Truther Thread

a reply to: pteridine

"Clearly, delusional ideation, and belief in conspiracies share important cognitive characteristics (i.e., unusual beliefs, magical thinking, fear of external agencies and persecutions). This is evident when typical features of conspiratorial thinking (worldview) are considered. Particularly, the conviction that unorthodox theories/explanations are true, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, and the presumption of deception are prominent features of conspiracist thinking."

Thank you so much for your "opinion" to what all Truther are, I am glad you cleared that up.

Folks, now you understand how some OSers go out of their way to demonize everyone who dares ask questions or has a different of opinions or belief.

Our government would never commit a False Flag. No, there is no corruption in politics Our government doesn't have the means, the know how, or the money to carry out a False Flag. This is the mind set I get from a few OSer.

a reply to: pteridine

This is a harmless pursuit except for the dirtballs like Gage that are bilking money from the true believers. Many of the charlatans, like Steven Jones, have disappeared, but their legacy of incompetence lingers on the internet and seduces newly arrived 911 investigators, still. Below in an excerpt from a psychology paper that I found interesting. wildb led me to it:

The first thing to do to someone that is credible like Gage, is to attack their credibility and character. You only see OSer doing this. I have never seen a Truther ever go in this direction, NEVER.

Why don't you talk about how corrupt our government is and the many lies they told us about 911? No you wont hear a word about that.

The fact is many OSer like to attack credible people who speak out against the OS. They start with going after all the scientist that have proved many parts of the OS are lies.

a reply to: johnquindell

Boy you must be trying to tick off both sides.

People would be more willing and less fearful of adopting the views of 911 Truth activists if they felt they were calling for forgiveness rather than retribution and punishment.

R U serious?

I thought we were supposed to be to be working on a society based on fairness, equality and JUSTICE. I was an adult at the time of 9/11 I saw people who had mothers and fathers, spouses and children, brothers and sisters who were jumping from the windows to try to escape the pain, suffering and misery. Besides the ones who unnecessarily perished it affected countless other lives directly or indirectly and our society as a whole. I agree on some level we have to have forgiveness in our hearts but to say...

The peace movement should call for granting amnesty from prosecution and guarantee of an ample, lifetime pension to anyone who agrees to testify on their roles in the events of 9/11, extending this offer to any members of the US government, foreign governments and/or terrorist groups involved in the planning or execution of the attacks of that day.

(If they would do that everybody would confess to involvement.)
...is absolutely ridiculous. I think Osers and Truthers would even agree that if the facts actually ever come out. That the culprits should be punished and not patted on the butt, given milk and cookies and a free ride off of everyone else. For 1 habitual liars are never going to tell the truth and if what you propose actually occurred the perpetrators would gladly tell you what you want to hear and laugh at the ignorance all the way to the bank while they cash their "pension checks" and since they no longer have to work could get together over cocktails to plan how they will get us again. Evidently you had no friends or family that died because of this and I didn't either but I can have enough compassion for humanity in general to know that they shouldn't have died the way they did only to have the ones who did it to be rewarded. Some people don't even want to be rehabilitated, look at career criminals they know they can't function in society that's why if they do get released they commit another crime to go back home to their 3 squares and a cot. You must have never been victimized unnecessarily. Have you ever been robbed at gunpoint and feared for your life? My wife has. Have you ever had a child victimized by a sexual pervert. I've had 4. Have you ever been harassed and threatened to have your home burned down with you and your family in it by people that bragged that they could get away with anything because they had "crazy papers" and it basically be proven they're right? Police wouldn't take the testimony of my witness. Have you ever been threatened at gunpoint by a psychopath and the police show up and search your property, I have. Have you ever requested that the police be called to a situation only to be arrested and assaulted by the police and rolled in a bed of fire ants yourself. Happened to me.(if i'd actually done anything wrong you'd think the officer would have showed up at trial to testify, he didn't.)

Additionally, individuals should step forward and volunteer to spend time working with those who give testimony on crimes they have committed so that they might be reintegrated into society.

Are you volunteering for that job? Good luck.



The Utopian paradise you're wishing for would be nice but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. I've been around long enough to know things aren't going the way we thought they would 20 or 30 years ago. I don't have to know who's to blame to know things are going wrong and it's not just 9/11 The common people in our society are hit with a bunch of BS from all sides be it political, religious or civil. All institutions. Sir we don't know each other and I ain't trying to come down too hard I'd just like to respectfully ask that you rethink your position. If the peace movement really wants to do some good they should round up the psychopaths, criminals the corrupt and unrepentant and put them somewhere whomever they may be and the rest of us could have peace.

a reply to: InconspicuousObserver

R U serious?

Kinda entertaining in an orwellian way, innit? Stockholm Syndrome maybe?

a reply to: sg1642

You can't use verinage demolition to support your argument.

Of course I can and you should have noticed the squibs of compressed air that are forced away from the buildings during the collapse of the buildings under the Verinage demolition method.

Pre weakening is carried out before hand and the structure is compromised along the middle not up near the top 15-20% of the building.

Pre-weakening a steel frame buildings is a long, noisy and dirty process that would have contaminated the work environment with unacceptable noise levels and hazardous airborne contaminates that would not have been tolerated for many months. Such a process would have generated large amounts of waste debris that would not have gone unnoticed.

If you look usually two floors are walked in opposite directions to bring the building down. And it's done in a perfect and unified manner with precision timing. Ironically, you will also tend to see one side bow inwards before the collapse begins. Just as we seen during the WTC collapse.

That is undeniable proof that fire, not explosives, was slowly weakening the steel structures of the WTC buildings. Let's do a recap.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.representativepress.org...

Also you will notice a sharp deceleration of the mass above the fault line as it hits the mass below something that wasn't seen on 9/11 (not that you would because of the debris and dust).

Let's take a look at this photo and notice that debris and dust plumes are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower and strike the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above ground level, which effectively debunks the claim that the WTC building collapsed at free fall speed.

Photo Proves No WTC Tower Free Fall Speed

Those kind of collapses ocur because meticulous work is carried out in advance to ensure the collapse is symmetrical and neat.

Let's take a look at this photo and notice that the collapse was not very neat at all and remember, surrounding buildings were heavily damaged by falling debris from the collapse of the WTC buildings. That is not indicative of the way controlled demolitions are performed.

WTC Ground Zero Aerial Photo

Random (I say random as there was no control over their spread) fires and destroyed beams from a jet liner would not bring about a neat verinage collapse.

And as you saw, the collapse of the WTC buildings did not leave a neat pile of rubble, some of which caused damage to other buildings as well.

I am not trying to argue a case for demolition here, I'm just pointing out that arguing against a demolition scenario on 9/11 by comparing it to a controlled demolition is kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

First of all, anyone who embraces the demolition theory have to provide audio evidence of explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings and they have to explain why demolition explosions did not register on in the seismic data.

For explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, they must be firmly attached before detonation and during the detonations, shock signals will be transmitted through the steel columns and into the ground where nearby seismic monitors will detect those signals, and yet, no such signals were detected. Once again, like banging on a steel beam with a hammer and no sound is produced.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

"Clearly, delusional ideation, and belief in conspiracies share important cognitive characteristics (i.e., unusual beliefs, magical thinking, fear of external agencies and persecutions). This is evident when typical features of conspiratorial thinking (worldview) are considered. Particularly, the conviction that unorthodox theories/explanations are true, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, and the presumption of deception are prominent features of conspiracist thinking."

Thank you so much for your "opinion" to what all Truther are, I am glad you cleared that up.

Folks, now you understand how some OSers go out of their way to demonize everyone who dares ask questions or has a different of opinions or belief.

Our government would never commit a False Flag. No, there is no corruption in politics Our government doesn't have the means, the know how, or the money to carry out a False Flag. This is the mind set I get from a few OSer.

It's not my "opinion;" it is an excerpt from a paper on the psychology of those who like conspiracy theories. Don't be so defensive. It is not demonization, as you put it.

a reply to: Informer1958

The first thing to do to someone that is credible like Gage, is to attack their credibility and character.

Just to let you know that attacks on Richard Gage have also come from the 9/11 conspiracy side of the house and i have posted videos of those confrontations as well.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This is a harmless pursuit except for the dirtballs like Gage that are bilking money from the true believers. Many of the charlatans, like Steven Jones, have disappeared, but their legacy of incompetence lingers on the internet and seduces newly arrived 911 investigators, still. Below in an excerpt from a psychology paper that I found interesting. wildb led me to it:

The first thing to do to someone that is credible like Gage, is to attack their credibility and character. You only see OSer doing this. I have never seen a Truther ever go in this direction, NEVER.

Many times, I have been called a liar whenever I disagree with the latest truther reality. You may even have done so. It would seem that there is open discussion whenever it does not conflict with the truther agenda.

As to Gage, he is not credible, at all. He is a charlatan taking money from good-intentioned gullible folks who send him money. Start a thread called "the credibility and character of Richard Gage" and see what comes of it.

a reply to: wildb

He is just looking to discredit me, let him try, I was at ground zero, I saw things with my own eyes and have studied the events of 911 every since.. most people who think they know what happened know very little. Including truthers..

The planes and the three buildings is about 2% of the story..

Thank you.

I had no idea that you were there. This is good for us wanting to know the truth. I am aware there was a lot of damage control going on at the same time 911 was unfolding and most of us who have done plenty of research into 911 know there was a criminal cover up.

It is refreshing to speak to someone on ATS who has some first hand knowledge on this topic.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: sg1642

You can't use verinage demolition to support your argument.

Of course I can and you should have noticed the squibs of compressed air that are forced away from the buildings during the collapse of the buildings under the Verinage demolition method.

Pre weakening is carried out before hand and the structure is compromised along the middle not up near the top 15-20% of the building.

Pre-weakening a steel frame buildings is a long, noisy and dirty process that would have contaminated the work environment with unacceptable noise levels and hazardous airborne contaminates that would not have been tolerated for many months. Such a process would have generated large amounts of waste debris that would not have gone unnoticed.

If you look usually two floors are walked in opposite directions to bring the building down. And it's done in a perfect and unified manner with precision timing. Ironically, you will also tend to see one side bow inwards before the collapse begins. Just as we seen during the WTC collapse.

That is undeniable proof that fire, not explosives, was slowly weakening the steel structures of the WTC buildings. Let's do a recap.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.representativepress.org...

Also you will notice a sharp deceleration of the mass above the fault line as it hits the mass below something that wasn't seen on 9/11 (not that you would because of the debris and dust).

Let's take a look at this photo and notice that debris and dust plumes are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower and strike the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above ground level, which effectively debunks the claim that the WTC building collapsed at free fall speed.

Photo Proves No WTC Tower Free Fall Speed

Those kind of collapses ocur because meticulous work is carried out in advance to ensure the collapse is symmetrical and neat.

Let's take a look at this photo and notice that the collapse was not very neat at all and remember, surrounding buildings were heavily damaged by falling debris from the collapse of the WTC buildings. That is not indicative of the way controlled demolitions are performed.

WTC Ground Zero Aerial Photo

Random (I say random as there was no control over their spread) fires and destroyed beams from a jet liner would not bring about a neat verinage collapse.

And as you saw, the collapse of the WTC buildings did not leave a neat pile of rubble, some of which caused damage to other buildings as well.

I am not trying to argue a case for demolition here, I'm just pointing out that arguing against a demolition scenario on 9/11 by comparing it to a controlled demolition is kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

First of all, anyone who embraces the demolition theory have to provide audio evidence of explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings and they have to explain why demolition explosions did not register on in the seismic data.

For explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, they must be firmly attached before detonation and during the detonations, shock signals will be transmitted through the steel columns and into the ground where nearby seismic monitors will detect those signals, and yet, no such signals were detected. Once again, like banging on a steel beam with a hammer and no sound is produced.

You missed my point entirely. I am not trying to say anything different. What I am trying to say is if you're going to say 'hey look at this controlled demolition, it proves the towers could collapse just like that' then you are basically, intentionally or not, comparing the collapse to a controlled demolition. You just made my point for me.

At no point was I trying to make a claim for controlled demolition in what I said and you're jumping down my throat with debunk quotes. All I was trying to say was if you're going to argue against a demolition, don't use a similarities in the collapse and a demolition Job as an argument.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: sg1642

You can't use verinage demolition to support your argument.

Of course I can and you should have noticed the squibs of compressed air that are forced away from the buildings during the collapse of the buildings under the Verinage demolition method.

Pre weakening is carried out before hand and the structure is compromised along the middle not up near the top 15-20% of the building.

Pre-weakening a steel frame buildings is a long, noisy and dirty process that would have contaminated the work environment with unacceptable noise levels and hazardous airborne contaminates that would not have been tolerated for many months. Such a process would have generated large amounts of waste debris that would not have gone unnoticed.

If you look usually two floors are walked in opposite directions to bring the building down. And it's done in a perfect and unified manner with precision timing. Ironically, you will also tend to see one side bow inwards before the collapse begins. Just as we seen during the WTC collapse.

That is undeniable proof that fire, not explosives, was slowly weakening the steel structures of the WTC buildings. Let's do a recap.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.representativepress.org...

Also you will notice a sharp deceleration of the mass above the fault line as it hits the mass below something that wasn't seen on 9/11 (not that you would because of the debris and dust).

Let's take a look at this photo and notice that debris and dust plumes are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower and strike the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above ground level, which effectively debunks the claim that the WTC building collapsed at free fall speed.

Photo Proves No WTC Tower Free Fall Speed

Those kind of collapses ocur because meticulous work is carried out in advance to ensure the collapse is symmetrical and neat.

Let's take a look at this photo and notice that the collapse was not very neat at all and remember, surrounding buildings were heavily damaged by falling debris from the collapse of the WTC buildings. That is not indicative of the way controlled demolitions are performed.

WTC Ground Zero Aerial Photo

Random (I say random as there was no control over their spread) fires and destroyed beams from a jet liner would not bring about a neat verinage collapse.

And as you saw, the collapse of the WTC buildings did not leave a neat pile of rubble, some of which caused damage to other buildings as well.

I am not trying to argue a case for demolition here, I'm just pointing out that arguing against a demolition scenario on 9/11 by comparing it to a controlled demolition is kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

First of all, anyone who embraces the demolition theory have to provide audio evidence of explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings and they have to explain why demolition explosions did not register on in the seismic data.

For explosives to be effective against steel frame buildings, they must be firmly attached before detonation and during the detonations, shock signals will be transmitted through the steel columns and into the ground where nearby seismic monitors will detect those signals, and yet, no such signals were detected. Once again, like banging on a steel beam with a hammer and no sound is produced.

Except the verinage technique works exactly as should according to Newton's laws of motion. WTC collapse doesnt now does it?

www.journalof911studies.com...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wildb

He is just looking to discredit me, let him try, I was at ground zero, I saw things with my own eyes and have studied the events of 911 every since.. most people who think they know what happened know very little. Including truthers..

The planes and the three buildings is about 2% of the story..

Thank you.

I had no idea that you were there. This is good for us wanting to know the truth. I am aware there was a lot of damage control going on at the same time 911 was unfolding and most of us who have done plenty of research into 911 know there was a criminal cover up.

It is refreshing to speak to someone on ATS who has some first hand knowledge on this topic.

Your welcome...

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wildb

He is just looking to discredit me, let him try, I was at ground zero, I saw things with my own eyes and have studied the events of 911 every since.. most people who think they know what happened know very little. Including truthers..

The planes and the three buildings is about 2% of the story..

Thank you.

I had no idea that you were there. This is good for us wanting to know the truth. I am aware there was a lot of damage control going on at the same time 911 was unfolding and most of us who have done plenty of research into 911 know there was a criminal cover up.

It is refreshing to speak to someone on ATS who has some first hand knowledge on this topic.

Your welcome...

So you were there when they came down etc? Or after? That must be something that's etched into your memory every day is it not?

a reply to: whatsup86

No the collapse was very silent.... just some relatively silent gas explosions right before they came down right?

Which is nothing new in New York City, because there are over 2100 explosions in New York City each year. Here's one example.

Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.

Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

Now, were those explosions evidence that bombs were responsible? Yes or no.

As mentioned in this peer reviewed paper: www.journalof911studies.com... . Except according to that paper only strong explosives could have caused them.

Time for an update.

Seismic Spikes

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

Translation: no bombs.

www.popularmechanics.com...

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wildb

He is just looking to discredit me, let him try, I was at ground zero, I saw things with my own eyes and have studied the events of 911 every since.. most people who think they know what happened know very little. Including truthers..

The planes and the three buildings is about 2% of the story..

Thank you.

I had no idea that you were there. This is good for us wanting to know the truth. I am aware there was a lot of damage control going on at the same time 911 was unfolding and most of us who have done plenty of research into 911 know there was a criminal cover up.

It is refreshing to speak to someone on ATS who has some first hand knowledge on this topic.

Your welcome...

So you were there when they came down etc? Or after? That must be something that's etched into your memory every day is it not?

I arrived the next day, but yes..

a reply to: pteridine

It's not my "opinion;" it is an excerpt from a paper on the psychology of those who like conspiracy theories. Don't be so defensive. It is not demonization, as you put it.

I disagree.


Study shows conspiracy theorists are smarter

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?
University study shows they are more well-grounded than others

author-image Gina Loudon
Gina Loudon, Ph.D., is host of "The Dr. Gina Show" and a national speaker, analyst and author. She has appeared or been cited by the BBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Fox Business, The Hill, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart and many others. Loudon is credited as one of the "100 founding members" of the tea-party movement, founder of Arizona BUYcott and originator of the field of policology – the nexus of politics and psychology. She is the co-author of "Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor." Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
rss feed Subscribe to feed


It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.

Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.

But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.

The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.

They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”

Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.

Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.

There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.

Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.

The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.

Challenging beliefs

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.

Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”

www.trapshooters.com...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

It's not my "opinion;" it is an excerpt from a paper on the psychology of those who like conspiracy theories. Don't be so defensive. It is not demonization, as you put it.

I disagree.


Study shows conspiracy theorists are smarter

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?
University study shows they are more well-grounded than others

author-image Gina Loudon
Gina Loudon, Ph.D., is host of "The Dr. Gina Show" and a national speaker, analyst and author. She has appeared or been cited by the BBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Fox Business, The Hill, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart and many others. Loudon is credited as one of the "100 founding members" of the tea-party movement, founder of Arizona BUYcott and originator of the field of policology – the nexus of politics and psychology. She is the co-author of "Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor." Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.
rss feed Subscribe to feed


It really was the CIA, John Edwards and Richard Nixon who were involved!

It turns out the conspiracy theorists are right sometimes and maybe more often than thought.

For example, in the recent Navy Yard shooting attack by Aaron Alexis that killed 12 and injured eight, theories have been abundant, especially after Alexis reportedly heard voices.

Alexis apparently believed he was being harassed through microwave mind control, an assertion that in the mind of most would render him crazy.

But Wired.com pointed to a 2008 story on a declassified Pentagon report disclosing research on using microwave voice projection technology as weaponry.

The researchers at the Pentagon were reportedly looking for nonlethal weapons.

They concluded: “Application of the microwave hearing technology could facilitate a private message transmission. It may be useful to provide a disruptive condition to a person not aware of the technology. Not only might it be disruptive to the sense of hearing, it could be psychologically devastating if one suddenly heard ‘voices within one’s head.’”

Was it likely that Alexis was a target? No. Impossible? Also, apparently, no.

Skeptics have developed conspiracy theories regarding the Sandy Hook attack, space shuttle Columbia, 9/11 and many other major news events.

There even have been studies on the theorists and their theories.

Empirical data, without a doubt, affirms that the theorists are right, sometimes.

The Daily Caller reported two years ago that Watergate theorists were correct to suspect Richard Nixon. And yes, John Edwards was running around with Rielle Hunter. And it was the CIA working on an undersea project in the 1970s near Hawaii, not Howard Hughes, who only provided cover.

Challenging beliefs

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

One study showed that people who believe strongly in something are greatly offended when proven wrong, causing emotional stress that and in some cases can threaten self-image.

Pacific Standard magazine reported on such a study. It said that “because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image.”

www.trapshooters.com...

Thats the one I was looking for..

a reply to: whatsup86

Collapse Initiation

• The bowed south wall columns buckled and were unable to carry the gravity loads.
Those loads shifted to the adjacent columns via the spandrels, but those columns
quickly became overloaded as well. In rapid sequence, this instability spread all the
way to the east and west walls.

That is firm evidence that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the buckling just prior to the collapse.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: whatsup86

No the collapse was very silent.... just some relatively silent gas explosions right before they came down right?

Which is nothing new in New York City, because there are over 2100 explosions in New York City each year. Here's one example.

Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.

Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

Now, were those explosions evidence that bombs were responsible? Yes or no.

As mentioned in this peer reviewed paper: www.journalof911studies.com... . Except according to that paper only strong explosives could have caused them.

Time for an update.

Seismic Spikes

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

Translation: no bombs.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Time for your update:

originally posted by: LaBTop

This above Popular Mechanics hit-piece diagram is deliberately trying to MISLEAD the masses, they did write down the 4204 and 5777 nanometers per second ground motion for the 2 Twin Tower collapses, and also the much smaller 288 and 206 nm/s ground motions for the two plane impacts, HOWEVER, they drew/showed them as having the same kind of amplitudes, which is of course a clear case of DELIBERATE misleading.

This is the TRULY comparably drawn seismograph diagram below, which awfully looks alike that next diagram, don't you think so.?

So again make your pick. A peer reviewed paper or a delibrately misleading piece of garbage of a subjective site. I think its 2-0 right here isnt it?

a reply to: pteridine

I know you wont read the source so I posted the whole thing for you.

“Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you’ve ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare,” the magazine report said. “If you’re wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you’re wrong about a bunch of things, you’re obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.”

Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview. The report made the case that people might actually prefer to hear intellectually light arguments for the simple reason that they can intellectualize and articulate them better than the one giving the weak argument, and this makes them feel smarter.

Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.

Festinger theorized people experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance, he elaborated on a deep, almost base instinct or motivation to eliminate the dissonance and make new information fit into one’s cognitive schema.

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?

Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor and scientist at Florida State University, says quite possibly so.

In his book “Conspiracy Theory in America,” he says that history proves that the campaign to label those who hypothesize about large scale national events “conspiracy theorists” is a conspiracy itself.

He investigated how America’s founders warned in the Declaration of Independence of the possibility that the political elite will use their power to defame those who criticize their motives.

Invented term

DeHaven-Smith said that the term “conspiracy theorist” was invented and made popular intentionally by the CIA in an effort to discredit those who asked questions surrounding the assassination of JFK.

Since the CIA is banned from domestic activities, if true, it is illegal, contends Kevin Barrett of Press TV.

He said “people who use the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.”

“That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal,” he continued, “and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.”

Research seems to be trending in support of some of these claims. An abstract of a recent study published by researchers at the University of Kent in the U.K. looked at trends in social media.

The study collected comments and organized them into “conspiracist” and “conventionalist” categories. They assert that “conspiracy theorists” might be more well-grounded, even more sane, than those who accept conventional wisdom on contested events.

Here’s why.

Conventional commenters in social media seemed more reactive and became more hostile and fanatically attached to their conventional beliefs.

Additionally, they were less tolerant of dissenting ideas, illustrating an inability to discuss ideas and remain civil. Further, their research indicated that those who believe in the possibility of a conspiracy are quick to admit that they are not completely sure and don’t have all the answers regarding what is, after all, a theory.

Barrett concluded the U.K. findings like this: “In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists do not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Two recent studies published in American Behavioral Scientist seem to support evidence that the brains of “conspiricists” work differently than the brains of conventional thinkers.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph said that conventional thinkers are unable to process information that conflicts with their pre-existing belief and then integrate it into their hypotheses of possible outcomes.

University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman agrees.

He says conventional thinkers and those who reject possibilities labeled as conspiracy are simply prey to “confirmation bias,” similar to Festinger’s cognitive dissonance. They actively seek out only information that confirms their prior conventional beliefs.

The label of “conspiracy theorist,” according to Hoffman, aids in an irrational mechanism of labeling to avoid having to integrate contrary information that might cause mental or emotional tension for the weaker mind. That would explain the anger and hostility at those who present other theories that don’t integrate well.

Psychology professors aren’t alone in their theory about theories.

Communication professors at Boise State University presented a peer-reviewed piece called “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.”

They said that simply by calling someone a conspiracy theorist, it doesn’t matter whether you have “actually claimed … a conspiracy exists, or whether you have simply raised an issue” that someone would rather not discuss at all. By labeling people with ideas different from convention, they “strategically exclude” dissent and new ideas from public consumption.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Dathan Paterno finds irony in such conspiracy research.

“Ultimately, these data raise more questions and only serve to breed cynicism – the primary ingredient of conspiracy theory. In the end, it seems that the conspiracy of conspiracy theories is really a conspiracy against the conspirators … or perhaps a conspiracy by those who would conspire against conspirators.”

www.trapshooters.com...