What about building 7? A Social Psychological study

This study is a few years old now, and before I begin I would just like to say I searched for it beforehand and came up with six different posts referring to it. For your convenience, I have posted links to all of them.

1. www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. www.abovetopsecret.com...

3. www.abovetopsecret.com...

4. www.abovetopsecret.com...

5. www.abovetopsecret.com...

6. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I made a mistake. What I should be saying is that they referred to an article that referred to it. The article in question implied that the original paper said that conspiracy theorists, specifically those who think there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 (not to target specific individuals, it's just that that was the only thing being studied) were more "sane" than people who did not.

I'm here to correct the error in interpretation. There were a lot of things that the article said the study said that were misconstrued in order to make conspiracy theorists appear smarter and more rational. You need only look to the comment made by one of the original authors of the paper: Michael Wood.

Here He says the following:

As the first author of this study, I'd like to address a misleading headline that's been making the rounds lately: the idea that this study says that people who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are better-adjusted than those who do not. This grossly misinterprets our results: this study says nothing about mental health, and its results do not justify any conclusions about one group of people being more or less "sane" than another.
The main basis for this misinterpretation appears to be the observed difference in hostility between conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments. On average, conventionalist comments tended to be somewhat more hostile. In the paper, we interpret this difference as the product of a fairly specific social situation in which the two rival opinion-based groups use different strategies of social influence according to their relative popularity, rather than as an inherent psychological difference. In fact, previous research by Marina Abalakina-Paap and colleagues has shown that dispositional hostility is positively, not negatively, correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories - in other words, people who believe more conspiracy theories tend to be more hostile. However, that finding doesn't necessarily justify the conclusion that conventionalists are better-adjusted than conspiracists. Either of these conclusions relies on the unstated premise that hostility is never good or justified, and that less hostility is always better. This is at least an arguable assumption, and there's certainly no evidence for it here.
In general, I would urge anyone who found this paper via the "sanity" article to please think critically about headlines in the future. It is tempting to believe without question self-serving headlines that validate your prejudices and beliefs, but that's precisely when critical thinking is most important.

I thought that was pretty funny, especially when he suggested that people should stop believing self-serving headlines without question. Following the logic of the article, being sane just means that you make slightly less hostile comments than your opponents and believe things that the majority of people believe. I thought this was a particularly relevant place to post this because of, well, the subject matter of the forum.

a reply to: zackli

Maybe I misunderstand.
Are you saying that by pulling a bunch of firemen out of a burning building-(slivertooth's had to pull it comment) because somehow something will happen today that has never happened before in history- will occur?

A third steel structure will fold in on it's self- wait for it-because of terrorists.

It was a social experiment to see how many shaken awaken Americans were/are still oblivious to who the terrorists are/were?

We were told one truth, we were hit by terrorists. Thank goodness for the patriot act!!!

/rant

Sorry.
I guess it's still a touchy subject.

One reason why I chose to be a 'concrete cowboy' was because whatever I build will be there long after I'm gone...

There's only one way to change the face of my work, and that is through the use of demolition practices.

a reply to: loveguy

Maybe I misunderstand.
Are you saying that by pulling a bunch of firemen out of a burning building-(slivertooth's had to pull it comment) because somehow something will happen today that has never happened before in history- will occur?

A third steel structure will fold in on it's self- wait for it-because of terrorists.

It was a social experiment to see how many shaken awaken Americans were/are still oblivious to who the terrorists are/were?

We were told one truth, we were hit by terrorists. Thank goodness for the patriot act!!!

/rant

I don't know what you're talking about. This is social psychology research. What actually happened with 9/11 is completely irrelevant. It is studying the characteristics of comments by people on both sides of the fence, to ascertain whether or not there are commonalities. Hint: people with specific characteristics like hostility and distrustfulness are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

ah....yezz bldg.7....I'm a commercial structures guy....a fire didn't do it....what fire was that big and hot?

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: loveguy

Maybe I misunderstand.
Are you saying that by pulling a bunch of firemen out of a burning building-(slivertooth's had to pull it comment) because somehow something will happen today that has never happened before in history- will occur?

A third steel structure will fold in on it's self- wait for it-because of terrorists.

It was a social experiment to see how many shaken awaken Americans were/are still oblivious to who the terrorists are/were?

We were told one truth, we were hit by terrorists. Thank goodness for the patriot act!!!

/rant

I don't know what you're talking about. This is social psychology research. What actually happened with 9/11 is completely irrelevant. It is studying the characteristics of comments by people on both sides of the fence, to ascertain whether or not there are commonalities. Hint: people with specific characteristics like hostility and distrustfulness are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

I'm too slow.
I tried to exhibit myself first as irrational,
then as rational as possible.

Honest people tend to believe other people are just as honest as they are.
But there is a small segment in every population that takes advantage of this sad fact.

Honest people become hostile after all other avenues have been exhausted?

I think anyone who questions more is more sane than those who just judge everything by how it appears, or believes whatever they are told.

The term conspiracy theorist is contrived by people that want you to believe all conspiracies are only theories.

This isn't a conspiracy theory website, its an alternative to the main stream media, the biggest conspiracy of them all.

originally posted by: zackli

I don't know what you're talking about. This is social psychology research. What actually happened with 9/11 is completely irrelevant. It is studying the characteristics of comments by people on both sides of the fence, to ascertain whether or not there are commonalities. Hint: people with specific characteristics like hostility and distrustfulness are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

Your headline says, What about building 7? A Social Psychological study

I'll grant you that you did not include an exclamation mark at the end of the headline, but then there is no full stop either.
A Social Psychological study? My guess is that the study did not include any NIST people who may or may not be forum junkies, or perhaps a little myopic from making funny cartoons and never saw molten metal.....as in molten?
Now, forums are funny places, and there can always be trolly posts on two sides of any debate, but so often it comes down to nil content. However, I do see some very well informed and insightful people making excellent posts, against the popular, or official line, and be frustrated by the trolling, shill whatever that has no content at all, other than the popular, or official line.
That's totally different than writer David Arronovitch's take on things where he claims people make up stuff, simply because they can't believe what happened, happened the way it did, and that made them 'cosy' with events...frankly a load of crap....I think!

a reply to: zackli

Personally i belive in a conspiracy on 9-11, and im so pissed off and angry about what happened that day and the days that followed, the "study" is absolutely bang on when it comes to what im feeling, other than that im pretty balanced.
Did the study really expect people who are bullied and lied to by the government to be happy about it?

a reply to: zackli

I think if you are going to include other OP's you should include content too, not just the links.

a reply to: intrptr

This isn't a conspiracy theory website, its an alternative to the main stream media, the biggest conspiracy of them all.

Nah, I'd say religion is the biggest conspiracy of them all..The MSM is just fodder for morons who want to be more worldly.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: intrptr

This isn't a conspiracy theory website, its an alternative to the main stream media, the biggest conspiracy of them all.

Nah, I'd say religion is the biggest conspiracy of them all..The MSM is just fodder for morons who want to be more worldly.

I think more people watch TV than go to church. TV is much bigger than religion. In fact…

a reply to: smurfy

G'mornin, Smurfy, I like that!

originally posted by: intrptr
I think anyone who questions more is more sane than those who just judge everything by how it appears, or believes whatever they are told.

The term conspiracy theorist is contrived by people that want you to believe all conspiracies are only theories.

This isn't a conspiracy theory website, its an alternative to the main stream media, the biggest conspiracy of them all.

Exactly. Putting labels on people completely cancels any validity of that study.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: intrptr
I think anyone who questions more is more sane than those who just judge everything by how it appears, or believes whatever they are told.

The term conspiracy theorist is contrived by people that want you to believe all conspiracies are only theories.

This isn't a conspiracy theory website, its an alternative to the main stream media, the biggest conspiracy of them all.

Exactly. Putting labels on people completely cancels any validity of that study.

Exactly. Them damn conspiracy theorists. The message to most people is nothing to see here. If you want truth in news watch tv, if you want only theory goto an alternative news site, called a 'conspiracy website'.

As thought we and not they are making up the lies about world events.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

It doesn't cancel the validity of anything. It strictly defines the term as people who subscribe to a theory of 9/11 other than the official line.

In a strictly literal sense, all the study is measuring is how people with varying attitudes toward 9/11 respond in forums. It doesn't take a large leap to then ask the question why that is.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Noted. It was more to avoid being told that "there are other posts on the same topic" than it was because I actually cared about the other posts.

a reply to: Curious69

That's not what the results of the study are about. It's not studying the effects of individual's reactions to 9/11. It's about studying the predisposition of people who tend to lean one way or the other.

People who think 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the US government tend to be more hostile and distrustful. To suggest that 9/11 suddenly made them that way is a bit naive.

The results of the study suggest that people who are more distrustful and hostile are more likely to believe it was perpetrated by the US government.

The results of the study suggested that people who are on the side of the official story are the ones who are more likely to make hostile posts. It was the "previous research" link inside my quote that said individuals who subscribe to conspiracy theories are more likely to be hostile and distrustful.

It may be confusing that people who are less cynical and distrustful would make more hostile comments, but there are many possible explanations for the apparent inconsistency. One reason might be that people who are cynical and distrustful would be so obsessed with being called out on their bull**** that they would make sure whatever they say could be verified, even if it's only by an alternative media website. Another is that people who are less cynical and distrustful would be less likely to ruminate and verify every little detail about 9/11, because they're too busy with their lives.

It could be both of those, neither of those, or some other thing. In any case, it is something to explore at a later date.

a reply to: intrptr

You can think whatever you want. Your opinions are your opinions.

My mistake on referring to it as a conspiracy theory website. It's just that the vast majority of posts I see imply a conspiracy on the part of at least two people, if not the same two people.

A robot could have a duck call programmed into it and be made to look like a duck, and it could even walk like a duck, but it wouldn't be a duck. So it is with this website.