Skeptic Project

"Perhaps the 9/11 Commission's research staff concluded that they were not credible?"

Gee, ya think?

"If so, such judgments can perhaps be mistaken."

It seems that you hope very much they are.

"I don't have great faith in the ability of any bureaucracy to determine who are the best people to talk to."

So, then, the new investigation you would like to see will expressly have no gatekeeping function to screen out unreliable witnesses. That means Willie Rodriguez gets to testify with his lies, Steven Jones gets to testify with his exploding paint theory, and Judy Wood gets to testify with her space beams theory. If the bureaucracy has no ability to determine who the best people to talk to, what, then, prevents this new investigation from calling Alex Jones or David Icke to testify about their views? I wouldn't think you'd want that result.

"Patty Casazza has indeed been screeching about this."

She refuses to identify her "whistleblowers." If she's so convinced that these people hold the key to 9/11, why wouldn't she at least reveal their names confidentially to the FBI, who can then contact those people to determine what they know and whether they are credible? Either they don't exist or she's hiding something.

"I think one of their best strategies might be to corner the debunkers into making statements like the above, and then use such statements to show that the debunkers are, at the very least, irrationally biased (if not outright dishonest)."

Nobody has to corner me into making such statements. I'll say it again: there is no meaningful difference between "LIHOP Lite" and space beam theories. They're both crackers, totally unsupported by any facts.

As for being "outright dishonest" or "irrationally biased," how do you figure that? I have facts to back up my claims about what happened on 9/11. I can prove my claims. 9/11 Truthers can't. Even a believer in "LIHOP Lite" (are you one? that's what it sounds like to me) can't point to a single piece of evidence that supports that theory. Even the best you've been able to do is stuff like, "one would think so, but perhaps not" and "such judgments can perhaps be mistaken."

So it's irrational now to advocate a conclusion that is fully supported by all the known facts, and to deny that theories that are totally unsupported are likely to have happened? I'm biased in favor of the facts? What? Didn't Colbert make a joke with something like that as the punch line?

All sectors are fucking retarded.