I am interested to hear from posters in this forum who have changed their minds about 9/11. No one is excluded from this thread of course but I am particularly interested in opinions from those who believed the official narrative at first then changed their minds and those who disbelieved it and now believe it. I'll start since I am one of those who changed his mind. When the 9/11 terrorist attack took place, I accepted the official story mostly because I didn't have anything much to go on that could have made me skeptical. I think it was more a matter of shock and the belief that terrorist acts of this nature were quite possible plus the fact that there were few details available. I was completely unaware about the destruction of WTC7 at the time. I must admit that I found it very peculiar on 9/11 that WTC1 and WTC2 were completely destroyed as a result of the events but not being an expert on the subject and having done no research, I had nothing to go on that would make me feel that the idea that these were natural "collapses" as a resulting consequence of planes, damage and fire were impossible. Then sometime around late 2004, I came across a YouTube video called "9/11 Mysteries". It left me fascinated and in awe about the possibility that 9/11 could have been a false flag operation. That video prompted me to begin conducting further research and led me to another YouTube video now called "The Great Conspiracy The 9/11 News you Never Saw". The combination of those 2 videos clinched it for me, the official 9/11 story was now a massive LIE. And the rest is history, admittedly it left me obsessed with daily research into everything about 9/11 because for me, 9/11 was one of the most defining events of my generation. And it is being used as a pretext for the perpetual fake war on terror, a not so well disguised genocide and the decimation of our Republic, which was already being attacked by our pretend government. Other personal stories please.
Wow, you were convinced by Sofia 'clunkity clunk' Shafquat and her long debunked 9/11 Mysteries bollocks? You realise almost everything in that film was ripped apart by debunkers years and years ago. That's why you hardly ever see it referenced anymore, even truthers avoided referring to it. Especially after she appeared on the History Channel with her clunkity clunk nonsense lol. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you watch. Yeah, a real appeal to authority there lol you really swallowed the wrong pill Bob.
So I take it you bought the whole US government 9/11 narrative from day 1 and never changed your mind. LMFAO, check the mirror son. Ok, thanks for your worthless contribution to this thread. If you understood the point of this thread I asked posters to explain when and why they changed their minds, whichever way they started. It's not about criticizing those who post here. As for me, if you read what I wrote for comprehension, I've been researching 9/11 since 2004. What prompted me to begin that research is the 2 videos I referenced so I'm grateful that they exist and that I came across them. Since then, I must have seen hundreds of videos, read countless papers including the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, etc. Quite a bit of my research is posted in this section of the forum. They all served to reaffirm why I changed my mind.
Correct. I learned by lesson the hard way when I believed for years the moon landings were fake based on a couple of 'documentaries' I watched. I proved myself wrong and felt utterly betrayed when I made the decision, out of curiosity, to research rebuttals to the exact documentaries that convinced me. I saw that the 'facts' used to convince me were known fabrications that the makers of the films must have known where wrong but still included them anyway. From that moment on I have always been extremely skeptical of conspiracy theories, and when I discovered in 2005 the massive amounts of 9/11 theories, I saw the exact same pattern of lies and fabrications spewing from the 'documentaries' that had been made. Now that I am older and know how the world works I can also use common sense and basic logic to dismiss conspiracy theories as they arise today. So, yeah, I will believe most official stories on face value if they make sense until evidence to the contrary made available. I always retain the willingness to change my beliefs and opinions based on evidence.
I was a 9-11 Truther for a few months, then started to learn a great deal about engineering. i came to understand the difference between dynamic and static forces, and that proved to me that the towers coud have collapsed just due to fire damage, impact damage and weakened steel due to heat. as for the Pentagon, there are just too many witnesses that saw a plane strike. Shanksville? the wreckage of the plane is mostly in the woods. so i stopped being a 9-11 Truther in around 2004 and never went back.
Thanks for your input Ronstar. You said you learned a great deal about engineering. Have you reviewed Dr. Leroy Hulsey's statement that NIST's official claim with regard to their WTC7 probable collapse initiation theory is impossible?
Though I certainly had questions about both the aviation aspects and the engineering/collapse aspects, I believed the official story for a number of years. That, because I did not know for a number of years that WTC7 had fallen down at 5PM that day. Once I discovered that I began to examine what could be learned. Over a period of many months, I came to the conclusion that the closer one looked at the facts, the more the official story was contradicted. Impossible collapse times considering burning office fires, a complete absence of airliners in at least 2 locations, and a refusal by the government to even investigate what happened. Quick invasion of Iraq, and the motivation became apparent. It's an impossible story, told by departments and men well known for their dishonesty.
i also became VERY dissallusioned by many of the main personalities and info in the Truth Movement. "In Plain Sight"- cover photo of video shows bulge underneath a 757 "9-11 Mysteries"- fraudently superimposed fake blast sounds into 9-11 collapse videos. Judy Wood-psycho nutcase. Alex Jones- lying bigot who posted a false interview between Charlie Sheen and President Obama. Made believe nuke sites in Texas were melting down during Y2K. Richard Cage- suggested the 9-11 collapses was like a small box being able to crush a bigger box. Comments like this should have his AIA license revoked. The Loose Change Boys- Liars and attention whores who know **** about the subject matter and take "it sounded like a bomb" to mean "there defintiely was a bomb and I saw an explosive device detonate". Steven Jones- believes some crazy Mormon stuff and is an expert in nuclear physics, NOT structural engineering. I work with many folks who have Master's Degrees in Engineering and Architecture. Some from the finest schools in the USA. They have helped me understand the mechanics and physics behind the 9-11 collapses. As far as Al Qaeda being a fake organization, just a proxy for the CIA and Mossad? give me a break. the 9-11 hijackers still being alive? simply because there are some folks alive today who have the same names? give me a break. 9-11 truth is a joke, and I have understood this for more than a decade.
Well NIST was commissioned by Congress to do that and they didn't. So what were you told from these degree'd individuals that NIST didn't tell anyone?
the wtc towers were built strong enough to hold a certain quantity of static forces. they were NOT built to handle the dynamic force of 30 stories crashing down at one time. there is NO way the bottom 80 floors could break the fall of the collapsing 30. end of story.
What is with the denial of reality?? Deny evolution Deny Global Warming Deny 9/11 events as reported What else? Deny Sandy Hook? What a waste of time.
That's it? That's all you were told by all these degree'd individuals? Did any of them point to any (proportional) experiment that could confirm that a similar situation could completely turn a structure to dust in an unimpeded accelerating manner at about 2/3 G when a smaller upper portion is dropped on a much larger lower portion or did you just take their word for it? Understand I'm not asking these question to disillusion you, I'm just asking.
Why didn't you throw in Deny Santa Claus and Deny the Tooth Fairy while you're at it? If you deny 9/11 events "as reported" you've got to deny everything "as reported" no? The converse is you've got to believe everything "as reported", right? Because otherwise you're denying "reality".
I would have mentioned the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, but I suspected you'd tell me THEY were real. You created a false equivalency with Iraq, and you know it. My point was 9/11 reporting was in real time - how can you have a conspiracy with all the networks in real time? Don't bother answering - I am not into fiction.
Your suspicions are just like your posts, absurd nonsense. Sorry but you're the one who created fallacies to begin with. I merely exposed them with historically accurate facts. Your fallacy begins with a false premise, so your logic is faulty to begin with. Unfortunately for you I have every right to comment on your fallacies. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen (as the saying goes). If you're not into fiction, then why did you post fiction? And off topic at that. This thread is about a request for those who have changed their minds about 9/11, it wasn't meant for posters such as yourself to ridicule other posters using fallacious nonsense.
Well that's rather the point, isn't it? Denying reality is what the government story is all about. In reality, modern steel and concrete buildings do not collapse at free fall rates from catching fire. The only time that has ever happened was to 3 buildings in the same city block on the same day. Holding that view is not embracing reality, it is embracing a staged event and subsequent cover-up.
I know it was staged. I know it was covered up. Anybody being intellectually honest with himself knows the same thing. The vast preponderance of the evidence shows it. Chill dude, I wasn't lecturing anybody. I was merely stating a number of facts. To prove how right you seem to think you are, maybe you could offer some examples, pre and post 9/11, of modern steel and concrete buildings that have collapsed from burning office furnishings. Shall I hold my breath?
I doubt he is going to come up with even one. So I'll help. There were 2 to my knowledge that experienced PARTIAL collapse. This one: and this one: Of the 40+ high rise infernos prior to and following 9/11, those are the only known examples of steel frame buildings suffering COLLAPSES strictly due to fire. They have 4 things in common. 1. The first is that only the section of the buildings that was the most affected by fire collapsed. 2. The second is that the remaining larger section of the building did not collapse due to the weight of the upper section. 3. The third is that neither building ejected structural material weighing tons laterally. 4. And the fourth of course is that these buildings only suffered PARTIAL collapses as opposed to total collapses. A scientific experiment can confirm or deny a theory. Here we have 2 real world examples that not only do not confirm NIST's official 9/11 collapse hypotheses but deny it.
It is really hard to respond to you without being insulting. It wasn't burning office furnishings, it was tens of thousands of gallons of kerosene (jet fuel) burning that weakened the steel. The steel had sprayed on insulation that the blast of collision ripped off. Have you any idea of how many people would have to be involved in such a plot, and everybody kept the secret???? Get a grip on reality. Don't use the word "fact" in your delusion. Stick to believing in the tooth fairy - there is more evidence for that...
I think I doubted airliners could do that the first time I watched the collapse. I spent the next two weeks trying to figure out why I could not possibly believe it. We could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus when I was in college. How strong does the bottom 10% of a skyscraper have to be to support the weight of the upper 90% by height. The designers had to figure out the distribution of mass and steel for a skyscraper before the hole is dug for the foundation. So how do 16 years go by without lots of engineers discussing that? Since 9/11 at least 50 skyscrapers over 1,000 ft tall have been constructed. The Empire State Building is 86 years old. This is not rocket science, but no one discusses something as simple as the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower. I have changed my mind about what is important about the 9/11 Affair. Why our engineering schools do not solve it is more important than who did it. psik
Sorry friend, I was just repeating what the NIST report said, many years ago. Damage from the airplane strikes, and burning office furnishings is what the man said. If you disagree with him, have at it, but that's what he said. I don't know how many people would need to be involved. I've never been involved in anything like that in my life. Have you? I'm sorry you are angered by inconvenient facts.
