NTD100%

CENTCOM: Iranian Port Blockade Has Stopped All Ships 99%

4/15/2026, 5:58:36 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 87.8% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 627 faulty-reasoning hits from 139 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 99% (256 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 98.80% of the video peer group.

Central Command says the US military has stopped all ships from passing through its blockade of Iranian ports. 
That's during the first 48 hours of launching the OP operation. 
the OP operation. 
Sentcom added that nine vessels have comp complied with orders to turn around and return toward an Iranian port or co coastal area. 
President Trump ordered the blockade on Sunday after talks between the US and Iran broke down. 
Yesterday, Sentcom 
Commander Admiral Brad Cooper said the US is maintaining maritime superiority in the Middle East. 
Cooper adding, "The US military has completely halted trade going in and out of Iran by sea since the blockade began" 
Monday." 
Sentcom said US forces are continuing to support freedom of navigation for ships transiting the straight of Hormuz to non-Iranian destinations. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%NTD: 15.7%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 7.9%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias7.9%This article: 16.5%NTD: 12.2%Availability Heuristic16.5%This article: 10.8%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 44.6%NTD: 9.3%Overconfidence Bias44.6%This article: 41.7%NTD: 22.7%Framing Effect41.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.1%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 9.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%NTD: 17.1%Negativity Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 11.5%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 8.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 44.6%NTD: 14.0%Appeal to Authority44.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.8%NTD: 17.3%Hasty Generalization33.8%This article: 3.6%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring3.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.6%NTD: 22.3%Appeal to Emotion26.6%This article: 7.9%NTD: 6.1%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 11.5%NTD: 5.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 27.3%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof27.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 15.1%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division15.1%This article: 16.5%NTD: 6.4%Anecdotal16.5%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 87.8%NTD: 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)87.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

139 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers84%attributed speech22writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCentral Command • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSentcom • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Trump • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSentcom • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Cooper • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Cooper • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Cooper • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSentcom • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Central Command

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words15% of attributed speech100% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.