Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

15
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
74% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Intelschizo on X

On this day 58 years ago during Operation Chrome Dome a US B-52 had a electrical fire and forced the crew to abandon the bomber before being able to make an emergency landing at Thule. The bomber crashed into the sea ice of the North Star Bay causing the high-explosives component… https://t.co/K9B6P

Posted by Intelschizo
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No extreme binary options presented; no argumentative structure.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them dynamics like 'American folly vs. innocent locals'; neutral military accident description.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good-evil framing; straightforward event sequence without moral judgments.
Timing Coincidence 2/5
Posted on exact 58th anniversary with many similar X and web remembrances; minor overlap with Davos Greenland talks by Trump but organic history sharing, not distracting from events like Syrian conflicts.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to psyops; real 1968 incident documented in US archives and Danish reports, without propaganda playbook matches.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries among politicians or companies; from neutral history accounts amid factual anniversary posts, without alignment to campaigns or funding.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestions 'everyone agrees' or widespread consensus; isolated factual post without social proof claims.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No pressure for quick belief change or manufactured momentum; low-engagement history posts without trends or urgency.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Similar facts across X posts (crash, fire, dispersal) but varied details and no identical phrasing; typical anniversary coverage without coordination.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No flawed reasoning or arguments; chronological facts only.
Authority Overload 1/5
No questionable experts or citations; pure narrative without sources.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Selects crash sequence but skips broader outcomes like three bombs recovered; mild selectivity in short post.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Phrases like 'forced the crew to abandon' and 'causing the high-explosives component' add slight dramatic tension, but overall neutral military history tone.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling of critics or alternative views; no debate implied.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits cleanup (Operation Crested Ice), recovery status of bombs, health impacts, or mission context; cuts off at 'high-explosives component…'.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Refers to known 'Operation Chrome Dome' without 'unprecedented' or 'shocking first'; standard anniversary-style fact without exaggeration.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional triggers; single neutral sequence of events without emphatic language.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No disconnected outrage like 'unforgivable blunder'; factual tone lacks hyperbole or victim narratives.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No calls to action such as 'act now' or 'spread the word'; purely historical recounting ending abruptly without demands.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The content describes the crash factually without fear-mongering phrases like 'terrifying near-miss' or outrage like 'reckless endangerment'; mild implication in 'causing the high-explosives component' but no guilt or panic induction.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Appeal to fear-prejudice Loaded Language Reductio ad hitlerum
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else