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

My brother in-law falls into this category. He refuses to entertain the idea that the government of the United State would actually sacrifice their own citizens. He will refuse to listen to any of the findings against the OS by engineers, architects and pilots. He just can't comprehend the thought of losing that sense of security his government is there to keep him and his country safe.

I think a lot of people who are flag waving Americans and feel America can do no wrong are completely delusional. Governments around the world have been caught in criminal activities or being involved in secret projects that have put there citizens in danger, or have caused there countries to go to war.

I mean, if 1/3 of the country questions 9/11, why not call for a new outside investigation? Wouldn't an outside investigation finally put us "conspiracy wackos" to rest? The government has made numerous efforts to make it clear they don't like the idea of its citizens entertaining conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Well than, what's the best way to squelch the notion they were involved? Prove it to your citizens!! Maybe if they were more open and didn't have closed meetings after 9/11, and release the numerous security videos on that day, the people would trust their government more.

Our government prides itself that our government is by and for the people. The people are clearly asking for an unbiased and outside investigation on a national tragedy they haven't experienced since Pearl Harbor.

There was a longer and more thorough investigation revolving around PAN AM 103 than 9/11. The search for plane pieces went on for days, a good potion of the plane was recovered and rebuilt, explosive testing was done to find out exactly what type of explosive was used, who was involved and behind the bombing was thoroughly
investigated. The day after 9/11, evidence was quickly disposed of, investigations into the hijackers was shoddy at best resulting in findings that some of the "so called hijackers were not even on the plane!" The reason why Bush allowed a plane of Saudis to fly home when there was a strict no fly order over the entire United States. Not one Saudi national was interviewed by a criminal investigator. You can go on and on about the lack of hard nose investigating surrounding 9/11.

I guess it just wasn't that important of event in the eyes of our government to justify an expensive investigation.

There is so much info, disinfo and meanings on this topic it's dazzling. I still do not know after 10 years if this was conspiracy or a true terrorist action or a combination of both. I tend towards the conspiracy for the following three questions which I cannot answer with the OS:

1. How is it possible those towers fell in apparent free fall?

2. How did the top (pancaking) floors disappear at the end of the collapse?

3. Why is there no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
so because some people dont bite on everything that the truthers throw out........

There must be something wrong with them?

its tactics like this that cause so many problems for people trying to find out the truth

Wow man........just..........wow

Tactics like what? Like bringing the obviously extensive knowledge and experience of professional psychologists to bring some new information to the table about human psychology? One that can be ultimately enlightening?

This is fair "tactic" and there is nothing here "below the belt" as you seem to imply with your

"Wow man.....just....wow"

There is nothing psychologically false introduced in that video...its all very well documented and researched human behavior patterns that are almost guaranteed when "trauma" is induced upon a person...

As as far as the assertion you made that they are saying "if you don't bite on everything" truthers" say you are in denial" is absolutely a reach from the farthest corners of the earth to completely disregard the information they posed as "illegitimate"...

Get a grip...this was not the implication of the view of the professional psychologists yet you would believe so yourself and scream it from the roof tops so long as you didn't have to take what they said seriously???

I've noticed an awful lot of generalizing within the 9-11 discussions (on both sides) but more specifically those who are so convinced of the "Official Story", they gather up absolutely EVERYTHING against it...in any way shape or form and throw it in the "Truther" box so they can be done with it...Intelligent no? Lazy and comforting? absolutely...

time and time again I see legitimate sensible and well documented information posted on these forums and time and time again I see the same reaction in everything by those who cling to the NIST and OS as their own personal bibles and every bit of information outside of or contradicting or out of line with information in their "safety blanket bibles" (NIST report etc) that they almost convulse with anger and generalizations to a point of insults and ridicule just to "be done with"...

The information and "diagnosis" of the professional psychologists is SPOT ON for "victims of trauma" and their behaviors...nothing they said is far reaching and everything is well documented and researched.

Now, if you don't think that trauma can be caused psychologically in ways you can't even comprehend by something on the scales of 9-11 you are naive and quite frankly flat our wrong...

If you don't think that YOU have any underlying trauma that you haven't appropriately dealt with regarding 9-11 again that is beyond naive which the road to denial is paved with... naivety.

Acknowledge your "world view" as a "defense mechanism" constructed for "ultimate comfort"...

they are entwined and directly related to each other...a threat of ones "world view" is a direct threat to ones "ultimate comfort" and when you threaten someones "ultimate comfort" you will get some serious resistance...which we all see here in the 9-11 forums on a daily basis...

Now for those who would like to turn the tables and say "truthers" are in denial because their "world view" is threatened with the "OS"...

I have to ask...what "ultimate comfort" is there in knowing at the very least your own government is lying to you about something as tragic as 9-11?
What comfort is there in knowing the criminals that pulled off 9-11 are still free of their crimes?
What comfort is there in being constantly ridiculed and labeled a tin-hat conspiracy loon if you question any part of the OS?
What comfort is there in knowing that thousands of troops were killed unnecessarily in response to 9-11 with no end in sight??

I could go on but the answer simply is...there is no comfort in that "world view"...its very uncomfortable and very tiring...people who hold this world view aren't doing so because its "comfortable"...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I plan to watch the video but haven't yet. I am reading the replies and checking to see if the same people reply to these threads religiously. I have to say my mind is not made up. I found this poking around the ATS threads. I hadn't seen it before. Pretty damning.

For years this idea (9/11 was a deliberately orchestrated event by factions with-in our OWN government) was preposterous and then I listened to what these people were saying and I saw Building 7 go down...a day late. Realized I must have been in a state of shock at the time since I do not remember it happening like that. After that you start asking questions about the whole thing...naturally.

If you don't question an entire building falling because it was close to two others that were hit by planes and fell the day before....? And the contents of that building is incriminating. It was an evidence locker for covert operations of the FBI CIA NSA

The bin Ladens being the only plane in the air at one point.
"Shoot them down" Cheney's order for flight 93. Bush's bad acting when told the news. The fast story accusing bin Ladin. I remember reading Oswald was blamed for Kennedy's murder...too quickly. Most investigations take a certain amount of time just to be cautious and so you do not name the wrong party and have someone unjustly accused, if only so you appear to have covered all your bases. There was no fear of that here.


And then ...well evidence and people with suspicions seemed to out number those who believe the official story.

a) TRUTHERS who think 9/11 was a self inflicted gunshot so to speak...a deliberate provocation for "war" and all the glorious underpinnings of it set in motion by the last administration.

b) BELIEVERS - who think 9/11 was a well calculated and clever attack by enemies of the US who had been trying to stage just such an attack for ages and they got lucky and caught us with our guard down.

c) Could it be a combination of the two?


The official report after all, was during the same Presidency so hard to be completely unbiased. Still it might be true and if it is there are just some very suspicious looking facts pointing at a wholly innocent administration.
I don't think this is something "they" would not do and by they I mean covert and secret factions within our government fashioning an excuse for war.
I have to say considering the other actions of the last regime it becomes all that much more real and possible to imagine and there are a multitude of reasons war might have been desirable. A multitude, with oil at the top.

Is it real and possible enough to prosecute anyone?
I personally do not have enough evidence but I bet there are people out there who do.

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
To enter the US, be trained to fly, walk on those planes and hit the buildings is more than just an airport security breach.

Let me quote you again, just to be fair:

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

These 19 guys were not armed with box cutters when they entered the US. They weren't armed with box cutters when they were trained to fly. The only security breach committed by "19 guys armed with box cutters" occurred at the airport. That's the only time they had weapons. To imply that they were armed every time they encountered US security, as you seem to have done, paints them as dangerous-looking men whom anyone should have identified as a threat. They weren't. For all intents and purposes, they were just wealthy Arab expats wasting petrodollars until 9/11. Then they picked up their weapons, and became fairly interesting.

As for "every part of US security," the hijackers' only interactions with the US government or any security apparatus, as far as I can tell, were their visa applications, their Customs inspections, and an airline screening on 9/11. A couple intel agencies had some of their names, and it is unfortunate they didn't put those pieces together, but the hijackers did not infiltrate or in any way actively disrupt these agencies.

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.

The US was not warned in detail. The US knew back in 1995 that some Jihadists were thinking about dive bombing planes into buildings, either Cessnas filled with explosives or a hijacked commercial flights. These attacks were to occur after a bombing campaign and the assassination of the Pope. The Filipinos captured a Jihadist and beat the plan out of him, and almost everyone involved was locked up. (The one that got away, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, joined Al Qaeda afterward and sold Bin Laden on his plan.) Should the US have instituted and maintained heightened security for the entire six year period from 1995 to 2001, just because some terrorists who are mostly in prison once had an idea to hijack some airplanes? We'd be living in an insufferable police state if we reacted in such a manner to every idea every terrorist has ever had. It would be, well, not unlike the state we're living in now.

In 2001, a President's Daily Brief warned that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US, but the intelligence presented leads in exactly the wrong direction. The references to the Africa embassy bombings and the Millennium Plot make it look like Al Qaeda was planning a truck bomb or boat bomb. The reference to recruiting local Muslim-American youth makes it look like natives would be the attackers. Another paragraph suggests a plane would be hijacked to gain the release of the Blind Sheikh, but admits this is uncorroborated and "sensational." The PDB also suggests Bin Laden would attack a New York federal building, or attack with explosives.

None of these details were true. The targets were wrong. The attackers were wrong. The means were wrong. A clever analyst might have connected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the uncorroborated and sensational intelligence about a hijacking, but such a hunch probably wouldn't make it to the policy level without a lot more intelligence behind it. Even then, all you would have is the suspicion that these potential hijacks would be suicides. You wouldn't have details. We never had the who or the when, and only a slight idea of the how and where.

After 9/11 we started to pay more attention to uncorroborated and sensational intelligence. That's why we're in Iraq.

No preventative measures like air marshalls on every flight, extra security checks, no involvement from FBI etc ever happened...

The FBI had "70 full field investigations" related to Bin Laden in August 2001.

reply to post by WeRpeons

My brother in-law falls into this category. He refuses to entertain the idea that the government of the United State would actually sacrifice their own citizens.

What if you are not actually talking about "the government of the United States?"

What if this was orchestrated by a small but powerful faction within the confines of our government. Hiding in the house there somewhere...and not the actual government per se....but a secret branch of the Military Industrial Complex, a group of operators buried so deep they technically do not exist... like the one we all suspect and even accuse killed JFK? RFK and MLK?


This is what I would like to ask all those who think this was impossible to plan ourselves.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

These 19 guys were not armed with box cutters when they entered the US. They weren't armed with box cutters when they were trained to fly. The only security breach committed by "19 guys armed with box cutters" occurred at the airport. That's the only time they had weapons. To imply that they were armed every time they encountered US security, as you seem to have done, paints them as dangerous-looking men whom anyone should have identified as a threat. They weren't. For all intents and purposes, they were just wealthy Arab expats wasting petrodollars until 9/11. Then they picked up their weapons, and became fairly interesting.

I wasnt implying they were carrying box cutters entering the country or at any other time besides when they hijacked the planes. Breaching US security doesnt mean you have to be armed at the time. Wouldnt you consider knocking down the twin towers and killing thousands of people as a breach of security at the highest levels?

As for "every part of US security," the hijackers' only interactions with the US government or any security apparatus, as far as I can tell, were their visa applications, their Customs inspections, and an airline screening on 9/11. A couple intel agencies had some of their names, and it is unfortunate they didn't put those pieces together, but the hijackers did not infiltrate or in any way actively disrupt these agencies.

Thats a pretty big security breach. Like I said above, they dont have to be armed and interacting directly with any kind of security for it to be a breach. If they get through it without being caught, its a breach.

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.

The US was not warned in detail. The US knew back in 1995 that some Jihadists were thinking about dive bombing planes into buildings, either Cessnas filled with explosives or a hijacked commercial flights. These attacks were to occur after a bombing campaign and the assassination of the Pope. The Filipinos captured a Jihadist and beat the plan out of him, and almost everyone involved was locked up. (The one that got away, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, joined Al Qaeda afterward and sold Bin Laden on his plan.)

The US was warned. There were rampant rumors of an attack occurring.

Should the US have instituted and maintained heightened security for the entire six year period from 1995 to 2001, just because some terrorists who are mostly in prison once had an idea to hijack some airplanes? We'd be living in an insufferable police state if we reacted in such a manner to every idea every terrorist has ever had. It would be, well, not unlike the state we're living in now.

If heightened security wouldve saved lives lost on 9/11, then yes. It doesnt mean it would have to be a police state. If anything were in a police state now. I believe this was all the grand plan anyway.

In 2001, a President's Daily Brief warned that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US, but the intelligence presented leads in exactly the wrong direction. The references to the Africa embassy bombings and the Millennium Plot make it look like Al Qaeda was planning a truck bomb or boat bomb. The reference to recruiting local Muslim-American youth makes it look like natives would be the attackers. Another paragraph suggests a plane would be hijacked to gain the release of the Blind Sheikh, but admits this is uncorroborated and "sensational." The PDB also suggests Bin Laden would attack a New York federal building, or attack with explosives.

Bill Cooper was able to predict it months before but our national security didnt know?? It doesnt make sense. OBL is the boogie man the PTB needed to further their goals...

None of these details were true. The targets were wrong. The attackers were wrong. The means were wrong. A clever analyst might have connected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the uncorroborated and sensational intelligence about a hijacking, but such a hunch probably wouldn't make it to the policy level without a lot more intelligence behind it. Even then, all you would have is the suspicion that these potential hijacks would be suicides. You wouldn't have details. We never had the who or the when, and only a slight idea of the how and where.

None of the details? what about 'hijacking planes'. With the previous attack on the World Trade Center (1993) it would make sense to have heightened security.

After 9/11 we started to pay more attention to uncorroborated and sensational intelligence. That's why we're in Iraq.

So we're in Iraq due to sensational intelligence? Or was this the goal the whole time? This is about money, oil and power....

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Bonez what would those experts make of a (supposed) expert who believes the truther version yet claims Jesus has visited the good old U S of A WHY DONT YOU CONTACT THEM ABOUT THAT

Then when they get a few years of construction behind them like myself an a few others on here we might be interested in what they have to say

im no psycologist but the evidence available told me those towers were brought down by a controlled explosion

all 3 of them.

the only thing i cant decide on is wether the planes were remotley flown via some simple tech fitted to the planes electronics or there was really was terrorists aboard because the calls made were garbage

'hello mom this is mark bingham" screams some cia guy looking at a list of names calling families with a voice box

since the original news storys bungled scripting and excellent camera work that disproves any real evidence of a plane at the pentagon (big thankyou to to the camera men that zoomed into the hole to reveal unscathed chairs tables books computers and office furniture.) there have been lots of brand new theorys about that day and quite frankly its a huge diss info campaign and it worked as it seems the truth movement is miniscule and people are so tired of hearing about holographic planes and cargo planes with bombs strapped to the noses and hundreds and hundreds of conflicting storys people just want to forget about it.
so well done to tptb who ordered the strike if there is a god im sure he will thankyou personally for it

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
Well thats odd, the OP made this post at 5:21 and you had your reply a mere 8 minutes later. I

nice!

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?

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?

Do you know the emotion in that guys the voice that got kicked out of the conference really got to me, it just shows how desperate we are for the truth and how powerless we have become to get it.

Originally posted by ceetee

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
Well thats odd, the OP made this post at 5:21 and you had your reply a mere 8 minutes later. I

nice!

Yeah! Because it's totally relevant, right? It's not like he was browsing, and saw the topic show up, and then decided to respond to it.

Sometimes, you guys... sometimes...

DO these same "Psychologists" make the same argument for birthers? I'm going to to take a wild guess and say no.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In the following video, several highly-educated psychologists explain why some people cling to the official conspiracy theory and won't accept alternate conspiracy theories concerning 9/11:

As we've always said, it comes down to denial, ignorance, and/or even trauma. People can't accept that lying politicians and corrupt government and military officials could ever possibly do such a thing as to carry out something like 9/11. Yet they drafted a similar operation in 1964 called "Operation Northwoods".

There will always be those that will never accept alternate conspiracy theories about anything, regardless of the amount of evidence that is presented.

These psychologists have very good advice and information for those that are in denial or are suffering from the trauma caused by 9/11.

edit on 21-9-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Highly educated psychologists? You mean there's under educated ones? Some people can't accept? Your words are very suspect. You imply that any psychologist who wouldn't agree with this trash is uneducated and also that most people in the world accept your fantasy view. Has there been a world wide head count of who believes what?

I challenge you to show me the numbers. Reliable figures of course not fantasy ones from fantasy site.

If you can't then you're just blurting like a true truther.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Who are these people? Why should I believe them? Who made the video and why?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Who are these people? Why should I believe them? Who made the video and why?

To BELIEVE means to accept something as true, or false, without sufficient evidence.

BELIEF is stupid, by definition.

9/11 is about physics. The 9/11 Decade makes 9/11 the most hilariously stupid event in history. People BELIEVING an airliner could destroy a 400,000+ ton building in less than two hours without even asking about the distribution of steel in the building was pretty dumb.

DUH, are psychologists smart enough to handle Newtonian physics. Now what is the psychology of people admitting they were dumb enough to ever BELIEVE the official story? The psychology of Trusting in AUTHORITY. Of course this would mean a lot of politicians around the world admitting they were either dummies or liars. Funny how gravity works the same way all over the planet.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Who are these people? Why should I believe them? Who made the video and why?

To BELIEVE means to accept something as true, or false, without sufficient evidence.

BELIEF is stupid, by definition.

9/11 is about physics. The 9/11 Decade makes 9/11 the most hilariously stupid event in history. People BELIEVING an airliner could destroy a 400,000+ ton building in less than two hours without even asking about the distribution of steel in the building was pretty dumb.

DUH, are psychologists smart enough to handle Newtonian physics. Now what is the psychology of people admitting they were dumb enough to ever BELIEVE the official story? The psychology of Trusting in AUTHORITY. Of course this would mean a lot of politicians around the world admitting they were either dummies or liars. Funny how gravity works the same way all over the planet.

psik

Ah....What?

Originally posted by SavedOne
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.

So as an architect why don't you want to know the distribution of steel down the towers? Construction is about supporting static loads. But a dynamic load will still have its energy absorbed crushing any supports. So where is the data on how much energy was required to crush each level of the towers? That is not a construction problem.

Why can't you build a physical model that can completely collapse.

My pledge father was an architect. In my fraternity I saw architects building models all of the time. But those models were about HOW BUILDINGS LOOKED. The standard joke at IIT was that "architects studied funny physics and funny math".

What does the conservation of momentum have to do with architecture? How did 1360 foot buildings come down in less than 18 seconds? That is not architecture or psychology. But people BELIEVING in the physically impossible has something to do with psychology.

psik

if i was from israel and i knew that my country had something to do with 9/11, i would push the official story as hard as i could too......there is a weird loyalty that israelis have with each other that stems from their jewish lawbook.....i just read an article the other day that showed a rabbi that was being threatened with aiding and abetting because he wouldn't testify against his fellow jew in court because the jewish laws forbid it.......

Where Im from people are to destracted by entertainment to even think about the real world, X factor, football, and all that jazz got people locked inside their own minds.