I Was A Professional 9/11 Truther (And I Gave It Up)

ATS is home to a lot of heated discussions, from UFOs and Aliens, to mud-flinging sessions between liberals and conservatives, and everything else under the sun. Perhaps the topic most likely to incite unseemly discussion is that between those who subscribe to the original story (perhaps also the government narrative), and those who believe there was a conspiracy afoot (often disparagingly referred to as Truthers).

For a long time I was an avid believer that 9/11 was an elaborate conspiracy pushed by the Bush II government to usher in a fascist state and curtail all our personal freedoms. As time marches on I have a far more nuanced outlook, to the point where I disbelieve most of the theories regarding 9/11 as a conspiracy put forth. This is not to say that there hasn't been a cover-up of the events that took place, and I still believe that there are perhaps some in power who may have been aware of the then impending September 11 attacks, but as someone who has sat on both sides of the fence, I find it difficult to accept many of the theories put forth that there was a massive cover-up on behest of the US government. Of interest, today I stumbled across this article, and felt it worth drawing attention to.



www.cracked.com...

What would it take for you to start believing in conspiracy theories? It may be simpler than you think ... "It was 2006, and I'd been out clubbing with a friend of mine," Charlie explained. "We were doing ecstasy, and we were off our heads." Instead of stumbling back home and watching the hell out of some infomercials like the rest of us, a friend invited him to instead watch Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terror -- in which melted waxwork impersonator Alex Jones alleges that every major terrorist attack in the past several decades was committed by the government in order to rob people of their rights.

It's a rather crazy idea, but that's the sort of thing that happens when your movie stars George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Hitler.

Along the lines of what I once believed, the author gets drawn into ever more complicated beliefs.

Charlie's journey into the seedy underbelly of conspiracy started with the idea that the 9/11 attacks were a controlled demolition. But his belief system got more and more complex from there, eventually focusing heavily on the machinations of big business and the elite classes. "When you're deep in the world, you believe you're Neo from The Matrix. At the time, I thought it was upper echelons of the business world, combined with upper echelons of what Margaret Thatcher would describe as the 'permanent power elite,' which were extracting all the goodness out of life, all the money, all the happiness."

Like myself, once confronted with evidence which may go against one's beliefs, but is given by somebody who knows what they are talking about, it is hard to maintain one's stance.

"The first day, we were in NYC. We went to the architecture firm that built the WTC, and we got to study and analyze the actual original blueprints. And I questioned one of the older partners -- 'I've seen all these documentaries, I know you designed this building to withstand an airplane hitting it.' He was very patient with me. 'Charlie, it was designed to take an empty airliner, circling in the air, maybe hits it at 150 knots. No architect can make a [building] stop a fully-loaded airliner going near the speed of sound.' And then the next day, we met this demolitions expert who explained to us in no uncertain terms how much equipment, machinery it would take to demolish a building like the WTC. The next day, we went to a flight school in NJ and found out just how easy it is to control an aircraft."

Perhaps worst of all for the author were the accusations he had sold out, or was somehow 'converted'.

Unsurprisingly, the conspiracy community fell back on conspiracies to explain Charlie's sudden change of heart. He received countless accusations that he'd been "converted" by the BBC using neuron-linguistic programming, hypnotized, or placed under mind control. The craziest one, however, suggested that he was a secret plant inside the movement with the mission to make true believers seem weak and dangerous and foolish. As though "looking foolish" is something that they need help with.

So the author instead becomes a part of the conspiracy.

After I changed my mind, a lot of people thought I'd become a drone. It's so sad, growing up and leaving a cult -- and it is a cult. They call themselves a truth movement as a way to hoodwink you. Anything that calls itself 'truth' or a 'truth movement' is probably lies."

So where does it end? How does one break out from one's own confirmation bias? Probably nothing will change the mind of some people, but in the case of the author, he outlines just how much it took.

I don't know how much money the BBC spent. A lot of money ... and that's what it took to change my mind. I had to have a massive media organization cherry pick me, take me to the CIA, to the Pentagon, speak to the architects. There were five of us, and I was the only one who changed my mind. Even if you take someone around the world and tell them the truth, only about 20 percent of people will change their minds.

I don't hope to change the mind of anyone, I think this is nigh on impossible, but when I hear people being called out as 'shills', and 'government agents', it angers me. I am someone who has previously been a 'true believer', and through a process of reading and deduction, I have not yet found a conspiracy theory that works for me. I am educated, informed, and able to make my own mind up, and when somebody tries to show me the error of my reasoning I find it difficult to accept as I have been in that place before, and am willing to admit I was wrong . As I have stated before, yes, it is possible certain highly placed people may have had knowledge of the attacks, but this does not equal a fully blown government conspiracy to me. If anything, most of the conspiracy theories put forth seem as distraction, and they do not add up.

but this does not equal a fully blown government conspiracy to me.

I have to disagree with you on that. Because if you dont believe that fully blown government conspiracy then you would believe the official gov version of it.

It isn't just 9/11.

Showing any kind of skepticism to pseudoscience or conspiracy theories very often buys you the "shill" badge.

People are often emotionally invested in conspiracy theories. Especially big ones. There was a time I bought into a lot of things I thought had to be the truth because the reality of it all was just too mundane and the acts so overt.

After almost a decade on ATS I am less a conspiracy theorist and much more a skeptic.

A professional Truther?
Who signs their checks?

originally posted by: Phage
A professional Truther?
Who signs their checks?

Who knows. Conspiracy theories are great for certain businesses.

People buy MREs by the crate load, they buy heirloom seeds because Monsanto is killing us all, they buy all kinds of stuff to mitigate what they think is a real threat.

So who knows? Maybe Alex Jones signed their checks.

a reply to: projectvxn

If I had a check with Alex'es signature, I would frame it.
Mostly because it would be valued at about a dollar three eighty.

Sounds like because the MO has not been etasblished
or that nothing has legally happened
the conspiracies can't be true?

As far as a path to truth for me the OS is the
least plausible. Verty light by comparison
aluminum and kerosene do not pulverize
3 steel and concrete sky scrapers to dust.
Just nope..

You forgot inertia and oxygen

a reply to: cuckooold

Charlie Veitch has always been a tool. I don't think anyone should care about his opinions or why he change them.

a reply to: projectvxn

a reply to: cuckooold

But one thing we do know is true: The Saudis are very much involved with 9/11. There is absolutely no way we can dispute that. There are massive evidence pointing out their involvement and even some US government officials acknowledge it.

Of course there are many people who take it to levels it shouldn't go to

i.e. holographic planes

However there is no doubt that there's more to the official story that either was ignored or wasn't revealed. Those 28 pages aren't being hidden for nothing. The investigation was not thorough enough, or it wasn't finished.

Have they ever actually publicly targeted someone as responsible for the attacks, and given proof for it?

This doesn't mean "bush did it" but come on, this is some pretty important information.

I don't have a problem with how 9/11 happened(other than the idea that it could have been prevented, but that's not something I know much about). I just want to know who and why. You don't have to be a "truther" or be a part of some "movement" in order to ask these questions.

a reply to: cuckooold

I think 9/11 was probably an inside job and at the very least there is a lot more to it than meets the eye, but I also believe that Bush Jr. was just a useful idiot at the time. I truly believe he had no foreknowledge of what was about to occur and his reactions were real. Now, Cheney may very well have had a hand in the whole thing, but at least in this instance I think Bush was innocent.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: cuckooold

Charlie Veitch has always been a tool. I don't think anyone should care about his opinions or why he change them.

So perhaps you could give us some reasons for your opinion other than stating he has always been a 'tool'. Ad hominems do not make an argument.

Is there any reason we should care about your opinions? At least Charlie Veitch gives us reasons why we should (or should not) give credence to his opinions. From here it can be decided if he is a 'tool' or not. You have done nothing of the sort.

Professional?...so you are claiming this was your main source of income? Or just bad at English?

a reply to: PhoenixOD

That is one definition, though I think he meant it by this definition - "having or showing the skill appropriate to a professional person; competent or skillful." perhaps it is not him who does not know English? And why do we have to slap someone for the use of a word (which was correct anyway) when we all know what he meant, do you have a personal problem with the OP? Or are you a believer in 9/11 conspiracy?

a reply to: TechniXcality

do you have a personal problem with the OP? Or are you a truther?

False dichotomy.
A logical fallacy.

a reply to: Phage


"Or just bad at English"



Well, in the spirit of making assumptions I thought I'd offer my own, one of which i'd wager is probably true.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I'll give you 35 on personal problem.

a reply to: Phage

Lol well one things for sure, after I jumped on him he'll have a personal problem with me for a while, that's the way of some of the ATS membership.

But you're on

a reply to: TechniXcality

Ill go by the oxford definition : 1A person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.

God knows what happened on the day lol