Okay, let me state right off the bat that I am unconvinced about the 9/11 issue. I am currently sitting on the fence which, I know, is frowned upon. But I am not content to stay there. Let me tell you my story:
I first encountered Loose Change as a college sophomore on Google Video last October. I stayed through just long enough until I saw Wikipedia listed as a source. Stop pressed, browser closed, kthxbai.
In discussing 9/11 conspiracies in a class a few weeks later (actually a business class, not political science or sociology - it came up because of something our professor said about the Enron employees watching fires that would eventually consume people's homes with glee because it would help them out), another student brought up Loose Change. "Oh, I'm gonna be hot shit," I thought. I threw that hand up in the air as fast as I could, nearly dislocating my shoulder, and said, "You mean the one that used, of all things, WIKIPEDIA as a source?"
He replied, "No."
...And suddenly I am back in my dormroom watching Loose Change: Second Edition. Which was compelling, sure. But was it accurate?
Since then I've seen countless (and by countless I mean about 15) different takes on the whole thing. From Loose Change to Screw Loose Change to blogs entitled Screw Screw Loose Change... (for the love of God and all that is Holy, change the title if there's a 4th in the series. "Screw Loose Change: The Return of the Screwing" Has a nice ring.) From the History Channel special to
this lovely and highly scientific bit on the best page in the Universe, I've seen both sides of the story. Several times. And at this point, I can't make a decision yet.
Currently neither side has been able to bring up a point that the other side cannot counter in at least a moderately believable way
based upon my knowledge of the science at work. Let me say that again: I am not saying that all the myth debunking that has taken place makes sense if you are a structural engineer or an aviations expert; only that the explanations for the apparent anomalies make sense
to me. Until I have found evidence that I cannot dispute, I will have to remain indecisive.
In my mind, I hope this is somewhat refreshing; I'm not here to promote my side or bash the other side into the ground. I am not here to yell or scream or engage in shouting matches with anyone. I am planning to embark on the suggested journey of looking at the facts and accounts for myself, and only after that is done will I be able to say with any certainty which of the two sides I believe. Perhaps the good people of this community can go on that journey with me. I can only hope.