• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush Administration Science

jessicarabbit said:
This is the first thread I have started and I don't intend to do it often. I have asked the admin if starting this thread is trolling.
Click to expand...


It's not trolling. Leastways, not to me. But you need to be more informed of the topics of which you initiate a discussion.
 
Gravy said:
Another lie. I told you I read the report when it came out. I also showed you that the "Concerned scientists" make no mention of NIST being interfered with, nor do news reports in their archives. Why do you keep lying, Jessica? Is it that you cannot, or will not stop?

Did you also miss these posts?

You brought up the "60 scientists" report, without providing any evidence that NIST has been interfered with: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051188&postcount=1357
And again, ten minutes later:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051205&postcount=1365

My response, requesting evidence that NIST had been interfered with: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051210&postcount=1367

Rather than respond with evidence, you responded with insults:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051222&postcount=1370

Again, you didn't respond with evidence:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051234&postcount=1377

I requested your evidence again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051244&postcount=1380

Your taunting with a lie: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051250&postcount=1383

Again I requested evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051266&postcount=1390

You declined to provided evidence and again falsely suggested that I hadn't read the report: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051274&postcount=1393

Again I ask you for evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051321&postcount=1414

You spam the link again, and again fail to provide evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051325&postcount=1417

Again you ask if I've read the report, although I had already told you I had: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051455&postcount=1459

Just trolling then, Jessica?
Click to expand...


You're not the only member of this forum. I would like to discuss it with other people who wish to discuss it. If you are not interested then don't post in the thread.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Not the point. If an administration is found to be suppressing and distorting science to an unprecedented degree then it can't be trusted with any official science document. How could you trust them? If someone lies about every one of their acheivements except one, are yougoing to believe the one that is true?
Click to expand...
Baby. Bath water. You're talking about thousands upon thousands of scientists.
 
Mince said:
It's not trolling. Leastways, not to me. But you need to be more informed of the topics of which you initiate a discussion.
Click to expand...

How much more informed do I need to be? I have read the report I cite and now would like to discuss it's implications on 911.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Not the point. If an administration is found to be suppressing and distorting science to an unprecedented degree then it can't be trusted with any official science document. How could you trust them? If someone lies about every one of their acheivements except one, are yougoing to believe the one that is true?
Click to expand...

With this argument we can dismiss most of the CT work on 9/11.
 
jessicarabbit said:
How much more informed do I need to be? I have read the report I cite and now would like to discuss it's implications on 911.
Click to expand...


You seem to be saying the critics are flatly accusing the administration of "lying" about the science. They are not lying about any science. They are interpreting science to square with their moral philosophies and ideologies, especially the really ambiguous science, i.e. embryonic stem cells. That is the major thrust of criticism.

If the administration should stand accused of lying about and distorting facts of 9/11, where are 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates criticizing that science?


By the way,
Your spin would be much appreciated
Click to expand...
is pretty trollish. If you don't believe what we are going to say, even before we've said it, why even ask?


*emphasis added


ETA: highlighted above
 
Last edited:
WOW, this opened my eyes, with regards to this particular report it has NOTHING to do with the 9-11 investigation or even findings that the involved agencies were tampered with.

Please, the 9-11 "Truth-Movement" relies on oversimplification and misinformation to get thier word out and to the masses. So how can I trust ANY 'scientific data' from anyone who calls themself a truther?
 
crucial_fiction said:
WOW, this opened my eyes, with regards to this particular report it has NOTHING to do with the 9-11 investigation or even findings that the involved agencies were tampered with.

Please, the 9-11 "Truth-Movement" relies on oversimplification and misinformation to get thier word out and to the masses. So how can I trust ANY 'scientific data' from anyone who calls themself a truther?
Click to expand...

In that report there is a section on irregular appointments to scientific panels, and even one on the iraq tube stuff. Highly relevent to 911 in that they will lie about science to fool the public into war.
 
jessicarabbit said:
In that report there is a section on irregular appointments to scientific panels, and even one on the iraq tube stuff. Highly relevent to 911 in that they will lie about science to fool the public into war.
Click to expand...

faulty logic, poor assumptions, and ignoring other facts on the subjects you are refering to.

why not put all your ideas on this subject in you first post
 
Gravy said:
Wow, you've taken a page right out of Usual Suspect's book. Why are you behaving this way?

You brought this up in one thread. People, including me, responded to you there.

You immediately brought this up in another thread. People, including me, responded to you there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051505&postcount=19
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051509&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051516&postcount=21

Then you started a new thread, claiming that no one has responded to you.

Just trolling then, Jessica?
Click to expand...


OH Lookie!!! It's the standard Groovy, Gravy, Grave Roberts is afraid to address the issue reponse.

Just dodging then Mark??
 
jessicarabbit said:
You're not the only member of this forum. I would like to discuss it with other people who wish to discuss it. If you are not interested then don't post in the thread.
Click to expand...
Those people were discussing it, in two other threads. Bad form, Jessica. Now, do you agree that:

1) The UCS report is about the distortion of science by the Bush administration in order to help the advance of certain policies.

2) Neither the report, nor the UCS website, nor the listed media archives, refer to NIST or 9/11.

3) NIST's 9/11 work is likely not an influence on the the US government's science policy.

If you don't agree with these points, will you be contacting NIST investigators to ask them if they've been interfered with or if their work has been distorted by the government, as I asked you in another thread?
 
Gravy said:
Those people were discussing it, in two other threads. Bad form, Jessica. Now, do you agree that:
Click to expand...

Yeah she agrees that you answer a question by asking a question which sounds alot like a Groovy, Gravy, Grave Straw Man Tactic.
 
jessicarabbit said:
In that report there is a section on irregular appointments to scientific panels, and even one on the iraq tube stuff. Highly relevent to 911 in that they will lie about science to fool the public into war.
Click to expand...

I have the report open on my desktop right now. Give me a break, you wanna get down and dirty with the scientific method and all it has to offer and you refer to the 'Iraqi Tube Stuff'

What page is the 'Iraqi Tube Stuff' located?
 
Gravy said:
Those people were discussing it, in two other threads. Bad form, Jessica. Now, do you agree that:

1) The UCS report is about the distortion of science by the Bush administration in order to help the advance of certain policies.

2) Neither the report, nor the UCS website, nor the listed media archives, refer to NIST or 9/11.

3) NIST's 9/11 work is likely not an influence on the the US government's science policy.

If you don't agree with these points, will you be contacting NIST investigators to ask them if they've been interfered with or if their work has been distorted by the government, as I asked you in another thread?
Click to expand...

Ok I will contact them. I find it very unlikely that they would admit it if they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom