This has been floating on the net in one form or another since the late ’90s at least. I’ve shortened a few things and made a couple of changes to make it scan better.

You can find the unabridged version at 9/11 Truth.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it–especially if you are a public figure. If you don’t report it, it didn’t happen, and you will never have to deal with the issues.

2. Be incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues. Focus on side issues which portray the topic as critical of some otherwise sacrosanct theme: freedom, democracy, family values… This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumour-mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all as mere rumours and wild accusations.

4. The 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 look bad, while avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the “shoot the messenger ploy”. Associate opponents with unpopular titles — “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviants”, “intellectuals” — thereby discouraging 2nd wave opposition and avoiding discussion of difficult issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack on your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded. Alternatively, simply ignore any answer.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify facts to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias.

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”; always make it clear that God is on your side. 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial: “Lacks credibility”, “Doesn’t make any sense”, “Provides no proof”, “Doesn’t contain or make a point”, “Lacks logic”, “Supports no conclusion” (mix well for maximum effect).

10. Establish fall-back positions. Using a minor element of the facts, “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. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

11. Enigmas have no solution. Draw upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding an acusation and the multitude of players and events; make out the entire affair as too complex to solve. Commentators will loose interest and the actual issues will not have to be addressed.

12. 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.

13. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.

14. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

15. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

16. Change the subject. 

17. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents, draw them into emotional responses, which will make them look foolish and overly motivated.

18. Ignore presented proof and demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Declare any material presented by an opponent in public forums irrelevant; be critical of media reports or books as valid sources, damn witnesses as unacceptable….

19. 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.

20. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. For example, if you own the prosecuting attorney, you can rest assured that the Grand Jury will hear no damaging evidence and that such evidence will not be available to subsequent investigators. In short, the matter can be considered officially closed.

21. Create a new truth. Manufacture your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s); or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

22. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working, create bigger news stories.

23. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive means: blackmail, destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, threats against family mambers, arrest and detention…or death by murder if all else fails.

24. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, vacate the kitchen.