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!:D), 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.

[TShaitanaku]

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!:D), 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! :w2:

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.

[Sparky]

After the 2nd plane hit I knew it was a terrorist attack. Since I work in the construction industry (fire protection engineering) I knew the effect the fires were going to have on the buildings so there was and is absolutely no way anyone was going to convince me of any CD scenario.

[NikZeta302]

I live in Austin and when I was 15 I heard Alex Jones ranting on the TV I was nodding my head (since all 15 year olds hate people of power), then I matured and found skepticism.

PS I was I never thought was a CD

[SpitfireIX]

Although I'd had a passing interest in conspiracism from studying Pearl Harbor and JFK (I was utterly convinced that Pearl Harbor LIHOP theories were garbage; I wasn't so sure about JFK inside-job ones), I didn't really become interested in debunking until I saw a news item in 2002 about Buzz Aldrin's punching Bart Sibrel; before that I'd assumed that the only fake moon-landing theories were those made up by the editors of the Weekly World News.

The idea actually believed things like this struck me as so utterly bizarre and silly that it piqued my curiosity, and I started doing research on the Internet. I soon discovered badastronomy.com and clavius.org, and I started lurking on the badastronomy (now the BAUT) forum.

On February 1, 2003, the day Columbia was lost, I was visiting friends in Indianapolis, and one friend's cousin, who teaches history, told me that he sometimes had students ask him if the moon landings were faked. Wrong day to tell me that! I was so outraged that I decided to become a debunker, so I joined badastronomy.com

In the summer of 2003 I went back to school full-time (first in CADD, later in Mechanical Engineering), and I had to periodically take breaks of several months from badastronomy.com. Upon returning from one such break, I noticed several long threads discussing September 11 conspiracism. That was absolutely my first exposure to the subject. I'd never questioned the official account (in fact, on the morning of September 11, when I called my best friend, who works in Washington, D.C., I said, "I wouldn't be selling life insurance to Osama bin Laden."), and when I saw how Jay Windley and other moon-hoax debunkers squashed the September 11 theories, I was sure they were utterly without merit. Nothing I've seen since has given me any significant reason to think otherwise.

[TShaitanaku]

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

That didn't fit from my perspective, because I'm rather clear cut as to the issue of what happened on 9/11, I'm just not at all excluding that administration crimes (of negligence, or more remotely, complicity) aren't potential factors before and since the events of 9/11.

LIHOP? MIHOP-lite?

[TShaitanaku]

cut of double post

[Bell]

I believe it was al-Qaeda, and always have.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm a 3. While I was never a truther and always thought their claims were ridiculous, but at the same time as I watched the hasty attempts to cover behinds and point the finger elsewhere I did have questions about how it was possible for these guys to have been missed and allowed to act right under the noses of the people charged with protecting the US. The more I have researched it the more I am convinced that it was not in any deliberate way, but rather through arrogance in their continued belief they would not be attacked on their home soil even after they had been twice, and after repeated attacks by Al Qaeda that were increasing in audiciousness and scope, through their ignorance of the Middle Eastern psyche and especially that of the Jihadi, their total lack of understanding of the Islamic Relegion/Politics mixture, and their incompetence in relying totally on the systems they built around themselves without ever bothering to stretch those systems to breaking point because of their failure to imagine a worst case senario coming true. One simple excersie between the FAA and NORAD where multiple planes were hijacked simulaneously would have shown up the glaring holes in the system, but those responsible failed repeatedly to listen to though beneath them and never tested it. As has been said many times, the system was blinking red, but all the watch dogs were alseep.

[Dave Rogers]

That didn't fit from my perspective, because I'm rather clear cut as to the issue of what happened on 9/11, I'm just not at all excluding that administration crimes (of negligence, or more remotely, complicity) aren't potential factors before and since the events of 9/11.

LIHOP? MIHOP-lite?

LIHOP is Let It Happen On Purpose, which sounds like something you wouldn't exclude. I use MIHOP-lite to refer to the belief that the attacks were carried out exactly as is conventionally understood, but that the ultimate impetus came not from Osama bin Laden but from agents within the US secret services controlling him. If you view these as possible but unlikely then I'd place you in 1, 3 or 5; if you regard them as serious suspicions that's more like 7. Don't get too hung up on it though, it's only a straw poll that doesn't really prove anything.

Dave

[gumboot]

I chose "I may have questioned the official story, but after I researched it I was convinced it was Al Qaeda".

I didn't actually really question the official account, because I didn't really become aware of the official account until I was researching it, by which time the evidence pointed to Al Qaeda. However, prior to researching it, had anyone asked me if I thought the government's version was wrong, I would have said "I don't know. Maybe."

-Gumboot

[The Silver Shadow]

When these theories came about, I was around 16-17. I had common sense, but I didn't know how to utilize it! Obviously, I hated the US government, but then I thought, "who is the government exactly?" So you could say that I was in between being a skeptic and being a truther. This is where I started questioning the questions and saw that the 9/11 truth movement was bunk. I saw the first bit of evidence while investigating and thought "oh that's just probably an error and you can't always be perfect," but this kept happening over and over again until I got really peed off about it.

[TShaitanaku]

LIHOP is Let It Happen On Purpose, which sounds like something you wouldn't exclude. I use MIHOP-lite to refer to the belief that the attacks were carried out exactly as is conventionally understood, but that the ultimate impetus came not from Osama bin Laden but from agents within the US secret services controlling him. If you view these as possible but unlikely then I'd place you in 1, 3 or 5; if you regard them as serious suspicions that's more like 7. Don't get too hung up on it though, it's only a straw poll that doesn't really prove anything.

Dave


Coitenly!

I'm just trying to get a good handle on it myself, and I've really only talked much about it a few times with a relatively small group of people (of extremely polarized perspective). I guess I'm potentially open to LIHOP possibilities, but it would have to be supported by a lot of direct evidence that I haven't seen, yet. I would have to place these at the extreme edge of possibility, at least from my current position. I tend to be much more open to crimes of negligence, carelessness and arrogant incompetence, rather than deliberate and calculated treason and murderous tyranny,...but, I've been wrong in this respect with regards to this administration before, so I guess it wouldn't destroy any precious world-models if I were presented with hard evidence compellingly indicating either LIHOP or MIHOP, but it would take quite a bit of unambiguous, compelling, empiric evidence to get me to accept that.

But yeah, LIHOP or MIHOP, extremely unlikely, I could be dragged to the possibility, but it would require unambiguous hard evidence before I'd begin upgrading potential of "likely."

The attacks of 9/11 planned and executed by al Qaeda extremists. The damages fully consistent with crashes and fires.

Political elements within the government negligent, careless and arrogantly incompetent prior to attacks, and acting with opportunistic manipulation, extreme overreach, and tyrannical entitlement to promote self-serving, nation neglecting/damaging goals after, and in response to, the attacks.

Oh well, guess that helps me to sort things out a bit.

[uk_dave]

I've gone for the Planet X option.

From now on I shall be skeptical of all official explanations of major events unless a conspiracy theory pops up, in which case I shall then wholeheartedly embrace the official account.

Today we had major flood alerts along the east coast in the expectation of a massive tidal surge. In the event, the surge was much less than expected and damage was kept to a minimum. But as a precaution large numbers of people were evacuated from their homes. I would like to believe that this was a prudent measure which happened to turn out to be unnecessary. However, until I hear a conspiracy theory regarding the evil government's devious plan to install (Redacted) in peoples houses while they were evacuated, I shall view the official account with extreme skepticism.

C'mon 'truthers', don't let me down.

[Sabrina]

Coitenly!

I'm just trying to get a good handle on it myself, and I've really only talked much about it a few times with a relatively small group of people (of extremely polarized perspective). I guess I'm potentially open to LIHOP possibilities, but it would have to be supported by a lot of direct evidence that I haven't seen, yet. I would have to place these at the extreme edge of possibility, at least from my current position. I tend to be much more open to crimes of negligence, carelessness and arrogant incompetence, rather than deliberate and calculated treason and murderous tyranny,...but, I've been wrong in this respect with regards to this administration before, so I guess it wouldn't destroy any precious world-models if I were presented with hard evidence compellingly indicating either LIHOP or MIHOP, but it would take quite a bit of unambiguous, compelling, empiric evidence to get me to accept that.

But yeah, LIHOP or MIHOP, extremely unlikely, I could be dragged to the possibility, but it would require unambiguous hard evidence before I'd begin upgrading potential of "likely."

The attacks of 9/11 planned and executed by al Qaeda extremists. The damages fully consistent with crashes and fires.

Political elements within the government negligent, careless and arrogantly incompetent prior to attacks, and acting with opportunistic manipulation, extreme overreach, and tyrannical entitlement to promote self-serving, nation neglecting/damaging goals after, and in response to, the attacks.

Oh well, guess that helps me to sort things out a bit.

We typically call that LIHOIA (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance and Arrogance) around here. I believe TAM came up with the term (please correct me if I'm wrong though, TAM!) and it's along the lines of what I espouse as well. I work, currently, within the US Intelligence Community, and at every opportunity I found I've questioned intel professionals who were working on 9/11 as to what they knew prior to the day. Everything I've heard indicates, to me, that LIHOIA is the most likely explanation.

[CurtC]

Is LIHOIA pronounced like the town in California?

[Dave Rogers]

Is LIHOIA pronounced like the town in California?

I thought it was the kind of tree the Keebler elves live in.

Dave

[niloroth]

first time i saw loose change, i remember thinking, this has to be BS. It was just a gut reaction, and since i like to go by more than a gut reaction, i started researching the facts and events. (real research, not the truther type of research involving just watching yet another CT video) I havn''t looked back since, and am constantly amazed at the lack of knowledge, logic and understanding from the truthers.

[Brainache]

first time i saw loose change, i remember thinking, this has to be BS. It was just a gut reaction, and since i like to go by more than a gut reaction, i started researching the facts and events. (real research, not the truther type of research involving just watching yet another CT video) I havn''t looked back since, and am constantly amazed at the lack of knowledge, logic and understanding from the truthers.

Yeah, right... You are obviously some kimd of agent, but because I'm too tired to deal with this I'm going tolsleepppp

[LashL]

Interesting thread, and poll results. Great idea, Dave.

[Alferd_Packer]

One day, back in 1999, or 2000, I was poking around the EZ-board site when I stumbled on a group devoted to debunking chemtrails. I had never heard of them before. I quickly figured out that the chemtrail claims were garbage and have been happily battling woo ever since.

ETA: I voted for Planet X. Nancy Leider is by far the wackiest of the wack jobs out there.

[Diagoras]

Used to be a Truther, got cured...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think I was "barely-LIHOP" right after the attacks. The weekend after 9/11 I remember making a comment to some friends around the dinner table about the "stand down".

I think that was about it, though, but I went with #3.

[boloboffin]

I voted May have questioned/It's Al Qaeda, and I shall explain that.

I really had questions about response and our involvement in the Middle East. Evidence has completely settled all those questions. If there was any leaning in my heart and mind, it was to the mildest of LIHOP and only as a way to rigorously question and find the evidence.

Things like Lawrence Wright's book and analyses I've found here have more than settled any of those questions.

[1337m4n]

Let me guess who voted the 6th option...

...LastChild.

[Blender Head]

I was only 14 when it happened, and I can remember, in the wake of the attacks, making an absurd post on a band's message board asking Bush to 'nuke the Middle East'. A few years later I saw the Pentagon Flash video and a few sites questioning what happened to U93, and thought, for around a month, that they MIHOP. I then watched LC and scurried for explanations until I found the LC Fieldguide while browsing Something Awful's message board. I was an 'in-out-in' skeptic and am now a full-fledged debunker (until some substantial evidence comes out).

[orphia nay]

Let me guess who voted the 6th option...

...LastChild.

How did you know I was thinking that? Oh, silly me - yes, my NWO mind-control chip is working, Master.

[Mobyseven]

Would it be brash of me to ask the people who have 'turned' either way (on both sides) to identify themselves and give a brief explanation? I'd ask that these explanations be free from criticism too - just a chance for everyone to tell a story.

I voted 'always believed it was al-qaeda'. I was 13 when it happened, and it was only last year that I found out that conspiracy theories existed about the event.

[Nick227]

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

I started getting interested in and believing in conspiracy theories in the late 90s. I believed 911 was an inside job when it happened, whether undertaken by Al Qaeda or not. I still do.

Couple of things. Are the JREF forum a good sample to use statistically? Most seem to me predominantly OT, and skeptical by nature. I guess it would depend on what proposals you intend to support or refute by the study.

Nice idea!

Nick

[Vincent Vega]

Although I'd had a passing interest in conspiracism from studying Pearl Harbor and JFK (I was utterly convinced that Pearl Harbor LIHOP theories were garbage; I wasn't so sure about JFK inside-job ones), I didn't really become interested in debunking until I saw a news item in 2002 about Buzz Aldrin's punching Bart Sibrel; before that I'd assumed that the only fake moon-landing theories were those made up by the editors of the Weekly World News.

The idea actually believed things like this struck me as so utterly bizarre and silly that it piqued my curiosity, and I started doing research on the Internet. I soon discovered badastronomy.com and clavius.org, and I started lurking on the badastronomy (now the BAUT) forum.

On February 1, 2003, the day Columbia was lost, I was visiting friends in Indianapolis, and one friend's cousin, who teaches history, told me that he sometimes had students ask him if the moon landings were faked. Wrong day to tell me that! I was so outraged that I decided to become a debunker, so I joined badastronomy.com

In the summer of 2003 I went back to school full-time (first in CADD, later in Mechanical Engineering), and I had to periodically take breaks of several months from badastronomy.com. Upon returning from one such break, I noticed several long threads discussing September 11 conspiracism. That was absolutely my first exposure to the subject. I'd never questioned the official account (in fact, on the morning of September 11, when I called my best friend, who works in Washington, D.C., I said, "I wouldn't be selling life insurance to Osama bin Laden."), and when I saw how Jay Windley and other moon-hoax debunkers squashed the September 11 theories, I was sure they were utterly without merit. Nothing I've seen since has given me any significant reason to think otherwise.

I too got into the world of debunking conspiracy theories trhough the "moon landing hoax", then the whole JFK "magic bullet" pseudo scientific analysis. I found the same type of pseudo science applied to the 9-11 attacks on DU starting with the Pentagon theory.

[Nick227]

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.

Admirable honesty, Dave. But why not state your hypothesis first? Is it the one about more people moving from CT back to OT, rather than the other way around, as being a ratification of the OT's likely truth?

Nick

[LashL]

Admirable honesty, Dave. But why not state your hypothesis first? Is it the one about more people moving from CT back to OT, rather than the other way around, as being a ratification of the OT's likely truth?

Nick


Um, Nick, it appears that your sarcasm detector requires a tune up. :rolleyes:

[Nick227]

Um, Nick, it appears that your sarcasm detector requires a tune up. :rolleyes:

Well, regardless of whether Dave was being sarcastic or not, I would be interested to hear what the hypothesis he hoped to substantiate through this poll was.

Nick

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, regardless of whether Dave was being sarcastic or not, I would be interested to hear what the hypothesis he hoped to substantiate through this poll was.

Nick
it came up in another thread, whether or not any debunkers have ever become truthersm to use CurtC's catagories

(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

we see people moving from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3, and from 1 directly to 3, but never backwards (i suspect the person who responded choice 6 was simply doing so to acheive the poll result, rather than it being an honest response, which is why i had suggested this be made a public poll)

[jberryhill]

we see people moving from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3, and from 1 directly to 3, but never backwards

This is characteristic of Creationism, and similar systems which purport to provide a "theory" of some kind, but only consist of a grab bag of mistaken criticisms. What's interesting in these sorts of situations is that folks at step 2 do not believe there are people who have made the jump from 2 to 3, and anyone who claims to have done so is a liar.

[gtc]

I answered 3. I seem to remember wondering why they were so quick to blame the attack on Al Q and whether the government might have shot down flight 77.

I figured that the truth about flight 77 would emerge quickly along with the evidence for or against Al Q.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, regardless of whether Dave was being sarcastic or not, I would be interested to hear what the hypothesis he hoped to substantiate through this poll was.

Putting aside irony, I wouldn't be foolish enough to suggest that an anonymous internet poll on a discussion forum with a well-defined slant was capable of substantiating any hypothesis whatsoever. I'm interested in how people's opinions have changed, in what proportion of debunkers have had doubts or disagreements with the conventional narrative, and whether those disagreements were fleeting or strongly held. I'd hope that any debunker-turned-truther would take the ensuing thread as an opportunity to come forward and give their rationale. I'd also expect that this would be a likely place for any debunker-turned-truther to gravitate towards, as the understanding of the debunker point of view would give them a natural advantage in debate over any other truther here. Apart from that, though, it's more a matter of random curiosity and trying to kick off an interesting discussion than any serious attempt to investigate a well-formed hypothesis.

I'd be particularly interested to hear from anyone who voted 6 as to the analysis that led them to change their views. If there's a well-formed line of argument there, I'd hope that people would give it some serious consideration. That is, after all, what rational skepticism is all about.

Dave

[Fnord]

I believe it was al-Qaeda, and always have.

(BTW: When will our NWO masters hold open enrollment? I need to add a new dependent and some vision care.)

[Dave Rogers]

This thread and poll is clearly pining for the fjords now, so I have a couple of closing comments and a request. I'm hardly surprised that nearly 90% of the voters believe that al-Qaeda perpetrated 9-11 given the composition of the forum, but perhaps a little surprised that a majority have never doubted at all; the arguments of the truth movement can be persuasive to those who come to them with little or no relevant knowledge, but clearly less persuasive than I thought. The truther numbers, at a total of less than 4%, aren't a large enough sample to draw conclusions.

There still remains the one voter from category 6, who hasn't posted anything on the thread. Whoever you are, I'd be very interested to hear from you, because you've got the makings of a propaganda victory for the truth movement here. All it takes is one post, with a link to any previous post on any forum where you've taken the debunking side, followed by a statement that you now believe 9-11 was an inside job. Do that and there's proof that there is something in the truth movement's arguments capable of swaying someone who was previously convinced of the other side of the argument. Stay in lurker mode and I'll have to conclude that it wasn't a genuine entry, and that there are only truthers turned debunkers. The ball's in your court, I'm in no position to return it, so all I'm asking is that you hit it back to score a point.

Dave