Indeed, it's been tiring at the TruthAction forums where, after a topic about 911blogger hosting a CIT video, at least 3 CIT followers have newly joined the forum to argue. Remarkably, none of the arguments are any different, only phrased differently, which really shows how ridiculously circular their logic is. Oh yeah, I try to make them understand, at the very least, why I have a problem with the lack of science and provability behind their theories. Yet I'm still seen as an enemy to them.
I think that best describes what non-CITers are thought of by CIT followers. Enemy. Not once can I recall a debate I had with a CIT follower (or, for that matter, CIT themselves) where I wasn't treated as a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization. CIT has followers so blinded by ENTIRELY NON-SCIENTIFIC claims that they're literally unable to understand how anyone else can't believe as they believe. The only possibility? Well, if they're not new to the issue, then they must be agents of disinformation.
I speak in general terms, but regardless, I don't have to elaborate on how ridiculous this logic is.
Unfortunately, and I admit this, I have a problem with not responding to things. I have a very strong urge to respond to something that provokes me. And I don't mean something stupid like a random “You're a moron” comment, but someone literally trying to argue with me. As a result, this has led to me such lengths as arguing no-planes with a holocaust denier. Not the finest use of my time, to say the least, but the point is that it's quite stressful to argue with people so blinded to any form of rationale. CIT is special in this case because their logic is, as noted above, so incredibly circular. Take something like this as the common debate with a CIT follower:
“But that witness made inaccurate statements”
“Oh, it's just memory craziness. But the part about it being on the north side of citgo is true”
“Then how come the physical evidence doesn't comply?”
“The physical evidence was faked. I know because the witness told me it was on the north side.”
“But other witnesses, more in fact, said they saw it on the south side, and they did it without making blatant inaccuracies”
“They're liars/agents/naive victims of hearsay. My witnesses are right.”
“But this is all speculation!”
“I don't care. My witnesses say I'm right.”
“I don't care.”
And it goes on and on with you providing new counter-evidence over and over again as they simply find new ways of phrasing that their witnesses said they saw it on the north side.
CIT is, perhaps, the best example in the movement for people who take speculation over science or any form of rational analysis. When Jim Hoffman wrote his essay criticizing the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, he noted in his next article the many comments he got that witness statements and the like couldn't stand up to hard, physical evidence, which prompted him to make a critique focusing on the physical evidence. Yet, CIT does not only a reverse of this but also exaggerates it to a ridiculous level.
Not only does CIT put witnesses before physical evidence, they outright IGNORE physical evidence, dismissing it as faked. And not only that, they cherry-pick which witnesses they use, putting thirteen up to the test of over a hundred. And not only that, but they cherry-pick which portions of their own witness testimony is valid! Anything that doesn't fit with their pre-conceived conclusions (I.e; “I saw a plane hit the fucking building”) is dismissed as an error, yet they're perfectly willing to rely on their north-of-citgo claims.
In the end, does CIT really do anything for the movement?
"Not once can I recall a debate I had with a CIT follower (or, for that matter, CIT themselves) where I wasn't treated as a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization."
ReplyDeleteExactly. And that doesn't pass my smell test. Honest people don't act like they are trying to win one for the team or sell you something. I very literally have not had one conversation with anyone strongly defending CIT that didn't make them look like some kind of cheerleader. No contradictions allowed. Almost like arguing about religion with a fundamentalist. That's just not how reasonable people act.
It's quite frightening how alike they are with religious fundamentalists. I believe I made the comparison back in my last article between CIT and a cult. The more I see from them, the more I feel that perspective is valid.
ReplyDelete"Not once can I recall a debate I had with a CIT follower (or, for that matter, CIT themselves) where I wasn't treated as a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization."
ReplyDeleteOn the contary, I have seen not one supporter of CIT accuse you of this. I know for a fact I have never accused you of this, or anyone else, and have no intention of doing so because I don't believe it to be the case.
Neither did I sign up on the site Truthaction.org to defend CIT, not that there would be anything unusual in others doing this when the work was being discussed; I have been an on again off again poster there for 17 months prior to your own registration. I'm not connected to CIT in anyway, I just think the arguments against their evidence are manipulative and littered with logical fallacies and emotional arguments - in short they bear all the hallmarks of what we call Debunking.
"But other witnesses, more in fact, said they saw it on the south side, and they did it without making blatant inaccuracies"
A direct untruth and an example of your unfortunate ignorance regarding the facts of this case. If this was the truth I would not take the 13 witnesses attesting to a north side approach so seriously. I will detail this in depth in a forthcoming article I hope you will read.
There is little wonder that all of your efforts so far to Debunk CIT have been littered with huge innacuracies and mistakes:
You admitted to me that you have only watched their first film, and steadfastly refused to watch the rest of their videos.
You have not educated yourself to a sufficient level of knowledge to be taken seriously, and the strawmen and distortions you trot out are simply re-packaged Arabesque arguments, most of them strawmen.
With the greatest respect I will ask you once again to actually review the work you are expending so much effort in defaming. That is not a big ask. It will not only lend some credibility to your screeds, but also prevent you the embarrassment of making further mistakes when representing their work.
Respectfully,
Stefan
"On the contary, I have seen not one supporter of CIT accuse you of this."
ReplyDeleteYou clearly haven't looked.
"I know for a fact I have never accused you of this, or anyone else, and have no intention of doing so because I don't believe it to be the case."
Your very first comment to me accused me of lying. Lying is a deliberate act. If you thought I had deliberately given false information then...how is that not accusing me of having malevolent intents towards the organization?"
"I'm not connected to CIT in anyway, I just think the arguments against their evidence are manipulative and littered with logical fallacies and emotional arguments - in short they bear all the hallmarks of what we call Debunking."
...You're NOT talking about CIT?
"A direct untruth and an example of your unfortunate ignorance regarding the facts of this case. If this was the truth I would not take the 13 witnesses attesting to a north side approach so seriously. I will detail this in depth in a forthcoming article I hope you will read."
No, this is a direct TRUTH! No "un". Witnesses describe many details of the flight path which are in favor of a south-side approach.
"You admitted to me that you have only watched their first film, and steadfastly refused to watch the rest of their videos."
No, I said I've watched The Pentacon and few others works. And I did NOT refuse to watch more. This is a blatant lie. When you referenced certain videos I immediately asked you to link me to them.
"You have not educated yourself to a sufficient level of knowledge to be taken seriously, and the strawmen and distortions you trot out are simply re-packaged Arabesque arguments, most of them strawmen."
I've educated myself fine. You just can't seem to see that my strategy of using...you know...a fucking scientific and rational standpoint as opposed to baseless speculation.
"With the greatest respect I will ask you once again to actually review the work you are expending so much effort in defaming. That is not a big ask. It will not only lend some credibility to your screeds, but also prevent you the embarrassment of making further mistakes when representing their work."
Interesting, I was about to say the same thing.
Yes, I said on impulse that you had lied when you said that they had only interviewed 4 people, you also know I immediately changed this to "told an untruth" in recognition of the fact that you could simply have been ignorant to the facts, as many people are regarding this issue.
ReplyDeleteI never said or even hinted that you were a disinfo operative or someone with malevolent intent towards the organization, and I think you know this quite well. That's not something I do.
I'm sorry, but it is a direct untruth to say there are more witnesses who give details which confirm a south side approach, as you would know if you had done your research.
If I have remembered it wrong, remind me which CIT films you have watched besides the Pentacon?
Surely just one more would have put your claim of "4 witnesses" on dubious footing?
But, if you are going to set your self up as a CIT Debunker, then the only acceptable level of education on the matter is having seen EVERY film and read the detailed arguments in their articles and forum which answer all the arguments, now years old, you continue to regurgitate.
Come on mate, seriously, "disinfo", "cult", "hoax", to make such serious accusations you'd think that being familiar with what they actually say would be the least you could do.
Stefan
P.S. Corroborated testimony is accepted as evidence in a court of law. I can't believe you actually said on truthaction that it wouldn't make any difference if there was one or 13 people stating a North side path - the level of corroboration is EXACTLY what does make the difference between eye witnesses testimony being dismissed and accepted as strong evidence in court.