Converted "Truthers"/"Trusters"

I was wondering how many people here stood on one side of the debate, but eventually changed their tune.

Did you used to believe the official story, but now you don't?

Did you used to think it was an inside job, but have since conceded that it was muslim terrorists?



What made you change your mind?

I'm more interested in the people who used to be truthers but aren't any more.

I dont know how to word it, but I guess I got super duped. I didnt wanna talk about, didnt wanna question it, didnt know what to do. And I dont know what got me focusing on it, or where I originally stood, just that after looking into it, felt betrayed and ashamed.
I asked my father what he thought, and his response made me even more confused. he said, "what does it matter? you either make things happen, or things happen to you.."
I was baffled... but I made the decision to keep looking and to get to the bottom. There will come a day where evil and good fight, and I need to know what side is good and which is bad... Idk if this answers any of your questions...

I believe a poster called Okbmd is your man. But I might be wrong.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I believe a poster called Okbmd is your man. But I might be wrong.

Nah. He's just playing both sides of the field. But that's all he's doing is playing. I've never seen anything sincere come from him.

Originally posted by Jack Squat

What made you change your mind?

I'm more interested in the people who used to be truthers but aren't any more.

I never actually thought the gov't was constantly plotting to murder us all with these bizarre Rube Goldberg schemes, precisely, but when I first watched Loose Change I *did* wonder if something suspicious was going on when it showed photos of security personnel smuggling some mysterious blue tarp covered thing out of the Pentagon. It was only after I did more searching on this that I found out that Dylan Avery was lying through his teeth- it wasn't some mysterious tarp covered object being taken out, it was a triage tent being brought IN, and Avery intentionally cropped the photo to snip off the crowns of people behind the people carryign the tent to conceal which direction they were walking. His caim that UA 93 actually landed in Ohio turned out to be bogus, too- that was one of a million confused rumors being tossed around during 9/11 that was later retracted, which Avery neglected to mention was retracted. Ever since then I knew the whole 9/11 truther movement was basing their concerns on a con job..

When I say these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pulling your leg with these paranoid claims to get you people all spooked over shadows, I'm NOT making anything up.

Well, the event happened when I was in fourth grade, so I wasn't too concerned about conspiracy theories at the time. I didn't quite understood why the towers fell at the time, but demolitions never came to mind. This was 9 years ago, so I don't remember everything, especially just being 10 years old at the time. Sure, I was an advanced student (was getting straight A's and stuff, was already working with computers, IQ of 133, etc.), but I was still pretty simple-minded.

Now, over the years, I didn't do a lot of investigating. I looked now and again, and when I encountered some of what I now know were truther arguments, I found them easily discountable, because more simple answers made more sense.

It was when I saw a video of the WTC 7 collapsing that I basically converted to truther for a time. I couldn't really believe it, and it blew my mind that a building would look so obviously like a demolition. This was just a couple years ago. I still had no idea what a truther was, mind you, and neither was I a part of any conspiracy websites. I actually came to ATS for a whole other reason. I was interested in some of the other conspiracy discussions like those of the masons and such. Now, it's become my prime source for worldly news.

As it is, when I joined ATS I had mostly forgotten what my whole thing about the WTC 7. It was a vague suspicion in my mind, but I didn't defend it or oppose it. As I started reading, I found eyewitness reports and evidence of how WTC 7 had all this damage, no water, etc. That wasn't quite enough to convince me until a few months back I saw the whole video of the WTC 7's collapse.

When I saw the penthouse buckle into the building, I had to analyze the footage as closely as possible because I wanted to really KNOW what happened. Based on the ejections of dust and debris in relation to the collapse, I was able to come to the conclusion that a support column must have failed. And at this time I didn't even know there were only a few support columns in the building. I witnessed on the video the floors collapsing down, and as they did so, windows broke out and puffs of smoke and debris ejected. After the inner collapse reached the bottom of the visible building (approximately half of the building), the rest of the interior began to fall, with the exterior as well.

At that point I still couldn't explain the symmetrical collapse, but I found out why it did that as well after I factored in all the damage. There was a corner scooped right out of the building at the base, and I came to the conclusion that it would make sense for that to allow the crumpling of steel at the joints. The other side probably had some kind of structural problem when the interior hit ground level (most likely a number of stories above ground, since debris piles up). I also witnessed in my observations of WTC 7 that the side that had initially collapsed on the interior wobbled to the North (if I remember correctly). Weeks after I made these conclusions about how the building collapsed, I saw an NIST video that illustrated EVERYTHING I had thought, but they had modeled the collapse and the possible damage to the interior as it went down, demonstrating how much material was crashing into the base, etc.

Since I could now find logical, simple explanations for what happened, the need for controlled demolitions became just plain pointless, and I became what you all call a "truster," even though I don't trust the government. Never will. I just happen to agree with the conclusions that their funding produced (at least on the collapses of the buildings).

I am open to other theories and I have presented a few ideas I thought would be plausible for the WTC 7, though without any evidence whatsoever. One was that a single charge could have been used to dislodge a beam in the tower that caused the entire collapse. The downside to looking at it like that is that then one would have to consider the fires and the damage they were causing to be completely harmless. I just can't ignore the fire and structural damage that is required to become a truther.

And when I started, I was even open to ideas about the towers not being taken down by the planes. I still am, to a degree. However, after all the evidence, testimony, and common sense I have used in coming to my conclusions, I just can't find any reason to doubt that the planes were what took down the buildings. If they didn't, then whoever set it up did a perfect job at covering it up, and none of the evidences posted here could possibly reveal it without a whistle-blower revealing that he was part of the secret plot to disguise a demolition as a plane crash to help empower the government.

I realized the truth in 2006 and I have never looked back.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I realized the truth in 2006 and I have never looked back.

Not to de-rail the thread, but I always wonder about statements like this. You say you "realized the truth." Yet, in the closing on 19 years I've been alive, all I've discovered is that truth is based on perspective. Absolute truth almost doesn't exist, only "close enough." You know that even gravity can't be properly explained yet?

So I have to wonder how you are so certain of the "truth" of the matter. Was it because of scientific method, observations, evidence, and then a conclusion of what happened? Was it a non-biased approach to information that led you to believe in what the "truth" was?

Or is it faith once you have invested an emotional need into the idea of the "truth?" This is why I'm almost making it my creed to say "never invest emotion into an idea," because that way, if you end up wrong, you can still change without damaging your psyche. Finding out that you're wrong about something you've believed in for years is almost the same impact as a girlfriend of a few years suddenly breaking up with you. You just don't want to let her go. I've had it happen! I know the feelings of both losing an idea and a girlfriend.

So tell me with every ounce of honesty in your soul that you have no emotional investment in the "truth" of 9/11, and I will believe that you came to your conclusions on a logical and reasoned basis.

Originally posted by Varemia

So I have to wonder how you are so certain of the "truth" of the matter. Was it because of scientific method, observations, evidence, and then a conclusion of what happened? Was it a non-biased approach to information that led you to believe in what the "truth" was?

No dummy

People tried to kill me