• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Former conspiracy believer here

RedIbis said:
The best question was asked by Vincent:

To which Diagoras responded:


Must have been quite a source to inspire such a revelation.
Click to expand...
Letting go of a belief usually happens in increments, not just in one big insight. It usually starts with a barely-conscious doubt that's more intuitive than anything else. You start seeking out contra-evidence to your belief, and you find pieces of it very convincing but you tell yourself that you just haven't yet seen the belief-supporting evidence that explains it. Slowly, the argument against your belief becomes substantial enough that you decide it's time to really weigh it against your belief, and you find that your belief has been torn to shreds and you can no longer justify to yourself holding onto it. This is a huge, insightful moment, but you can't often peg it to just one or two discreet sources.

Edit: Diagoras' post is essentially as I described:
Diagoras said:
It wasn't an overnight thing. It's not like I woke up one day and said "hey, the conspiracy theory isn't true!" It was a gradual doubting of my beliefs, followed by a brief period of not caring which side was right but still kind of believing the conspiracy anyways, followed ultimately by a gradual increase in confidence that radical Islamic jihadists were responsible. Over that time I examined many different sources on both sides of the issue, and I honestly don't remember what all those sources were. It was a couple years ago after all. No one thing convinced me to believe in the theory in the first place, and no one thing convinced me it was wrong. I don't get why you insist that my vaguery here is some indication that the whole story is a fabrication.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Diagoras said:
I don't remember exactly. It was a combination of things. One was simply arguing the issue on another forum with people who didn't buy the conspiracy. One was the awesome episode of Penn and Teller's BS on conspiracy theories. Another was the Popular Mechanics website. I'm sure there were more, but I can't think of them right now.
Click to expand...

And it is amazing how peer pressure amongst truthers pretty much chastise anyone for even mentioning those sources. Rather than debate the merits of, say the PM articles, they'll just say "*pshaw!* That's been debunked by our high and mighty Elder. I don't need to read it!"

Welcome!

And don't mind the local truthers who will try to call you disinfo. If anything think of it as if you just got out of a cult. What would current cult members think of you? They'll do whatever they can to marginalize you.

Don't let them.
 
Diagoras said:
Again, why do you think that there must be one source of information that changed my entire perspective? How often does one source of information change anybody's perspective? Seldom do people make huge changes in their worldviews overnight.
Click to expand...

Fine, name one of the many sources that convinced you the official story was conclusive.
 
RedIbis said:
Fine, name one of the many sources that convinced you the official story was conclusive.
Click to expand...

He already did.


Originally Posted by Diagoras View Post
I don't remember exactly. It was a combination of things. One was simply arguing the issue on another forum with people who didn't buy the conspiracy. One was the awesome episode of Penn and Teller's BS on conspiracy theories. Another was the Popular Mechanics website. I'm sure there were more, but I can't think of them right now.
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
If he can't even name the source of the information which changed his entire perspective and convinced him "conspiracy theories" were bs and the official story is conclusive, I doubt such a revelation ever took place.
Click to expand...
What was the source of information which convinced you that the "official conspiracy theory" was bs? Do you still consider this source conclusive?

EDIT: DAMMIT I'm slow today...
HyJinX said:
Name one of the many sources that convinced you the official story was not conclusive.
Click to expand...
 
Welcome to the forum, Diagoras. You're not the first ex-truther we've gotten here, by any means, and you won't be the last (I hope.)

I commend you for 1) being intellectually honest enough to realize that the Truthers' story doesn't hold water and 2) having sufficient strength of character to admit that you were wrong. You could have just sneaked in and started posting without mentioning the error of your ways, but you were stand-up guy (or girl) enough to say "I was wrong." It takes guts to do that, particularly in front of a forum full of people who are, shall we say, not terribly receptive to the Truth movement's stuff.

Again, welcome. I think you'll like it here.
 
HyJinX said:
Name one of the many sources that convinced you the official story was not conclusive.
Click to expand...

The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, FEMA's WTC report, cooperativeresearch.org, WPI's analysis of WTC 7 steel, same day video, photos, witness accounts...

should I go on?
 
RedIbis said:
This is an obvious work. The reasons are too many to list.

[qimg]http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/hooklinesinker.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...



It could be a work... But I doubt. If I was 16 or 17 I probably would have lopped this junk right up.... I think I flirted with creationism whn I was that young, fell for NBC's Ancient Mysteries and even wanted one of Kevin Trudeu's speed reading programs (or it may have been Mega Memory, I forget). But it's not uncommon to believe this crap when you're young, only to grow out of it.
 
RedIbis said:
The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, FEMA's WTC report, cooperativeresearch.org, WPI's analysis of WTC 7 steel, same day video, photos, witness accounts...

should I go on?
Click to expand...
"...same day video, photos, witness accounts..."
These are extremely vague answers.

How did reading the official reports "change your entire perspective" about the official story?

The only source I see here that might qualify as equivalent to what you are demanding of Diagoras is cooperativeresearch.org. Was it reading that website that produced your "A-HA!" moment?
 
If I was 17, I'd have fallen for the conspiracy junk also.

You get smarter as you get older. (uncle Fetzer excepted).
 
Tide Changes.

I'd be more shocked if someone changed their whole opinion based on one line of information, or one source than if they somehow over a long period of time wound up believing something entirely different after many different influences.

This is likely to be held especially true in the case of deeply held beliefs. The instant converts very likely held little faith in the first place. The die hards, or at least deeper followers have to have their beliefs eroded to the point where they will be willing to accept information contrary to their doctrine of choice.

Then again there's the die hards that refuse to challenge beliefs. I might classify those as ones that had their faith tested, and "passed," thus vailidating what they believe in, or those that failed their test, but are unwilling to accept that failure, as it undermines their reality and who they are, thus the challenges must be avoided to prevent temptation to remit to a disbeliever status.

As to the nature of the original poster, if you're going to doubt his story, perhaps take into effect the possible cynical perspective that he's trying to ingratiate himself to a new social group, now obviously rejecting his previous social cluster. So in that, someone who's honestly now a disbeliever might simply be being overly friendly to gain acceptance (which, if this is the case, is totally understandable given human social dynamics, as we all do this when making friends within a totally new environment).

Of course, this is all psycho-babble from someone who has nothing to do with that line of work. I for one, welcome someone who can do some thinking for themselves, and move beyond the key phase of anti-thesis when it comes to considering the September 11th attacks. Of course, like I have any authority here, given my dozen or so posts.
 
RedIbis said:
The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, FEMA's WTC report, cooperativeresearch.org, WPI's analysis of WTC 7 steel, same day video, photos, witness accounts...

should I go on?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Ya gotta love the little fella.
 
Has anyone told the newbies that they have to get the first round in?
 
Here is a list of what has proven to me that the CTs about 9/11 are snake oil...

Loose Change, PrisonPlanet.com, Scholars for 9/11 truth, A/E for 9/11 truth, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 truth, DRG, S.Jones, Patriotsquestion911.com...I could go on.

Among them, not a single bit of hard evidence to prove to me that the official story is wrong.

TAM:)
 
lordofwaffles said:
I'd be more shocked if someone changed their whole opinion based on one line of information, or one source than if they somehow over a long period of time wound up believing something entirely different after many different influences.

This is likely to be held especially true in the case of deeply held beliefs. The instant converts very likely held little faith in the first place. The die hards, or at least deeper followers have to have their beliefs eroded to the point where they will be willing to accept information contrary to their doctrine of choice.

Then again there's the die hards that refuse to challenge beliefs. I might classify those as ones that had their faith tested, and "passed," thus vailidating what they believe in, or those that failed their test, but are unwilling to accept that failure, as it undermines their reality and who they are, thus the challenges must be avoided to prevent temptation to remit to a disbeliever status.

As to the nature of the original poster, if you're going to doubt his story, perhaps take into effect the possible cynical perspective that he's trying to ingratiate himself to a new social group, now obviously rejecting his previous social cluster. So in that, someone who's honestly now a disbeliever might simply be being overly friendly to gain acceptance (which, if this is the case, is totally understandable given human social dynamics, as we all do this when making friends within a totally new environment).

Of course, this is all psycho-babble from someone who has nothing to do with that line of work. I for one, welcome someone who can do some thinking for themselves, and move beyond the key phase of anti-thesis when it comes to considering the September 11th attacks. Of course, like I have any authority here, given my dozen or so posts.
Click to expand...
Thought provoking post.

I can't remember exactly what made me stop believing in god, for example. As you said it was a series of things, not some "Eureka" moment.

Perhaps you should post more. :)


And welcome to Diagoras.
 
Diagoras, welcome to the forum, and thank you for sharing your insights. Congratulations on finding your way out of the woo.

Welcome, also, to lordofwaffles, Caper, and Whack01. :welcome4
 
chipmunk stew said:
"...same day video, photos, witness accounts..."
These are extremely vague answers.

How did reading the official reports "change your entire perspective" about the official story?

The only source I see here that might qualify as equivalent to what you are demanding of Diagoras is cooperativeresearch.org. Was it reading that website that produced your "A-HA!" moment?
Click to expand...

The "A-HA!" moment for the vast majority of "Truthers" almost certainly occurred when Bush decided to invade Iraq. It's as simple as that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom