered glass, and wholly failed to address the other two points.
Howard was similarly selective in his address of WeComeInPeace's post regarding the demolition squibs and Howard's alleged paths of air in the WTC.
In fact (and this may fall more under tactic #5), Howard takes a response from WeComeInPeace and makes it his signature, supposedly ridiculing WCIP
for something
he himself suggested! Not only hypocritical but an attempt to mock and discredit WCIP.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of
participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general
concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
In terms of this thread, Howard was the very person to
make the thread, which is in itself an attempt to intimidate and discredit those who do
not buy the government's official story regarding 9/11. Being a newer member here, I don't know Howard's history with the forums prior to this
thread, especially in regards to this topic. Maybe someone else can fill this section in with a little more detail.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any
public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the
players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation
strength.
I'll give two examples, both by Sven. First, from page 21, post number 1523461, post id: 1545354:
"(psst.....Howard.....y'r the man, great pic's man )"
Second, from page 22, post number 1527662, post id: 1549555:
"The pictures are GREAT [referring to pictures posted as part of counter-arguments to arguments made by those supporting the demo theory]
Must say get great pictures on this thread 
[Howard still d'a man...(the cat guy good 2) ] "
As stated, this will occur naturally on forums, but it also naturally aids the disinfo process.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK
was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a
NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they
hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they
do.
Here, we have as an example Howard posting the following:
"Well, since you are an expert on sylips, chemtrails, ufos and other bullcrap, Why don't you submit a comment to NIST based on your vast
knowlege."
The above quote was from page 28 of this thread; post Number: 1537113 (post id: 1559006).
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist
even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the
evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem
artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have
trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications
style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a
real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an
emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue
their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who
truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
Here's a good example of this, posted not too long ago by our HowardRoark:
"My mission is to deny ignorance, As long as people like you espouse it, I will fight it."
The above quote was from page 28 of this thread; post Number: 1537226 (post id: 1559119).
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing
their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that
often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy
pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too
many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge
of it.
I'm not going to dig for any examples of the above, though if anyone has any feel free to share. I would expect that Howard has done this before, but
from his great preference for being selective (tactic #2), he doesn't do it often.
Again, not meant as a personal attack or anything. Just making simple, honest comparisons.
or two, and a a few 
