Skeptic Project

Here, lofihigain wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out why this argument is taking place.

Brief recap:

I'm the founder of a small group group of activists who oppose the religious right wing on many fronts. Among other things, we oppose grand conspiracy ideology (which is a subset of what is commonly known as "conspiracy theory") because of the religious bigotry aspect. Today's "Illuminati" myth is both very similar to and historically intertwined with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When it's not vilifying Jews, it substitutes Satanists, Pagans, occultists, and/or atheists for the role of "the Jews," and also vilifies feminists, GLBT rights activists, and environmentalists in much the same way that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion vilified democratic movements (as evil tools of the evil Jews, Pagans, or whatever).

I'm also a person who was at least partly convinced of 9/11 inside job claims for a while, and was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement in mid-to-late 2007 through early-to-mid 2008. I no longer endorse inside job theories or even LIHOP, but I still do endorse the idea that there should be an independent followup to the 9/11 Commission.

One aspect of my current activism capalizes on my past experience in the 9/11 Truth movement, as follows: Here in NYC, at the annual 9/11 Truth movement events each September, we distribute (1) a pamphlet which tries to set an example of how to make a valid call for an independent investigation without promoting inside job claims and (2) a separate leaflet opposing "Illuminati" claims. We do not, however, make a point of trying to refute the "inside job" idea. We take an officially neutral stance on "controversial allegations of government wrongdoing," except that we do urge people to pay careful attention to what the debunkers as well as proponents have to say, if they are going to advocate such claims.

The above seems to gotten some people here upset, on two grounds:

1) They seem to feel that I'm selling out, or something like that, by not making a point of opposing inside job theories.

2) They seem to dislike the idea of anyone trying to reason with 9/11 Truthers at all, about anything. They are determined to believe that any and all 9/11 Truthers are ipso facto incapable of listening to rational dialogue, and hence should not be dialogued with, but only fought against and discredited by any means necessary.

I, in turn, am very bothered by attitude #2.

Edit: In response to my objections to attitude #2, some folks here seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm just being a sneaky secret LIHOPer, or something.

Edit: Here on this board, I've also tried to make a small contribution to the debunking of WTC demolition claims: The "symmetry of collapse" argument.

See the following threads:

* Legitimate topics for a follow-up to the 9/11 Commission
* Context of 9/11 coverup allegations

The pamphlet focuses mainly on the evidence of coverups (as acknowledged even by mainstream sources), while briefly mentioning that different people have different opinions as to WHAT has been covered up (incompetence, inside job, negligence, corruption, or something else entirely) and stating that those responsible should be held accountable, even if it's nothing worse than incompetence.

Please see the other threads.

Ed wrote here, quoting JackRiddler on Democratic Underground:

"KSM" or the actor playing him

The context is this thread, from which it's not clear to me whether he seriously thinks that an "actor playing him" is a likely possibility, or whether he's just making a rhetorical point about how little we know about KSM, given the secrecy surrounding him, and given the CIA's history of lying. JackRiddler is commenting on this Washington Post story.

Regarding the secrecy surrounding KSM, JackRiddler does have a valid point. I certainly don't think an "actor playing him" is at all likely, but I wouldn't rule out, at least as remote possibilities, such things as mistaken identity and all the other things that can go wrong even in the normal, open, civilian justice system, let alone a secretive military court system plus secretive detention centers in which torture has been used.

From these possibilities, I would not conclude "inside job" or even LIHOP. But it is noteworthy that nearly all the 9/11 Commission's information about Al Qaeda's planning of and preparation for the 9/11 attacks comes from transcripts of the confessions of people who were tortured under secretive circumstances -- which makes all that information about as reliable as the confessions of accused witches.

In any case, remarks like "the actor playing him" are not typical of JackRiddler's posts on Democratic Underground. And the idea of an "actor playing him" is by no means essential to the kind of "inside job" scenario that JackRiddler is inclined to envision, if I understand the latter correctly.

As I said, I don't endorse "inside job" theories or any other such scenario.

But, on the other hand, I see no good reason to endorse blind faith in an account based on confessions of people who were tortered, either.

I'm not disputing the basic idea that Al Qaeda did it. However, the 9/11 Commission Report's account touches on many matters on which, if the reality turned out to be something different, could have a significant impact on U.S. foreign policy.

I certainly don't think an "actor playing him" is at all likely, but I wouldn't rule out, at least as remote possibilities...

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. Please don't tell me you actually said this.

@ lofihigain:

It looks like you are holding on to this idea that there should be second investigation, all while trying to distance yourself from the movement at large. AMIRITE? I don't know why you are doing this. If they didn't let it happen, and it was terrorists who flew planes into the towers, and those planes made the towers go bye-bye, and the gov't had nothing to do with it other than their massive intelligence failures <EDIT> and the surrounding geopolitical circumstances, then why should there be second investigation?

I think, lofi, that Diane supports a new investigation mainly as a strategic move to get her organization in bed with the Truth movement. She has never explained (at least not clearly) why she thinks Truthers are so crucial to the mission of her organization, but it's obvious that she's willing to go to great lengths to avoid offending them in even the slightest way. Her defense of nutbars like Nick Levis baffles me, as she admits she's pretty light on specifics that demonstrate his "agnosticism" regarding demolition and other loony claims, and continues to explain away his lunacy with vague statements like "that's not representative of what he says on such-and-such forum."

So, does your pamphlet say, "hello citizen, did you know that there are people who believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy? It should be dually noted that there are also people who are against the promotion of these theories. These people are known as debunkers. There is a real, rational debate going between these two parties, and we want you to take part in that discussion. Pick a side and go to either conspiracyscience.com or some other truther guy's blog. I want you to know that I, the maker of this pamphlet do not believe that 911 was a government conspiracy, but for some reason I want a second investigation"

HAHAH AHAAHA HAHAHAH AHA HAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Muertos wrote:

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. Please don't tell me you actually said this.

Do you really think it's ridiculous to suggest that confessions made under torture, plus secretive "evidence" (minus sources) presented at a secretive military tribunal, may be less than infallible?

Edit: As I hope you are already aware, lots of things can go wrong even in the much more open civilian justice system. Are you familiar with the Innocence Project?

I don't agree with torture and I think it's barbaric and a serious stain on the honor of this country. I also think torture confessions are unreliable; however, we know that KSM's confession is corroborated by non-tortured sources, therefore it's probably more likely than not that it's correct.

But none of that is the issue.

The issue is that you, Diane, aren't even willing to rule out an idea that is patently insane--that KSM is some sort of impostor planted by the government--because you're so desperate to apologize for the extreme lunatic statements made by your hero Nick Levis. THAT is the issue, you know that's why Ed and I reacted the way we did, and now you're trying to twist the conversation in some other direction.

No wonder I'm getting out of the law business. I don't have nearly the same ability to slip and slide around the issues as you do.

Muertos wrote:

The issue is that you, Diane, aren't even willing to rule out an idea that is patently insane--that KSM is some sort of impostor planted by the government

As I said, I don't think that's at all likely. There are many other things that could conceivably be wrong with the stories we've been told about KSM and other detainees. Of all the many things that could conceivably be wrong, I would say that the idea of a deliberate imposter is one of the least likely.

You and Ed both seem to have misunderstood what I said. Please go back and re-read it.

Ed wrote:

No Diane, that is what you said. You said he has a valid point, then go straight on to say that the idea that KSM is just an actor isn't something we should rule out.

Why are you so determined to misread me? I did NOT say that. Again, go back and re-read what I actually wrote.

One of the "remote possibilities" I suggested was mistaken identity -- NOT the same thing as an actor deliberately impersonating him. Even that is only a "remote possibility," but it's the sort of thing that does happen occasionally even in the relatively open civilian justice system.

Diane, I rewrote my post please reread it and don't forget my last question.

That's one of the reasons why I'm inclined to read his speculation on KSM being an actor as just a rhetorical point

Why? For what reason? Someone even brought that up and said thats why he can't take Nick seriously, and what does Nick say ? He doesn't say he was only being rhetorical and instead comes out with some lame childish comments comparable to a typical troll. In fact there's absolutely no reason to assume he said this rhetorically. To say he confessed only because of his torture is one thing, but to even use "KSM is an actor" as example is stupid and no rational person would even say such a stupid thing. The entire argument is MIHOP rubbish.

Once again just because you are critical about the US governments methods in guantanamo doesn't mean everythings a big conspiracy that Nick promotes in that very thread!

No, I didn't say he was "LIHOP." In this article he classified his own view as "LIHOP Plus," which is not quite the same thing as "LIHOP," although it isn't quite full-blown "MIHOP" either.

And IN THAT ARTICLE you keep posting he CLAIMS he is LIHOP but yet still promotes demolitions FOR YEARS AFTERWARDS. So clearly Nick says one thing then Nick contradicts himself. This is exactly what I'm telling you, he is a crackpot.

Also bear in mind this was also an article you can find on his website that DOES talk about Bin Laden video being a fake AND promotes every single claim you say he doesn't agree with. Why didn't he, if he changed his mind, remove all that on his website when he wrote that article?

Also, in the other thread you showed us he still makes claims that are certainly not LIHOP at all! But I've already shown you them, and you ignore them.

No he does not. Read it again more carefully. He distinguishes between "LIHOP" and "VARIANT 5a, LIHOP PLUS." This is followed by a "FULL DISCLOSURE" section which puts his "likeliest hypothesis" squarely in the latter category. Further down on the page, he writes:

OMG Diane!

You JUST used that article to prove that Nick could not be REALLY saying that KSM is just an actor, but that article as said was written in 2004, posted ON HIS website promoting demolition websites as the BEST 911 RESEARCH and a variety of other nonsense claims like Bin Laden video being a fake and as I said YEARS LATER on internet forums STILL repeating demolition claims and promoting all their leaders and the people that Loose Change got their claims from.

Regarding the Bin Laden video: If I recall correctly, its authenticity has been questioned even by some people who don't believe in an inside job, let alone full MIHOP. In any case, questioning the authenticity of a video, of a kind which is necessarily of less-than-completely-above-ground provenance, is less of stretch than questioning the authenticity of a flesh-and-blood human being.

No Diane, no. He makes the same claim about the Bin Laden video that truthers do in the exact same way, and don't start defending the crap on his website or you'll have your work cut out for yourself. Everything on his website is straight out of Loose Change that he claims in 2005 he argued against, too bad he didn't correct his website right?

It just seemed to me unlikely that that he really believes that, given what I know of his other beliefs.

I know of his beliefs from more sources than just that 2004 article. The 2004 article was just the easiest to find,

However that article IS the one you referenced and only goes to prove that Nick says one thing and then contradicts himself.

That fact is that years later he was still promoting stuff that you claim he can't really agree with BECAUSE he wrote that 2004 article, yet even that was published on his website full of the nonsense you say he doesn't believe either.

The 2004 article actually proves my point, not yours. You should never want to show that as some kind of example of him being more rational.

Edit: Regarding Loose Change, see my reply here.

Already replied to it.

No, he's not contradicting himself. He is largely neutral on the demolition question.

It is my impression that, to the extent that he does promote demolition websites, he promotes the few that he considers to be the best in that category, with the aim of giving them relatively more visibility than the space beam stuff and such.

Occasionally he'll make pro-demolition arguments and occasionally he'll make anti-demolition arguments. His opinion is not strong either way.

Check out this picture I made of his website that this article is on:
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5285/nicklevissummeroftruth.png</p>

Note that his website was still being updated in 2006.

EDIT 2: How did I miss this? He last updated in 2008, it gets EVEN WORSE for him!!
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1277/nicklevis2008wow.png</p>

EDIT: you know what? I also didn't check the centre links at the top part of his website, so I'm sure he promotes demolitions in some of them as well.

Also note that in October 2005 he was still DIRECTLY promoting demolition claims:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5189/nicklevisdemolitionclai.png</p>

And yet... you claim that the 2004 article he actually has on his website shows that he doesn't really believe the things he promotes and claims on MOST OF HIS WEBSITE and all the stuff he's said for YEARS AND YEARS after that.

That Diane, is stupid. Evidently Nick is dishonest or he is delusional, or doesn't really think what you think he thinks.

I'm not against useless discussion or anything...BUT THIS?!?! LIHOP, MIHOP, controlled demo, FUCKING LIHOP PLUS VARIANT 5 A?!?!? WTF?

Are you joking? If you are, forgive me please. I must just be irrational and closed minded.

So, we are trying to figure out what this blogger dude endorses? If he endorses LIHOP plus or variant 5A (whatever that is...and I don't care to know)? For two really big threads?

HERE ARE SOME UNDERAGE GIRLS DANCING TO "I'VE GOT THE CLAP", A SONG FROM AN AUSTRALIAN CHILDREN'S SHOW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7NM_CzaLkQ

IMPRESSIVE, Ed wins, flawless victory, friendship! friendship! friendship!