Have your views about what happened on 9/11/2001 changed in the last ten years?

[salvorhardin]

Poll question: Have your views about what happened on 9/11/2001 changed in the last ten years?

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how everyone's views about the events on 9/11 have evolved over the years. For instance, for a year or two immediately after, I was weakly in the LIHOP camp. However, as I learned more I decided that the events of that day, and those leading up to it, were too complex to have been centrally planned in any way -- even if to just consciously ignore the threat.

About the options

• Agnostic = "I don't know" or "I don't believe either the mainstream narrative or the 9/11 skeptics".
• Mainstream narrative = Mostly believe the bulk of the scientific and engineering consensus, plus the official investigations.
• 9/11 skeptic = Doubtful of the mainstream narrative, to a high degree. Encompasses both MIHOP and LIHOP variations.

[LibDemAlways]

1. My skepticism was solidified when the Bush cabal

fought like hell to prevent the formation of the 911 commission. When they finally gave in, they put together an underfunded sham tasked with covering their own asses.

If the mainstream narrative was credible, they'd have welcomed an inquiry.

[BeFree]

3. More definition needed for this

""Have always believed and continue to believe mainstream narrative""

How in the hell could anyone claim they believe the mainstream narrative or, as it is know here "Official Conspiracy Theory" - OCT, when so much of it has been proven to be crap and even some members on the 9/11 Commission have said that bushco obstructed their investigation? See this thread for more background:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1928380&mesg_id=1928380

How in hell can anyone actually profess to "always and continue"?
The only way I know how they could is by totally blocking out of their minds anything that makes them question their faith.

If I am wrong, I certainly look forward to hearing how these few voters could vote as they did.

[jberryhill]

9. The "mainstream narrative" is an indictment of their competence

I don't understand how one could read the 9/11 Commission Report and come away with the impression that it somehow paints a rosy picture of the Bush administration.

Hobbled as it was, it is a peculiar "whitewash" which says, in so many words, that the administration was populated by idiots without a clue how to do their jobs.

[BobbyBoring]

11. Mine too

The first thing I wondered on 9/11 was how they were going to put out the fires. The buildings collapsing in a controlled demolition fashion got my attention, but when W started fighting tooth and nail against any investigation of the biggest crime of all time, I said WTF.

I wish those that still believe the official narrative would do 2 things. First, spend some time researching and second,THINK!

9/11 paved the way to where we are today and who benefits?? Follow the money!

[zappaman]

2. Someone is fudging these numbers

A very reliable poster here at DU says the percentage of DUers that are truthers is 88%.
Now way would this DUer make that up!

[salvorhardin]

4. I'm surprised more respondents aren't selecting the agnostic position

I worded that to encompass those who are suspicious of/disbelieve both the other options. Since so many people claim to be "just asking questions" that should hit the majority of respondents. Instead we're seeing a fairly clear division between those who accept, and those who are skeptical of, the consensus.

OK, I lied, I'm not really surprised. Too bad more people aren't responding though. This could have given an interesting map of the zeitgeist of the dungeon.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. I had a hard time answering this question

With respect to the debates that dominate in the dungeon, I'm pretty much a "mainstream" guy. People who come here claiming to have "questions" almost always have answers, and their answers tend to be bad ones.

On the other hand, I'm an agnostic by temperament. I haven't seen any evidence to persuade me that the intelligence failure was more than a SNAFU, but I also don't have any basis for ruling it out.

[salvorhardin]

8. That's a limitation of DU's polls

I tried to pick what I thought was a reasonable matrix, without prejudicing either camp, but you're right that uncertainty (agnosticism)-certainty is a (mostly) independent scale from belief in the two competing narratives.

I think ideally I'd have had three 5 point (0-4) scales: 1) degree of certainty, 2) degree of belief in mainstream narrative and 3) degree of belief in government coverup. I'd ask respondents to rate their beliefs from ten years ago on each of the scales, then do it again, adjusting their ratings to reflect their current beliefs.

That way the stereotypical NWO operatives would probably answer 4,4,0 while the stereotypical Truther would answer 4,0,4. Personally, my current beliefs might be something along the lines of 3,3,2 whereas back in 2002/2003 I would have answered 2,2,3.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. it's hard to wrap one's head around all this

I don't think there are just two narratives, and I'm not sure it makes sense to construe, say, the 9/11 Commission narrative and some particular alternative (whose?) as orthogonal. (Is it possible to be 3,4,4?) But in general, I think you're moving in a reasonable direction.

Do you remember a post called something like "What is your HOP level?"? I think it might be pretty good to use something like that "scale" -- extent of U.S. government involvement in / responsibility for the attacks? People might report their degree of certainty separately, as you propose, or they might somehow characterize their subjective probability distribution. (Potentially that would be more informative. Two people might be at the same point on a HOP scale, and report the same degree of (un)certainty, yet one might seriously countenance a MIHOP scenario whereas the other wouldn't.)

I don't know to what extent it is a separate dimension, but engagement in "9/11 science" seems somewhat like a thing in itself. Logically, someone can embrace MIHOP without agreeing with any of the arguments put forward, e.g., by AE911Truth. (And, come to think of it, one could accept that the towers had been brought down by controlled demolition without believing that the U.S. government had anything to do with it.) Of course, those arguments tend to bleed into arguments about whether NIST is part of the cover-up.

I could keep going, but I had better not. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I am surprised I am the only one so far : "Have always been and continue to be agnostic"

I figured it would be more of a common stance.

[gateley]

6. Believed mainstream narrative, now agnostic --

Still working through it. :)

[defendandprotect]

12. At this point, you're POLLING only those in the dungeon ... nor was 9/11 that complex ....

For instance, for a year or two immediately after, I was weakly in the LIHOP camp. However, as I learned more I decided that the events of that day, and those leading up to it, were too complex to have been centrally planned in any way -- even if to just consciously ignore the threat.

The WTC were going to have to come down piece by piece -- via very expensive scaffolding --

because of the ASBESTOS -- they were "White Elephants" --

They were NOT going to be permitted to bring them down via demolition.


And there begins the plot --

Obviously they united with those who needed "another Pearl Harbor" -- a reason to attack Iraq.

US government/CIA were making progress in a settlement with Sadaam/Iraq government on removing

the sanctions -- US/CIA had gotten everything they had asked for and more -- highly profitable

business deals which would have boosted our economy, as well. Iraq would have purchased

1 million US cars every year -- and they were completely open and agreeable to any inspections

US/CIA wanted --

The ONLY LOSER was the MIC ---


The Sanctiosn on Iraq were also being challenged by a number of nations for HUMANITARIAN REASONS!

They were joining together to violate our "No Fly Zone" and to fly in food and aid to Iraqis.

CIA was "furious" -- and wanted to regain control --


So not only did these high level conspirators come together to do their dirty deeds, they

conspired to create two filthy wars -- where we could have had a removal of the sanctions and

peace with Iraq!

Instead millions in Iraq are dead -- but the MIC is happy -- probably slap-happy!!