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

9/11 Truth is about precisely what it says....
There are tons of conflicting pieces of evidence to the official "conspiracy theory".(and that is exactly what the OS is, just another conspiracy theory.....)

any thousands of miles away i saw the buildings come down and screamed controlled demolition......its hardley a genius observation considering the likelihood of all the buildings falling at free fall or near it, into ther own footprints, the only three steel frame structures to fail due to fire in the history of earth......
The size of thefish we are asked to swallow to believe the gov boys version is just too damn big.It chokes most people who have taken the time to put aside their predispositions.
The list of false flags is failry long by now...it goes from the battleship Maine to the pearl harbour raid in 42 to the gulf of Tonkin incident which cost, eventually the lives of 55000 us military plus damaged forever the lives of many more....
Operation northwoods was a pentagon plan to war with cuba, by hurting us citizens for an excuse.
wake up, goverment cares about power not people.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Your blog states that every floor on WTC has to hold the combined weight of every floor above. From what I know, this statement is incorrect. Each floor has a capacity, true, but each floor does -not- have to carry the combined weight of all floors above it. Each floor is instead held up by the central columns, not by the floor(s) below it. This highlights a potential problem with WTC 1&2.

In the pancake collapse, the buckling and heating at the higher floors caused them to collapse. We know from recorded videos that buckling was present just before the collapse of both towers. Since each floor only has a rated capacity for itself alone and not the floors above it, the collapsing floors were able to tear through the floors below them in rapid succession.

As far as I understand it, the only confusing part is how the central columns did -not- survive the collapse. In the pancake collapse simulations, for example, the core remains.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Im still trying to figure out how 19 guys armed with box cutters were able to infiltrate every part of US security. Not to mention the fact that the morning of the 9/11 attacks NATO was distracted with their 'Operation Vigilant Guardian' simulation of air craft hitting buildings...what are the odds?

heres an interesting video about the leaseholder of the World Trade Center...



how odd is it that he, his son and daughter didnt show up to work on 9/11?

reply to post by ziggyproductions05


What I'd like to understand is why it is always assumed that believing it to not be a demolition is the same as believing the government is awesome and that the terrorists were geniuses.

Most people here believe the government may have played a hand in helping the terrorists acquire the planes and get them to their targets.

We only come to a division, really, when it comes to whether or not the building was demo'd. Then, the name-calling starts, and people break out all these videos and false premise. "box-cutter wielding"

They also had knives, so you know, and box-cutters can slit throats.

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

Im still trying to figure out how 19 guys armed with box cutters were able to infiltrate every part of US security. Not to mention the fact that the morning of the 9/11 attacks NATO was distracted with their 'Operation Vigilant Guardian' simulation of air craft hitting buildings...what are the odds?

I'm still trying to figure out how people believe that we always lived inside a North Korean-style lock down security grid, where no one can pass gas without setting off alarms. Gee maybe you can tell me the standard procedure of hijackings prior to 9/11/01.

heres an interesting video about the leaseholder of the World Trade Center...

how odd is it that he, his son and daughter didnt show up to work on 9/11?

Ah yes, the "who pulled it" video claptrap. Gee, who exactly was he talking to, thats number one. Who made the decision to "pull" anything, number two. And then since when does the person in number one make any decision to blow up anything?

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Your blog states that every floor on WTC has to hold the combined weight of every floor above. From what I know, this statement is incorrect. Each floor has a capacity, true, but each floor does -not- have to carry the combined weight of all floors above it. Each floor is instead held up by the central columns, not by the floor(s) below it. This highlights a potential problem with WTC 1&2.

Go back and read it again.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

I didn't say floor I said LEVEL.

By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot height which includes the columns in the core and on the perimeter.

People confuse FLOOR and LEVEL and I don't know to what extent that is sloppy semantics, sloppy thinking or a deliberate strategy to confuse. People CLAIMING the buildings could collapse try to blame it on the floors and the tube-in-tube design.

psik

Originally posted by GenRadek

I'm still trying to figure out how people believe that we always lived inside a North Korean-style lock down security grid, where no one can pass gas without setting off alarms. Gee maybe you can tell me the standard procedure of hijackings prior to 9/11/01.

That I cannot answer, obviously. But the fact the planes were hijacked and there was not a defensive attack by the US seems odd. Passengers and flight attendants called friends, family, and authorities while hijacked so the situation was known.

Ah yes, the "who pulled it" video claptrap. Gee, who exactly was he talking to, thats number one. Who made the decision to "pull" anything, number two. And then since when does the person in number one make any decision to blow up anything?

How is that claptrap? The questions you ask I cannot answer. I still have questions and so do many, many people. Its not like there are just conspiracy theorists questioning the official story. Some of the leaseholders actions that day and wording about 'pulling' the building, a known demo term, raise suspicions.

**Whats up with the 'gees'?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ziggyproductions05

 

What I'd like to understand is why it is always assumed that believing it to not be a demolition is the same as believing the government is awesome and that the terrorists were geniuses.

Most people here believe the government may have played a hand in helping the terrorists acquire the planes and get them to their targets.

Thats a very good point and could very well be the case. I guess its hard to find a happy medium when it comes to 9/11...

We only come to a division, really, when it comes to whether or not the building was demo'd. Then, the name-calling starts, and people break out all these videos and false premise. "box-cutter wielding"

What false premise?

They also had knives, so you know, and box-cutters can slit throats.

Yes, it can, just seems like it would take a bit more to take control of 4 planes to some people. It doesnt change the fact of what happened, it just raises some questions. Could there have been any other weaponry onboard to intimidate the passengers even more?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Yet they drafted a similar operation in 1964 called "Operation Northwoods".

Draft yes, a draft that cost the man who signed it his job. Besides the draft talks about using drone aircraft and unmanned ships etc. It did not advocate the killing of innocent Americans. Tell the whole truth BoneZ, not just the parts that might help further your cause.

Originally posted by cripmeister
Tell the whole truth BoneZ, not just the parts that might help further your cause.

I've left nothing out. Anyone can research "Operation Northwoods" for themselves. But while you're telling people to "tell the whole truth", why don't we make sure we're telling the whole truth, shall we?

The continuing push against the Cuban government by internal elements of the U.S. military and intelligence communities had already prompted President John F. Kennedy to attempt to rein in burgeoning hardline anti-Communist sentiment that was intent on proactive, aggressive action against communist movements around the globe.

Internal elements of the military and intelligence communities wanted to stage false-flag terror attacks in this country and blame those attacks on an enemy to gain support for going to war with that country.


Fast forward to 2000:

Internal elements of the military and intelligence communities wanted to stage false-flag terror attacks in this country and blame those attacks on an enemy to gain support for going to war in any country they saw fit in the name of terror.

Originally posted by cripmeister
a draft that cost the man who signed it his job.

All of the Joint Chiefs signed it, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who was the one who lost his job. That means all of the leaders of all the branches of the military signed the operation. That was almost 40 years before 9/11.

Originally posted by cripmeister
It did not advocate the killing of innocent Americans.

40 years before 9/11, no, the draft did not advocate killing anyone, but the outcome was still the same: Manufacture terror attacks, blame it on an enemy, gain support and go to war.

Times and people change. They wanted something bigger.


The whole point of the matter is that the entire military signed on and was ready to carry out that operation. If they were willing to draft and carry out something so sinister 40 years before, why is it so hard to believe that the military couldn't possibly conceive of anything like that again?

What, do you think they "saw the light" and would never consider something so heinous ever again? Come on, man.

Originally posted by cripmeister
Tell the whole truth BoneZ, not just the parts that might help further your cause.

I'll ask you to do the same. Thanks for stopping by.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I have been around ATS long enough to know that only a minority actually researches the stuff posted, you know this too and in my opinion you (and others with an agenda) knowingly take advantage of this.

If they were willing to draft and carry out something so sinister 40 years before, why is it so hard to believe that the military couldn't possibly conceive of anything like that again?

First, Operation Northwoods wasn't supposed to be a mass murder of Americans. Second, the Inside Job conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense.

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

I have been around ATS long enough to know that only a minority actually researches the stuff posted, you know this too and in my opinion you (and others with an agenda) knowingly take advantage of this.

So you're going to take information with a grain of salt because other people havent researched something before on ATS? Couldnt you confirm this with your own research?

First, Operation Northwoods wasn't supposed to be a mass murder of Americans. Second, the Inside Job conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense.

The point is that the government is capable and willing to lie to you to further their goals. If they could pull this off almost 50 years ago, imagine what they would be capable of in todays time...Starting a war under a false flag is nothing new and shouldnt be brushed to the side.

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

Im still trying to figure out how 19 guys armed with box cutters were able to infiltrate every part of US security.

This didn't happen. You seem to have confused "every part of US security" with "airport security." And they didn't really infiltrate that, so much as walk through it unmolested.

Not to mention the fact that the morning of the 9/11 attacks NATO was distracted with their 'Operation Vigilant Guardian' simulation of air craft hitting buildings.

This didn't happen, either. You seem to have confused NATO with NORAD, and "distracted" with "was not distracted by," and "simulation of air craft hitting buildings" with "simulation of a hijack flying to ersatz-Cuba and requesting asylum but it got canceled before it started."

www.vanityfair.com...

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05

If they could pull this off almost 50 years ago, imagine what they would be capable of in todays time...

But they didn't pull it off, the idea never made it past the draft stage.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

This didn't happen. You seem to have confused "every part of US security" with "airport security." And they didn't really infiltrate that, so much as walk through it unmolested.

To enter the US, be trained to fly, walk on those planes and hit the buildings is more than just an airport security breach. To successfully complete their objective without interference from low level security to government agents is incredible.

This didn't happen, either. You seem to have confused NATO with NORAD, and "distracted" with "was not distracted by," and "simulation of air craft hitting buildings" with "simulation of a hijack flying to ersatz-Cuba and requesting asylum but it got canceled before it started."

www.vanityfair.com...¤tPage=all#gotopage2

You're correct, I didnt mean to say NATO. I screwed my wording up big time in that post lol

As far as the simulations that morning it just seems odd. Thanks for the correction. The US was warned in detail about the impending attacks months in advance and nothing was done. No preventative measures like air marshalls on every flight, extra security checks, no involvement from FBI etc ever happened...

Originally posted by cripmeister

But they didn't pull it off, the idea never made it past the draft stage.

What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? That happened to initiate the war in Vietnam...It was a lie to sway the American publc into supporting the Vietnam war which led to a great amount of deaths.

reply to post by Exv8densez


Well I beg to differ.

Marti Hopper, specializes in psychology for sexual assaults and the like

www.movingtoendsexualassault.org...

Marti Hopper holds a doctorate degree in clinical psychology from the University of Cincinnati. As MESA’s Education and Training Coordinator, Marti assists with special projects that address Elder Abuse and abuse on people with disabilities. Marti provides training and consultation for law enforcement, victim advocates, parents, school staff, and numerous other community agency personnel on the topic of understanding and preventing sexual violence. She also conducts classroom presentations for middle school, high school and college students. Prior to joining MESA in 2000, she worked in private industry for over 25 years, where she provided management training and consultation. She holds a doctorate in clinical psychology.

Probably the most credible on the list.

Frances shure

Doesn't appear to practice psychology much, can't find any practices just blogs about 9/11 that she participates in - 911blogger.com...

Robert Hopper
www.healthgrades.com...

Specializes in schizophrenics and sign language and communication.

Danielle Duperret

danielleduperret.com...

DISCLAIMER: Dr. Danielle J. Duperret, ND/PhD, is NOT a licensed medical doctor or psychologist.

That was easy

Dorthy Lorig
No info on her besides from 9/11 conspiracy sites

David Ray Griffin
Author/Professor

So not a psychologist? Should have named the Video 5 questionable psychologist plus a author who sells 9/11 conspiracy books speak out.

EDIT: Sorry I mean 4 psychologist

DISCLAIMER: Dr. Danielle J. Duperret, ND/PhD, is NOT a licensed medical doctor or psychologist.

EDIT: Whoops forgot about part two and John Freedom.

Home Prologue About Me My Mission Energy Psychology EP Research. Articles Services Trainings Testimonials Consultations Links Contact.

www.johnfreedom.com...

Originally posted by roughycannon
Do the "phycologists" in the video not think for one second the reason that we don't believe in this crap isn't because we cant accept these issues but rather that we have looked/studied the information and came to the conclusion that it was terrorists.

I've never seen anything that's convinced me otherwise, I've seen the video's, the threads, the media timing of the events etc...

I'm just waiting on the video titled "Psychologists explain why crazy conspiracy people can't accept facts concerning 9/11"

So you're saying a man in a cave whom was never wanted for the attacks on the FBI website by the way, coordinated an effort that beat a billion dollar air defense? You're saying that pilots that failed miserably at flying small propeller planes, flew jetliners in to the buildings with precision? You're saying 19 hijackers did this yet 6 are still alive overseas? You're saying they really found a bandana and the terrorists' passports in the plane that blew up in to a fireball in the towers?

That just scratches the surface, but all those points are not plausible whatsoever. Believing the official story is analogous to believing the natural color of grass is pink.

Perhaps for OS believers, seeing a psychologist is in order.

oh goody.....instead of discussing the video, why dont we open a debate on how 911 happened and whos fault it is and, maybe a little about how the buildings might have come down......cause THAT would be a much newer/less discussed issue than this psychological stuff......

Originally posted by rydizz

Sorry to say, but you are one of the people that they are talking about in the video. They aren't trying to sway you one way or another, they are trying to get you to QUESTION things and look at evidence. Saying you don't buy the "paranoid delusions" about thermite and controlled demo is your mind putting up a wall and denying all of the evidence that points to just what you aren't buying, because if it were true, it would shatter your view of the world.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that too many "truthers" have and it's a classic sign of a cynic rather than a skeptic. A cynic isn't interested in truth, they are interested only in their agenda. Anyone that agrees with them is hailed as brilliant and anyone that disagrees is automatically branded an uninformed, narrow-minded fool. Case in point, someone disagrees with you here and you automatically accuse the person of having done no investigation at all because if they had then they surely would take the exact same position as you, and you assume that they are in denial because they don't want their bubble burst. Well here's a newsflash for you, there are many people that have looked into this extensively and dismiss the conspiracy theories as garbage. I'm one of them, and I'm not just some bozo watching YouTube videos, I'm a commercial architect with over 25 years experience including high-rise construction. Part of my job duties are quality control peer reviews of other firms' drawings and spec's for general contractors, so I have extensive background in approaching reviews from a neutral point of view and evealuating data with an open mind. This is the approach I took when I started looking into what happened to the twin towers. I read professional opinions in publications, and yes, I even watched the popular YouTube videos on the subject. I am not convinced that the government isn't hiding SOMETHING related to 9-11, but all the "alternate" theories (such as controlled demolition) simply do not hold up to professional evaluation. As a skeptic I did my research and have dismissed the popular conspiracy theories as bunk, but as a skeptic I also remain open-minded when new theories are offered. But cynics cannot see this with an open mind, they will ONLY accept that some crazy conspiracy is behind this no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented.

There are way too many cynics on ATS and not enough skeptics. The moon missions are a great example, there is overwhelming evidence that we did go to the moon, more than enough to convince any reasonable skeptic. Yet these forums are full of people that refuse to accept it even when the avalanche of evidence is laid before their feet. And that is how you can tell a cynic from a skeptic, a skeptic can be swayed by adequate proof, a cynic wants everyone to agree with their dogmatic position regardless of what the evidence shows.