When trying to search for something that is largely shrouded, never give serious weight to one person's work, no matter how convincing it sounds.
Most such materials mash what can plausibly be taken as factual (which of course, depends on ones world view), and what is interpreted/extrapolated from it.
Secret societies are a perfect example. Depending on which writers perspective you take, the same society might range from an honorable, enlightenment seeking group, to an evil, satanic, power seeking conspiracy group.
A perfect example is a popular idea in "freemasonry conspiracies". One CT nut I knew was going on and showing how the geometries/designs/numbers involved in the design of washinton DC were "eerily similar" to each other, and other things around the world.
The conclusion: Its all part of a big conspiracy, right?
If you frame these facts right, such as the material that this particular nut was showing me, it can seem as though "something is up".
However, when one has the knowledge of the existance of near-universal traditions of sacred geometry and sacred mathematics throughout history, finds that these "conspiratorial" designs/mathematics correspond to many of these, and combines this with the fact that mysticism was often a part of freemasonry tradition, this "ominous" relationship becomes obvious... and benign
------------------------Post auto merged------------------------
9/11 is another example. While the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle, as usual, fundamentalist nuts draw irrational conclusions from facts.
The controversial "fact" that the collapse of the building and the way they collapsed could only be a controlled demolition, and the supposed existence of explosive/thermite remnants found, is "proof" of a massive, inter-government conspiracy.
The part that 99% of the effort the nuts spend arguing, is that "yes, the facts show there were explosives". In their mind, this is the main thing that matters, because if there were indeed explosives.... this somehow proves that it wasn't a terrorist attack, and that it confirms their conception of a massive, unrealistic conspiracy.
So you have the basic format of "the evidence shows there were explosives involved, therefore, the only reasonable explanation is our version of this massive conspiracy"
In other words -- and this is a common rhetorical device which is used, probably both consciously by some people, and unconsciously by most, is that most of the effort and argument centers around the less significant.
In other words, with 9/11, EVEN IF THERE WERE 100% proof of explosives used, this is hardly conclusive evidence of their beliefs. In fact, its not even plausible evidence. However, this all gets drowned out, and most 9/11 arguments, for the most part.... on both sides... miss this little observation.
So its important to learn to consciously distinguish the presented facts, from the presented conclusions, as in human discourse, they are usually intertwined, and if you dont, the result is usually swallowing both, together.