Skeptic Project

On page 2 of the thread How Zeitgeisters see us, Sky wrote:

In MY experience, the more "agnostic" type 9/11 truthers who really just want a new investigation are usually morons

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.

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.

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).

who have been duped by the more hardcore truthers who would believe in a conspiracy no matter what.

I think you may be confusing "grand conspiracy ideology" with "conspiracy theory" in a more general sense. What I wrote earlier, to which the above is a reply, was the following:

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 should clarify that most of the people in category 1, including most of the more intelligent and articulate people, do believe in a "conspiracy" in the sense of "inside job." That's not the same thing as grand conspiracy ideology.

Sky wrote:

Here's the thing about the whole "we just want a new investigation" baloney. If there is no conspiracy, and the new investigation proved that, people would just say that the investigation was a whitewash. And if there really WAS a conspiracy, any new investigation WOULD be a coverup. If the other investigations were coverups, there is no reason why they wouldn't just do it again.

The above is correct for a believer in grand conspiracy ideology. However, to someone who sees 9/11 as just an especially bad instance of U.S. government wrongdoing, a genuine investigation can be seen as being difficult to attain but not impossible. What's necessary, to such people, is to have an investigation that is run by people without obvious conflicts of interest such as Philip Zelikow's close ties to the Bush administration. Lots of other instances of U.S. government wrongdoing have been exposed in the past, such as Iran/Contra. So, to someone who believes that "9/11 was an inside job" but does NOT believe in full-blown grand conspiracy ideology, there's no inherent reason why the 9/11 plot couldn't be exposed by an investigation too.

For this reason there never will be a new investigation that will either make people stop talking about these theories or prove them to be true -regardless of what the truth is. The reason why these "petitions for a new investigation" exist is so that the Alex Jones's and Richard Gage's can come off as nice folks who are "just asking questions".

Alex Jones -- who promotes grand conspiracy ideology, not just 9/11 inside job theory -- never was one of the leaders of any of the several serious organized campaigns for a new investigation. He has endorsed such campaigns, but he has never founded or led them.

Richard Gage is a relative latecomer to the scene. His group was founded in 2006 (or maybe 2004?), if I recall correctly. So he certainly was not one of the inventors of the idea of a new investigation. In any case, Richard Gage makes no bones about the fact that he does believe that 9/11 was an inside job. As far as I am aware, he does not believe in grand conspiracy ideology, though I could be wrong about this.

They can point to the petition and say "look at all these people who have questions about 9/11", thereby getting more people to sign the petitions and get them more attention. Deep down, the main leaders in the truth movement realize a new investigation would be pointless.

Alex Jones probably does believe that a new investigation would be pointless. And indeed his followers, in groups like We Are Change, have tended not to participate in serious organized calls for a new investigation, preferring instead to run around heckling people whom they perceive as implementing "the New World Order." For them, as you correctly note, the idea of a "new investigation" does seem to be a talking point and little more. Some believers in grand conspiracy ideology have admitted this to me.

However, the very idea of a new investigation, especially as advocated by its more serious proponents, should not be judged by the way it has been used by the Alex Jones crowd. It should not be assumed that the very purpose of a new investigation, as advocated by its more serious proponents, has anything to do with the agenda of the Alex Jones crowd.

Muertos wrote:

"Intelligent and articulate" Truthers? Really? If they were so intelligent and articulate, why do they believe crazy shit like space beams and exploding paint?

The people whom I'm thinking of as the more intelligent and articulate ones do not believe in space beams and exploding paint. For that matter, even the We Are Change crowd doesn't believe in space beams either, for the most part.

If you wish to be able to communicate with at least some Truthers -- and it IS possible to do so -- then the ability to distinguish between different kinds of Truthers is an absolute prerequisite.

More later. Gotta run now.

Diane, I'm finding your position on 9/11 and the "Truth movement" extremely difficult to follow.

You seem to be classifying Truthers into two groups based upon whether or not they believe in "grand conspiracy ideology." You also seem to be saying that there are Truthers who don't believe in "grand conspiracy ideology" and who are "agnostic" about whether it was an inside job, and those Truthers are OK because all they want is another investigation into 9/11 to clean up loose ends.

Have I characterized your position correctly? If I got wires crossed please correct me.

What I'm also unclear on is whether you have a problem with Truthers who DO expressly believe it was an inside job (like Richard Gage) but who evidently do not believe in "grand conspiracy ideology." Are you OK with those people so long as they limit their advocacy to a new honest investigation of 9/11?

Muertos wrote:

Diane, I'm finding your position on 9/11 and the "Truth movement" extremely difficult to follow.

I hope I can clear up a few things.

You seem to be classifying Truthers into two groups based upon whether or not they believe in "grand conspiracy ideology." You also seem to be saying that there are Truthers who don't believe in "grand conspiracy ideology" and who are "agnostic" about whether it was an inside job, and those Truthers are OK because all they want is another investigation into 9/11 to clean up loose ends.

The above is a misunderstanding of what I've been saying. To clarify:

1) I have not divided 9/11 Truthers into just two groups. So far, I've made at least three separate kinds of distinctions: (a) grand conspiracy ideologist or not, (b) inside job believer vs. agnostic, and (c) varying degrees of intelligence and articulateness.

Every political and social movement encompasses a wide range of people. If one wants to understand a political and social movement of any kind, let alone communicate with its adherents, one should not lump all its adherents into one undifferentiated box. The categorizations I've made here are not the only ways that people in the 9/11 Truth movement can be categorized. But these distinctions are highly relevant to how one would go about communicating with the people in question.

2) As for "another investigation into 9/11 [just] to clean up loose ends," that's not what anyone in the 9/11 Truth movement is currently advocating, as far as I am aware. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement would, of course, propose some rather unrealistic questions for their desired investigation to look into. I am saying that a more realistic and well-informed investigation would be legitimate. Furthermore, if a group of 9/11 debunkers were to advocate such an investigation, then it would become a whole lot easier for those debunkers to have productive dialogue with people in the 9/11 Truth movement -- because advocacy of an investigation (even an investigation emphasizing different questions) would establish important common ground, making it psychologically a whole lot easier to communicate.

3) You asked about the relative "okayness" of different kinds of 9/11 Truthers in my eyes. Personally, I am, by far, most bothered by those who believe in grand conspiracy ideology ("Illuminati," "New World Order," etc.). This bothers me because of its roots in religious bigotry (of both the anti-Jewish and anti-occultist variety). Personally, I'm a whole lot less bothered by Richard Gage than I am by someone who claims that the 9/11 attacks were really a mass human sacrifice to ancient gods, performed as a religious ritual by the ruling Pagan/occultist/Satanist cabal. (The latter claim is not common, but, yes, I've run into it.)

This doesn't mean that Richard Gage's claims are "okay." But it does mean that people who believe in Richard Gage's claims aren't necessarily religious bigots.

4) Above all, I think it's important not to dismiss all people in the 9/11 Truth movement as "crazy." If you do that, you have thereby cut yourself off from the possibility of communicating with them. There do exist people in the 9/11 Truth movement with whom it is possible to have productive dialogue. If you dismiss them as crazy, or if you insist on lumping them together with believers in space beams and exploding paint, then your inability to communicate with them is at least partly your own fault.

Are my views clearer to you now?

Are my views clearer to you now?

Yes, to some extent. Do YOU advocate a new 9/11 investigation?

I used to, but I no longer do, at least not a full-scale one. I think it would be a waste of time and money and it would only legitimize the conspiracists' nutty views by suggesting that the conclusions of the original investigation were somehow suspect. They aren't.

I also think you're overstating the persuasiveness that such an investigation would have. It's been my experience that the only reason Truthers want another investigation is that they hope it will uncover the conspiracy that they believe happened. If a new investigation did not reach that conclusion unequivocally, they'd simply scream that the gubbermint is covering it up all over again.

Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that there are a significant number of Truthers who aren't total wingnuts. Richard Gage may not be a religious bigot, but he's clearly a nut. Even a LIHOP or LIHOP-lite viewpoint takes a tremendous suspension of logic and common sense to maintain. I don't see how these people, if they're so inaccessible to logical or reasonable arguments, are going to abandon their conspiracy beliefs simply because another "evil gubbermint" panel concludes that Osama's 19 hijackers did it.

Also, space beams and exploding paint aren't fringe beliefs in the 9/11 Truth movement. They're mainstream. Because no evidence of explosives in the towers has come to light in 8 years and Steven Jones is the only person left in the movement who can plausibly claim to have once been a scientist, the Truthers have latched on to his ridiculous claims about the paint in the WTC containing thermite or whatever the hell they call it largely because they have no one else to hitch their star to.

Given the majority of public Truthers (Avery, Bermas, Merola, etc.) believe in all sorts of woo shit in addition to 9/11, everything from Federal Reserve to Apollo moon hoax, I don't see a whole lot of "role models" (if you care to call them that) in the truth movement for more "reasonable" beliefs.

The only sane people who believe in MIHOP or LIHOP are ignorant people (and that haven't thought things through in any depth).

I don't know if someone like Michael Ruppert is MIHOP or LIHOP (he doesn't talk about explosives AFAIK) but I do know he is such a shoddy researcher you wouldn't ever want to trust him for any accurate information. I mean seriously, is he the kind of guy you're referring to? Are his points the things you think should be investigated? Just what do you think should be investigated more? And direct us to some people promoting the rational reasons for a new investigation that you are talking about.

I disagree. I don't see him as a "nut" at all, just mistaken -- and caught up in a crusade based on mistaken ideas.

Do you think anything Richard Gage says is remotely valid, Diane?

He isn't just mistaken, the man believes in silent explosives. He has been told over and over again why he is wrong, even by people like Gregory Ulrich who used to be a member of AE911 Truth, yet he just keeps singing the same old tune year after year.

He also promotes Anders Bjorkman's material who really is a nut, just some of the crazy things he believes in is that the WTC wouldnt have collapsed even if the top block was raised 2 miles above it and dropped on top. Gage knows this, Gage doesn't care. Gage says he got into 911 conspiracies because he read David Ray Griffin's book (or heard him on the radio I forget) and David Ray Griffin is one of the biggest liars/charlatans in the truth movement.

Ed wrote:

Do you think anything Richard Gage says is remotely valid, Diane?

Not anymore. I used to think that a few of his points were valid, but I've come to understand why they aren't.

I think most of his points are based on mistaken intuitions extrapolating from the behavior of smaller structures. A lot of ordinary people have similar mistaken intuitions. After all, skyscraper collapses don't happen very often. The WTC collapses were unique events. That being the case, popular misunderstandings are inevitable.

By the way, as of the last time I looked at his slide show (admittedly over a year a go), none of Gage's points were original with him. Everything he said was lifted from Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, or Loose Change.

Actually yes Diane, they have said they believe in exploding paint.

It seems you are not familiar enough with just how crazy/dishonest/incompetent these guys are.

Maybe the confusion is due to how they can't seem make up their minds how this mythical substance was used (I say "mythical" since real nano thermite doesn't do what they want it to do) so maybe you aren't aware of everything they have said.

Here is some of the applications they have offered.

1. Painted onto steel beams as paint to melt them.
2. Used as "nano thermite matches" to light traditional explosives like C4 or HMX
3. Used in some form of shaped charge.
4. An unspecified way of creating molten metal at the base of the towers and keeping it molten for weeks.

Now, people like Steven Jones seems to mix points 1 and 2 when he feels like it (he also specifically made point 2), and promoted EXPLODING PAINT.

In Jesse Ventura's mockumentary on 911 Conspiracies, Jones says this substance was painted on and then started saying how the workers could have thought they were using just traditional paint, but then he says that when it dries it becomes a HIGH EXPLOSIVE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6WdKnrjlBw#t=09m50s

"There's residues of explosive in the dust... [Nano/Super Thermite is] a liquid when wet and it can actually be painted on, I mean these guys might actually have thought they were just painting. When you are painting with it its safe, is really quite remarkable stuff. When it dries its a high explosive." - Steven Jones

So there you are, Steven Jones is promoting highly explosive nano thermite paint.

That's why they then go on to do that stupid nano thermite painted on a steel beam test where they left out the conclusion of the experiment, which was that nano thermite didn't even melt through the beam let alone explode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-pZf56L0lg

And the red chip thing has been debunked many times already.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4607897#post4607897 /> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017 /> http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html</p>

I've seen truthers just refuse to read them or deal with it simply because the rebuttals haven't been published, presumably because this is the closet thing the truthers have EVER gotten to a legitimately published journal article and they are milking it for all its worth. Pretty laughable really considering all the papers that have already been published about the WTC collapses. However the Jones/Harrit red chip paper being published really isn't saying much since it was a Bentham journal where the editor quit saying she had no knowledge it, where another FAKE paper was accepted and another editor quit in embarrassment and Bentham as a whole had been in disrepute for some time for lax practises including spamming scientists. That's the best truthers have been able to do in all this time.

It is true that the way Muertos worded it it, it sounds like Gage believes in space beams, which he doesn't.

In fact he even had removed a space beam promoter from their petition because of it, though if you read what they said they still can't bring themselves to say its just nuts.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172126

Though they still have plenty of other fruitcakes on there anyway. Even Plautus Satire is on there pretending to be an expert in demolition and construction (though at least he doesn't pretend to have an actual degree), along with no planers like Anders Bjorkman (or, "Heiwa" on message boards) who they promoted as Petitioner of the Month and promoted some of his nutty papers.

Muertos:

From that howitwasdone911 blog...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4o7nNikQBe8/S6ZfW62twNI/AAAAAAAAAGc/yTpq-WVMlVE/s1600-h/WTC+7+south+side.jpg

I LOVE this picture.

"Amazing fumes from WTC7 side"... What's amazing about it? Those "fumes" is smoke and is coming from the building because its on fire you stupid woman! hahahahaha!! :D

Muertos wrote:

Just for fun I've been posting debunking comments at the blog of a space beam nutter who has elected herself Judy Wood's cheering section. This "Dr. Babs" with her pink hair contacted me on Twitter and asked me to comment on her blog. I doubt she likes what I have to say, and I admit that I doubt "Dr. Babs" is a very big mover in the smoldering ruins of what remains of the 9/11 Truth movement, but her blog is an astonishing example of what Twoofers can convince themselves of:
http://howitwasdone911.blogspot.com/</p>

Maybe. It might also be the work of a hoaxter, such as Dr_Benedict_Zaroff has confessed to being, right here on this board. Did he ever get in touch with you, by the way?

Muertos wrote:

Gage does not appear to believe in space beams. But the evidence is pretty clear that he is (at best) extremely incompetent or (at worst) a liar.

I would just say he doesn't do any original research and doesn't even do any of his own fact-checking. As I said earlier, as of the last time I looked at his slideshow, every part of it was lifted from Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, and/or Loose Change.

Back in the days when I was involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, I emailed him about a bunch of errors. He responded by CC'ing to me an email to his "team," asking them to look into these matters. I later learned that his "team" consisted mainly of people with no technical background whatsoever.

My judgment of Gage, based on my interaction with him, is that he is sincere but careless and overly trusting of the judgment of certain other people whom he has decided to trust for whatever reason.

Basically truthers can be so crazy that its very hard to tell a parody from a real truther.

ie. A truther version of Poe's Law:
http://tinyurl.com/6capcy</p>

Which states:

"POE'S LAW:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist [or Truther - Ed] in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article."

For example you'd think Anders Bjorkman is a parody, but he isn't. Just as nutty as that Dr Babs blog it seems, just in different ways.

Looking at the comments following the video, I see that a large majority of the commenters did NOT believe the video was factual, although a few did believe it. Many of the comments were from believers in various other conspiracy claims who regarded the video as "disinformation" or otherwise wrong.

(Note to moderator: I inadvertantly posted the above in the wrong thread, where I then edited it to a "please delete." Above, I've re-posted it in the correct thread.)