To all the Ctists out there - Please read this week's commentary

[Horatius]

A lot of Ctists argue that the NIST report can't be trusted, in part because the government-paid scientists and engineers would be reluctant to endanger their paychecks. They argue that no one would risk being fired from their government backed job by speaking out against the political influence allegedly used to force NIST into supporting the "official" story of 9/11.

I would like all the CTists to take a look at this week's commentay by James Randi (you know him, he's the "JR" part of "JREF"). This part in particular:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-12/122106wise.html#i4

This notes the issue of a report critisizing the political interference with science that has taken place under the Bush administration. It was endorsed by over 10,000 scientists.

I'd like the CTists to please explain what effect the existence of these scientists has on their belief that NIST can't be trusted at all, due to their dependence on government money. Please remember that these people are as dependent on government funding as NIST is, but they also are willing to bite the hand that feeds them.

Does it have any effect at all? Why or why not?

 

[Architect]

Oh no!

From airborne bacteria to Ground Zero, science continues to be misrepresented for political gain.

Those clowns are going to try and claim that 10,000 scientists are accusing the government of a 911 cover up!

Argh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Horatius]

Yes, that's a risk, but to do that, they'll have to admit the scientists aren't a part of it, which I think would count as progress....

 

[progressquest]

No, no, no. You see the government saw the CT's train of thought, and said "Holy crap, people sheeple are going to realize that we control everything [evil laugh]. We should do something to distract them of this. I know, let's have our own people say something against us. Mwa ha ha ha ha!" Then they rubbed their hands together in an evil way.

Wake up people sheeple.

 

[JonnyFive]

Yes, that's a risk, but to do that, they'll have to admit the scientists aren't a part of it, which I think would count as progress....

They can always just claim it's another false flag operation or a smoke screen / cover-up. There's a million different "outs" you can use when you're not bound up with silly things like "providing evidence to support your assertions" or "making sense" or "following up on the things you say".

 

[Architect]

Remember, we'e talking about people who consider other branches of the 911 "Truth" movement to be some sort of government op!

 

[JonnyFive]

Remember, we'e talking about people who consider other branches of the 911 "Truth" movement to be some sort of government op!

To make no mention of everyone that disagrees with them in the slightest.

It's like a fun game where everyone loses in some way.

 

[Horatius]

Perhaps I am being to optimistic.

It's telling, though, that none of the current crop of Ctists are willing to comment on the issue. Have they even bothered to read the linked comment?

Just one more example of their unwillingness to even look at information that might disprove even a part of their pet fantasies. Typical.

Contrast that to skeptics, who have looked at enough CT garbage in detail that they can post detailed rebuttals of it all.

 

[PerryLogan]

Your point is a really good one, Horatius. I doubt if you could even get it across to a conspiracist, though. CTs seem to be blind to the arguments that disprove their beliefs. Or else they explain it away with another fantasy.

 

[Kage]

CTs seem to be blind to the arguments that disprove their beliefs. Or else they explain it away with another fantasy.

The fear is telling, but be careful what you wish for. They'll just post some other topic in this thread or, as you suggest, post something completely nuts that shows that this doesn't mean anything. They aren't bound by any desire for simplicity which means that they will always be able to hypothesize a conspiracy.

 

[Horatius]

Yes. It's definitely easier to win your arguments when you can dismiss all the contrary evidence with a sniff of contempt and a wave of the hand, saying, "It's all obviously fake."

Which is ironic, when you consider the only people who've been caught faking evidence are the twoofers.