It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psychology101 to Psychology911

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I think it's safe to say that we are collectively baffled by debunkers. I even wonder if debunkers baffle themselves when they are cornered. They attempt to avoid acknowledging the reality through various deflection tactics... when the facts presented become impossible to deny.

This thread's intention is to shed light on the basic to advance psychology at play and work in preserving the OS novel. To fully understand this phenomenon, let there be no stone unturned... pre-911, day-of-911 to current psychological tools should be thoroughly examined.

To get us started, let us look at the smoking gun.


Google Video Link



[edit on 27-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]




posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I guess that is why we are so often referred to as sheep.

I have seen many people go along with what they knew to be dead wrong rather than be on the outside looking in.

Once I heard about the whole 9/11 truth movement it took no time at all for me to see the obvious truth. Funny, as it was coming down on that fateful day I said it looked like a controlled demolition, that is until the "official" story came out. I forgot all about my own reaction for nearly 6 years. How gullible we can be. And how easily manipulated too.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Fun .. My degree is in psychology AND ....

- I fully believe that airplanes hit the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon. 'cuz they did!

- I fully believe that those aboard flight 93 brought the plane down - either the hijackers or the passengers brought it down. 'Cuz they did. (they brought it down before the airforce could show up and do the job themselves)

- 19 Radical fundamentalist muslims hijacked four planes and used them as weapons. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a radical islamic extremist is just a radical islamic extremist.

- The two towers MAY have come down due to detonations previously placed as a safety measure. It is better that those buildings came straight down rather then tipping over and therefore it is entirely possible that explosives were in key positions to bring it down in case of just such an emergency. The buildings would have come down anyways, but by bringing them down pancake style many lives were saved on the ground.

- The passengers aboard the plane that hit the pentagon are all dead and they died on impact (or by having their throats cut by the hijackers). That includes Barbara Olsen. None of them are being held someplace by the government and none of them were killed off by the government. They all died when the plane hit the pentagon.

- Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened. They let it happen because they wanted the USA to side with them against radical islamics. Israel knew about it through their own intelligence investigations and NOT because they made it happen.

- Israel knew .. but New York Jews did not. Any conspiracy theory that all the Jews were missing on 9/11 from NYC and the Pentagon are just anti-Jewish bunk.

- The US Government did not pull off 9-11. But shear ineptness and major financial cutbacks in security programs caused serious security lapses which made the job of the 9/11 hijackers much easier.

- The Saudi Royals fund the Wahabbis .. they appease them with hopes that the Wahabbis will bite them last. Therefore, the Saudi Royals are partly to blame for building up the Wahabbis and for fueling that dangerous cult. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia ... something that the gov't wants to downplay.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

I started to read your post and thought," I know I've clashed with this guy. How could I?". Then about 4 items down it hit me. Oh well. At least you consider it a possibilty and not a probability.
Anyway, as to the OP. I find it amusing that you are trying to apply a psychologogical approach coming from a camp that has become a religion.
I continually debunk various theories based solely on my own understanding and examination of the evidence. I don't rely on other peoples interpetations of evidence. If I did, I'd be part of the thruther religion.
Can I explain all of it? I don't know but I can explain enough of it. Now I'm pretty sure the government lies. Thats a given. What shocked me about the whole issue was the lies and deception coming from the other side.
So applying a little psychology of my own, I'm left to figure it out for myself.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
I know I've clashed with this guy.

I'm a girl.



you are trying to apply a psychologogical approach

Not really. The OP said 'psychology' in his opening title.
That's what my degree is in. So it caught my attention.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

*bow*
My apologies.
I do use the term "guy" in a very generic manner.
Only the first part of it was diected towards you.
The rest was squarely on the OP.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Great video OP! SnF!



Originally posted by Grimstad
What shocked me about the whole issue was the lies and deception coming from the other side.

Are you referring to 9/11 "conpiracy theories" as the other side? I would hope not because this isn't the "Lies and Deception" movement. It's the 9/11 TRUTH movement with evidence based on truth and fact. If someone lies about something, it's either because they mispoke or were misinformed/didn't research a topic thoroughly. But there is absolutely ZERO purposeful deception or lying as far as the 9/11 truth movement is concerned and I challenge you to prove otherwise.


Below is a list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:


Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

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

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

Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
www.911summary.com...


Further, more mental health professionals can be found at the Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth website:

mp911truth.org...


I find it truly amazing that a doctor, lawyer, police officer, firefighter, architect, engineer, physicist, pilot, or any other trained professional can be a credible professional in their field and an asset to society, all up until they start talking about 9/11 truth. Then they instantly become attack-bait, ridiculed and scorned, labled as terrorists, with all of their degrees and training flushed down the toilet because of someone else's denial in facing the facts.

The video in the OP shows what happens to sheeple when they just go with the flow instead of being independent and questioning things they don't understand.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
I continually debunk various theories based solely on my own understanding and examination of the evidence.


Great, you should post your evidence around here some time. Sorry if I've missed it before but you're apparently a new member and I've never seen you post anything substantial before.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


My undergrad was in psychology, and i assisted with a couple doctoral dissertation group experiments similar to those in the video provided in the OP. There are some very basis psychological principles at work here, that most of us would fall prey to... with or without a degree in psychology.

I see you took considerable time and effort to list what looks like a majority in agreement with the OS. I suggest you take the same amount of time and effort to objectively review the basics covered in the video and apply them to the inquiry at hand.

Input on how psychology is the one part of this equation that very few consider relevant, and yet it is the one area of study/inquiry that makes the lie stand in the face of a torrent of scientific truth.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


YES. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
The funny thing is it was the very link in your sig that lead me to the truth on April 13th.
That was my introduction to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
I very closely examined the 1st 2 videos on WTC7. Their examination of them is flawed. I paid very close attention as I was lead through the measurement of the building as it fell. But I noticed 1 tiny detail that they apparently missed. It made me think there was something more to see. The very first time I saw video of the same building from the other side, there it was. It was obvious that the progressive collapse that they claim didn’t happen, did IN FACT happen. The 1.5 seconds that they claim is unaccounted for was right there. At the point where they started to measure the collapse, the building had already been falling for almost 2 seconds. There is a video clip that can be seen on many of the pages around here that shows WTC 7 collapsing. It’s a loop that shows the building in freefall. However there is a CRUCIAL part missing from that clip. The 2 seconds at the beginning that shows the interior falling BEFORE the exterior. When the exterior started falling it was actually being pulled down by the interior. That is why the exterior achieved freefall. Freefall is the CRUCIAL element required to prove controlled demolition.

Now, this video is freely available from the same sources that they got their own video from. It is safe to assume that by now, if they are really intent on seeking the truth, that they have had a chance to see it. But if you go to their web site right now, the only correction you will see is that NIST now admits freefall took place. That statement stems from an interview where the person that put together A&E’s presentation on WTC 7 was able to stump the NIST rep on a question about freefall. I can only presume that they are deliberately misleading the public. That is EXACTLY what everybody accuses the government of. THEY ARE LYING.

When I get into debates with people on this subject, I don’t just blow them off. I examine every piece of evidence they present. I don’t take ANYBODY”S word for ANYTHING. I examine it for myself. Only a couple times have I encountered something that I could not explain. In each of those cases it was small details used to support a much bigger premise. The details are irrelevant if the bigger premise is already disproven.

The detail from the WTC 7 video that caught my eye? When the presenter is going through frame by frame, counting the time to show the difference between what he is witnessing and what NIST says happened, there is an antenna on the roof that moves for 1 frame about a second before the building starts to fall. That antenna sits roughly in the center of the building. What moved the antenna is the fact that the other end of the building (which can’t be seen on the video) had already collapsed and it happened to stop at that antenna, pause for about ½ a second and then continue to the point where he finally starts measuring the freefall. On my monitor with that tiny little video window I was able to catch a detail that the guy that was examining it, totally missed or ignored. I choose to believe he missed it but that doesn’t explain why it hasn’t been corrected.
Why should I put any faith at all in this organization.

What’s the favorite line around here? Deny ignorance?
I am far from ignorant.
And I guarantee you that someone will read this post and assume I am a DA.
And for the record, I have only seen the first minute or so of the NIST video and I haven’t read any reports, so technically the government hasn’t lied to me on this issue. I don’t deny that the government lied about their activities prior to and following September 11th. They have a lot to answer for due to incompetence which would explain the lying. But I know what I saw on September 11th because I understand what I saw on September 11th.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


As much as I'd really love to oblige, I'm getting really tired of repeating myself. You should be able to click on my name and find 1 thread and I think maybe have access to my posts. I'm actually considering compiling a thread that contains my collected examinations.

And in case you're wondering wht I do this, it's basically because I'm bored and I need some mental stimulation. The economy has hit me kind of hard and I have a lot of time on my hands.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Grimstad]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
As much as I'd really love to oblige, I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.


Come on now. You haven't even been a member for a month. You have less than 120 posts to your username, most of them don't look like they're even related to 9/11. If you really have so much time on your hands, I'm sure you know your own posts better than I do. Not that I really care if you can't show me some posts on another thread, etc., because it wouldn't make you any different than any of the other "debunkers" around here.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I sought my truth.
You seek yours
You obviously know the process.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


From what I have seen in your posts, you just argue against conspiracy theories, not so much in favor of any other theories. Is that not the case? Because I don't subscribe to any particular theory of how the buildings were "helped" down, I only point out what's wrong with the federal reports and therefore why further investigation is needed. No one else has done a forensic investigation, so I'm not sure what the point even is in attacking any of the multitudes of alternate theories except to kill time, like you suggest, because there is no consensus anyway.

As far as WTC7's collapse rate, even NIST has measured the actual acceleration (not just collapse times) and agrees that WTC7 did descend to the ground at the rate of gravity for a period of time. The rate of gravity, 9.8m/s^2, doesn't even allow for drag from the air that should have been in the way (let alone the STRUCTURE of the building), yet it's been measured by several different sources and you can even do it yourself. One frame -- how much time does that represent? Do you know what kind of margin of error that represents? Just curious. The numbers usually vary slightly anyway, but that they even approximate the rate of gravity is very telling of how much actual work WTC7's own kinetic energy was doing. If you can't account for the air that was pushed out of the way, then you don't even have a case.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

It is not my goal to spread any theory. I only seek to deny ignorance. A term I see spoken very often but practiced much less.
An independent investigation is a very reasonable expectation. I’m all for it.

When WTC 7 took the last drop, most of the floor area was already gone. The air that would normally be between the floors (which would normally still be attached to the walls), and acts as a cushion as it collapses, was not there. The building was essentially an empty cylinder. There was no air to be pushed out of the way.
And remember, there was a progressive collapse. First went the far end of the interior, then a pause. That one second that you bring up was not measuring drop time, it was marking the point in time when the pause occurred. At that point the air pressure would have had the time to normalize, When it continued, there was much less floor space and there was now an open area for pressure to go without being contained by the outside walls. The outside walls are very flimsey compared to the rest of the building and much of it lost it’s lateral support when the interior fell at the far end. There was very little structural resistance. You aren’t saying anything that wasn’t fully covered in the A&E video. All the math is good. All the measurements are good. Except for one.


This next thing isn’t directed at you, I just toss it out there for general consumption. That air that gets compressed between the floors as they drop, explains why windows were blowing out a couple floors ahead of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Not explosives. Air pressure. Those floors were poppin like balloons.

EDIT: You made me miss half of Chuck

[edit on 27-4-2009 by Grimstad]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
When WTC 7 took the last drop, most of the floor area was already gone. The air that would normally be between the floors (which would normally still be attached to the walls), and acts as a cushion as it collapses, was not there.


By "took the last drop" you're talking about the global collapse? How is all the air already gone by the time this starts, again?


The building was essentially an empty cylinder. There was no air to be pushed out of the way.


So in other words you're saying the inside of WTC7 was a vacuum before it collapsed. Am I getting this right?


And remember, there was a progressive collapse.


First you say you aren't pushing any theory, now you're pushing a "progressive collapse" theory. You want to fill me in on the evidence (not just speculation) supporting this theory?


When it continued, there was much less floor space and there was now an open area for pressure to go without being contained by the outside walls.


Ok, this makes more sense but contradicts what you were saying earlier. Now the air isn't already gone when the building drops, but the building is pushing the air out of the way. That's good, that's what's supposed to happen. But unfortunately that also creates drag and takes energy, which comes out of the kinetic energy of the falling building. You've had physics, right? The building's acceleration was within a hair's breadth of 9.8m/s^2 for as long as we can see it. That doesn't show where any energy has been lost to moving the air. That would cause the building to slow down. Not to mention, again, the entire freaking structure that would also have to be compromised (think that might affect the acceleration?).


There was very little structural resistance.


That's obvious, but no one has shown why.


That air that gets compressed between the floors as they drop, explains why windows were blowing out a couple floors ahead of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Not explosives. Air pressure. Those floors were poppin like balloons.


I've heard that a million times but the floors weren't even airtight. You expect me to believe air is going to go down up to 50 floors ahead of the collapse wave, travel out from the core without decompressing (because that's where all the shafts running between floors were: in the core), and burst out of a random window, dust and large debris and all. It sounds like a nice theory until you actually try to work it out like you see in the videos. In reality the air was decompressing immediately on the floors as they were being destroyed. The big clue is the massive solid debris and tons of dust that's also escaping on those floors.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray, we all appreciate your 'religion' of CD. I found this, though, of an actual skyscraper being demolished.

Please, note the incredible sounds of the charges going off, sequentially.

I see that, and compare to 9/11 footage, and it seems entirely different.



What am I missing, here?



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You're right, that building does sound completely different.


What am I missing, here?


They used C4 to fully cut steel that was already pre-cut to bring down that building. What you're missing is any post where I claimed the same was used to bring down any buildings on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


The All Seeing this is your logical fallacy:


[align=center]Ad Hominem[/align]



Many online discussion groups and chatrooms have discovered, much to their regret, that participants don't always behave in a civilized manner. Discussions on hot-button issues such as politics, sports or religion can suddenly turn into overheated arguments called flame wars in Internet lingo. One of the main weapons used during these conflicts is known as an ad hom attack. An ad hom attack is an attempt to win an argument by attacking the speaker's character, rather than the topic under discussion. Many online discussion groups specifically prohibit the use of ad hom attacks, since they often lead to uncontrollable flame wars.
The term ad hom is a shortened version of the Latin phrase ad hominem, which literally means 'to the man'. In the classic sense of philosophical discussion, an ad hominem argument is considered a fallacy, meaning it is a faulty response to a logical statement. This is not to say that an ad hominem argument is always ineffective, however. If the ad hominem argument rings truer than the issue itself, opinions could still be swayed. If a politician says, "This city's crime rate is far too high," for example, his opponent might say, "Who should know more about the crime rate than a convicted criminal?" This would be an ad hominem argument, since the speaker's character is being questioned, not the issue itself Read More - What Is An Ad Hom Attack?



[edit on 28-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Since when are psychologists in a place to make any sort of statement as to the validity of things like physics that would have to do with a falling building and etc? But in that case can I ask my dentist for his thoughts on Quantum Phyics and report it here as truth?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join