Another article supportive of the 9/11 Truth Movement is published in a mainstream academic journal:

“Is Infiltration of ‘Extremist Groups’ Justified?” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24:2, pp. 153-168. (Fall 2010). By Kurtis Hagen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, SUNY Plattsburgh. (Yes. That would be me.)

Website for the International Journal of Applied Philosophy: http://secure.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/journal?openform&journal=pdc_ijap

Unfortunately the article is not freely available, but here are some highlights:

ABSTRACT: Many intellectuals scoff at what they call “conspiracy theories.” But two Harvard law professors, Cass Sunstein (now working for the Obama administration) and Adrian Vermeule, go further. They argue in the Journal of Political Philosophy that groups that espouse such theories ought to be infiltrated and undermined by government agents and allies. While some may find this proposal appalling (as indeed we all should), others may find the argument plausible, especially if they have been swayed by the notion that conspiracy theories (or a definable subset thereof), by their nature, somehow or another, do not warrant belief. I will argue that Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposal not only conflicts with the values of an open society, but is also epistemically indefensible. In making my case, I will adopt their favored example, counter-narratives about 9/11. (p. 153)

It should be noted that, according to [Sunstein and Vermeule’s] definition, the notion that the Nazis were systematically exterminating Jews would have, at some point in time, clearly counted as conspiracy theory—one that turned out to be true. This is an important example. It shows that one cannot simply reject a conspiracy theory because it seems too extreme in the brutality it attributes to powerful figures, or because of the scale of complicity that would be required, or because of the industrial efficiency with which it is said to be carried out. Shocking though a theory may be, so too are known precedents. (p. 155)

Regarding the destruction of World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7, Sunstein and Vermeule might be tempted to point to the official reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). However, there are reasons a rational and well-informed person might be less than fully convinced by those reports as well. While there are many technical issues that have been raised by others, I will just list four that can be stated briefly. First, the Bush administration has been credibly accused of politicizing science—that is, corrupting science for political expediency. And, NIST was, after all, an arm of the Bush administration. Second, representatives of NIST were evasive about key issues, such as checking for explosives. Third, John Gross, a lead engineer involved the NIST report, denied being aware of any eyewitness accounts of molten steel at the WTC collapse sites, implied that he is unaware of any suggestive evidence, and expressed doubt that the necessary temperatures could have been reached. And yet there are many well-documented eyewitness accounts of molten steel (which may have actually been iron), as well as video footage of what looks like molten steel flowing from the South Tower, supported by corroborating evidence of various kinds. (Indeed, the evidence of temperatures sufficient to melt steel is now quite strong. There should be an unbiased scientific discussion regarding how such temperatures were achieved, or at least a reasonable and open discussion of the evidence in question.) Fourth, in the “draft for public comment” version of their report on the collapse of Building 7, NIST asserted that the collapse rate was about 40% slower than freefall. David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, demonstrated in an online video that for over 100 feet the building collapsed at very close to freefall acceleration, and he challenged NIST publicly on the matter. In the final version of their report, NIST conceded the point. Having been forced by clear and incontrovertible evidence into this astonishing concession, NIST then simply pretended that it doesn’t matter. This shows that there can be a kind of “self-sealing” quality to official stories too. Officials can deny or ignore evidence, just assert that their results are scientific, and then end the discussion, refusing to have open and fair dialog or debate. And this is precisely what NIST has done. (pp. 156-157)

A common non sequitur response to [the issue of molten metal] is to suggest that it is not necessary to assume that the columns actually melted in order to explain the collapse. But the issue here is not at all about explaining the collapse. It is about the multifaceted independent evidence that there was in fact a large amount of melted steel (or iron). But how can that be? How can the official story account for that? And yet a common counter-narrative does account for it: Molten iron is the byproduct of a thermite reaction. So, on the theory that thermite of some kind was used to help bring down the towers (and building 7), molten iron is to be expected. Indeed, when comparing video of thermite reactions with video of the orange liquid substance flowing from the South tower shortly before its collapse, the similarity is striking. This is direct prima facie evidence of the use of thermite. But it is the combination of this kind of prima facie evidence with scientific studies documenting significant quantities of iron-rich spheres in the dust, and so on, that makes casual or flippant denials inappropriate. (p. 165, footnote 21)

Now, Sunstein and Vermeule could quibble by saying that although these theories have not been demonstrated to be false, they are nonetheless demonstrably false, that is, capable of being demonstrated to be false. But if that is the case, then, especially given their commitment to maintaining an “open society,” should not Sunstein and Vermeule be calling for such a public demonstration? Should they not join the chorus of voices calling for a new, more robust, subpoena-empowered, and open inquiry, which, if Sunstein and Vermeule are right, would shed such light on the relevant issues that those espousing crazy and untenable theories would scatter like cockroaches? This is the cure that would be most compatible with democratic values. If they are so sure about where a thorough, open and unbiased inquiry would lead, why not support that, rather than petty infiltrations? (p. 157)

Conclusion:

Sunstein and Vermeule state that their recommendation of infiltration is to apply only to demonstrably false (and potentially harmful) theories. Their chief example of demonstrably false theories is the set of theories that posit insider complicity in the events of 9/11. What is the proof that settles this issue once and for all? My challenge to Sunstein and Vermeule is this: Can you prove, in a fair forum, that the theories in question are false? (“Proof” in an unfair forum, of course, is no proof at all.) The fact of the matter is this: They cannot prove it. So they wish to enforce their belief through epistemically illegitimate means. Their proposals exemplify intellectual cowardice. To adapt the bitingly critical remarks of the Chinese sage Laozi: “The man of ‘reasonableness’ makes his case, but when no one responds, rolls up his sleeves and resorts to persuasion by other means.” (p. 162)

Of course, the point transcends this issue of what to do about alternative theories about 9/11. The point is that we cannot engage in the kind of epistemic shenanigans that Sunstein and Vermeule recommend and, at the same time, credibly assert that alternative-to-mainstream theories (about whatever) may be dismissed on account of our fair and unbiased structures and organizations that adjudicate truth. (pp. 162-163)

Backstory:

In mid-January, 2010, a draft of this article prompted writer Marc Estrin to blog about the topic. An Internet buzz immediately ensued, including, within a couple days, blogs by Mark Crispin Miller, Glenn Greenwald, and many others. This buzz caught the attention of David Ray Griffin, who quickly developed an impressive book-length critique, entitled Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory, to which interested readers are hereby directed. (p. 163)

(end of quotations from the article)

I have also written a second paper criticizing the Sunstein article that is currently under review at another philosophy journal. In addition, I have written a review of DRGs book, Cognitive Infiltration, that will be published this summer in Florida Philosophical Review (this one will be freely available on-line). 

However, despite pleas for fair consideration, both “Is Infiltration of ‘Extremist Groups’ Justified?” and my second critique were refused peer review at the Journal of Political Philosophy, the journal in which the Sunstein article appeared. 

Peace,

Kurtis Hagen