It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 Truth Size Survey

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


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



posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
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.




top topics



 
0

log in

join