9/11 Psychology, a comparison of facts 9/11 and WMDs

I feel the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is obvious.... THIS THREAD IS *NOT* ABOUT THAT!! If you disagree go somewhere else, please! This thread is about the Psychology of acceptance. Having a life altering event is difficult and many people will simply ignore facts if it threatens their safe-world view.
I strive to share about 9/11 in small bits and focus on Psychology of change rather than a preponderance of facts (obviously with a few pertinent facts thrown in)

What do you think of this? (below)
I'd really value ATS members' views of it, and how you would improve it.

changed size - disregard

Great idea for a thread,excellent topic star & flag.
I've seen first hand many occasions where people will deny truth that threatens their view of the world, especially in case like 9-11 that would shatter everything that they had been taught about everything.

reply to post by jlv70


thats kinda weird since mistrust of the goverment is what brough america and many of its supposedly principles about. People just forgot that the idea of the right to bear arms wasnt meant to protect your tv set.

Good topic!

Speaking from my own experience...

Never once in my entire lifetime (nor since 9-11-01) on national news did I watch two towers comprised of steel and concrete crumble into dust.

(on 9-11-01) I was equipped with the faculties of reasoning, and understanding of general physics; airplanes and fires don't bring structures to the ground. One just has to study the photos of WWII ravaged cities that were bombed several times over- a good number of those buildings still standing afterwords...???

It's beyond me how people can't see the complete deconstructive forces that were put into use that day.

But yes, the shocking tragedy that ensued took my senses of reasoning and understanding and through me through a loop-to-loop. I actually believed the spin about Al-Qaida being capable to pull-off such a feet.

I was walking in total ignorance to the facts until I had to actually seek them out on my own, because neither the "Commission," nor what NIST fed to us was conclusive enough for me to send a guy to prison; had I been a juror in a court of law.

The fact that so many facts are and have been escaping public scrutiny is enough evidence for me to send this defendant to the gallows.

I didn't really start digging until 2008. I was blissfully ignorant of the facts.

Those of us who bicker amongst ourselves about the evidence and/or lack thereof is a direct indication that those we elect follow an entirely different itinerary as to where exactly this nation is heading.

While we are at each others throats, those who we trust to govern and protect us are cinching our necks indiscriminately through the blatant disregard of our constitution, and bill of rights.

There's the "transparency" Barry on the Hill was talking about...

We're not going to see it for what it is until we can reaffirm our faculties.

Wow, I hope I didn't go off topic. I've been doing some serious research lately.

Excellent thread!

reply to post by loveguy


Awesome story! Glad you got on board and started checking the facts

*** For anyone ***

I made the diagram/image in the OP - PLEASE feel free to copy it, share it, disperse in any way you like.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Well to be honest, i think its just enough to be a little bit intelligent and you know the real story of this day.

Even 1 small inconsistence in the whole story makes the story a fairytale.

Its like the O.J Simpson case. There was so much evidence linking him to the murders, but guess what, after he tried the gloves on and they didnt fit, they had to let him go.

The same should be for the 911 story. If there is no explanation for building 7, than you can throw the official story into a dumpster and start all over again.

I dont really think it has much to do with psychology. Its only on beeing informed or uninformed. And those who are informed and still believe the OS are either ignorant or plain stupid.

Even 1 small inconsistence in the whole story makes the story a fairytale.

Oh really?

So because the glove didn’t fit OJ didn’t do it?

Since you son didn’t buy the beer he couldn’t have been DUI?

Since Hitler didn’t drop the Zylcon he didn’t commit genocide?

What kind of stupid idiotic logic is that?

Do you want to take it to the extreme? Show us proof of Hitler physically killing anyone in WW2! So I guess WW2 didn’t happen?


Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

I've come across hundreds of people who won't take the first sentence about the facts... therefore it falls into the range of Psychology. WHY won't they care about the facts?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
What do you think of this? (below)
I'd really value ATS members' views of it, and how you would improve it.

Rather than such a linear process, I'm thinking that a flowchart approach would be better, such as below:

Originally posted by samkent


Oh really?

So because the glove didn’t fit OJ didn’t do it?

Since you son didn’t buy the beer he couldn’t have been DUI?

Since Hitler didn’t drop the Zylcon he didn’t commit genocide?

What kind of stupid idiotic logic is that?

Do you want to take it to the extreme? Show us proof of Hitler physically killing anyone in WW2! So I guess WW2 didn’t happen?


Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

Im talking about law here. And yes because the glove didnt fit, and the COURT and JURY said that he is not guilty, he is not guilty. Dont know what you want to tell me?

Dont really know what you want to tell me with the son and the beer?

And i think you mean Zyclon B cause i havent found any Zylcon? What do you mean by dropped? As we know Hitlers SS DID use Zyclon B in the concentration camps. I can tell you that for sure, cause i have seen it with my own eyes as i have already visited 2 concentration camps by myself.

You really make no sense... hitler was responsible for the ordering the execution of people, Thats a fact, so according to law he is guilty. When you order or pay someone to kill a person you are guilty too.

Maybe you should rethink what you have written. I dont really know what it has to do with what i said. I didnt say 911 didnt happen, but it didnt happen as the official story is saying. Why is Bin Ladens "attack" not listed in his FBI file? Cause they dont have the evidence, so in any court he is not guilty, plain simple.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
What do you think of this? (below)
I'd really value ATS members' views of it, and how you would improve it.

Rather than such a linear process, I'm thinking that a flowchart approach would be better, such as below:

thats a good one.

pointing to the witness reports


maybe you should rewatch some "witnesses". I dont need some conspiracy site to watch those statements. William Rodriguez, Barry Jennings, Phillip Morelli, Arthur Del Bianco and many many more.

Maybe we should ask your clean up workers who were the ones who built it in the first place

You are just so ignorant that it really hurts. You debunk your own debunking by telling to listen to witnesses. Here you have 300+ survivors of the attack, some workers, some firefighters and others, who tell what happend.

Survivors

I would really love to see your "witnesses" who tell us a different story that day. As i said in other post. You have NO !!! backups to your storys. NEVER. Not 1 evidence of your claims, yet you debunk and debunk and actually you have debunked yourself.

EDIT:

and dave btw. ive answered all questions with yes...

Originally posted by TrueFalse
thats a good one.

pointing to the witness reports

maybe you should rewatch some "witnesses". I dont need some conspiracy site to watch those statements. William Rodriguez, Barry Jennings, Phillip Morelli, Arthur Del Bianco and many many more.

Thanks for mentioning those witnesses, as those are among the ones I am going by. William Rodriguez specifically stated in his testimony to NIST that fireballs from the impact came down the elevator shaft, pushed the elevator down into the basement, and severely burned the occupant (and whom Rodriguez later rescued). Barry Jennings described massive damage to the lobby area caused when WTC 1 collapsed onto WTC 7, proving the "WTC 7 suffered no damage" claim is a lie right there.

Maybe we should ask your clean up workers who were the ones who built it in the first place

I've already proven this via multiple sources so if you are such a hard core zealot that you still don't want to believe it, I genuinely don't care. You asked me to prove it and I did. If you are of a mind to disbelieve whatever I post regardless of what it is, then the fault of ignorance is on your end, not mine.

You are just so ignorant that it really hurts. You debunk your own debunking by telling to listen to witnesses. Here you have 300+ survivors of the attack, some workers, some firefighters and others, who tell what happend.

...and none of which discounts even a microbe of anything I'm posting. Either you're not reading what I post here, or you're so much in love with these conspiracy stories that you don't care what I post here. Either way, you really have no credibility.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TrueFalse
thats a good one.

pointing to the witness reports

maybe you should rewatch some "witnesses". I dont need some conspiracy site to watch those statements. William Rodriguez, Barry Jennings, Phillip Morelli, Arthur Del Bianco and many many more.

Thanks for mentioning those witnesses, as those are among the ones I am going by. William Rodriguez specifically stated in his testimony to NIST that fireballs from the impact came down the elevator shaft, pushed the elevator down into the basement, and severely burned the occupant (and whom Rodriguez later rescued). Barry Jennings described massive damage to the lobby area caused when WTC 1 collapsed onto WTC 7, proving the "WTC 7 suffered no damage" claim is a lie right there.

Maybe we should ask your clean up workers who were the ones who built it in the first place

I've already proven this via multiple sources so if you are such a hard core zealot that you still don't want to believe it, I genuinely don't care. You asked me to prove it and I did. If you are of a mind to disbelieve whatever I post regardless of what it is, then the fault of ignorance is on your end, not mine.

You are just so ignorant that it really hurts. You debunk your own debunking by telling to listen to witnesses. Here you have 300+ survivors of the attack, some workers, some firefighters and others, who tell what happend.

...and none of which discounts even a microbe of anything I'm posting. Either you're not reading what I post here, or you're so much in love with these conspiracy stories that you don't care what I post here. Either way, you really have no credibility.

man, you just start to make no sense at all...

why do you just pick out the things from witness reports that fit your story...

W. Rodriguez stated that while he was in the basement he felt 2 explosions. The first one was BEFORE THE IMPACT of the Plane and came from the basement. After this he felt the a impact from above which was the plane. So yeah, maybe the "fireballs" came down the elevator shafts but the first explosion was in the basement and again BEFORE the first impact.

Berry Jennings on the other hand was in the WTC 7. After the first plane hit he had to man the Office of Emergence Managemant. After they realised that there was NO ONE there, he and Mr. Hess wanted to get out of there. While going down suddenly a big explosion happend which trapped both of them on the 8th floor. This was all before the towers fell. They where there for several hours before they where rescued and while they where escorted out they had to step over bodies in the WTC7 lobby.

As i dont want to here another ridicoulus stament of you, i dont want to ask you how the people in the lobby died.

But tell me one thing. What about the explosions told by W. Rodriguez BEFORE the first impact, and what about the explosions in WTC 7, BEFORE the towers fell.

I hope you realise soon Dave that you make no sense at all.

As a non-truther, I find it hard to accept that we are supposed to discuss how "psychology and facts prove 9/11 conspiracy" when so many who are not just Internet experts on the subject have came to the opposite conclusion.

Yes it is true that questioning is good and not accepting things at face value is a nice approach, but it's much more complicated and layered than that.

You argue that "science" is on your side with seismology and demolitions experts, etc. Well guess what!? That's not true. In fact, most experts I have seen come to the opposite conclusion using logic and science as well.

So my question becomes:

One of the two has to be right, which one?

Since this world isn't based on paraconsistent logical truths, we have to say that if one is right and the other is wrong and they both claim to use logic and science backing their point, then...one is really not doing so.

And my "opinion" (more like a substantiated fact) is that the truthers use the same "logic" and "science" that New Age cults use to prove they are on the side of "logic" and "science."

New Age cult = "Move your body's energy to heal yourself as the properties of electromagnetism have been proved to help cure the body." [proceed to connect scientific terminology to completely baseless phenomena with no connection to science]

Truther = "Science has proven that there is no way explosives were not used in the collapse of the WTC." [proceed to show video clips with magical thermite, dust clouds, and one or two theologian "experts" as evidence whilst ignoring the inanity in the biggest assertions behind their claims and the whole of the scientific establishment already debunking them]

reply to post by Evanescence


As you know, theologians are the persons to talk to about structural engineering, fire safety, fire science, aeronautics, metallurgy, and military protocols. Dont you know that?

It sure does not take long for "Good Old Dave" to show up and derail a thread.
The guy is very good at deflecting the OP,s statement and ignoring the rest.

Don't bite the bait he dangles on every thread he posts on....leave him be to play with his own thoughts.
To the OP, great thread and a S&F from me here.
Regards, I Winder

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I like that flow chart idea - thanks Dave!

Plus, much respect and appreciation for sticking to the topic!! I have a good idea of your general views about 9/11

Originally posted by Evanescence
As a non-truther, I find it hard to accept that we are supposed to discuss how "psychology and facts prove 9/11 conspiracy" when so many who are not just Internet experts on the subject have came to the opposite conclusion.

alright... I understand you have that view; now please re-read the first sentences of my thread.

I feel the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is obvious.... THIS THREAD IS *NOT* ABOUT THAT!! If you disagree go somewhere else, please!

This thread is not FOR you - this is not a debate about the same old stuff 10,000 other threads have already covered. What you're doing is called a faux pas... sorta like walking into a mosque and trying to preach Christianity.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Evanescence

 

As you know, theologians are the persons to talk to about structural engineering, fire safety, fire science, aeronautics, metallurgy, and military protocols. Dont you know that?

Did you post in the wrong thread?? This thread is about Psychology...

Note the first TWO sentences; I assume you can stay focused that long:

I feel the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is obvious.... THIS THREAD IS *NOT* ABOUT THAT!! If you disagree go somewhere else, please!

This thread is not FOR you (unless you start talking Psychology) - this is not a debate about the same old stuff 10,000 other threads have already covered. What you're doing is called a faux pas... sorta like walking into a mosque and trying to preach Christianity.