Has Participation in the 9/11 Forum Changed or Shaped your Views?

[HamdenRice]

Poll question: Has Participation in the 9/11 Forum Changed or Shaped your Views?

It sometimes seems that almost all the regular posters in this forum have fixed views, and that they can be roughly divided into two factions -- those who identify with some aspect of the the 9/11 Truth Movement, and those who identify with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Has anyone changed his or her views over time by participating in this forum?

Please note that in the choices below, the "official explanation" should be taken to include "incompetence theory," including "incompetence plus coverup of incompetence."

My disclosure: At first, I thought the most important evidence was physical, including the collapse of WTC 7. At this point, I don't have conclusive views one way or another about the collapses, because I believe that with the evidence that has been made available and the evidence that has been destroyed, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. On the other hand, I believe that the evidence of intelligence and financial connections between al Qaida and our defense and intelligence establishment, the bizarre and inconsistent evidence about the hijackers' identities and behaviors (Hopsicker), the clear evidence of the coverups including the 9/11 Commission, the wars that were justified on the basis of 9/11, the destruction of the constitutional system of government, and the revelation of the depths of administration capacity for depravity in the wake of Katrina, make an almost iron clad circumstantial case that the administration was capable of, and was in fact, colluding with the attackers.

In this, I would say my views have changed in the direction of the bloggers Cannonfire and Rigorous Intuition (although I disagree with the latter on a lot of other things) -- that is to say, that focus on the physical evidence is not useful, but that 9/11 probably was at least to some extent an inside job.

[jschurchin]

1. When the attack first occurred

I, like most Americans, felt like killing all people of middle eastern decent for what "they" did to us. And like most people, as time went on, this feeling began to subside as we went after the Taliban and Afghanistan.

I, like a fool, didn't question what we were told until around December of 2005 when I found this forum. The topics brought up here and the intelligence displayed by the posters changed that.

Being involved in the construction industry for most of my adult life, I began to look at the destruction of these structures and certain aspects just didn't add up. This caused me to look closer at the possibility of a self inflicted wound. I have become convinced that certain government agency's were involved and the attacks were planned in Washington and Arlington.

Was this MIHOP? I believe there is very little doubt.


Edit for punctuation.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Whoever brought down the buildings

knew a lot about how they were built and knew exactly what parts you needed to take out in order to bring the buildings down.

WTC 7 was the easiest, because of the unusual construction of the building that required trusses on the lower levels in order to hold the building up over an existing building.

My guess is that there about 3 key point on the 5th floor that had to be taken out to bring the building down.

I also think they used the existing mechanical systems and fuel storage and gas lines to bring all three buildings down.

[vincent_vega_lives]

38. Let me test somthing

Do you belive the "official story" of how 9-11-01 attacks went down was:

a. possible but the evidence refutes it?

b. possible but the lack of evidence refutes it?

c. impossible the way it is described?

Other CT'ers feel free to respond. :hi:

[silvermachine]

2. It just makes me depressed...

...especially the "No Plane hit the Pentagon" people. Idiocy. I'm sorry but there is no other term for it.

[rman]

8. I can understand calling "no planes at the WTC" idiocy,

but the Pentagon..
Let me just say that i find the evidence supporting a plane at the pentagon ever so slightly less convincing than the evidence supporting planes at the WTC...

[silvermachine]

11. Thanks for a civil reply...

...I know this wasn't clear from my post but I guess I consider the idea of no plane hitting the Pentagon to be idiocy, not necessarily the same as meaning that every person who believes it is an idiot. I guess I get frustrated with this theory for a number of reasons which I feel are pretty cogent, all of which are routinely dismissed by the more ardent supporters of the Pentagon/no plane theory.

--I know that seemingly EVERYONE has heard a friend who heard it from a friend (please, no REO Speedwagon remarks, thanx) who saw the plane hit. Well, my co-worker, who I have known for many years and trust 100% as a rational, sober, individual phoned into my workplace the morning of 9/11 describing the crash, which she witnessed on the way to work. I believe her 100%

--There are many, many other eyewitness testimonies.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.html

I'm sorry, but i just can't believe that all of these people are lying, paid off, etc.
I've seen complaints about some of these people being from the MSM, government employees, but it really doesn't wash.

--There is ample photographic evidence of the plane. The 1st link above gives a lot of detail. I live about 1 mile from the Pentagon. I saw the hole and believe me, it wasn't small. Photos really don't do this justice in many ways because unless you are there, it is difficult to grasp the size of the building. It is much larger than the photos appear to portray it as being.

--I work in an archival capacity doing local history in a public library and have seen photos taken by responders from the Arlington Fire Department and there is plenty of photos of debris. Few, if any, of these have been released to the public. I wish they were circulated because it might help get this debate resolved.

--If it wasn't a plane, then what happened to the people on the flight? I mean really. Ask their loved ones if they died or not. Sorry, I just can't believe that they were shipped off "somewhere" and executed, put on Flight 93 to die, etc. There are claims that no bodies, dna, identification, etc. has been found at the scene. This is not true.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-11-sept11-remains_x.htm

There is a lot of source information for those willing to read it. It is interesting that most of these links are from researchers who initially believed that something other than a plane hit/blew up the Pentagon, and still believe (rightly so) that there IS much about 9/11 that is unknown and covered up. After they really looked into it, they changed their minds, based on evidence and logic, not emotion and frustration with a government that lies whenever it can.... With an administration as appalling as this one has been, I can understand why people would be willing to believe almost anything, but much of the energy devoted to tail-chasing the more dubious claims of Flight 77 anomalies does a disservice to those searching for the real truths about incompetency and coverups with Bush & Co.

[Make7]

12. You should edit your post.

WhatReallyHappened.com isn't allowed as a source around here. There's a good chance your post will be deleted if you don't edit to remove the link to it. Hopefully you see this message in time.

Welcome to this little corner of DU. I don't recall seeing you down here until recently.

:hi: Make7

[silvermachine]

14. OK thanks...

...but why are they not allowed? Just curious. thanks for the welcome. I've been registered at DU for quite a few years, but am an infrequent poster.

[silvermachine]

15. OK...

...I see what you mean. I looked at some of the other topics. It's a shame, because there is some valid and useful research there, but some very unfortunate sentiments also. Thanks.

[Make7]

17. Sometimes....

... if you do a web search for the title of the article or most the first sentence, you can find the same article from a less questionable source.

Okay, I did a quick search - it looks like you have posted in the 'September 11' forum two times previous to this month, once about eight months ago and once a little over a year ago. Obviously I need to pay more attention, I thought you were new to these parts. :)

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

20. Have you looked at that day's footage?

There are videos called "as it happened" on youtube where the following can be observed: the more convincing witnesses say there was just an explosion and they saw no plane, the "planes" are , well, artificial looking, slow them down, maybe zoom in and you will see they look like they were edited in - the area surrounding the plane had a different color sky and there are a lot of pixellations, etc, which don't appear on anything else in the video, plus they are supposed to be "live", but the planes are going really slow. Also, some footage has them coming in at a 45degree angle and some has them perfectly level. They are missing wings, tails, etc. and despite the use of high tech equipment the films are all grainy and blurred, so you can never see a y kind of detail. How likely is it that those professional photographers would be there with the best cameras money can buy (one of the shots shows the kind of camera -Wescam; a military camera which can edit in and out live) There is also at least one explosion without the plane.

I thought "no planes" was disinfo for a long time because a lot of the people who talk about it (web fairy, etal) do not present in in a convincing way, but when I started looking at the footage and looking into the "eyewitnesses" it became clear that something was wrong.
(and I'm not an idiot...)

[rman]

22. I must admit

I have moderated my views regarding "no planes at the WTC".

I've always though it to be a possibility, but a very far-fetched possibility.
If it turns out to be true, i sure am very interested to learn just how they managed to create the impression that millions witnessed the 2nd plane hit live on TV, and hundreds if not thousands witnessed it on location.

I'll be checking out those videos.

(and i know you're not an idiot)

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

42. Where did I quote any

"disreputable" sources? I thought the "no planers" were disinformation until I looked at the footage myself, which is the exact opposite of what you are saying. ("They" still might be disinfo, I don't know, I rely on my own interpretation not that of others, you are making an untrue assumption) Your post shows you are not well informed, you have not availed yourself to the same information as I have. (or at least you appear not to) You have to put that googly eyes creature into your post to make it look like I'm "crazy" -that shows how good your arguments are.
The ATC said the plane came in at a "power dive" that differs from that plane coming in level missing it's wings, etc...But you didn't know that, did you?
:crazy: yourself

My post was deleted for saying you watch too much tv, but you are insinuating that I'm crazy and your post stays. I won't comment cuz this will be deleted too.

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. Yah know?

I think we have a candidate for the Dulcedecorum wannabe award here.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. I just find it amazing

that an internet investigation of a major event can be called anything remotely called "eveidence".

That is cyber narcissism in the extreme...and that goes for all y'all. :hi:

[mirandapriestly]

34. why?eom..

[Bolo Boffin]

3. One of the problems with this is the definition of "official story"

Or Official Conspiracy Theory (which is weighed against 9/11 Truth Movement, surely one of the best example of prejudices in the poll taker I could find).

But never mind that. Is the 9/11 Report, the NIST report, and the ASCE report on the Pentagon being considered the "Official Story"? Or is it just the basic facts in contention (four planes, hijacked by Al Qaeda, crashed into three buildings and a field, the towers and 7 fell because of the damage and the fires)? What if you believe everything but the Al-Qaeda part? What if you believe everything and still consider yourself LIHOP? Is there only one basic fact being questioned - did the Bush Administration act in knowing concert in any way with the 9/11 attacks?

Because I myself don't know the answer to that last question. On the day of, I think that almost everyone in the government was doing their level best to stop the attacks - except for Bush himself. His kneejerk reaction to not disturb the classroom photo-op will only be eclipsed by Iraq as a symbol of his wretched presidency.

It comes down to this: my disgust with the Republicans at Charge is not evidence that they conspired in any way with the 9/11 attacks. That disgust cannot be allowed to color my appraisal of the evidence of those attacks, or I am not seeking truth.

And that goes for everybody.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. I think 9/1 was an inside job, but that doesn't mean I think the

bush administration, per se, were the insiders.

The Governement is a big place, as Jimmy Carter found out when he attempted to boot out a number of the CIA's looser cannons.

boloboffin, have you read Synthetic Terrorism, Made in the USA by Webster Tarpley? Perhaps those 'wretched Republicans' in charge weren't really in charge on 9/11.

If you haven't read it, you are missing out on one of the best laid out arguments I've seen. You can read it for free online at http://www.american-buddha.com/911.syntheticterrormadeusa.htm

While I don't nessesarily agree with Tarpley 100% on every bit of detail (and he is very detailed) I think his overall thesis is pretty good.

If you haven't read it, perhaps you should. Then we could discuss 9/11 from a different perspective than "Did the bush administration do it?"

Edited to add - From chapter 1 of Tarpley's book

The Kean-Hamilton Commission called no hostile witnesses, no skeptics, no devil’s advocates. It ignored a growing number of book-length studies which have appeared in English, French, German, and other languages around the world. It never invited to its plenum FBI whistle-blowers like Colleen Rowley (who shared Time Magazine’s Person of the Year honors at the end of 2002), nor did it call FBI agent Kenneth Williams, the author of the famous Phoenix memo, to testify in its plenary meetings. The Commission was, by contrast, happy to invite the obsessive anti-Iraq ideologue Laurie Mylroie, a fanatic so notorious that she is dismissed with contempt as “totally discredited” even by Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies. (Clarke 232) As we will show at various points in this study, the Kean-Hamilton Commission represents a cynical and meticulously orchestrated exercise in coverup and obfuscation. The net overall result of the Kean- Hamilton Commission has been to obscure even those few relevant facts which had become well established in the mainstream media prior to its inception.

Before the Kean-Hamilton Commission, the chronology of events regarding the interplay among the Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and other government agencies had been fairly well established by the 9/11 truth movement. The deliberately doctored chronologies offered by the Kean-Hamilton staff have turned that clear picture into chaos. Before the Kean- Hamilton operation went to work, there was an important debate about whether phone calls received at the White House on the morning of September 11 had indicated that unauthorized persons were in possession of top-secret US government code words. The Kean-Hamilton Commission has now assured us that this crucial incident in effect never

Page 13

happened. Before Kean-Hamilton, Congressional Committees and the National Institute of Standards and Technology had been forced to grapple in public with the blatant anomalies of three modern steel skyscrapers collapsing on the same day as the result of fire – something that has happened on no other day of world history. For the Kean- Hamilton Commission, this problem simply does not exist – it has disappeared from the official narrative. No account has been taken of critical or skeptical commentaries, even when these have been the centerpieces of books which have reached the top of the best- seller charts in important countries like France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, or have been telecast in prime time in these same places. The demands of the bereaved families of 9/11 have been ignored – even though it was because of the persistent lobbying of these families that the Kean-Hamilton Commission ever came into being in the first place. A cruel hoax has been practiced on these families, and those who thought that an attempt to cooperate in good faith with the Kean-Hamilton Commission to guide it toward the truth have received a bitter disappointment. The Kean-Hamilton Commission in short has shown no decent respect for the opinions of mankind, and has submitted no important facts to a candid world.

The Kean-Hamilton Commission has turned out to be nothing more than a colossal exercise in begging the question. Everything that was controversial, everything that was dubious in the eyes of billions around the world has been simply assumed to be true and posited as the starting point for the entire inquiry. As a fallacy this has been around since the medieval schoolmen, who called it petitio principii. In the hands of the Kean- Hamilton Commission, begging the question is meant to work as an arrogant, bureaucratic act of superior power. Believe this, said the Inquisition, or be damned. Believe this, says the Kean-Hamilton Commission, or be vilified as a paranoid obsessed with conspiracies. Thus, when the 9/11 commission was created, it formed nine investigative teams. The first of these was entitled: “Al Qaeda and the Organization of the 9/11 Attack.” That is a clear case of rush to judgment and jumping to conclusions, since such a finding should be the end result of an inquiry, and not its starting point.

What Tarpley writes here is true. How does an inquiry start from assuming the conclusions of the inquiry? Doesn't that make you wonder? At least a little bit?

[CJCRANE]

26. Only Bush and Rumsfeld

had the authority to order a shootdown and they did nothing (the procedure was changed in the summer of 2001 apparently). Whilst at the same time Cheney seemed to be in control of things from the WH bunker (also some say he was in charge of the terror "exercises" on the day). Couple that with the fact that Bush-Cheney testified together and virtually off the record to the 9/11 Commission...

[KJF]

5. I voted the same as you

The more I look at it, the better the non-physical evidence gets. For example, there were a couple of really good snippets in the Moussaoui trial evidence showing that Tenet lied under oath to the Congressional Inquiry about the CIA's knowledge of the hijackers and that Almihdhar and Alhazmi thought they were followed to the US. Also, the more I look at Saeed Sheikh and that USD 100,000, the stronger it gets.

[mirandapriestly]

6. One of the OCTs checked the first one

to make people think their arguments were persuasive, lol..or it was a joke.

Anyone who would go from LIHOP MIHOP to OCT would have to go from reading a lot to watching mainstream, corporate news all day long...

[Bolo Boffin]

7. How uncharitable of you, miranda.

Now you've gone and cast doubt on the whole process.

What's to stop CTers from checking the OCT to HOP choice? Now you've completely thrown the poll under a bus, and all because you can't allow yourself to think that someone might actually change their mind...

Sigh.

[mirandapriestly]

13. when you say "CTers" I think of you guys

so I don't really understand your point. It's OBVIOUS that the things is a lie, so the only "conspiracy theory" is the 19 hijackers ridiculousness.

[mirandapriestly]

16. I've become stronger in my views because of the OCTS

when they used to ask people to "prove" stuff, I would look stuff up and found a lot of amazing information like the Haaretz Silverstein article. The OCTS actually cause people to learn more and learning more means becoming Lihop and Mihop. (unless you watch a lot of tv then you become OCT) also the general bullying mannerisms of the OCT'S are suspicious and those who post here infrequently have pmed and said how obvious they are, so the OCTS are basically "working for the other side".

[John Q. Citizen]

18. It's a symbiotic relationship, to be sure. Every time someone bashes

Loose Change, for example, I bet someone goes to the trouble to download it and take a look, just to find out for themselves what all the fuss is about.

AL Frankin shot to the top of the best seller lists when Fox sued him. And so it goes.

Don't think of an elephant!

[leftstreet]

9. I haven't participated here, but only lurked

I haven't done any 9/11 research, so my "knowledge" has been based on the MSM coverage of the events of that day and the days following.

There were several instances in the MSM coverage that tripped my bullshit meter, and I knew back then something was "wrong."

Lurking here has only CEMENTED my initial (apparently) lihop/mihop-ness. I've come to believe that, on Internet forums, honesty inquiry and legitimate questioning of the "official" 9/11 narrative arranges itself into isolated, highly controlled, and marginalized venues.

That doesn't happen in the real (non-Internet forum) world. Most of the people I know believe "the government" had "something to do with" 9/11. They are not crazed "conspiracy theorists." Just working class people who get most of their information from the MSM.

They'd be surprised to know a few shills in the Internet community would label them crazy conspiracy theorists.
:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

10. not primarily due to this forum, but

I've shifted from LIHOP to MIHOP

[treestar]

21. Every time I come here I see more questions raised and get more

convinced that anyone who does not want those questions raised is incapable of a civil explanation for why the question does not need to be raised or can be answered in favor of the standard explanation.

It's always:
1 - you're not expert enough to understand it all at once, therefore you are required to have faith in the official version
2 - you are a looney with a tinfoil hat, blah, blah, blah
3 - everyone knows what happened, so no investigation was necessary (in this day and age and in an event like this?)
4 - raising questions is wrong, unless you have a neat and pat and certain answer - no scientific advances would ever have been made by anyone who looked at things this way
5- a snide indication that there is something wrong with opening an issue of any kind when it has been settled for the speaker in a satisfactory manner and they don't want that upset, even on an internet board they can avoid entirely if they choose to.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Please do your best to get out of all jury duty required of you.

I don't want you deciding a person's guilt or innocence based on how rude the lawyers seem to be.

So you dip in every now and again, not knowing if the people you are reading have been discussing the same issue over and over again for four years or not, and decide that one side or the other doesn't want questions answered based on an emotional response to the same damn crap being posted over and over again?

That really must be the silliest thing...no. The no planes/death rays/missile pods theories are sillier than that. But rudeness of presentation hasn't a single bit to do with veracity of someone's position, and I am surprised that you consider the expression of such a criteria to be greeted with anything other than derision.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. boloboffin, with all due respect, about 99% of the threads

that folks who believe 9/11 was not an inside job post on are concerned with the collapses, if the Pentagon attack was flight #77 or not, if 93 was shot down or crashed, and about "elves," "space rays," and "holograms."

Just up thread, (#19)I posted and asked if you had read Webster Tarpley's book, as it has a significantly different thesis than a lot of the other theories. I am still wondering, not that it's been there that long, and not that it would show up in your 48 hour thread list. But still, I have yet to read one "no inside jobber" comment at all on Tarpley's main thesis, or any "no inside jobber" to have admitted reading his book. Same goes for Welcome to Terrorland; Mohammed Atta and the 9/11 Cover Up in Florida. If any of you OCTers have read it, you are keeping quiet about it.

So I can only assume that the people who feel compelled to ridicule "inside jobbers" haven't availed themselves of the same information as the rest of us.

Perhaps for that reason, you believe us silly, kind of like Intelligent Design believers find evolutionists silly. IDers haven't read Origins of the Species, or any of the later works that built on that. So they ridicule the theory of evolution, go to websites that debunk evolution, and live in their own little fantasy land. Instead of examining the theory of evolution, they only look at say "the missing link aspect" and from that severly restricted view assume that is the whole theory and assume the whole theory is wrong.

Oh well.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Actually...

Perhaps for that reason, you believe us silly, kind of like Intelligent Design believers find evolutionists silly.

I question the idea that ID believers find evolutionists silly. Yeah, they get some monkey jokes in, but by and large, ID believers see the debate as between God and Satan, and I don't think most ID believers find Satan amusing.

However, evolutionists DO consider most ID believers silly, and rightly so. So I'd say that I look at wacky-9/11-CT believers the way evolutionists look at ID believers, and for the very reasons you list.

And if all you have on me is that of all the 9/11 CT books/videos I HAVE worked my way through, I haven't bothered with your pet couple of books, then I respectfully tell you to kiss my Aunt Fanny. She's a really nice lady, my Aunt Fanny. You'd like her.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Well bush worked his way through My Pet Goat, and he's probably

proud of that, too.

I wouldn't dream of taking that away from him, he earned it and it's his. And that's probably about the best anyone could expect of him.

Tell your Aunt to have a merry little Christmas, or soltice, or whatever she prefers. And tell her to cover her ass for goodness sake, because, baby, it's cold outside.

And if you love her, i mean really love her, you will get her a copy of Synthetic Terrorism; Made in the USA. Just as a little gift in this holiday season.

Or if she's kind of far down your list of gift giving, maybe she's better off with My Pet Goat. It's really up to you.

As for the IDers, they see the debate as between the believers and the unbelievers. For instance, they see me as an unbeliever, because I embrace evolution as a better description of the world around me.
IDers, on the other hand, see the Bible as the only valid description of the world around them. I think it makes them feel secure to stick with the old ways....

[mirandapriestly]

37. Good point

"So I can only assume that the people who feel compelled to ridicule "inside jobbers" haven't availed themselves of the same information as the rest of us"
makes conversation sort of difficult

[mirandapriestly]

36. Well said, it's like some kind of "brain washing"

or something.

[vincent_vega_lives]

39. I vote for 1 & 2 (n/t)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

27. It has told me that there can be other uses for bunny cages too n/t

[newsdude]

28. Yes. It tells me that disinfo is killing the interest in real questions

How in the hell did "smart" people get won over by something as ludicrous as "loose change."

We've got people with no understanding of architecture or physics copying and pasting arguments against one another.

[Lilith Velkor]

30. Yeah, no shit

There's some nutters here who seem to think everyone who isn't a no-plane Mihop believer is in on it. :crazy:

[mirandapriestly]

33. I read only 16% now believe the bush CT

strangely, it runs over 50% on this 9-11 forum, although actual DUers would be even lower percentiles who believe the Bush CT than the general population, but that is not represented percentage wise on the 911 forum. Now what does that indicate? hmmmm....

[AZCat]

35. Why don't you spell it out instead of playing silly games? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

43. It's at 31% who believe the official explanation in this poll miranda,

significantly higher than the 22% percent in my longer running (about 3 months now) and as a result more voted on poll (Was 9/11 an inside job)

On this poll only the top and the bottom choices are for expressing belief in the official story.

What I noticed on my poll (was 9/11 an inside job?) is that over time, more and more people (as a percentage) have voted that 9/11 was an inside job, and those numbers continue to rise. Right now my poll has about 184 responses.

What this suggests is that regular readers and posters in the 9/11 forum contain a significantly higher percentage of "no inside jobbers" than the general population of DU. As other non-regulars find their way here, the vote becomes increasingly more, as a percentage, for "9/11 was an inside job."

(edit for spelling)

[greyl]

44. It's also the Kucinich CT, fyi. nt