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

reply to post by smurfy

Link: My reply to your post is here. Since the reply was made just above your post, I will not double post my response.

9/11 Conspiracy theorists have already lost the fight.

It is what it is. Its time to move on.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

This thread is based upon the notion "Since you do not see things my why, you are somehow psychologically impaired". Psychologists would counter argue with, "Obsessing over any particular subject is a sign of post traumatic stress disorder and obsessive compulsive drives.".

edit on 9/22/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

You are attempting to shoot the messenger, who has provided the link to a video from a group of.... amazingly, psychologists! I like the use of keywords, 'Obsessing' instead of discussion for instance, Subjective remarks like, "this thread is based upon" Hmmm, all very presumptous for a working psychologist, never mind a 'would be' one. BTW, I found McQueen's method very impressive, and no matter what anyone can say, is very evidential and uses the scientific method as is supposed to. In other words, looking FOR a consistent truth in the evidence, not MAKING a truth out of the evidence.

Yes but the catch cry of truthers who post this stuff is "don't shoot the messenger". You put it up you get the flack.

Perhaps if you don't believe the link to be credible you shouldn't post it. But in my opinion if you post it you believe it unless you post it saying "look at this crap"

People are just absolutely blind. They cannot believe that the government they grew up with, the cold war era, and that patriotism is the duty of every citizen.

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

It's funny how some people bit like a pitbull on what the government threw out and won't let go. Why is it so difficult to even consider that the official story is not the truth?

Originally posted by Section31
Here is the greatest conundrum of these theories...
Our memory of events becomes faulty after five years. Since a counter argument didn't occur immediately after 9/11, any new evidence brought to light will be based upon faulty information. As a result of waiting way-way too long, the potential for an accurate testimony has been diminished. If the 9/11 theorists began an investigation on day one, they would have had a better understanding of events. Regardless about what types of conspiratorial twists they now conjure, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have already lost.

9/11 Conspiracy theorists have already lost, and there is nothing they can do to change that reality.

I've never heard of this five-Year plan, it has to be an arbitrary figure, and If I was daft enough to believe in that, I would go and see a psychologist myself. As for slipping in, " Since a counter argument didn't occur immediately after" well it did, and on the day, spoken by Dan Rather, "Almost like a controlled explosion" no wonder he ended up with the push. Now back to the five-year plan, when did the NIST produce their final reports? OK, the towers was 2005, so just four years, and WTC7 was 2008, more than seven years! (after complaints/aka a revision) so then even more faulty by your reckoning, "any new evidence brought to light will be based upon faulty information. As a result of waiting way-way too long"

Adding a Log !! more fuel to the Fire ! to Burn a Building Down!


WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein



C.H.A.N.G.E. confronts Larry Silverstein



Listen Closely ATS
what the Demolition Guy says when they are about to take down building 6!!
and some people say that term isnt used in the Demolition Slang!! & Sliverstein talks about pull it of building 7 in this same documentary clipping just a round 36 seconds in after the Demo guy Calls in to Pull Building 6
How Interesting !! is that ! So what message is this? From The Makers of this Documentary linking them
together This is Evidence Right ? See the Video Below ! just in case you missed the 911 :The luckiest Man Alive video
on page 2 of this Thread ...

Pull It?


I know for sure that Sliverstein said Pull it not Pull out, as Pull out is Military and Police & Firefighter Slang
For Retreat on Leaving the Area ...

/ex]
pull·out (plout)
n.
1. A withdrawal, especially of troops.
2. Change from a dive to level flight. Used of an aircraft.
3. An object designed to be pulled out.

thefreedictionary.com
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Phone Call to a Demolition Company: "Pull it down" one of the phrases used
wtcdemolition.com...

4409 -- Demolition Company: "WTC 7 Imploded"

reply to post by steveknows


Not so here, since the 'sectioned one' is the one talking about psychologists. The OP is the one providing the link, and 'sectioned one' claims knowledge of psychology, yet he only addresses the OP, not the the linked psychologists's opinions, which is more relevant. I love the way both you and 'sectioned one' presume that I am, 'a truther' or 'conspiracy theorist' neither of you even asked, that's problematic to me, as it is not very objective.

Mental Health Professionals Say that Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do
Many mental health professionals have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the official version suffer from defense mechanisms. For example:

Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Lester Grinspoon, MD
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Distinguished Professor in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Professor of Medicine in the Department of Internal Medicine and Distinguished Professor of Global Health in the College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Michael D. Knox
Professor Emeritus, Psychology and Neuroscience, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Michael Gabriel
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Retired Psychiatrist. Former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Jefferson Medical College. Former Major, U.S. Army Medical Corps, Vietnam Veteran 7 years service, Jon Bjornson, MD
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
PhD in clinical psychology from Texas Tech Michael Green
PhD in educational psychology Brent Igo PhD psychologist Paul Johansson
PhD psychologist Gail Maudal
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
There are many other mental health professionals who agree.

And watch this must-see 15-minute interview with psychologists:
www.youtube.com...

911blogger.com...

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom


Hang in there. There's something formative and helpful on the other side of this mess, you'll see, just keep on keeping on, there's a light at the end of this long dark tunnel.

The fact is, insecure people refuse to be "wrong". They want so much to be right they continue to walk around with a chip on their shoulder. They refuse to acknowledge facts that they cannot explain. They are too lazy for research so they get their info from the "News" and pretend they are "knowledgeable". These are the same people who argue for the sake of arguing.

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by smurfy

 

Link: My reply to your post is here. Since the reply was made just above your post, I will not double post my response.

9/11 Conspiracy theorists have already lost the fight.

It is what it is. Its time to move on.

edit on 9/22/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

According to who?

So steel framed buildings collapse from carbon fires without resistance to gravity? Ummm ok?

Im sure you wont bother explaining and will continue the shill tactic : attack the "truthers" since you can not attack the data. Yeah HOW DARE WE ASK QUESTIONS!

The official explanation continues to be proven false, i call that EPIC FAIL on behalf of the commission report, NIST and other proven liars. But you can also claim the moon is made of cheese and claim instant victory in the process. Does not mean you are right. Im sure you really want us to go away, we make you uncomfortable dont we?

Well we are NOT going anywhere, unless you get us all in one building and blow it up with jet fuel

There is nothing to win, there is no prize. Either you believe the propaganda/commission report "lies" and live a lie. Be a happy little sheep. Or you embrace the truth, do the footwork and ask questions... in the process liberating yourself, free your mind from the chains that bind you. That is your born god given right. To be human, to be sane. Don't believe everything you are told, is it that hard to grasp?

911 was an inside job

KNOW IT

It's interesting some peopole are against "truthers" yet maintain that the government may have allowed the terrorists to strike WTC and most of the demolition was due to that.
To me that would be way enough. And that is what I hold as the most likely explanation.

When the Reichstag was lit up (the equivalent of the "House of Representatives Building), do the Nazis have had to light the torches themselves? No, they outsourced it to a Bulgarian terrorist Dimitrov that anyaway had the crazy plan to put the Reichstag on fire. They closed their eyes and walked away.
Then they just were allowing to burn into cinders...

Cheney was asked whether he keeps the no-fire orders up - by the minute or more frequently. He said, "May orders still stand!"

Is that no enough, even if the towers were indeed weak enough to withstand the jet fuel and the collapse? (True, Last MAn Out has witnessed combustion before the buildings were hit.
Better get some Dimiodrine or Levatol and face the truth.
It is damn uncertain but that we had a had in it is sure.
Lose your sense of false security and question. No, your government has not been taking best care of you since time immemorial. there were times when it came close, such as during FDR. But these isolated instances just show that the moneyed elite have their own geopolitical agenda that has nothing to do with what they were elected for.
How can you never feel safe in that setup?
'Course I had difficulty trusting Leonhid Brezhniew.
Well Bush had a better coiffure but not much else.

Every year approximately forty serious attacks were easily handled. The would-be loony attackers were duly stopped, shot down etc. Why not now? Because the Empire needed a pretext from that rocked sense of security: to attack Afghanistan then Iraq. Then on and on. (Hint: gas pipelines and oil has a lot more to do wth it than where terrorrists are palnning fantastic attacks.

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"

Because they're not facts. We saw what happened and the explanations do not make sense. The explanations are not facts when the evidence does not support them. Doesn't it strike you odd the evidence found in the field at Shanksville, the World Trade Center complex in New York, and The Pentagon AND what we saw that day does not support nor confirm the official story? Maybe if one of the locations there were a few unanswered questions or doubts, then whatever, but all three? Maybe if one tower fell in its own footprint, we could possibly understand that it fell because of the damage, but three buildings??? One of them wasn't even hit by a plane. But three different buildings with different damage in DIFFERENT areas all collapsed the same way. How can that be? How convenient that the collapses were all nice and even, straight down into their own footprints? Wow. I would think that the only way to get that kind of result would be to plan for the demolition. Something chaotic like fires caused by planes flying into the two towers at different areas and a fire in a third building would not result in the same destruction of all three buildings in the same exact way. The fact that the buildings collapsed is true, but how they collapsed and the cause remains questionable and not supported by any facts.

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.

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.

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

How do you know from recorded videos that buckling was present? If from recorded videos they cannot see that there were explosions as the building collapsed or the molten metal pouring from the building, they would not be able to see any buckling of the floors. Popular Mechanics investigation and debunking report said the first plane hit floors 92-94. So there were 16 floors above the impact zone. How were the upper 16 floors of the first tower hit able to tear through the lower 91 floors that were still intact? There wouldn't be enough weight or inertia but like you said, they tore through them with no resistance at all. The confusing part as to why the central core did not survive the collapse in either tower while in the simulation it shows that the core would have remained should have made the light go on.

Look at who profited from this! Follow the money and you will find the real perps behind 911, at least the most prominent ones. globalfire.tv...

Larry Silverstein's sharp finan-cial instinct bestows upon him an immense downpour of money. Three months prior the destruction of the WTC-towers, he leased them and increased the insurance poli-cies. He now receives more than seven billion Dollars, al-though he was not the owner..

The Real Dr Evil pictured below

"Larry Silverstein, since July landlord of the towers, demands from the insurers 7,2 billion Dollars compensation, his speaker, Steve Solomon, said. ... The Port Authorities of New York and New Jersey, owners of the WTC, agree with Silverstein's demand." --Die Welt, Berlin, Oct 10, 2001.

BTW

PULL IT!

I believe the official story

Translation

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


You do know that pull it is not a demolitions term at all except when used with regards to attaching cables and pulling down a building, like they did with Building 6, right?

Why did the firemen "pull out" of the area if pull it was meaning to demo Building 7? Also, why would the guy say anything within earshot of anyone in public that might insist upon demolitions being present inside Building 7? It just doesn't add up. People were expecting 7 to come down all day because it was bulging, creaking, and had holes and fire in it.

Originally posted by cripmeister

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.

And they didn't pull off 9/11 either. Obviously it didn't go as planned. There were too many hitches. That's why we're having this discussion 10 years later.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

Regardless about what 9/11 conspiracy theorists say, they already lost the overall argument. Since the official public story is 'on record', without an official effort for an override, the original events we all witnessed on tv and radio will continue to hold truth. We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11. Nothing will officially change that. Thank god.

Good luck on removing the official story from record.

It will never-ever happen.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Its not a viewpoint. There over 1250 experts, from scientists, to architects, pilots and even the firefighters who were there, who state that the official "story" could not have happened. This is not a viewpoint. This is science, expert witness, and eye witness. The video does not state that there is something wrong with people who swallow the official version, it pinpoints the reasons why anyone would choose to deny an issue or event that challenges their way of looking at the world, and their place in it. People do this on small scales with small issues as well. It is not a pathology, it is psychology.

reply to post by zerimar65


Hi zerimar, That the core remained for some moments, (at least in the case of WTC1) is not an issue, there is good video evidence of a major portion of the core stood, but that the core itself did fall straight down. That could be considered a separate event. In the case of the bending floors, which is the NIST rationale for the collapse of the rest of the building, in their PDF they often use the word, 'presume', when referring to photograpic evidence. They also aknowledge that the upper portions of both buildings, keeled over and literally fell off.

www.nist.gov...

You must look at the photographic evidence very carefully, and decide for yourself.