Skeptic Project

As for Nicholas Levis's websites: As far as overall quality of websites go, Nick's are not the best that the 9/11 Truth movement has to offer, although they do have some very interesting material on them.

The very best website connected with the 9/11 Truth movement, by far, is The Complete 9/11 Timeline on the History Commons site (formerly Cooperative Research). It's a massive, well-organized collection of links to and summaries of mainstream news stories pertaining to 9/11. People of all points of view have used it as a reference. It's recommended even on the 9/11 Myths site (where it's listed as "Cooperative Research").

I mention Nicholas Levis because, of the many 9/11 Truth activists I've personally interacted with both online and offline, he's one of the ones I have the most respect for. Also his websites are a must for anyone who might want to research the early history of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Most of the material on his websites is older than 2005, and was written back in the days when he was a leading 9/11 Truth activist, back in 2003 to 2005. For example, the "Justice for 9/11" petition was written back in 2004. Thus, a lot of the material there is dated and is mainly of historical interest.

If you've never heard of him, it's because the heyday of his activism was before the movement got a lot of mass media publicity in 2005. He became a lot less active after a big falling-out with Les Jamieson back in 2005 (or 2006?).

Since then, his participation in the movement has been largely confined to message boards, which is where I know him from. Among other places, he posts on the Democratic Underground message board (as "Jack Riddler" or "JackRiddler"). (He also posts on Truth Action as "Nicholas" and on TruthMove as "NicholasLevis.")

It is true that Nick Levis has allied himself with some WTC demolition advocates. However, he himself has often voiced strong doubts about the demolition idea. I recall various message board posts in which he referred sarcastically to the "Church of Demolition." He has tended to take a neutral stance on the demolition question itself, while opposing dogmatism about it. He has strongly opposed the more obviously wacky stuff like no-planes, mini-nukes, and "Star Wars Beams."

The view he leans towards is not "LIHOP" but what he calls "LIHOP Plus" in this article he wrote back in 2004. On that page, he states:

I think the likeliest hypothesis is of an inside job that exploited a "genuine" terrorist plot. Sometime between the Bojinka Plot of 1996 and 9/11 itself, the original Islamic-extremist dream of crashbombing planes into American targets was subverted and then steered to fruition by masterminds within the US power elite. This is the logical way to leave a robust trail of evidence pointing to the patsies. The perfect plot would produce a patsy who sincerely believed he had himself committed the crime - like Marinus van der Lubbe, the man who went proudly to his execution for burning down the German Reichstag (parliament) in 1933, although there is no realistic doubt the Nazis themselves set the fire.

I'm not inclined to agree at this point, but he is someone I've had worthwhile conversations with. He's not a dogmatic idiot.

To Muertos:

First, please note that while New Yorkers Against Religion-Based Bigotry (NYARBB) takes an officially neutral stance on "9/11 inside job" theories, we do make a point of urging people to read what the debunkers have to say and to be, at the very least, very cautious about believing in "conspiracy theories" in the sense of controversial allegations of government wrongdoing.

Second, the aims of NYARBB are not the same as the aims of the skeptical/debunker community, although there is some overlap. We oppose grand conspiracy ideology because it nearly always entails religion-based bigotry. 9/11 inside job theories, on the other hand, are relatively peripheral to the issue of religion-based bigotry.

The main (unstated) reason why NYARBB concerns itself with 9/11 at all is to harness my experiential knowledge of the 9/11 Truth movement in service to our opposition against grand conspiracy ideology.

We aim to turn people in the 9/11 Truth movement against grand conspiracy ideology -- which is a whole lot more important to us than challenging any other aspect of their beliefs. Outright opposing their other beliefs would undermine our ability to talk to them about grand conspiracy ideology.

At the annual 9/11 anniversary events held by NYC's 9/11 Truth groups in 2008 and 2009, we passed out two pieces of literature: (1) a leaflet titled "Support a new investigation of 9/11. But let’s NOT endorse religiously bigoted 'Illuminati' claims," and (2) a pamphlet titled "Why we need a new investigation of 9/11," advocating an investigation on mainstream grounds without advocating "inside job" theories. An unstated purpose of the latter pamphlet was to establish our credibility to 9/11 Truth activists as people who share their desire for a new investigation, in the hope that they'll be more inclined to listen to our concerns about grand conspiracy ideology.

Our approach seems to have worked, to at least to some extent. Both times we tried it, we got quite a few people thanking us for both pieces of literature. We encountered some opposition too, but not a lot of opposition.

Muertos wrote:

Dealing with loons like Truth is Real or Plautus Satire, here or on the FB page, leaves one with understandably little faith that people who share their bizarre beliefs remain capable of any form of rational thought.

I would suggest that you take a look at the Truth Action forum, especially their News and Discussion forum. Don't try to post there; that forum is for 9/11 Truth activists only, and only for those with relatively moderate views (e.g. it excludes no-planers, space beam advocates, and Holocaust revisionists). Most of the posters there do have what you would consider to be "bizarre beliefs," but nevertheless are capable having intelligent conversation.

Should you wish to attempt dialogue with some of these people, I would suggest the 9/11 forum at Democratic Underground, although that forum attracts its share of idiots and apparent hoaxters too.

And the largest American subculture in which Illuminati beliefs have been nurtured these past several decades has been the evangelical/charismatic Christian community, wherein Illuminati beliefs have been used as a religious right wing recruiting tool, by the likes of Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye.

I don't think you have to worry about those guy's recruiting people from the 9/11 truth groups. Pat Robertson said that God was the one responsible for 9/11, remember? And Robertson and LaHaye are Christian Zionists. Most of the Truther crowd, even the hardcore religious nuts, probably think they are disinfo.

Diane,

I showed you clear evidence that Nicholas Levis is just a typical dishonest ignorant truther from the very websites YOU tried to use as evidence of this.

Just why do you respect him?

Why on earth do you reference Truth Action? They still believe in all the same nonsense like explosives. When will you understand that explosives in the towers is just as stupid as no planes at the Pentagon/Shanksville claims they don't like?

Just what is respectful about these people?

They are not knowledgeable, they are not competent, they are not honest.

The Complete 9/11 Timeline can be useful purely because it lists every news report but its quite clearly a truther website when you consider that it makes no attempt to differentiate between news reports and helps lend credence to all the most stupid truther claims because of it. They also have articles with a clear truther bent and have articles on people like Steven Jones. They use phrases like this: "Gruesome Remains Found at Ground Zero, but Supposedly No Black Boxes". It also is quite misleading when it summaries multiple news sources not taking into account context, the actual source or when they contradicted each other or if they were supported with evidence. Just look at the page they have regarding the $100,000 wire transfer claim:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a093001pakistanmoneymedia In fact you can tell how wrong and misleading the website is since "Press for Truth" was based on it, with the guy that runs it featuring in it. They make no attempt to explain that the $100,000 wire transfer never happened, its just treated as an accepted fact and reading History Commons' pages about it you can see why.

It is true that Nick Levis has allied himself with some WTC demolition advocates.

And he also promotes all the similar nonsense on his websites, not just demolition advocates.

" He has tended to take a neutral stance on the demolition question itself, while opposing dogmatism about it.

Sorry that's not good enough. You don't need to be an expert to realise demolition advocates are as wrong as I have been explaining. If he just doesn't want to rock the boat of his fellow truthers then he is dishonest. You can't get around it. Either way a very poor example of someone you claim is a credible rational person in the Truth Movement.

You were the one that told us that people in the Truth Movement had legitimate reasons for a new investigation, the person you give as an example of such people is Nicholas Levis. Its not looking good so far, so you have anyone else or is he the best you can do?

I mean seriously, people like Michael Ruppert I don't know of advocating demolitions or no planes. But lets just assume he is only LIHOP for the sake of argument, the guy is wrong about everything and pisses me off just as much as these "demolition advocates" because of how blase he seems to be about research. He is probably the best example you have and he's terrible.

To Ed:

In your post above, you focus strictly on the content of people's beliefs, deeming them to be "dishonest," etc. because they believe the wrong things.

On the other hand, I tend to judge people not so much by the content of their beliefs, but more by how they think and talk about their beliefs, and by whether they are capable of serious dialogue.

Too many people, of all points of view, tend to assume that anyone who disagrees with them must have something seriously wrong with them. I prefer to keep in mind that different people's cultural backgrounds and life experience will lead them to very different conclusions.

What's important, to me, is a person's ability to reflect on and critically examine one's own conclusions. And I don't assume that anyone who reflects on and critically examines one's own conclusions is necessarily going to reach the same conclusions I've reached. Rather, I judge their thinking ability by the way they present their views and by the way they behave in dialogue.

Nicholas Levis's websites do contain thoughtfully written articles. Even if one does not agree with his conclusions or his bias, he has clearly put thought into them, to a far greater degree than a lot of other people in the 9/11 Truth movement whom you might have run into on the Internet.

His intelligence is even more evident in his posts in the 9/11 forum on Democratic Underground, where he (as "JackRiddler") dialogues with debunkers. (Unfortunately, that forum does attract quite a few idiots and apparent hoaxters too.)

I pointed you to the Truth Action forum because some of the posters there, too, do reflect on their beliefs, to a greater degree than you might be accustomed to seeing when you've encountered "inside job" believers online.

Are you even capable of noticing at all when people reflect on their beliefs, other than if and when they ever finally decide to agree with your beliefs?

As for legitimate reasons for a new investigation, I've already spelled some of them out in the threads Legitimate topics for a follow-up to the 9/11 Commission and Context of 9/11 coverup allegations.

Muertos wrote:

So you are trying to infiltrate the Truther movement to indoctrinate them against Illuminati theories and using the call for a new investigation as a Trojan horse to prove your chops to them.

Not quite. Since I don't pretend to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I'm not really "infiltrating." Rather, I present myself and NYARBB as an ally. I establish common ground by showing active support for the call for a new investigation, pointing out that there are valid reasons to support a new investigation even if one does not believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Those who are serious about a new investigation recognize that they need to form alliances with other people who don't necessarily believe that 9/11 was an inside job. On that basis, they welcome my support.

If asked, I make no bones about the fact that I, personally, no longer believe in WTC demolition, and that I'm not particularly inclined to believe in an "inside job" either. But I don't press the issue. If someone tries to get into a debate with me about it at a 9/11 Truth movement event, I say something like, "Let's discuss this over dinner, if you'd like to hang out with me later. One doesn't have to believe in an inside job to see that we should have a new investigation."

Back in the days when I did believe in an "inside job," I fought against grand conspiracy ideology from within the 9/11 Truth movement. To some extent I succeeded, at least in the Truth Action forum. Alex Jones and "New World Order" paranoia in general are now very much disliked there, by most of the people who post there. (There are still a couple of die-hard NWO believers there, the last time I looked, but they are very much in the minority, and most of the others understand that there are a lot of things wrong with NWO paranoia.) Also I succeeded to some extent among the members of New York 9/11 Truth whom I knew in person.

I now have a lot less contact with the 9/11 Truth movement than I did when I myself was an "inside job" believer. But I do feel that my participation in the 9/11 anniversary events of 2008 and 2009 was a productive use of my time.

The best Truthers can hope for from an investigation expressly limited to non-woo subjects (i.e., those legitimate unanswered questions that you feel non-Truthers can get behind as well) is that somehow the investigators will stumble upon "evidence" of the conspiraccy

Indeed, if one believes in an inside job but does not believe in grand conspiracy ideology, then one should logically regard it as highly likely that one would uncover evidence of the inside job by pursuing the allegations of Sibel Edmonds and other national security whistleblowers (although these whistleblowers are not alleging an inside job per se), or by digging deeper into the unanswered question of why NORAD told a story "so far from the truth" that the Commission considered pressing criminal charges.

Just my opinion, but it seems to me like you're getting the worst of both worlds here. Truthers won't trust you because they'll suspect you're disinfo planted by the Illuminati

I actually have not gotten that response from very many people.

Back when I believed in an inside job and was active in the 9/11 Truth movement, I sarcastically dared people to think of me as disinfo planted by the Illuminati. On a blog I kept back then, I remember writing something like, "I'm very annoyed by the prevalence of Ron Paul-ism and Alex Jones-ism in some 9/11 Truth movement groups. I'm a member of Phi Beta Kappa -- which, according to some folks, makes me a member of the Illuninati. Oh, and my grandfather was a Mason!"

There are quite a few people I encountered in the 9/11 Truth movement who never did buy into the whole "New World Order" thing, but who didn't speak up against it either, until I came along. I also ran into some other people, from a leftist background, who tried to interpret "the Illuminati" as just another word for the ruling class, understood in a Marxist sense, until I came along and explained the vast differences between the two concepts.

Furthermore, among most (though not all) of the people I've known in the 9/11 Truth movement, a person like me who doesn't believe in an inside job, but who doesn't make a big point of arguing against it either, is not considered "disinfo." The latter label is most commonly reserved for (1) the people who promote no-planes claims, space beams, mini-nukes, etc., and (2) the more prolific debunkers, especially the more obnoxious ones.

skeptics won't trust you because you're bending over backwards to make nice with the Truthers. In a nutshell, you're damned because you don't endorse 9/11 conspiracy theories and you're damned because you don't oppose them either.

I am now trying to establish some common ground with the 9/11 debunker community as well, by contributing to the debunking of the particular argument that I personally found most convincing back when I believed in an inside job. (See the thread on The "symmetry of collapse" argument.) I don't intend to spend much time on 9/11 debunking, but I'd like to help fill one glaring gap.

I should also mention here that one of the criteria by which I, personally, evaluate another person's rationality and overall sanity is the ability of that person to put differences aside and work together on matters of common concern. Another of my criteria is the person's ability to engage in reasoned dialogue about differences of opinion.

Unfortunately, many people of all belief systems, including even some skeptics, do tend to be, to some extent, blinded by tribal instincts, including black-and-white thinking. To the extent that I get the reaction you predict I'll get from the skeptical community, what it will prove to me is that some skeptics are in some ways less rational than many 9/11 Truthers! Fortunately, there do exist skeptics who are capable of engaging in reasoned dialogue with people of different points of view. One of the best exemplars is the 9/11 Myths site.

Earlier, I talked about my successes so far in opposing grand conspiracy ideology among people in the 9/11 Truth movement, both when I was active in the movement myself and subsequently. I don't want to convey the impression that my experiences with the movement were all smooth sailing, though. So, here's a little more about my experiences with the 9/11 Truth movement.

As I said, I have not run into a lot of people calling me "Illuminati disinfo." But there are three categories of people whom I did run into some trouble with, back in 2007 when I was active in the movement.

1) Hardcore Alex Jones fans and other hardcore believers in NWO paranoia, obviously. In my experence, these are as prevalent in the 9/11 Truth movement as some people here apparently think. I've run into lots of people in the 9/11 Truth movement who dislike Alex Jones for one reason or another. In many cases, they just feel embarrassed by the "hecklivism" of We Are Change.

2) A small group of old-timers who hate Les Jamieson for various reasons (including justified criticism of his past history of giving a platform to wacky no-planers and such) and who therefore disliked me for getting involved in New York 9/11 Truth (whose meetings I attended because it was, at least, not a group of hardcore Alex Jones fans)

3) What Nicholas calls the "Church of Demolition." These are folks who dogmatically advocate not only WTC demolition but also a full MIHOP scenario involving remote-controlled planes and faked phone calls. Anyone who doesn't insist that there were no hijackers is seen as a "LIHOP limited hangout" and a traitor to the movement (although the folks whom they call "LIHOP limited hangout" actually include some MIHOP and "LIHOP Plus" advocates too). This dogmatic attitude is justified on the alleged grounds that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were based on the "lie" of the hijackings; hence the top priority must be to insist that there were no live human hijackers.

I got into trouble with that last group because I was never 100% convinced of WTC demolition and urged people to avoid overstating the case for it, and because I was never inclined to disbelieve that there were live human hijackers.

However, in my experience, most people in the 9/11 Truth movement understand that, in order to achieve any political goal, they need to form alliances with other people, who don't necessarily believe in WTC demolition or any kind of inside job.

duplicate. Please delete.

"More specifically, my suggestion is that some 9/11 debunkers do the following: (1) Write their own reasoned call for a new investigation, based on legitimate questions, showing by example how to write a legitimate call;"

As we've debated in the other topic, and as I've stated there, I don't advocate for a new investigation. I'd like to hear other 9/11 debunkers' views on this specific question but I venture to say (without putting words in his mouth) that Ed probably doesn't either. Such an investigation would be counterproductive, a waste of money and a three-ring circus that would wind up as nothing but a huge boon to the CT movement.

Also as we've debated in that other topic, there's really not very much to investigate, at least at a high full blown blue-ribbon-panel level. Sibel Edmonds's complaints are personnel and policy complaints within the FBI. To the extent her allegations have credence, I see no reason why an internal FBI policy board can't resolve them adequately. On the Zelikow and the "Commission was too rushed to do its job" issues, there's no "there" there. There are no specific allegations to investigate, thus rendering the idea of a new investigation essentially open-ended, which is ringing teh dinner bell for the Truthers and their crazies to try to get Willie Rodriguez and Richard Gage on CSPAN in front of a Congressional panel. What you seem to want from another investigation is basically a fishing trip. I remain unconvinced that this is a worthy expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Furthermore, what I think I see here is that your organization is bending over backwards to find some common ground with Truthers, and you view a call for a new investigation as something you can sell to both Truthers and non-Truthers alike. Since you agreed with my statement that the best Truthers can hope for from a new investigation along the lines you're calling for is that it would stumble upon the "evidence" that Truthers insist is out there for a conspiracy, and that they would support a new investigation on that slender hope, I see the call for a new investigation as less substantive than logistical, i.e., a departure point for some sort of dialogue with the Truth movement. That sort of thing should never be the purpose of a high-level government-funded investigation for which we, the taxpayers, will pay.

"(2) point out that it's very important to make sure that one is asking the right questions;"

This again assumes that a new investigation is a good idea, which itself assumes that there's some truth (forgive the expression) that remains unstated or covered-up by the previous investigation. Indeed the NYARRB position papers assume as an axiom that the original 9/11 Commission covered something up, although the position papers are extremely careful not to venture a guess as to what that is. So you're reassuring Truthers that you do believe there is a cover-up of something, while telling non-Truthers that you're not saying what has been covered up is a conspiracy. What, therefore, are the "right" questions? Questions carefully crafted so as to avoid investigating woo subjects that will alienate non-Truthers, but are sufficiently open-ended enough to not squelch the valiant hope of the Truthers that the smoking gun for the conspiracy will at last be uncovered? I have a bit of a difficulty with this.

"and (3) point out that it is, therefore, very important for people in the 9/11 Truth movement to start paying more attention to what the better debunkers are saying."

I can't disagree with that, but question whether a better goal is not necessarily to "reform" Truthers--the vast majority of whom are inaccessible to logical arguments and absolutely convinced of conspiracy--but to prevent the Truth movement from gaining any mainstream credibility and thus persuade people who are now fence-sitters that there must be something to it. That is, at least, my main goal in debunking. I have little faith that hardcore CTs can ever be converted, but what skeptics can and should do is everything in their power to make sure conspiracy movements like 9/11 Truth, Zeitgeist and the Alex Jones crowd remain as fringe and as marginalized as possible and absolutely prevent them from gaining any sort of mainstream cachet. Calling for a new investigation is, in my opinion, absolutely the wrong approach to take in order to achieve that goal.

Diane, you've made a couple of statements here that indicate that you and I see the issue of 9/11 fundamentally differently. (That much should be obvious by now).

You seem to be treating 9/11 as if it's a matter of belief or opinion. What I'm getting from your statements is that you regard belief or non-belief in 9/11 conspiracy as a sort of legitimate personal choice. I may choose to be Jewish or Anglican, I may choose to be a Democrat or a member of the Reform Party, I may choose to support Scientology or save the whales or whatever. Consequently, you seem to approach the issue from the standpoint of, all of these intelligent, articulate and reasonable Truthers you claim to know who argue so cogently and so intelligently for their "point of view" on 9/11 are perfectly reasonable in holding those beliefs, just the same as if they chose to be one religion or another or hold one or another political beliefs.

Zeitgeisters do the same thing when we call them on the lies and deceptions in Peter Merola's movies. They seem to exist in a universe where what happened on 9/11 is subject to more than one perfectly reasonable interpretation, and their endorsement of Merola's views is no less intellectually valid than mine. Consequently, they can rationalize Merola's lies because he's arguing for "another viewpoint" and it's the act of opening one's mind to this "other viewpoint" which is the important thing.

This conception of the problem fundamentally misses what I, at least, think about the issue of 9/11 conspiracies.

What happened on 9/11 is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. It's an absolute reality, scientifically provable, historically documented, 100% no-question-about-it fact. When they talk about 9/11 Peter Merola, Alex Jones, Nicholas Levis, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Dylan Avery, Judy Wood and David Icke are advocating demonstrably false conclusions of fact. There are three, and ONLY three, explanations for this. They are either: (1) deliberately lying, as Merola and Jones probably are; (2) incompetently, outrageously and inexcusably mistaken, as Gage, Jones, Levis, O'Donnell, Sheen, and Avery probably are; or (3) delusional, as Icke and Wood probably are. Likely the lines blur depending on the individual case, but these are the only three explanations.

I've been trained as a historian and a lawyer. Both of these professions are predicated on finding out what the facts are and drawing conclusions from them. In a courtroom trial, one side wins and the other loses. The defendant committed the murder. The accountant stole the money. The contract was broken or it wasn't. Same in history. George Washington was the first President of the United States. John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln. The Roman Empire fell for a number of complex reasons. Believing otherwise is not rational.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with insisting that people's actions be based on demonstrable fact. It's not like religious faith which does not need to be, and usually isn't, based on fact. I'm not arguing for a "point of view." I am arguing for the facts. That's the difference. Why is insisting upon the facts in any way unreasonable?

I also find it interesting that this relativistic view of yours only goes so far. You seem as inalterably opposed to Illuminati and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as I obviously am about any type of 9/11 Truth belief. You and I seem to agree that believing in the Illuminati is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and that this belief must be stamped out. I just question if there's a meaningful difference between those people and 9/11 Truthers in general--or at least a difference wide enough to make it justifiable to get in bed with one group of people who want to do violence to fact and reason (9/11 Truthers) in order to target another group of people who stand for the same thing.

Muertos wrote:

What happened on 9/11 is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. It's an absolute reality, scientifically provable, historically documented, 100% no-question-about-it fact.

Different aspects of 9/11 differ in how "absolute reality, scientifically provable, historically documented" they are. For example, it's "100% no-question-about-it fact" that planes did hit the towers, and this should be obvious to everyone. But there are other aspects of 9/11 for which it's much harder for the average person to know what the facts are, such as what all was going on in the intelligence agencies on and before that day. On such matters, there's more than one reasonable or at least semi-reasonable guess that people can make.

When they talk about 9/11 Peter Merola, Alex Jones, Nicholas Levis, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Dylan Avery, Judy Wood and David Icke are advocating demonstrably false conclusions of fact. There are three, and ONLY three, explanations for this. They are either: (1) deliberately lying, as Merola and Jones probably are; (2) incompetently, outrageously and inexcusably mistaken, as Gage, Jones, Levis, O'Donnell, Sheen, and Avery probably are; or (3) delusional, as Icke and Wood probably are.

There's a fourth option: "mistaken," without all the perjoratives. How "inexcusable," etc. it is for a particular person to be mistaken about some particular thing depends on many factors.

I've been trained as a historian and a lawyer. Both of these professions are predicated on finding out what the facts are and drawing conclusions from them.

My background is in math and computer science, where standards of proof are stricter, hence there's more room for I-don't-know on matters that have not been proven. A math professor once told me it was his impression that prosecutors don't like having mathematicians on the jury, because a jury of mathematicians would hardly ever find anyone guilty. (I'm not sure how accurate his impression was. Maybe you, with your law background, are in a better position to tell me how prosecutors feel about mathematicians on the jury.)

I'm not arguing for a "point of view." I am arguing for the facts. That's the difference. Why is insisting upon the facts in any way unreasonable?

"Insisting upon the facts" is not unreasonable, insofar as the facts are indeed known. Some things can be iffy, such as debates over whether a particular news story has been adequately corroborated. There can be shades of gray here, and legitimate disagreement on which sources are considered reliable and why. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

I also find it interesting that this relativistic view of yours only goes so far.

Indeed, I don't have a totally "relativistic" view.

You seem as inalterably opposed to Illuminati and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as I obviously am about any type of 9/11 Truth belief. You and I seem to agree that believing in the Illuminati is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and that this belief must be stamped out.

Yes, the idea that all major world trends are part of some centuries-old or millenia-old unified, coordinated plan by some alleged centuries-old or millenia-old secret cabal is utterly contrary to the way the world really works. There are many different interest groups with many different agendas. The idea that they all share a common secret puppetmaster, and have done so for centuries, is just silly, at least to anyone who has any idea of how politics works on a large scale.

Furthermore, such beliefs are extremely dangerous because, although they target an alleged evil elite, they nearly always vilify some larger group that includes plenty of non-elite people too (such as Jews). Hence, when grand conspiracy ideology gets popular, lots of non-elite people get hurt.

"But there are other aspects of 9/11 for which it's much harder for the average person to know what the facts are, such as what all was going on in the intelligence agencies on and before that day. On such matters, there's more than one reasonable or at least semi-reasonable guess that people can make."

The universe of unknown facts about 9/11 is comparatively small. And none rise to the level of changing the fundamental nature of the event, because if those facts were consequential enough, their existence and their consequential nature would at least be suggested by other facts. The facts that really make a difference--that Osama and Khalid sheikh Mohammed planned the attacks, that there was no unequivocal warning, that they hijacked planes, etc., etc.--are all known. Even the most tepid "LIHOP Lite" scenario, which almost NO Truthers believe in anyway, cannot be supported by the facts that are known and which are unequivocal.

Do we known all that was going on in the intelligence agencies on and before that day? No, we probably don't. How much could it matter that we don't? Probably not much. Don't you think if there was a memo sitting on somebody's desk at CIA headquarters dated September 10 saying, "WARNING: WE THINK AL QAEDA HIJACKERS ARE GOING TO CRASH PLANES INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOMORROW, BETTER SOUND THE ALERT!" that a piece of evidence of that importance would have come to light, even in the 9/11 Commission investigation that you continue to insist was so rushed and inadequate?

So how reasonable is it to believe that there still is some "smoking gun" out there that has the potential of changing the whole game? Not very.

"There can be shades of gray here, and legitimate disagreement on which sources are considered reliable and why."

Sure, but again, the key facts are known and indisputable. What is disputable or unknown, or legitimately subject to a "shade of gray" analysis, is relatively insignificant.

Let's take a non-9/11 example. In late September 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald was reported to have shown up at the door of Sylvia Odio, an anti-Castro Cuban exile who lived somewhere in Texas. Oswald's presence there was never satisfactorily explained. This is clearly a "shade of gray" case where not all the facts are known. Would I like to know what Oswald was doing there? Sure, I'd love to. But whatever the answer to that question is, is it capable of altering the conclusions we must draw from the other facts that are known about the JFK assassination--that Oswald fired from the Book Depository, that there were three bullets, that Kennedy was struck from behind, and that the bullets that killed him were matched to Oswald's gun--namely, the conclusion that Oswald killed JFK? No. Whatever he was doing at Sylvia Odio's door can't alter that conclusion.

About mathematicians on a jury, I've never been a prosecutor but if I was I'd probably like a juror like that. A mathematician would understand that Victim + bullets matched to defendant's gun + proof that defendant owned the gun + motive + opportunity + lack of alibi = conviction. It would be philosophy majors I'd steer clear of with all their "How can we really know what we know?" bullshit. And conspiracy theorists, of course.

Muertos wrote:

A mathematician would understand that Victim + bullets matched to defendant's gun + proof that defendant owned the gun + motive + opportunity + lack of alibi = conviction.

Not quite. The above is actually an example of a nonmonotonic inference, which differs substantially from the much stricter kind of reasoning used in mathematical proofs.

In your example above, the defendant could claim that the gun was stolen the day before the murder, and hence was out of his/her possession at the time of the murder. The defendant might not be able to provide evidence for this claim at the time of the trial, resulting in a conviction, but such evidence might turn up later.

Edit: A mathematician would agree with your "equation" in a probabilistic way only.

"I wouldn't be so sure "that there was no unequivocal warning." This is precisely the sort of thing that could conceivably be buried in the boxes of classified material that the Commission asked for and received too late to have time to look at it."

But this is the sort of thing that precisely proves my point as to why the unanswered questions about 9/11 must by definition be fairly low-level ones. If such an "unequivocal warning" memo existed it would NOT be buried in a box. Memos don't spring into existence. Some human being has to write them. If such a warning existed I guarantee you that whoever wrote this memo, whoever read it or whoever put it away in a box would certainly remember having seen it on September 10 given the exact nature of its prediction. That person would have been the first one interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. It's not like Lee Hamilton would have said, "Oh, well, we'll get to that if we have time...oops, guess we don't have time, so kthxbye!" If that HAD happened, the person who wrote this memo or somebody who read it would have called CNN and we'd all know about it.

This is what I meant by saying that the facts we don't know can't be very consequential, because if they were so consequential their existence and importance would at least be suggested by the facts we DO know. If a memo like this had ever existed or a warning like this had ever actually be received, at the very least somebody somewhere would be scratching their head saying, "You know, I vaguely recall so-and-so saying that we got a piece of intelligence out of Yemen in August '01 that was pretty important, but I can't remember what it was." If it was so important that it could have blown the whole thing open, its importance would have been self-evident to somebody on the day of 9/11, don't you think?

"It seems to me that there are any number of reasons why such a warning might have gotten deeply buried, including but not limited to an erroneous assessment of its credibility. And it seems to me that there are any number of reasons why such a warning might have gotten subsequently covered up, including but not limited to sheer embarrassment over a failure to recognize its importance."

Nonsense. How could a secret like that be kept so well for 9 years? Not ONE whistleblower? Not ONE person getting cold feet or saying, "You know, maybe I shouldn't have shredded that memo 9 years ago"? Not ONE person going on Oprah, or at least the Alex Jones show, screeching to the world that there was a cover-up? The White House couldn't keep Watergate secret for even 6 months. You think it's plausible that something of this importance is buried in a box with absolutely no other evidence even indicating its existence? And you want your tax dollars spent on a large-scale investigation to track it down? Really?

Your mention of the "LIHOP Lite" scenario as an example of a "reasonable" Truther belief does not strike me as particularly reasonable at all. Here you have a theory that proceeds from a desperate desire to blame the government for something, however attenuated, regardless of evidence. Somebody somewhere in the big bad gubbermint saw that Al Qaida was going to attack and quietly buried a memo, deciding it was better to let them get away with it than it was to try to prevent it. Essentially this is a conspiracy theory designed by a marketing committee. It carefully avoids lunacy like controlled demolition and all the illogic and implausibilities therein while still reaching the same finish line (big bad gubbermint did it) that Truthers need to reach in order to sign off on it. Never mind that this theory itself suffers from the same defects as the other woo claims (where did this memo come from? whoever wrote it didn't get cold feet or tempted by a book deal? who would have the power to cover something like that up? how come there's no evidence whatsoever of a cover-up?), it sounds like something that might be vaguely salable to the Truth crowd that won't accept exploding paint and space beams on faith.

I see no meaningful difference between "LIHOP Lite" and space beams--certainly no difference that warrants treating the purveyors of these theories as anything other than irrational conspiracy theorists, which is what they are, and which is also what the "grand conspiracy ideology" believers that you and I both hate also are.

You bring up a point about JFK that I'd like to deal with in a separate topic.