Skeptic Project

Wrong. I brought him up in the thread on Different sectors of the 9/11 Truth movement. Subsequently you, not I, brought him up in the thread on Legitimate topics for a follow-up to the 9/11 Commission.

No Diane, you are wrong.

I am aware of where you brought him up, the thread you brought him up was the REASON you created that second thread in the FIRST PLACE.

But lets see what you said originally:

First on ANOTHER thread you posted:

There are two main kinds of activists in the 9/11 Truth movement:

1) What I think of as the 9/11 Truth movement proper, i.e. those whose main aim is a new investigation of 9/11.

2) Those whose main aim is to use 9/11 "inside job" claims to "awaken" people to some alleged "bigger picture" (usually, though not always, a full-blown grand conspiracy ideology).

In my experience, many of the better-educated 9/11 Truth activists are not comfortable with the Alex Jones crowd and do not embrace grand conspiracy ideology.

Right so here kind of starts your claims that there is a "PROPER" part of the Truth Movement that just wants a new investigation and we also know you agree with the idea of a new investigation.

In response to Sky that basically said they are all idiots you say...

Yes there are a lot of morons -- on both sides -- but I have usually tried to ignore them. I have usually paid more attention to the most intelligent and articulate representatives of any given point of view.

So here you compare the "proper" part of the truth movement to debunkers, idiots on both sides right? Well that's making a statement right there, implying they are comparable.

You say that there are "INTELLIGENT and ARTICULATE representatives" in the truth movement that you listen to.

Then you say...

In my experience, some of the most intelligent and articulate people in the 9/11 Truth movement, including the ones I respected the most, have taken an agnostic stance.

So now you say in the PROPER 911 Truth movement it contains INTELLIGENT and ARTICULATE people that you RESPECT.

You also say they take an agnostic stance... well that's all quite interesting.. so lets see what you go on to say...

A good example is Nicholas Levis, who posts as "Jack Riddler" (or "JackRiddler") on Democratic Underground, and who was a major leading 9/11 Truth activist in 2002 to 2005 (though he has subsequently became less active). In 2004, he was one of the leaders of the Justice for 9/11 campaign, a sincere call for a new investigation. He tends to take an agnostic stance, although his leanings are toward a variant of the position he calls "LIHOP plus" (as discussed here).

..........NO.

Here you say that Nick Levis is in the PROPER 911 Truth Movement that leads a SINCERE call for a New Investigation, someone who is is INTELLIGENT and ARTICULATE and you RESPECT him (later you say he is the one you have the MOST RESPECT for).

However Nick is not at all an "agnostic" to an inside job and I believe you knew that before you posted it, so why you felt the need to twist the truth consciously or not to shoehorn him into such an example makes sense, since there are no better ones.

So when I proved that he is in fact a defender of liars and promotes all the same stupid nonsense we've all seen before INCLUDING demolition theories directly, you say...

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.

Here the goal posts start moving!! And also implies there are GOOD websites and research from the Truth Movement, things are starting to go downhill...

Calling Nick's websites "not the best" is really rather interesting Diane, I could in the same way say Loose Change is "not the best". Nick has made all the same claims they have, so why not? Why not just come out and admit that Nick's websites are a load of lying nonsense and that you don't understand why he hasn't taken them down and denounced it all? Oh yea, because if you did that it would be completely counter to your point that Nick is some kind of SINCERE, INTELLIGENT and ARTICULATE, RESPECTABLE member of the PROPER Truth Movement. So now you're left trying to play down how bad he is.

"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.

Strong doubts? Sorry I can't really see much of that in what I've read and even if he did, that doesn't make things much better since he doesn't seem to have any problem promoting all those things on his websites, in his petition, in his articles in in posts to new people telling them where to find the "good" information anyway!

In 2004 you showed he wrote something promoting a form of LIHOP, yet most of this stupid stuff I've posted came after that and he hasn't retracted any of it or removed his website.

I'd like to know why his intellectual dishonesty is something to respect Diane?

Obviously you do realise there's little else to respect in the truth movement so I guess if you must latch on to SOMETHING this is probably the best you have.

Then you started promoting "Truth Action" ...

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

Oh dear sorry Diane, the belief of Truth Action members are not at all"moderate".

And yes I realise you said "relatively" but when you're comparing a group to space beamers and no planers, that's really not something to be boasting about.

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.

Sorry I don't agree, Nick's stuff is just the same kind of nonsense you find everywhere. Sure he may have said in that one article that the likeliest scenario is some kind of LIHOP, but lets consider what ELSE he said and what ELSE he has promoted shall we? Why is it justifiable to ignore all that?

Also noticed this gem:

2) You deem certain ideas (e.g. WTC demolition) to be intrinsically crazy, not fully understanding how these ideas, though mistaken, do indeed fit in with a lot of sane people's intuitions.

Whether you realise it or not this is a defence of those beliefs.

Why you think arrogant and ignorant belief in something like Loose Change telling you what to believe is some kind of admirable trait or justified or something to be respected is beyond me but makes perfect sense considering your apparent defence of Levis and Truth Move.

In this thread...
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/legitimate-topics-for-a-follow-up-to-the-911-commission</p>

You say this:

based on their manner more than anything else -- these are people with whom it is possible to have reasonable discussions.

My aim was to give you a feel for them as personalities. But, apparently, all you can see is the specific content of their beliefs. And then you jump to conclusions about them as people based solely on that.

So defending Nick again as a reasonable person when he clearly isn't.

I like the second part of this quote better though, since you seem to have no problem ignoring Nicks stupid beliefs and defence of stupid beliefs and promotion of liars that you claim he knew was wrong before he did so and concentrate only on his "personality". Yet you seem to don't do that for holocaust deniers or Alex Jones believers, or no planers or space beamers, to you they are clearly insane and stupid things to believe in.

And lastly I am 100% looking at how Nick acts, it is you that want to ignore that fact that you are literally telling me he has no problem telling lies, promoting liars, even when he know they are lies and doesn't agree with them. I'm looking at his actions, not his beliefs there Diane and they stink.

You still haven't explained why I should respect the guy and you can't since there's nothing to respect. If he was honest after doing it for this long he would have been a debunker long ago or publicly denounced all the stupid stuff he used to believe. THAT would be admirable, THAT would be something to respect.

Well I'll tell you now I have noticed you have moved the goal posts and I have noticed that you're acting hypocritically.

I can't read that page because I'm not a member of the JREF forum. Anyhow, the question most relevant to how new he was in 2006 is not how many threads about 9/11 he started in 2006, but, rather, when he started his first thread about 9/11.

You said you were a truther there so I guess you were banned if you can't log in

Earliest thread started seems to be June 2006, impossible to find out when he started posting. Roberts had already put out a lot of material such as:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58582 /> --- http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~asmodean/ct/Loose_Change_Creators_Speak.pdf"

However the issue is that he is too arrogant even A YEAR LATER that he is just too smart to debate him. Truther's often said they would debate Roberts and didn't, Nick is nothing new. At least the Loose Change boys, Richard Gage and Fetzer actually did go on Hardfire.

Ed quoted me as saying:

There are two main kinds of activists in the 9/11 Truth movement:

1) What I think of as the 9/11 Truth movement proper, i.e. those whose main aim is a new investigation of 9/11.

2) Those whose main aim is to use 9/11 "inside job" claims to "awaken" people to some alleged "bigger picture" (usually, though not always, a full-blown grand conspiracy ideology).

In my experience, many of the better-educated 9/11 Truth activists are not comfortable with the Alex Jones crowd and do not embrace grand conspiracy ideology.

From which Ed concluded:

Right so here kind of starts your claims that there is a "PROPER" part of the Truth Movement that just wants a new investigation.

Depends what you mean by "PROPER." Saying that there's a part of the 9/11 Truth movement whose main aim is a new investigation of 9/11 does NOT imply that I agree with all or most of that part of the 9/11 Truth movement's stated REASONS for that goal. It just means that the goal, itself, is a point of common ground between that part of the 9/11 Truth movement and me.

However Nick is not at all an "agnostic" to an inside job and I believe you knew that before you posted it, so why you felt the need to twist the truth consciously or not to shoehorn him into such an example makes sense, since there are no better ones.

He was indeed agnostic about WTC demolition in late 2007 and early 2008, when I was in contact with him, though apparently he was more of a believer earlier, judging by the quotes you dug up. See the TruthMove thread linked in my post at the top of this page.

Regarding JREF:

You said you were a truther there so I guess you were banned if you can't log in

I was never a member of the JREF forum. I had indirect interaction with the JREF forum via several JREF members who posted comments on my blog, and who occasionally posted links to my blog from the JREF forum.

If you don't believe me, ask Pat Curley.

Depends what you mean by "PROPER." Saying that there's a part of the 9/11 Truth movement whose main aim is a new investigation of 9/11 does NOT imply that I agree with all or most of that part of the 9/11 Truth movement's stated REASONS for that goal. It just means that the goal, itself, is a point of common ground between that part of the 9/11 Truth movement and me.

YOU said it was "proper" not me, what did YOU mean when you said it?

YOU were the one that said Nick was...SINCERE, INTELLIGENT, ARTICULATE and that you RESPECT him the MOST.

Then you went off and started arguing for a New Investigation.

He was indeed agnostic about WTC demolition in late 2007 and early 2008, when I was in contact with him, though apparently he was more of a believer earlier, judging by the quotes you dug up. See the TruthMove thread linked in my post at the top of this page.

No you said it was agnostic in regards of an inside job, not demolitions. That was the entire point of bringing him up.

YOU divided the Truth Movement into two groups, one of them it was about promoting "inside job" along with "grand conspiracy ideology" and the other YOU SAID was the "proper" kind, that just wants a New Investigation.

Sky replied to that saying that...

"the more "agnostic" type 9/11 truthers who really just want a new investigation are usually morons who have been duped by the more hardcore truthers who would believe in a conspiracy no matter what." -Sky"

Then you started promoting Nick and said he was agnostic.

It had NOTHING to do with being agnostic to demolitions AT ALL, now you claim you really meant that when there was no way anyone would be able to tell?

This is why we're saying you're moving the goal posts and this is just one example.

Ed, you seem extremely quick to accuse people of lying. For example, you quoted Nicholas Levis as saying:

I am proud during my five years of 9/11 activism and continuing research to have made a case that convinced hundreds of people directly without making use of the demolition argument, which is not the slam-dunk science that even its serious advocates believe.

and then you say:

Wow. Liar liar pants on fire, Nick.

I don't read Nicholas's statement as a denial that he ever used the demolition argument. I read it as a claim to have been able to convince lots of people without the demolition argument. But this does not imply that he never tried using it. He could have tried convincing people both with and without it, and eventually concluded that the latter version of his case had been more successful.

You also wrote:

Guess when he made that post? It was Feb 28th 2007.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x144893

2007 Diane. And why is he still promoting all this stuff he says he doesn't agree with in 2007?

I first ran into him in fall 2007.

Ed, You asked when you accused me of lying. You wrote earlier:

However Nick is not at all an "agnostic" to an inside job and I believe you knew that before you posted it,

Ed wrote:

EDIT: And btw dont you find it interesting that its so hard to find all these arguments and articles he said he wrote that didn't involve demolitions and other false claims?

It's not hard to find articles of his that don't mention demolitions. What I did have a hard time digging up was posts of his in which he specifically said he's agnostic about demolitions.

As for "other false claims," I'm no expert on precisely which other issues Nicholas might have changed his mind about over the years.

It's not hard to find articles of his that don't mention demolitions.

I didnt just say demolitions Diane, I also said "and other false claims".

Someone claiming that the bin laden video is faked, or that Cheney was put in charge of NORAD the year before 911 or that there are Missing Trillions, or that 911 allowed them to carry out PNAC is just as stupid as those arguing that the buildings were demolished just in different ways.

You were the one that claimed he was part of this "proper" truth movement and you won't define what you mean by that, but we are safe to presume that you mean reasonable. So show us all the reasonable material he has made, if you do I will ask you why you waited until now to show us instead of initially pointing us literally to his own website SummerofTruth and Justicefor911 both unbelievably stupid websites. I mean by giving him as an example why would you get upset with us for just reading his material YOU directed us to?

What I did have a hard time digging up was posts of his in which he specifically said he's agnostic about demolitions.

According to that thread he is way less agnostic about it, it doesn't seem like he gives it any credit at all. Thats rather strange considering he promoted it literally, himself, for such a long time and in fact not that long before he wrote that post and you met him. Why has he forgotten? Why has he forgotten what his websites say? So going by what he claims in that thread isn't it interesting we can find no evidence for it? As I said before he claims he had argued against Loose Change since 2005, yet then promotes the same guys that make the same claims Loose Change does in 2007. Why did he do that?

If I recall correctly, I didn't use the word "proper" in the first place, other than to ask what you meant by it.

You didn't write these words?

"What I think of as the 9/11 Truth movement proper"

Ed, you correctly reminded me of something I said earlier:

What I think of as the 9/11 Truth movement proper"

However, "9/11 Truth movement proper" is not the same thing as "proper 9/11 Truth movement."

If you don't understand the difference, I'll try to explain it later.

However, "9/11 Truth movement proper" is not the same thing as "proper 9/11 Truth movement."

If you don't understand the difference, I'll try to explain it later.

Well that is what I asked you to do. I wanted to know why you said proper.

Truth movement proper is the one that you only partially agree with? You do not agree with most of the "proper" side of that movement?

Ed wrote:

Come on either show us material you consider to be so great or just stfu about him.

[ Sigh! ]

Once again, the only reason I've been bringing up his (and Arcterus's) stuff at all is to show that they are capable of rational dialogue, NOT to recommend their stuff as something "great."

However, this is inherently a somewhat subjective perception. I can't prove it to you if you are determined not to see it. And it is clear that you are determined not to see it.

lofihigain wrote:

Truth movement proper is the one that you only partially agree with? You do not agree with most of the "proper" side of that movement?

Here is the original context, where I wrote:

There are two main kinds of activists in the 9/11 Truth movement:

1) What I think of as the 9/11 Truth movement proper, i.e. those whose main aim is a new investigation of 9/11.

2) Those whose main aim is to use 9/11 "inside job" claims to "awaken" people to some alleged "bigger picture" (usually, though not always, a full-blown grand conspiracy ideology).

In my experience, many of the better-educated 9/11 Truth activists are not comfortable with the Alex Jones crowd and do not embrace grand conspiracy ideology.

I agree with the call for an independent follow-up to the 9/11 Commission. I do not endorse the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, which the majority of people in even the first category do believe.

lofihigain, if you mean to hint that this thread has wandered way off topic, you're right. I'll reply to your question in a new thread.

I'm not sure, but I think this is one of Merola's boy's:

http://conspiracyscience.com/site/hate-mail/view/49/911/</p>

Not only is he a "pilot" who thinks cellphones don't work above 6,000ft, but also he's the type of person to automatically assume those who actively disagree "work for them."