Debunkers / truthers changing sides

[Dave Rogers]

Since we've had some discussion about this lately, I thought it might be interesting to see how people's views of 9-11 have changed, and who's openly changed sides in the debate, which way. It's also a flimsy excuse to try posting a poll. If the results prove the point I want to make, I shall of course pronounce them scientifically incontravertible, whereas if they don't I'll quietly leave and talk about something else on a different thread. Most likely, though, is that I'll mess up on posting the poll, in which case the second option still looks good.

So: Which side did you start out on, which side are you on now, and what tortuous route did you take to get there?

Dave

 

[defaultdotxbe]

would it be possible to see make the results of this public? i would like to see who is responding how

 

[AlexChiu]

like i posted in the gravysites thread, i used to side with the conspiracy theorists (wouldn't say i was a "fully paid truther" though) until i saw the hardfire debate between mark roberts and the loose change kids.

 

[The Doc]

I didn't really question the official story until 2004, when I saw some conspiracy theories about the Pentagon. They got me thinking/researching, but I ended up where the evidence took me.

 

[Dave Rogers]

would it be possible to see make the results of this public? i would like to see who is responding how

Dunno, I thought I had checked the "public poll" box but this is my first attempt so I may have misclicked. Since quite a few people have already voted it wouldn't be fair to change the privacy level anyway. I'm interested in just seeing the numbers, and anyone who wants to add commentary will no doubt use the thread.

For myself, I'm in category 3; I approached the subject with doubts and was convinced by the evidence that 9-11 was the work of al-Qaeda beyond reasonable doubt.

Dave

 

[Garb]

I was a truther. Trying to get the word out to teachers and stuff, being like "oh yeah, I don't really know what to say about it so I'm going to let Dylan Avery tell me what to say." I saw Screw Loose Change, and that caused me to use critical thinking skills. And here I am now.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Dunno, I thought I had checked the "public poll" box but this is my first attempt so I may have misclicked. Since quite a few people have already voted it wouldn't be fair to change the privacy level anyway. I'm interested in just seeing the numbers, and anyone who wants to add commentary will no doubt use the thread.

For myself, I'm in category 3; I approached the subject with doubts and was convinced by the evidence that 9-11 was the work of al-Qaeda beyond reasonable doubt.

Dave

im also in 3, i was very skeptical of the notion the towers could be felled by planes hitting them, and suspected additional explosives (although i still figured it was al-qaeda) after much research i came to the conclusion additional explosives werent necessary (and all this was about a year before loose change 1 came out, and i hadnt even heard any CTs about the event)

 

[CurtC]

(wouldn't say i was a "fully paid truther" though)

He did say "fully paid up truther," invoking the idea that there's an official organization that you pay dues to, not that you get paid by them. And it wasn't literal anyway.

My first encounter was the Pentagon flash video thing that came out in 2005 I think, the one with Marilyn Manson music (I remember that because it was my first time I had ever heard him as well). I watched it with the idea of "well, lets see what this is all about then." It pegged my BS meter even then.

The next I heard was when a thread showed up here at JREF called "Loose Change." The title sounded uninteresting to me, so I never read that thread until it grew to something like 20 pages and I figured I would peek in to see what the deal was. Soon after, I watched Loose Change, the first one with the pods, which damaged my sensitive BS meter.

 

[nicepants]

I've had my questions & doubts. Seeing loose change gave me more questions, but Screw Loose Change gave me most of the answers.

The debate between the LC boys & Mark Roberts reaffirmed it all. That, and seeing how truthers uniformly across the board lack any logical thinking skills.

 

[Juustin]

If 9/11 had happened when I was 10, and I was 14/15 when the theories started developing, I probably would've went through a truther phase. I grew up on a lot of rebellious punk rock, and I think my kneejerk reaction would've been "Wow, I guess the government did do it".

I still think the government needs a steady eye watching over it, and I'm by no means a "the government can do no wrong" type.

I remember years ago seeing some CT stuff on the web, mainly about the pentagon not being hit by a plane, and reading an article in a punk zine about Flight 93 being shot down. At the time, the article didn't quite go all out CT, it just made it sound as if the government was worried that 93 was going for the White House, and panicked and had it shot down, and made up a story to avoid public outcry. Both things peaked my interest. I was about 22 or so at the time. Even in my rebellious years, I was always into questions everything I heard. So naturally, I started looking up info on what these claims were.

Back at that time, there weren't a lot of debunking resourses since most of the CTs were so fresh. I had never even heard of this board. I just started thinking "What they're claiming sounds like something out of a movie, but really there's no a lot of evidence to back it up. I felt like only certain evidence was being shown to support it. I had too many questions that the CTs couldn't answer ("Even if it looks like its not a plane at the Pentagon, how could they manage to pull off everything without a hitch? How many people would have had to be involved without anyone blowing a whistle?", etc...).

So all told, my dipping my toes into the pool of twoof lasted a couple days.

 

[Minadin]

I would like to see some option(s) here that said something to the effect of, "initially had no opinion, but . . ."

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would like to see some option(s) here that said something to the effect of, "initially had no opinion, but . . ."

Yeah, maybe I should have included that. But did anyone, really, ever start out with no opinion? There was a default story to accept or reject, and it takes a very high quality of skeptic to have not even a provisional opinion either way on that story. I'm happy to assume that options 1 and 2 include "Initially had no opinion, but when I formed an opinion it was AQ/NWO and I haven't changed my mind since", if that helps.

Dave

 

[CurtC]

If you sort people into the three groups mentioned in another thread:

(1) People who haven't looked into it enough to have an informed opinion
(2) People who have looked into it and think it's an inside job
(3) People who have looked into it and believe the official story is basically right

I was in group 1 until 2005, then I saw the Pentagon flash video, did a little more investigating, and went directly to group three without passing through group 2.

I guess the question is how many people were once in group 2 who have moved to 3, and vice-versa.

 

[JMarshall]

Considering I was in the Army, in fact on a field exercise/drill (Inform the truthers, I was part of the conspiracy!), on 9-11, doesn't exactly mean I see the government as being completely infallible. What I , and twenty other guys hunched around a small black and white portable television, saw was a attack, not one with perfect precision, as truthers claim, but one that still accomplished it's mission.

None of us actually saw tower one come down, after tower two fell we were ordered to distribute the fifty cal ammo amongst the vehicles, lock and load, and fire on any aircraft we saw. Our day didn't end until 0100 the next morning, to ensure the base was secure.

The next day was when we finally had a chance to catch up with the news, and what we heard enraged most of us, in fact our company commander steeped down from his command, on the grounds of being Muslim, which we all knew but had never, and would never make a big deal about it, he was our commander and that's all we needed to know.

The few early CTs that circulated all seamed too off the wall, too laughable to be taken seriously, and as such from the beginning I have always believed, and to this day, without definitive proof to the contrary, believe Terrorists committed this crime. Long story short that puts me in the number one category.

 

[Trakar]

Since we've had some discussion about this lately, I thought it might be interesting to see how people's views of 9-11 have changed, and who's openly changed sides in the debate, which way. It's also a flimsy excuse to try posting a poll. If the results prove the point I want to make, I shall of course pronounce them scientifically incontravertible, whereas if they don't I'll quietly leave and talk about something else on a different thread. Most likely, though, is that I'll mess up on posting the poll, in which case the second option still looks good.

So: Which side did you start out on, which side are you on now, and what tortuous route did you take to get there?

Dave

Unfortunately, like most polls regarding such issues, there is rarely a perfect fit answer, for my considerations and perspective.

1) Yes, I believe that the hijackings were planned and carried out by radical Islamic terrorists. I further believe that the towers collapsed due to a combination of the effects of impact and fires. I believe that WTC7 collapsed due to the combination of damage from the falling towers and fires. The Pentagon was damaged by one of the hijacked planes being flown into it. And the crash in Shanksville was the result of the passengers fighting to regain control of their hijacked aircraft.

That being said;

2) Many elements of this administration have acted in a very obstructionist and heel-dragging manner with regards to the investigation of this issue and the implementation of remedial measures prescribed by the preliminary investigations thus far. I sincerely hope that such is just an issue of trying to coverup and conceal what appears to be an inherent and ingrained pattern of incompetence and negiligence. But, given this appearance, and the fact that it has proven itself capable of committing treasonous actions in the pursuit of minor domestic political squabbles, its not hard to understand how and why more than a few suspect them of a much greater criminal complicity with regards to the events of 9/11. And personally, I have a hard time completely dismissing the possiblity myself.

Regardless, I would agree with any call for a much more thorough and complete investigation of the entire issue.

So, which is the best answer on your poll to fit this position?
(Oh, btw I haven't changed much in these opinions since 9/11, except that I have become much more suspicious and circumspect with regards to this administration and its capacity for committing crimes)

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, which is the best answer on your poll to fit this position?

I'd say the best fit is 7, given that you clearly don't feel there is sufficient evidence either way to be certain - I'm assuming that you feel that LIHOP or MIHOP-lite is a credible but unproven scenario. Thanks for the clarification.

Dave

 

[Minadin]

Yeah, maybe I should have included that. But did anyone, really, ever start out with no opinion? There was a default story to accept or reject, and it takes a very high quality of skeptic to have not even a provisional opinion either way on that story. I'm happy to assume that options 1 and 2 include "Initially had no opinion, but when I formed an opinion it was AQ/NWO and I haven't changed my mind since", if that helps.

Dave

Your terms are accepted. I choose Option 1.

 

[Sabrina]

Considering I was in the Army, in fact on a field exercise/drill (Inform the truthers, I was part of the conspiracy!), on 9-11, doesn't exactly mean I see the government as being completely infallible. What I , and twenty other guys hunched around a small black and white portable television, saw was a attack, not one with perfect precision, as truthers claim, but one that still accomplished it's mission.

None of us actually saw tower one come down, after tower two fell we were ordered to distribute the fifty cal ammo amongst the vehicles, lock and load, and fire on any aircraft we saw. Our day didn't end until 0100 the next morning, to ensure the base was secure.

The next day was when we finally had a chance to catch up with the news, and what we heard enraged most of us, in fact our company commander steeped down from his command, on the grounds of being Muslim, which we all knew but had never, and would never make a big deal about it, he was our commander and that's all we needed to know.

The few early CTs that circulated all seamed too off the wall, too laughable to be taken seriously, and as such from the beginning I have always believed, and to this day, without definitive proof to the contrary, believe Terrorists committed this crime. Long story short that puts me in the number one category.

Welcome to a fellow Army member!

I was in the number one category from the start; my first exposure to the idea that there were CTs about 9/11 was the Pentagon Strike flash video forwarded to me on the MSNBC board by someone who wanted my opinion on it. I told her I thought it was utter nonsense after watching it, but it piqued my interest and I started looking into the subject. I'd now consider myself a beginner debunker with a specialty area in the intelligence knowledge arena; I say beginner because there's still a lot I'm learning, and I doubt I'd ever have the time or inclination to do something along the lines of what Gravy or R.Mackey or even Frank Greening did with their papers and whatnot.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Hooah, Army in the hizzouse.

 

[JMarshall]

I'd now consider myself a beginner debunker with a specialty area in the intelligence knowledge arena; I say beginner because there's still a lot I'm learning, and I doubt I'd ever have the time or inclination to do something along the lines of what Gravy or R.Mackey or even Frank Greening did with their papers and whatnot.

Thank you, and I know what you mean. I too would say I am a beginner but my specialty is in the explosives and demolition area. In fact, my knowledge in the field prompted me to come to JREF, in order to help, but at the moment don't have the drive to write papers on the subject. Right now I much prefer to support others than lead.