911 Truth Size Survey

I am 'trying' to make an effort to determine the size of the 911 truth movement.

I believe it is well past the knee of the curve - and will hit critical mass very quickly.

LooseChange II has been viewed 16 Million times in many languages just on video.google.com (that is IF the counters are not falsified) - it may be much more.

But that may only be a small number of those who have woken up. and I need to determine the prorater multiplier figure.

Can you reply to this thread with how you found out 911 was a inside job? IE Street DVD, Website, video.google.ca? From this a multiplier can be determined and the size of the movement known.

Results will be posted shortly at www.anomalicresearch.com...

Please answer honestly if you want an honest result.

I'll start this off and how I became a "questioner". I'm starting to hate the term "truther".

I started right here on ATS. I wasn't interested in the 9/11 threads for the first 1.5 years I lurked here. I finally joined when I wanted my voice heard (the voice of a civil/structural engineer). I started out with the mindset of dispelling at least some CTs. I think I have, along with other members here. But, the more I looked into it, the more I found that the story we were fed was not entirely true. Hence why I call myself a "questioner", because I question the official story, I question the means and methods of the NIST report, I question CTs, I question the means and methods of "truthers". So, I question until I find a legitimate answer that satisfies my question scientifically and honestly.

So far, both sides have not taken up the task of answering my questions to the fullest extent. And I have to be honest. At least the CTs try and answer, while the government story just ignores.

I hope that is what you were looking for and I wasn't being off topic.

Google research on multiple sites, including youtube. Everything in 9/11 Coincidences being true and easily verifiable by anyone who wants.

And Alex Jones, WeAreChange, Coast2Coast etc.

I dont believe anyone goes to a single web site and suddenly starts believing. Its about taking information from multiple sources and seeing what makes sense.


[edit on 4-11-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Griff


Can you tell me what CT's mean? I am not familiar with that term - sorry.

reply to post by XR500Final


It means Conspiracy Theorists, a term commonly used in the mainstream media to bunch together everyone who does not follow the herd and try to think for themselfs. Its actually quite a compliment.

I've said it before in other threads but the basics are that I was very slow to tumble to what was going on. At first I was 100% behind the Bush administration and backing the war in Afganistan.

I was a little disturbed by the failure of the Bush administration to respond to the Afghan government's request for evidence linking Bin Laden to 911 as a condition for extradition, but I kind of glossed it over in the heat of the moment. I was hot about what happened in New York (still am, as a matter of fact) and was willing to overlook what was basically a sanctioned lynch mob approach to arresting Bin Laden.

When the focus shifted to Iraq, I started to take notice that the Bush administration was really doing a lot of counter-intuitive things post 911. The most glaring was no police-led criminal investigation of the crime. I started to smell a rat. One of my threads is titled "The Devil in the Details". The more I looked, the more cloven hoofprints I saw.

[edit on 6-11-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by XR500Final


I would call into question your methodology for trying to ascertain the number of "truthers" out there. For example not everyone who watched Loose Change is a "truth" person. Trying to take that raw data and turn it into a meaningful statistical figure is prone to a very wide range of fluctation. The other possible result is just a plainly incorrect sample to begin with. It might be akin to asking a Keith Obermann audience if they think President Bush should be impeached. The result would be very decisive, but also a very wrong sampling of the population as a whole.

Wouldn't just a Zogby or Harris poll be a better sampling or are those type of surveys flawed to you?

I have the sneaking feeling you will find the result you set out to find in the first place using your methods, not the actual truth. Just my opinion.