What if Debunkers had joined the 9-11 Truthers?

[Thunder]

What would have happened, if instead of being 9-11 Truth, all the Debunkers from JREF and other forums and media, had joined 9-11 Truth and vehemently advocated that 9-11 was an inside job?

1. There would have at least been a new investigation.

2. There would have been a new investigation and possibly impeachment.

3. There would have been a new investigation, impeachment, and maybe
even a revolution.

3. Nothing would have changed one single bit. We would be right where
we are now. A failed Truth Movement.


...personally, I say we would be right where we are now. I corpse of a movement, with a few cockaroaches still spreading the lies.

[Mancman]

If it was simply the same old garbage coming from a few different mouths, no difference.

[Redtail]

New investigation and possibly impeachment.

I say this because unlike many of "teh info warriors" many of us would ditch the computers and actually leave the couch and protest. If I truly believed that at best the government was lying about what they knew and when, or at worst was behind the attacks I would be out there every chance I got no matter what the sacrifice if for nothing else out of respect of my family who never sat down when they saw such a great wrong and I know I'm not the only one.

[Thunder]

well, just because i have family friends in government, and just because i know how to politely approach the media with info, doesnt mean they would take the info any more seriously once they really looked into it.

insane info...is still insane info.

[Redtail]

well, just because i have family friends in government, and just because i know how to politely approach the media with info, doesnt mean they would take the info any more seriously once they really looked into it.

insane info...is still insane info.

True, but enough bad press can make a politician do almost anything.

[Thunder]

so, you are suggesting our lack of involvemant, and working against them, may have actually had a dramatic effect on their success?

aww..thats too bad aint it?

=)

[negativ]

What would have happened, if instead of being 9-11 Truth, all the Debunkers from JREF and other forums and media, had joined 9-11 Truth and vehemently advocated that 9-11 was an inside job?

Nothing would be different. JREF isn't exactly a vast, influential group.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No change.

There aren't a lot of people, I think, that could be classified as "debunkers", but even if there were... popularity doesn't determine reality.

[Redtail]

so, you are suggesting our lack of involvemant, and working against them, may have actually had a dramatic effect on their success?

aww..thats too bad aint it?

=)

:D Don't get me wrong, in all honesty that was just the closest thing to fit what I think would happen. I do believe if enough people were motivated enough there would be a new investigation. That said same conclusion, same president, same people claiming investigation was rigged.

[Redtail]

No change.

There aren't a lot of people, I think, that could be classified as "debunkers", but even if there were... popularity doesn't determine reality.

Paris. Hilton.:boxedin:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Paris. Hilton.:boxedin:


OK, OK... so Gravy might have gotten a reality show, but that wasn't a poll option. :p

[gumboot]

Well it depends how far you extend the hypothetical. Given that our position is one based on factual evidence and reality, were we in the "Truther" camp it would mean that 9/11 actually was an inside job or whatever, and that there was evidence to support it, in which case professional experts in relevant fields would we aware of this evidence. So I think it would make an enormous difference. All of the difference.

If you just mean "what if debunkers were deluded fools like the Truth Movement" then the answer is no difference.

[Thunder]

Well it depends how far you extend the hypothetical. Given that our position is one based on factual evidence and reality, were we in the "Truther" camp it would mean that 9/11 actually was an inside job or whatever, and that there was evidence to support it, in which case professional experts in relevant fields would we aware of this evidence. So I think it would make an enormous difference. All of the difference.

If you just mean "what if debunkers were deluded fools like the Truth Movement" then the answer is no difference.

very good point. if we believed 9-11 was an inside job...so would the rest of the country with us.

[CHF]

Well if I was a twoofer I would have spent the past few years contacting experts to show them my "evidence" and get them on-side.

If I could have gathered enough support from enough experts and organizations then a new investigation would be far more likely than it is now.

And if I couldn't rally enough support then I would have started to question whether or not I really had the "truth" after all.

In other words, I would have actually done something useful but in the end it would have made no difference.

[eromitlab]

very good point. if we believed 9-11 was an inside job...so would the rest of the country with us.

...and the act that some truthists try to push, that only the neocons, the "in on it", the Fox News Kool-aid drinkers and the paid shills on the Internets still buy the "official story" and everyone else subscribes to truthism, would actually be true.

Voted no difference, because we'd all wind up polarizing into different groups and would still spent all the time making videos and calling the other groups disinfo/cointelpro/agents/shills/whatever.

[Dr Adequate]

Then the conspiracy theory would be less frickin' stupid. It would probably go something like this.

I think maybe the government tried to fool us into thinking that terrorists crashed planes into the Twin Towers by crashing planes into the Twin Towers and blaming it on terrorists.

The stupid thing about CTs is that every bit of nonsense they add on makes their hypothesis less plausible. Controlled demolition, missiles disguised as planes, Larry Silverstein saying "pull", holograms, silent nukes, "fell in its own footprint" ... the task of constructing a non-stupid CT is beyond them.

[CurtC]

So you're asking what would happen if the maybe few thousand truthers had, instead of being opposed by several dozen "debunkers" (I hate that word), had actually been joined by a few more dozen people and not had our opposing views to counter them?

There would have been more people swayed into the truth movement, but still would have been a resounding lack of evidence, so no major difference.

Is there a middle-ground choice in your poll between numbers 1 and 4?

[PhantomWolf]

If I was a truther and firmly believed I had the evidence, I'd be contacting KSM's lawyers and presenting it to them so they can bring it before a court of law.

[1337m4n]

There would still be no evidence for 9/11 Truth so nothing would change. Truthers waste their time by coming here trying to debunk the debunkers, when they should be spending that time presenting their evidence to the world. But they can't, because they don't have any.

If I was a Truther, it would mean that I was not thinking and not using my head. People would be perfectly justified in ridiculing me, and rejecting my ideas for lack of evidence.

Debunkers joining Truthers does not make Truthers right, it makes Debunkers wrong.

[Minadin]

If "debunkers" had joined 9-11 conspiracy theorists, I assume that to mean that there would be a lot more verifiable evidence behind their claims than there is currently. (They'd have to be relatively free of 'bunk', right?)

And, since the skeptical community seems to be a lot more motivated and have a lot more resolve and resources than the conspiracy theorists, I would have to think that the end result would be some sort of new investigation. Though, it would perhaps be conducted not by some "official" entity, but by private citizens worldwide.

It's difficult to say what the repurcussions of such an investigation would be, without being privvy to the evidence. Obviously, if it turned out to be what it is now, there would be no change, at all, and the 'debunkers' would cease to be joined with the conspiracy theorists.

[Sizzler]

This is a really good question, one which I often think about, yet have no answer for. Props to OP.

[beachnut]

There would be no truth movement. There would only be evidence of the truth. Too bad truther lack the capability to be skeptical about their movement of lies and fantasies.


If debunkers were in the movement, there would be no 9/11 truth...

If debunkers were in the movement there would be no nut case ideas, there would be a physics test for admission. The movement would be a truth movement, not lies and a bunch of people with total ignorance on 9/11 chanting inside job, like zombies.

Fact and evidence would be required, 19 terrorist would be found the cause, not a bunch of lies and fantasies from terrorist apologist who run the movement now.

[DC]

There would be no truth movement. There would only be evidence of the truth. Too bad truther lack the capability to be skeptical about their movement of lies and fantasies.


If debunkers were in the movement, there would be no 9/11 truth...

hey kid, are you done with your rantings?
full moon today?

[The Doc]

If there was no vocal opposition to these conspiracy theories, they would be accepted as fact. People would have bought into them when they noted that no one had an answer to the "evidence" presented.

I believe this situation is overwhelmingly implausible though. First of all, we have to define properly who "debunkers" are. Are NIST debunkers (being that they essentially debunk the conspiracy theories)? Does that make the people who tried Moussaoui debunkers? These people took a compeltely impartial view on the cases presented to them and came out with a result that didn't favour the conspiracists. This means that the evidence itself, if you'll allow me to personify it, is a "debunker". A debunker that, even in a hypothetical situation, could not possibly side with the conspiracists.

Being that the facts simply do not side with the conspiracists, it's hard to imagine a situation where everyone who can be considered a debunker joined their movement. This is simply because the conspiracists have no impartial members in their movement.

[Thunder]

hey kid, are you done with your rantings?
full moon today?

are you done trolling yet?

[Thunder]

If there was no vocal opposition to these conspiracy theories, they would be accepted as fact. People would have bought into them when they noted that no one had an answer to the "evidence" presented.

I believe this situation is overwhelmingly implausible though. First of all, we have to define properly who "debunkers" are. Are NIST debunkers (being that they essentially debunk the conspiracy theories)? Does that make the people who tried Moussaoui debunkers? These people took a compeltely impartial view on the cases presented to them and came out with a result that didn't favour the conspiracists. This means that the evidence itself, if you'll allow me to personify it, is a "debunker". A debunker that, even in a hypothetical situation, could not possibly side with the conspiracists.

Being that the facts simply do not side with the conspiracists, it's hard to imagine a situation where everyone who can be considered a debunker joined their movement. This is simply because the conspiracists have no impartial members in their movement.


Im actually of the opinion that the American people are smart enough to see insane bs when it hits them in the face. Without active debunkers, Im pretty sure the Truth Movement would have very little more success then it has now.

[GregoryUrich]

New investigation and possibly impeachment.

I say this because unlike many of "teh info warriors" many of us would ditch the computers and actually leave the couch and protest. If I truly believed that at best the government was lying about what they knew and when, or at worst was behind the attacks I would be out there every chance I got no matter what the sacrifice if for nothing else out of respect of my family who never sat down when they saw such a great wrong and I know I'm not the only one.

Redtail, there are more than 80 specific cases (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases) of warnings as reported by conventional media (according to The Complete 9/11 Timeline). The reports, however, vary in terms of reliability, specificty and urgency.

I am starting a project to classify them in terms of specificity, reliability and urgency. It would be helpful to have someone with your perspective rate them as well. Would you be interested in working on this?

BTW, if you think the truth movement is just sitting on the couch, you should do some research.

[Dave Rogers]

Redtail, there are more than 80 specific cases (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases) of warnings as reported by conventional media (according to The Complete 9/11 Timeline). The reports, however, vary in terms of reliability, specificty and urgency.

I am starting a project to classify them in terms of specificity, reliability and urgency. It would be helpful to have someone with your perspective rate them as well. Would you be interested in working on this?

I'll say right now that I don't have the time to work on this, but I think it might be an interesting project and I'd be interested to see your results. What concerns me, though, is the need for a control sample to establish a baseline. What you need to establish is not how many warnings can be identified that point to the attack that occurred, but how this number and range of warnings differs from what would be expected if either no attack occurred, or if a radically different attack occurred. For example (and this is intended just as an illustrative example, not a statement of opinion or fact), if 80 specific cases of warnings against a terrorist attack were not a particularly unusual state of affairs, then nothing could be read into the fact that on this occasion no action was taken in response to those 80 warnings. Do you have any ideas on how to establish a suitable baseline for comparison?

Dave

[Thunder]

yes...there were warnings..and the Bush administration failed to actively pay attention to them. that is not a conspiracy.