A few days ago a friend and I went to lunch, afterward the conversation touched on 911.
My friend is a serious engineer, we met in college when we worked for scientists building and operating experimental equipment in their labs. Very smart guy, a good designer and programmer, he has carried off some difficult hw and sw projects entirely on his own.
I hadn’t talked to him about this for 6 months or so. His opinion has evolved. He now acknowledges that Building 7 was controlled demolition, extremely obvious from the videos. He thinks the evidence is persuasive that the Twin Towers were similarly demolished, the planes did not take them down. So a conspiracy of some kind, no question. But he isn’t willing to say ‘false flag’, because that would blame it on the US gov, and he doesn’t think the fact that the 911 Commission failed to notice the demolitions is sufficient evidence of a coverup that would be evidence of prior knowledge or guilty intent.
He doesn’t pay much attention to the evidence, has no knowledge of the Israeli involvement, trucks with explosives, insurance fraud, insider trading on advance information, etc.
I have not seen a single argument about 911 anywhere in at least a year, had noticed that before that, only obviously dumb people were arguing the gov’s case. Also, lately on ZH, more and more comments by people who seem to me to be rational and insightful* assume 911 was a false flag and consider a more-recent event in that light.
So I wondered if the phenomena were general, went googling for polls.
This Wikipedia article has many, many of them in 2008 and earlier.There are none, so far as I easily find after 2008.
Why do you suppose that is?
*Did you note the obvious intent to borrow credibility, to guide your thinking with implicit social approval? If not, you aren’t being skeptical enough, not by far.