Psychologists explain why some people can't accept alternate conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Your boring me. I've seen that 55 page missive that looks and sounds just like the 'Psychology Today' class everyone had to suffer through as an undergrad-you know the one everyone slept through. All that writing and not a shrewd of proof of anything other than the ability to plagiarize a textbook.
Every time I read phrases like " In summary, people generally prefer to view aggression in morally
defined terms" It takes me back to those frigid early mornings of torture when " I stayed awake in Psychology Today-Now I know what death is like"

I'll get back to the debate later-that was a traumatic flashback.

I'm betting you went through the same thing-you know freshman psyc that hour and 20 minute sickness everyone got for two mornings a week.

Varemia

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by Varemia

Well, I mean, it's not like I go out seeking people who accept the OS. I just can't find very many people who are against it. I only know one person, and we are friends. We just have a nonverbal agreement to never talk about it, because she gets crazy upset.

And you sir, are just a troll.

You have no arguements to throw out there ... the only thing you do, is denying arguements and bringing forth endless clichés. Your purpose, is obvious ... to sit on 9/11 forums, and try to be the "last" one to have a comment, hoping that others will view your empty cliche, as truths.

You will endlessly sit on these forums, provide nothing of value to the discussion, except endless reiterations of official falsehoods. No arguements of your own, no viewpoints of your own ...

Obviously, with the intend of having the last word ...

You are most likely a government troll.

edit on 26-9-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

What do you mean contributing nothing? I almost always try to include my sources when I make claims, and when I'm not sure, I use words such as "probably, possibly, likely, maybe, not sure, and I don't know."

I never make the claim that something is absolutely impossible, because that would be scientifically dishonest, and I always try to find the truth by posting pictures and evidence that would correct the falsehoods I see toted mostly by the demolition believers (although, if you follow my post history closely, I make a point to correct the non-demolition folk too).

You can call me a troll or a shill for trying my best to bring the truth to the table, but that won't make me turn tail and let you and others become ignorant based on false information. I am not some dog you can push around with groundless accusations and incredulity. I also won't report your post for the extremely obvious ad hominem. I prefer for people to know what users are posting most of the time, so that they can realize that the people posting these things have to look to attacks on character to diffuse a person's argument.

Fight the points, not the person, friend.

All this is hilarious see this is the true no win argument. Any evidence you will give them they can claim was planted by the government. Any evidence to prove their theory that doesnt exist they can claim the government is hiding it. So in this whole argument there are no facts that can be entered in the debate that wont be dismissed. So even though ive seen theories of invisible airplanes fake passengers even saw one time travel theory. Then theres cruise missiles and controlled demolition. Funny part i wouldnt rule out the government making an incident. But even the government would be smart enough to know if you are going to create a terrorist attack its simple. Hire terrorists or trick them either way and let them fly the plane in to the building. Its what anyone with common sense would do.Why go through the trouble to fake it its alot easier to just do it.

Her'es a good documentary explains how the towers collapsed:


Essentially, WTC 1&2 used a newer (steel building) design to save/make money and it turns out this is likely how the towers collapsed.

This wasn't the conclusion shown in the PBS docmentary as it was found "There was no tradeoff for economy." However, I think the tube-design of trusses connecting the outer columns to the inner columns is probably the culprit in all this. The main reason it was used was to increase floor space ($$$) and to absorb the impact of outside forces (wind, airplanes!) and TO SAVE MONEY by cutting back on the dense gridwork of beams and columns in older designs. Maybe it all evens out in the end and they weren't making any tradeoffs, but I feel in my gut greed played a role. From my perspective, in all honesty, it seems they traded resiliency against progressive collapse for increased ability to absorb outside forces and increased economy. This is because if enough of the trusses start to melt and break then the outer columns lose their support and buckle and then the progressive collapse begins. The investigations have instead shifted the blame to inadequate fire protection for the trusses.

I also remember reading somewhere they loaded the floors to the maximum limits. This would make sense since they wanted to make a profit.

KILL_DOGG

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Did you even watch the video?

sure did.......and I think its pretty underhanded to tell people there is something wrong with them just because they might not agree on a certain viewpoint.......

I'm sorry, but I don't buy all the paranoid delusions about thermite and controlled demolition.

Is THIS HERE a 'paranoid delusion' ?

You should do your homework before making false claims!!!!

combatmaster

KILL_DOGG

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Did you even watch the video?

sure did.......and I think its pretty underhanded to tell people there is something wrong with them just because they might not agree on a certain viewpoint.......

I'm sorry, but I don't buy all the paranoid delusions about thermite and controlled demolition.

Is THIS HERE a 'paranoid delusion' ?

You should do your homework before making false claims!!!!

Having worked with high explosives in the past ill tell you no one is going to use thermite to take down a building. First and foremost the results are unpredictable. This is the last thing you want if you're trying to destroy something. Next the amount you would need to destroy a building would be huge And handling is very dangerous.Mix it or place it in the wrong place where it can interact with different polymers can cause it to become inert or explode instead of burn. If you spray it into the air just exposure to oxygen can cause it to ignite. RDX is safer and you control all aspects no unknown variables and less likely to be killed.

reply to post by dragonridr


Sorry bro... you are not up to date with this info.

I dont have much time ATM, but i can show you all the proper info that is around when i get back home.

ill explain breifly. There was the original guy (first person to do so) who tested the 9-11 dust and found 'nano-thermite', as he called it. He said something along the lines of it being something unknown to the public so he assumed it was military. It was not normal thermite (i know that thermite is not stable).

a few months ago there was an ATS thread which connected a few dots regarding this, and i dont remember the exact context, but i somebody was talking about nuclear tech that, when put under a microscope, was once mistaked for a non existent form of explosive subsequently named 'nano-thermite'.

i will try to find you the links later.

How is that odd? ive seen the video before, its been used in other forums for the same purpose as this one.....

I dont care what the evidence is.......


That statement is what they can't accept and is the whole crux of the topic;



I DON'T CARE WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.......

Exactly!!!! They Do Not Care what the Evidence is, PERIOD!


Couldn't have said it better! You proved our point, thanks for your non contribution.

I've a question --- or two:

1) A couple of posters in this thread, including the OP only have a 'handle' with no information. How is that possible?

2) Why am I unable to star certain posts but not others?

VitriolAndAngst
I agree that there is some PSYCHOLOGICAL barrier for a lot of people concerning 9/11 -- but I don't agree that it's about "not believing government can lie" -- it's more fundamental than that.

...

Obviously, there is something in the drinking water that I'm immune to -- but it's turned most of the people around me into gullible pod people.

Nicely stated.

You've hit on the real theme here, IMO, and that is that most people (and I include myself here) rely on certain authorities to mold their worldviews.

Our worldviews and an integral part of ourselves and anything that questions that paradigm is automatically dealt with as a threat to our very existence. It's very hard to hear anything that questions our core beliefs.

Our first authorities are our parents or other early caregivers, then more formal teachers start influencing us. Most rebel at some point to the 'values' that parents, church and society have instilled in us but the tendency is to return to those early authorities.

A free human being with an open mind is cognizant of all this and begins to demonstrate discretion in picking their authorities. But even a good/logical/ethical source is wrong at times and it's hard to tell in which instances.

Another point worth noting is that such critical thinking requires effort, consistant effort. Many are not willing to put in that type of effort and so return home to our 'comfortable' authorities to advise us on the 'correct' intrepretation and perception of facts.

To paraphase Thomas Jefferson the price of 'intellectual' freedom is constant vigilance. I truly believe he included intellectual freedom along with physical freedom. What value is the second without the former?

combatmaster
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Sorry bro... you are not up to date with this info.

I dont have much time ATM, but i can show you all the proper info that is around when i get back home.

ill explain breifly. There was the original guy (first person to do so) who tested the 9-11 dust and found 'nano-thermite', as he called it. He said something along the lines of it being something unknown to the public so he assumed it was military. It was not normal thermite (i know that thermite is not stable).

a few months ago there was an ATS thread which connected a few dots regarding this, and i dont remember the exact context, but i somebody was talking about nuclear tech that, when put under a microscope, was once mistaked for a non existent form of explosive subsequently named 'nano-thermite'.

i will try to find you the links later.

No im afraid your wrong the first test could not be repeated in a lab.So more then likely the lab made an error. Heres another test if you want to look found out most of the dust was iron ore rust. this would make sense because if your not careful this will look similar to thermite since thermite is basically a metal combined with oxygen but so is rust.

Heres the lab results if you want to look at them.The only reason i was aware of this was an individual in my lab has a sister in MVA that talked to him about it at the time we were unaware of the whole thermite thing. But if you understood the properties of thermite you wouldnt try to use it demolitions it is a reaction thats impossible to predict due to the nature of the reaction. Even in the original report i found this sentence very telling. "These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere." Really reminded so its similar like i dont know rust. And this statement "We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study." What they're saying here in the report we cant find this stuff so we dont actually know if it exists yet and may have to wait for someone to invent nano thermite to compare it to. Let me tell you nano thermite doesnt exist and never would have been made the manufacturing process would be so expensive that making just an ounce would cost tens of thousand of dollars if it could be done.And there is no advantage over regular thermite which can be made in someones basement. Really come on the report was so full of maybes its not funny. Any way the report i promised.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com...

PS in the future when you see lab work that wasnt verified by another lab this is standard procedure if a discovery of this magnitude was made. Especially before you make the incendiary claim that thermite was used to destroy a building.

PS im not going to get into the debate about 9/11 frankly dont care either believe what i say or dont but i will tell you dont believe everything you read on the internet. The only reason im even discussing this is i have a phd in physics work in a medical lab and must be familiar with chemical reactions part of my job.I dont know how to fly a plane or what a cruise missile would do so i dont normally comment on this stuff.If you want me to look over a chemical analysis i wasnt aware of i will if i can find the time. Good nite all.

reply to post by dragonridr


Well.... you definately know more than me on this. So i cant argue. In fact, you seem to have clarified what looked like a very dodgy thing to me.

However it doesnt cancel out all the other inconsistencies. Unfortunately there are still big holes, and building 7 is the biggest!

But im not getting into it either....

combatmaster
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Well.... you definately know more than me on this. So i cant argue. In fact, you seem to have clarified what looked like a very dodgy thing to me.

However it doesnt cancel out all the other inconsistencies. Unfortunately there are still big holes, and building 7 is the biggest!

But im not getting into it either....

Glad i can help see people very rarely understand thermite they see it cut through a car block and go wow that must be what they used. What they dont realize is it takes 5 lbs of the stuff to do that. One pound you would warp the hood and ruin the paint. To take down a building would requires thousands of pounds because a thermolytic reaction is not only hot but fast. Ever ran your hand through a candle you didnt get burned did you? Because even though the candle is hot the exposure is short. Thats why it takes pounds of the stuff to make a baseball size hole. You have to maintain the heat it produces for a longer period of time. If you were to spray it on a spoon if you made a paint for example. The reaction would be so quick it would scorch probably need to be polished but you could still use it. As i said do to the dangers in handling the unpredictability no one would try to use it to take down a building. Not to mention just hauling all that stuff in to the building in the first place when you could take an half ounce of c4 and cut right through a support beam.

Only 2 of these people are psychologists, and everything they say is flat out wrong and goes against actual literature and evidence says.

Trauma makes people MORE susceptible, not less so.

Flashbulb memory is crap, and from a psychologist point of view eyewitness accounts, including extremely vivid recollections, are unreliable and full of errors.

These results have important implications for the debate concerning whether the formation of flashbulb memory and event memory involve different processes and for understanding how flashbulb memory can be simultaneously so vivid and so error-prone.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As far as Duperrett is concerned ....
www.danielleduperret.com...
... need I say more?

Basically everything in that whole video is wrong. I work in psychiatry, what they say is so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

reply to post by dragonridr


I dont know bro....

But with your insight into thermite etc... you really should look into how all these coincidences took place during 9-11 and before.

What about the fact that the exact floors that were hit were also had renovation work taking place! this was all in this thread

But hey.... if there was a definitive answer then i guess we wouldnt even be here chatting !

combatmaster
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I dont know bro....

But with your insight into thermite etc... you really should look into how all these coincidences took place during 9-11 and before.

What about the fact that the exact floors that were hit were also had renovation work taking place! this was all in this thread

But hey.... if there was a definitive answer then i guess we wouldnt even be here chatting !

Well in my book if you truly believe that 9/11 was faked then ill say youll never get the answer by letting people mis lead you. My first thought Is this whole thermite thing was probably to misdirect you. I would seriously look at the source of this information and see what their motives were.It might be inoscent and they just have no clue or it might not but i think thats where i would start.

reply to post by dragonridr


i dont believe it was faked... we all saw what happened that fateful day.... but i know we are not being told the whole truth!

That being said.... i am not in a position to dig this... i have a job a family and a life! i guess u feel the same! so hey! what the hell!

combatmaster
reply to post by dragonridr

 

i dont believe it was faked... we all saw what happened that fateful day.... but i know we are not being told the whole truth!

That being said.... i am not in a position to dig this... i have a job a family and a life! i guess u feel the same! so hey! what the hell!

True enough ive found in the past when you research stuff like this you often end up laughing more misinformation than fact and its hard to sort through the BS.And usually come out with not knowing anyway.