Skeptic Project

I'm like Sara Palin in that I like "all of them". No seriously I'm not incredibly knowledgeable about their discography, but I actually had Sign of the Hammer when I was a kid. My cousin was all about them. Kinda funny eh?

Ed wrote:

A lot longer??? 2004 to 2008, thats 4 years he was still updating his website and didn't remove all the demolition claims and still counting! Just about ALL OF HIS LINKS AND PAGES promote those claims! 7 out of 11 of his "BEST 911 RESEARCH" links promote demolitions! How can you possibly reconcile this!

Only a few of these sites are specifically about WTC demolition claims. Most, e.g. 911truth.org, are more general sites that include but do not emphasize demolition claims. Since the vast majority of people in the 9/11 Truth movement do believe in WTC demolition, it's kind of hard for a 9/11 Truth activist to avoid them. And, since Nicholas does not totally reject the idea of WTC demolition, he apparently does not see a need to avoid them totally.

This even goes past the fall of 2007 that you said you met him and he allegedly didn't agree with demolitions anymore!

As far as I am aware, he is a "demolition agnostic" to this day.

Did you see where he pushed a holocaust denier and anti-semite's 911 material?

No. Where? This he will most likely remove if it is called to his attention.

Is it anything like talking to a Seventh Day Adventist? You know, how they talk to you about how great and normal their religion is, then after a while they drop the really crazy shit on you like how really bad nutrition gets you into heaven?

Was that too exaggerated?

Ed wrote:

You give us an article written in 2004 as evidence that he doesn't put much weight in demolition arguments, that he is some kind of LIHOP with a few MIHOP elements and that therefore he couldn't really have meant that KSM was an actor.

No, that 2004 article does NOT state his view on demolitions. A post of his This TruthMove thread, apparently written 2008, does mention his "agnosticism" on demolitions and voices some of his doubts.

What that 2004 article really shows is that Nick doesn't mind making claims he doesn't really believe or allowing other to be convinced of things he knows aren't true.

As always, your vague, incorrect memories are alleged to prove that Nicholas is not merely incorrect but a liar....

Ed wrote:

Well this is funny, I put it in big MSPaint letters in one of the pictures I created for you that you just inadvertently admit you didn't bother to look at. Well done Diane!

True, I didn't spend a lot of time studying your pictures because they seemed to be all about proving that he has links to sites advocating WTC demolition claims and that he has occasionally advocated WTC demolition claims himself, both of which I already knew.

I found the Hufschmid link. I'll let him know about it sometime within the next week.

True, I didn't spend a lot of time studying your pictures because they seemed to be all about proving that he has links to sites advocating WTC demolition claims and that he has occasionally advocated WTC demolition claims himself, both of which I already knew.

Just answer me this Diane...

Is it dishonest (intellectually or otherwise) that he promotes ALL OVER HIS WEBSITE the idea that the WTC was a demolition when according to you his 2008 post on that forum he doesn't agree with pushing that idea and you say he is at most agnostic on demolitions?

At least OilEmpire seems to actually argue against demolition claims, not just CLAIM they do. See even I can find a better example of truther's than you.

And you might want to look at the third link:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5189/nicklevisdemolitionclai.png</p>

So in 2005 he was promoting demolitions specifically and personally. Yet, you claim in 2004 he was not MIHOP so in 2009 couldn't possible mean that KSM was an actor because of what he wrote in 2004.

I found the Hufschmid link. I'll let him know about it sometime within the next week.

This is interesting, do you think he aught to remove it?

Its just as stupid as all the other crap he has on there.

Ed wrote:

Is it dishonest (intellectually or otherwise) that he promotes ALL OVER HIS WEBSITE the idea that the WTC was a demolition when according to you his 2008 post on that forum he doesn't agree with pushing that idea and you say he is at most agnostic on demolitions.

Nicholas Levis is no longer the major 9/11 Truth movement leader that he once was. For the past several years, he has been largely burned out on activism, doing hardly anything except post on a few message boards. Most likely, the only people who even look at his websites these days are people on the message boards that he posts on.

That being the case, it's understandable that he might be slow about doing a massive overhaul of his websites. He might even feel that his websites, in their present form with as few changes as possible, are of historical value as a primary source regarding the history of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Keep in mind that, even today, he does not regard WTC demolition "evidence" as a totally unwarranted topic of "research." Given that, combined with the above, I wouldn't expect him to be in a huge hurry to remove all the demolition-related stuff from his website.

Edit: Yes, I certainly do think he should remove the Hufschmid link, and I think he will.

Wrong thread. Moderator, please delete this post.

P.S.: Looking again at his page on "On Ungrounded Theories & Disinformation," I see that it contains some errors regarding the Pentagon attack, near the end of the article. Just letting you know I'm already aware of this, so no need to debate it. But the rest of the article shows an effort to weed out misinfo, even if he wasn't completely successful.

I'm not going to continue to go round the block over and over again with you while you continue to ignore everything I'm saying to avoid admitting the obvious.

So without re-explaining everything here we go...

Nicholas Levis is no longer the major 9/11 Truth movement leader that he once was. For the past several years, he has been largely burned out on activism, doing hardly anything except post on a few message boards. Most likely, the only people who even look at his websites these days are people on the message boards that he posts on.

That being the case, it's understandable that he might be slow about doing a massive overhaul of his websites. He might even feel that his websites, in their present form with as few changes as possible, are of historical value as a primary source regarding the history of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Keep in mind that, even today, he does not regard WTC demolition "evidence" as a totally unwarranted topic of "research." Given that, combined with the above, I wouldn't expect him to be in a huge hurry to remove all the demolition-related stuff from his website.

Edit: Yes, I certainly do think he should remove the Hufschmid link, and I think he will.

Its amazing how you wrote all that while somehow ignoring my entire post and points. I can only assume it must be intentional by now.

To Ed:

In the other thread you complained that I have not provided you with specific examples of writings by Nicholas Levis that I consider to be rational.

Here are some of the better articles of his that I was quickly able to dig up offhand, on 911truth.org (linked to from his "Summer of Truth" website):

* The Rice/Zelikow Connection: The Kean Commission and its Conflicts of Interest
* The Kean Commission and the September 11th Families
* Bush, Rice and the Genoa Warning
Documenting a demonstrable falsehood
* On Ungrounded Theories & Disinformation

So lets look at some of that shall we?

* The Rice/Zelikow Connection: The Kean Commission and its Conflicts of Interest

He wrote this in 2004, which is when he was still pushing demolition theories.

Clearly this article is just dealing with this particular aspect that just happens to be more sane than other subjects.

However he still exposes his troof writing things like....

The subsequent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan installed Hamid Karzai as prime minister and Zalmay Khalilzad as the powerful White House envoy to Kabul. Interestingly, both men were previously employed as consultants by UNOCAL. The new Afghan government has since entered a pipeline consortium. UNOCAL is not known to be involved, but is seen within the industry as the likely ultimate beneficiary of a future pipeline.

In other words, 9/11 became the reason for an already-planned war in Afghanistan, as a result of which a long-delayed Afghan pipeline deal was struck. Given that context, the appointment as commission chair of an any oil company director - let alone the director of one involved in a Central Asian pipeline consortium - appears improper. But within the commission, Gov. Kean's involvement is by no means exceptional. A look at the member resumes shows that almost all of them have had business ties to oil companies - or else, airlines.

Its a completely typical truther claim that 911 was the pretext for the war in Afghanistan because they wanted to build a oil pipeline.

In 2004 it hadn't been built and it still hasn't been built, so if they went to such a great length to carry out 911 to attack Afghanistan, or were so desperate to attack they used a real terrorist attack to give them a reason to, why, when they got there would they just not bother with it?

Here's another very unremarkable typical troof comment:

In addition, confronted with open-source evidence of U.S. military preparations for the 9/11 scenario prior to September 11 (the Pentagon MASCAL exercise), they gave their usual answer, which can be summed up as follows: "We are grateful. Please provide us with these materials. We will pursue all leads." The materials were duly provided.

Straight out of the Michael Ruppert handbook!

MASCAL didn't involve a hijacked plane and the Pentagon is only a stones throw from an airport. It was not a 911 scenario at all. In fact, one of the ideas was to have the plane be a hijacked jet but that was rejected as they considered that too "unrealistic".

And saying... "evidence of U.S. military preparations for the 9/11 scenario prior to September 11"... sounds like MIHOP to me, that's why he says THE 911 scenario, not something like A 911 STYLE scenario.

I'm sure there's other things I've missed but I have to move on, the bottom line is that just because you can find a more rational than most truther article, doesn't mean it is rational.

The Kean Commission and the September 11th Families

What a terrible example.

Again written in 2004, so we know this article is just a different topic than demolitions that he still promoted, even so straight away his troof shines through:

"That is one of 23 explosive questions that George W. Bush and his subordinates must face in public testimony, under oath and pain of perjury--that is, if leaders of September 11 family groups get their way.

The question refers to private flights for Saudi royalty, cleared by the White House during the otherwise total civilian flight ban in the days immediately after September 11. Members of the Bin Laden clan, including two of Osama Bin Laden's many brothers, were allowed to leave the United States before federal investigators had a chance to question them.1

The "bin laden family flight" claims are all nonsense and I know you said that you don't agree with his position but the fact is you DID say that he is RATIONAL and that you RESPECT him and this is examples of that.

I asked for evidence of his RATIONAL articles and THIS is what you give me?

Everything else is just more retarded claims of varying degrees that have already been addressed and even makes the claim about the oil pipeline again:

The Commission has shown no inclination to follow the trail of the Cheney "energy policy meetings" of early 2001, or the Bush administration's oil-pipeline talks with the Taliban up to July 2001.

But it gets worse again since at the end he puts through more nonsense!

2. In the days before 9/11, unknown traders bought unusually high "put options" in the stock of United Airlines,

Put Options! You said he was RATIONAL! :D

Lets move on...

Bush, Rice and the Genoa Warning
Documenting a demonstrable falsehood

So it starts off not so bad, it is true that Rice's comment about not having any idea that anyone would think of using planes as weapons is nonsense.

But showing that the government lied to cover their asses is not what Nick's agenda is... lets see what else he says...

Early in the morning, the U.S. military begins air defense and mass casualty wargames. So far, we know definitely of:

These wargames claims are all typical troof rubbish, and if you're read 911 Myths I don't need to explain it to you.

The most important part here is when he talks about the August 6th PDB:

The White House admits the existence of the August 6 PDB. The New York Post headlines the news: "Bush Knew." The next day, Condoleeza Rice proclaims that "no one could have imagined" planes would be used as weapons. She says the warnings to Bush related only to "traditional hijackings," not kamikaze attacks.

[...] Could "no one have imagined"? Perhaps inadvertantly, Bush has exposed his own national security adviser and his Secretary of Defense as liars

She was correct, the August 6th PDB did NOT say that Bin Laden might use planes as weapons, Nick obviously never bothered to read it. I wonder if he is just quoting Michael Ruppert which probably did but then lied about it the same way he did about MASCAL.

The August 6th PDB actually says that he might use hijacked planes to... "gain the release of ...U.S.-held extremists." and that the FBI was looking into 70 investigations they "consider Bin Laden-related", they are also investigating a phone call to their UAE embassy which said Bin Laden supporters "was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."... so its actually very vague and non specific, the reason for the hijackings was thought to be a TRADITIONAL one (as leverage to get what they wanted) and that various kinds of attacks were mentioned like ones with explosives.

There's no need to tell me you didn't agree with Nick, but you did provide this as an example of his RATIONAL articles.

I am not seeing it Diane, I am not seeing it.

Lets continue...

On Ungrounded Theories & Disinformation

Again written in 2004

The first part argues against really stupid stuff like no planer claims and the "pod plane" stuff.

Really not something you want to tell me is a rational example since Jim Hoffman of 911 Research also agues against no planers, pod planes and CIT fly overs, but you wouldn't say he is rational because of that. Remember, being NOT QUITE as crazy, stupid, incompetent or as ignorant as SOME truther's doesn't mean you aren't still crazy, stupid, incompetent or ignorant.

But that's not all he says in this article...

How did AA77 hit a target known to be defended by anti-aircraft missile batteries? The flight executed a maneuver pilots have characterized as extremely difficult, descending from several thousand feet while making a 280∞ turn, banking at the last second and flying level with the ground to strike the first floor. The alleged hijacker flying the plane (Hani Hanjour) flunked out of flight school. The side of the Pentagon hit, opposite from the command center, had just been renovated to reinforce it against terrorist attack. The offices there were mostly empty; initial expectations of 850 dead were quickly revised to 130.

I knew Nick wouldn't disappoint. Nonsense about the Pentagon missile batteries, nonsense about Hanjour being too incompetent to fly, the nonsense that the flight path was too difficult etc etc.

I think I've wasted enough of my time going through that so am not going to bother with any more. You failed to prove it Diane, in fact all these articles only go to show what I have been saying.

One last thing you said then...

Not quite. On that page he seems to be flirting with grand conspiracy ideology, but has not actually embraced it

If you talk about the "POWER ELITES" that want "GLOBAL FASCISM AND EMPIRE", that is grand conspiracy ideology by definition, sorry to have to break it to you.

It might not say anything about the evil "Joo's" or the Illuminati but so what? I guess you'd claim you coined the term so you can make up whatever definition of it you like, but I think I speak for most here when I say you're not fooling anyone. We can all see Nick for what he is and that you're defending him for some reason.

To Ed:

You allege that I've ignored "everything" you are saying and that I've ignored "your entire post and points."

I certainly have not ignored everything you are saying. I've responded to some of it, though not to all of it -- I don't have time to respond to all of it. Why don't you tell me what you consider to be the two or three most important points you would like me to address?

Once again you seem to be confusing "rational" with "infallible." I never claimed that Nicholas was infallible, or even that his sites were the very best in terms of accuracy. As I've said before, the very best 9/11 Truth movement site, and the only one that I would actually recommend as an information resource about 9/11 itself, is the Complete 9/11 Timeline on the History Commons site. Even with that site, I would suggest looking at 9/11 Myths for balance, although 9/11 Myths doesn't cover every topic and omits important information on some of the topics it does cover.

Ed, you've made plenty of errors in this thread too. Many times you've misunderstood what I was saying, as I've already pointed. Not only that, but you've repeatedly misunderstood certain points of mine in the exact same way even after repeated clarifications of the exact same point. (An example is your repeated identical misunderstandings of the way that Nicholas Levis distinguished amongst "LIHOP," "LIHOP PLUS," and "MIHOP" in his 2004 article.) Hence I could easily, if I wanted to, accuse you of lying and deliberately twisting words, or accuse you of being crazy, on grounds very similar to some of your own alleged grounds for saying that Nicholas is "irrational" and/or a liar. But I won't. I'll just accuse you of being very dense and/or careless.

Ed wrote:

The "bin laden family flight" claims are all nonsense

No, they're not "all nonsense," although Nicholas Levis does appear to have fallen into the common error of conflating (1) the Bin Laden family flights out of the U.S.A., which occurred very soon after the flight ban ended, with (2) some flights by Bin Laden family members and Saudi royals within the U.S.A., which apparently did occur during the flight ban. Regarding the latter, which for a while were dismissed as an "urban legend" but then later confirmed, relevant news stories are summed up and linked here on the History Commons site.

As for your other objections to Nicholas's articles: I'll concede that at least some of them (and not just the Pentagon-related errors I've already acknowledged) are indeed errors on Nicholas's part. Others, I suspect, may be errors on your part. But I'll need to go look some of this stuff up, which I don't have time to do right now. Maybe next week, if you're still interested by then. I'm admittedly rusty on a lot of this stuff.

For a strong, positive example of why I do consider Nicholas to be one of the more rational people in the 9/11 Truth movement, see the following, in On Ungrounded Theories & Disinformation:

Robinowitz offers reasoned refutations of a number of other popular hypotheses and speculations at his research-dense website oilempire.us. Like Salter, he points out why it is incumbent upon us to resist weak or suspect evidence [...]

However, Robinowitz overstepped the bounds when he announced with certainty that the works of "Webfairy" and Letsroll911 are "operations" in the style of COINTELPRO, i.e. covert programs consciously designed to undermine the 9/11 movement. While government has been known to sabotage its critics by muddying the waters with confusing disinformation, calling anyone's work an "operation" is inexcusable without irrefutable documentation. (Robinowitz has apparently reflected on this and backed away from these accusations.)

Ed wrote:

If you talk about the "power elites "that want a "global fascism and empire", that is grand conspiracy ideology by definition, sorry to have to break it to you.

No. It becomes grand conspiracy ideology only when you see it as a big unified plan orchestrated by a single cabal (or perhaps just two or three competing unified cabals). The reality, of course, is that there are many different powerful interest groups (mostly elite groups, but also some grassroots and semi-grassroots interest groups too) that influence U.S. foreign policy to one degree or another. But there are indeed American "power elites" who want "empire." See, for example, American Imperialism? No Need to Run Away from Label by Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, May 6, 2003. As for "fascism," the U.S. government has a long history of supporting brutal dictatorships (commonly referred to as "fascist," though in many cases that's technically a misnomer) around the world.

Anyhow, there are some important question of mine that you haven't answered yet. See the thread To Ed: When you were a 9/11 Truther....

I highly doubt he will actually post here. As I think Ed has documented quite well, he's a standard-issue Truther who believes in controlled demolition, war games, Bin Laden family flights and suggested that KSM might be an actor in disguise. He'd no sooner agree to show up on a debunkers' forum than Dylan Avery or Peter Merola would. There's a very good reason why Truthers try to avoid debating debunkers: because they know that they'll get owned 10 ways to Sunday the instant they start and that we will expose their lies, obfuscations and ridiculous paranoid claims for exactly what they are.

Maybe he'll surprise us both and agree, but don't hold your breath. Certainly you should make the offer. I'm curious what he would say in response.

A belated reply to something Muertos wrote on the previous page of this thread:

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.

As I've already explained, I wouldn't support a new investigation if I didn't think it was desirable in its own right. Bit it is true that, for me, the issue is piggybacked to other things that are only indirectly related.

In particular, the local 9/11 Truth groups' annual 9/11 anniversary events give my group an annual opportunity to oppose "Illuminati" claims (directly relevant to my group's main focus on religion-based bigotry) to an audience of people with a variety of opinions about "Illuminati" claims, but who, in any case, are inclined to pay at least some attention to what we are saying. And they are inclined to read our literature because we also show active support for a new investigation of 9/11.

Another point to note: Here in NYC, belief in at least some degree of U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 attacks is already mainstream in at least some neighborhoods. Back in 2007 and 2008, when I was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, I got lots and lots of friendly, approving looks from strangers on the subway when I wore my 9/11 Truth T-shirt. I got a few disapproving looks too, but not very many.

Also, belief that 9/11 was an inside job is extremely common among believers in at least some of the nonmainstream religions whose rights are a primary concern of my group. (The fact that a lot of these same people also believe in "Illuminati" claims, or something similar, is a matter of great concern to me, as I've already noted.)

Now that I no longer believe that 9/11 was an inside job, it is my impression that this puts me in a minority among my current acquaintances -- although, admittedly, I have not actually asked every single one of my current acquaintances what they think about 9/11).

So, when you claim that all believers in 9/11 inside job theories are ipso facto crazy, one of the reasons why I get annoyed by this is that you're insulting a lot of my friends.

I don't have time to reply fully right now, I have a ridiculous deadline and don't want to mess a job up because my head is stuck in this forum.

This part is pissing me off though:

The "bin laden family flight" claims are all nonsense

No, they're not "all nonsense," although Nicholas Levis does appear to have fallen into the common error of conflating (1) the Bin Laden family flights out of the U.S.A., which occurred very soon after the flight ban ended, with (2) some flights by Bin Laden family members and Saudi royals within the U.S.A., which apparently did occur during the flight ban. Regarding the latter, which for a while were dismissed as an "urban legend" but then later confirmed, relevant news stories are summed up and linked here on the History Commons site.

Yes, they ARE "all nonsense".

No one is denying there were flights, the claim Nick makes is the common truther one that...

A: The flights occurred BEFORE US airspace reopened.
B: That they were allowed to leave before they could be questioned.

Both these claims are 100% false. What Nick claimed is 100% false, so get your head around this! They were investigated and there was nothing suspicious about them. Yet, this is the kind of stupid stuff truthers want investigated.

Nick is a truther, Nick makes the same claims truthers make, he is not presenting rational arguments. You failed to show me rational articles by Nick even though you claimed most of what he has written is rational. I have no idea what that makes YOU, but I know it makes me frustrated to deal with your doublespeak and constant backpeddling and goalpost moving all to defend Nick bloody Levis. I knew a Creationist like you once, she argued quite a lot like you, she was extremely annoying.

Ed wrote:

You failed to show me rational articles by Nick even though you claimed most of what he has written is rational. I have no idea what that makes YOU, but I know it makes me frustrated to deal with your doublespeak and constant backpeddling and goalpost moving all to defend Nick bloody Levis.

"doublespeak and constant backpeddling and goalpost moving"???

First off, precisely what "goalposts" are you referring to here? I think the problem in our discussion is that there aren't any objective "goalposts" to begin with -- we are arguing about subjective impressions. How "rational" someone seems to be is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I feel that you are speaking from black-and-white, us-and-them tribal instinct, and that you are absolutely determined to see "them" as not just wrong but crazy.