After realising my naivity in thinking that I hadn't had dealings with a shill or two on this site, I've been doing some re-reading about shilling techniques. Someone who is genuinely naive will be persuaded by convincing evidence. A shill will never be convinced, because he or she has a financial (or other) incentive for distorting and concealing the truth. His role in not being convinced is two-fold - he will exhaust the energies of those explaining to him the truth (so these energies are not used on the naive who may be convinced), and he will also appear, to a casual observer of the conversation, to be a voice of reason for the alternative ("official") viewpoint. A more thorough observer will eventually see the dishonesty inherent in the shill, as truth means he cannot always be consistent.
Of course, I believe there are genuinely naive people who might not change their views about an entire topic (e.g. September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York requiring government complicity), but these will concede some truth (e.g. to set up a building for demolition takes weeks of preparation). A shill will only concede any such truths unfavourable to his position, if to reject them would place his employment as a shill in jeopardy of exposure. A shill understands that with the acceptance of every truth, his employment moves just that little bit closer to its ultimate termination.
I have also read that one's view on the explanation for the September 2001 terrorist attacks is a good litmus test for whether debaters on separate topics are shills. While I understand that there are some well-known media shills who do accept that there was some government complicity in these attacks (e.g. Alex Jones), I have not yet come across a run-of-the-mill-shill (rotms) on a website or chat room who will accept this position (perhaps shills are generally not given permission to do this).
The following is a list of shilling techniques described on the linked (non-Christian) website. Some techniques have been erased, as I deemed these outside the normal capabilities of the rotms found on discussion forums. I have bolded the techniques I have encountered.
https://aotearoaawiderperspective.w...nise-a-shill-25-hallmarks-of-shill-behaviour/
2.
Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3.
Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
4.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
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. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6.
Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7.
Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so 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.
8.
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9.
Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12.
Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13.
Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14.
Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16.
Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
[That is, mysterious deaths of witnesses and disappearance or destruction of evidence is treated as unfortunate, not deliberate actions to conceal the truth, despite the number of related unfortunate coincidences there may be].
17.
Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18.
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
19.
Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
24.
Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats. [This can take several forms online, but the tactic that comes to mind is the goading of an of opponent until the point s/he retaliates, and then requesting to have the opponent banned for his/her reaction].
25.
Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
"Antisemitism" is supposed to be one of the reasons people refuse to believe the official 9/11 lie. Even if these people have Jewish backgrounds. Lol. 
