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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
The floors were over half gone when the exterior fell.
Over half the roof was GONE.

Wow, never heard this stretch-of-the-imagination claim before. I assume you're going to show us some evidence for this claim? Or is this just another factless opinion?




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
I know you speak English but do you understand it?
I never said anything about a vacuum in WTC 7.
The floors were over half gone when the exterior fell.
Over half the roof was GONE.
Nothing to contain the air, that would have created the cushion.


So your problem is that you understand words but not actual physics. What's containing the air around you when you go outside? You know when you drop anything through the air, it's going to experience drag, and at some point reach a terminal velocity. In other words nothing is supposed to fall at exactly 9.8m/s^2 through the air. Through a vacuum, yes, but air creates drag. "Drag" is actually a technical term, look it up. If air were to rush out of WTC7, it would immediately be replaced by more air from the atmosphere exerting pressure from the outside. Why don't you go ask a "science teacher" about it?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

posted by Grimstad

Nothing to contain the air, that would have created the cushion.



The air outside the WTC7 building would contain the air inside the WTC7 building. The atmosphere is about 348 miles deep; exerting a pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch at sea level. That pressure would hold the air inside the WTC7 building or replace it.







[edit on 4/28/09 by SPreston]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Here is the video of which I spoke. Examine it for yourself.
The NIST video shows the same footage of WTC 7 that almost every video of WTC 7 uses.
www.youtube.com...

Go to youtube and look at all the debunking WTC 7 Report videos you want. Every one that I found that actually shows it collapsing, starts about the 18 second mark. If you watch starting about the 12 second mark you will see the progressive collapse that is properly modeled at the 55 second mark. And again at the 1:30 mark.
This video clearly shows the “progressive collapse” NOT the “global collapse” that all the truthers assert..

Why does every thruther video not show that missing few seconds?

Why does A&E for 9/11 Truth not post a correction or at least pull the 3 videos showing their completely inaccurate analysis of the WTC 7 collapse?

Who is misleading whom?
And who doesn’t understand physics?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
This video clearly shows the “progressive collapse” NOT the “global collapse” that all the truthers assert..


Hmm. Do you know what "global collapse" means?


Who is misleading whom?
And who doesn’t understand physics?


Nothing you just posted was even relevant to free-fall acceleration or none of the PE being used. You're talking about timing the collapse. There's no need, even NIST admits the building accelerated at free.


Are you still defending what you said about all the air in the buildings, or are you just pushing that out of your mind for now?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I told you on page 2 I was through with you.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimstad
 


I feel so put down. Are you done with all the other people that agreed with what I said and are asking you the exact same questions?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I have noticed that the "debunkers" appear more interested in circular rhetoric than in content or actual discovery. I sometimes refer to them as "skepters" because they crawl out of the woodwork with their reflexive denial mechanisms whenever controversial topics are discussed.

The OP's video was great, and people might find these pages interesting too (especially the SkeptiNazi Debate Flowchart):

The Neuropsychology of Pseudo-Skepticism
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com...

Pseudoskepticism
www.plasma-universe.com...

I have noticed that the "skepters" seem to be in a decline pattern lately (both in frequency and vitriol) with the new Obama administration, although it may or may not be related to the outgoing Bush administration.

I suppose that we have Bill O'Really on Faux News if anyone really misses the "debunking" shtick.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
I have noticed that the "skepters" seem to be in a decline pattern lately (both in frequency and vitriol) with the new Obama administration, although it may or may not be related to the outgoing Bush administration.


I have noticed the same. Where did jthomas and SeymourButz go? Since January, they've been non-existent here.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I suspect the growing attitude of indifference on this matter.

Really, if you look there are only a few folks that still rehash this stuff again and again, like the groundhog day movie.

Life is too short.. We could be waiting for eons for the theoretical, nebulous boogiemen of 9/11 to make their move on society.

As time passes the politically motivated cornerstones of this "movement" become less relevant..falling into the realm of hackeneyed and ubsurd.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I just spent 2 pages explaining details that I was asked for.
Details that ONLY need explaining when you IGNORE the first 7 to 9 seconds of footage.
Every truther video is missing those first seconds.

0:12 Building is intact. Roofline and penthouse are complete and there are no broken windows
0:13 Penthouse at the left end of the building begins to collapse
0:15 A few windows on the left side about 1/3 of the way down start to break out.
0:16 You can begin to see daylight through the top row of windows on the left
0:17 A few more windows in the same area 1/3 of the way down break. The left end of the penthouse is gone and you can clearly see daylight through the top row of windows. By now, the entire left end of the roof is gone and you can begin to see light through the windows of the second floor down.
0:18 More of the penthouse collapses as it progresses from left to right. A few more windows on the left side about 1/3 of the way down are missing and a window about ½ way down the building is now broken.
0:19 Between here and 0:21 is where every truther video of WTC 7 starts.
0:20 No movement yet from the outer shell of the building, yet several windows up to ½ way down the building are broken out. Something is happening half way down inside the building yet the outer shell is intact. There are absolutely NO SIGNS OF EXPLOSIONS ANYWHERE.
0:21 The penthouse finishes collapsing as the outer shell begins to collapse. A cluster of windows on the right side across at least 6 floors all break simultaneously and still NO SIGNS OF EXPLOSIONS ANYWHERE. No windows getting blown out with debris. All they did was break.

No circular logic. No spin. Just raw, analytical observation of the ENTIRE collapse, NOT JUST THE LAST 3 TO 5 SECONDS.
The “Truther” video LEAVES OUT more of the collapse than it shows
The examination of the video by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ignores the very same 7 to 9 seconds, because the events that take place in that time frame, cannot be seen in the footage they examine. A&E has access to the same video yet they have NOT corrected their analysis. They are still presenting their examination as PROOF that the building was demo’d, yet there are NO SIGNS OF EXPLOSIONS ANYWHERE. No windows BLOWN out. No flying debris. Nothing.

Everything I have covered so far is PURE OBSERVABLE FACT.
If you ignore it, you are being IGNORANT.

I have spent almost 2 pages explaining to you people exactly how all of these events are possible. The physics of it. But you insist on trying to talk me in circles and trip me up in my logic by MISQUOTING ME, flooding the issue with minute details that are meaningless unless you IGNORE the FACTS, and then you ridicule me.
These are the exact same tactics of the alleged disinfo agents that you rally against.
A&E is deliberately misleading the public. And by promoting their deception, you are perpetuating the lie. Whether through will or ignorance, you are perpetuating the lie.
Believe what you want. Deny what you want. But know what you are doing.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
the psychology behind opinions and belief systems is such a underestimated topic and IMO the route cause of "willing ignorance"

ignorance is often a minds protection mechanism........you can't just tell your mind to "deny ignorance" you have to give your mind an option where it feels safe and in a comfort zone in a theoretical world where a particular incidence of your ignorance is not there any more.

now lets' talk about 9/11

if people took the time to think rationaley about their safety (in a world where they could imagine a conspiracy being true) they would probably realize that they have a better chance of drowning in a flood each year....then being killed in some "inside conspiracy".....and then when they take this step......the mind is more willing to contemplate things unbiasedly (b/c they could be safe either way) this is a very underestimated point...



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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.


good a psychology degree

let me ask you something ......and if you can answer it confidently to yourself tell me...............would you feel safe and have piece of mind in a world where you believed the CIA and a few funded terrorists coupled with a few military insiders as well as a couple gov't insiders planned caused and allowed 9/11.......NOTE i am not asking you to believe this....i am just asking you would you feel safe in a world where this was true....hypothetically speaking

it is my opinion that a significant portion of people who don't believe their is a "good chance" it was a inside job (nobody can no for sure unless they were involved...they just have verying degrees of confidence in their beliefs) would not feel safe in a world where they think "the gov't did it" and this keep's them from looking at this unbiasedly....wether they realize that or not.....................and one way to get someone to be more open is to just "plant the seed" that hey ....even if in some "bizarro" world where the gov't /cia /etc caused 9/11 wouldn't i have just less chance of being killed by this "crazy act"..... than dying this year from ....i dunno drowning in a flood......or being killed by a car. I think just accepting this is the first step to putting down a wall of ignorance and then making a decision in which you could still believe things were done by terrorists....but at least then i would think someone looked at this based on evidence and not propoganda and a willingness to stay in their comfort zone....

i sincerely thank anyone for reading the above and taking it seriously



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Thank you for getting us back on track SD. I think it's brilliant that you have found a way to incorporate this experiment in your class. Curious...did you ever have issue with any of students who were the unsuspecting suspect lash out with a complaint to administration?... or do you pick your suspects based on the thickness of their skin?... and what type of class and demographic are you teaching?

As for the OP and what has transpired since... I think part of the reason why the majority of the posts turned this thread titled "Psychology101 to Psychology911" into "Physics101 to Physics911" could be attributed to classical cognitive dissonance. In the face of undeniable truth... holding this mirror up to the debunkers... anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment sets in and the instinctual knee-jerk reaction is to detour, deflect and fabricate. Nothing new... many of us have seen this over and over again.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]


Thanks I, I appreciate it. I randomly pick a subject from my class. The class was an honor's history course that focused on alternative history based upon conspiracy. I do the group think mentality in order to get students to understand why so many people can accept a false reality when it comes to historical events.
For example the students would put FDR on trial for foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. The current superintendent, a social studies teacher at heart, sat in on the trial when he was our principal. He absolutely loved the trial as well as the content in the class. His son even took the class.
As a result he told me him and his son started to watch the news together and 'analyze' what they viewed and really open his mind to critical thinking as opposed to group think.
They also study the origins of the CIA and its influence throughout the globe, both good and bad, with a focus on South East Asia intervention. Source materials included the works of L.Fletcher Prouty. They also present a case on the JFK assassination. One group tries to prove the single bullet lone gunman theory while the other tries to prove a conspiracy and they present their case to students in study hall to get a decision.

The school is located in suburbia with a predominantly white middle class student body. I must correct myself, however, as not every selected student has participated in group think. The stronger willed individuals will hold to their original pick.

The other mental note I've noticed with debunkers is the undying loyalty to the government of the United States. "The Government can do no wrong" mentality. I suspect this is because of their current or past military service. As military training is at it's core an exercise in brainwashing, it is no surprise some debunkers with this background continue to hold steadfast in their beliefs despite the facts.

The many veterans I've encountered have been enlightened to how the government really works, how it treats its soldiers and tend to distrust the government after their service is over. They break free of the brainwash after their personal experiences. One current soldier (former student) told me he nor does anyone in his unit at the time believed a plane hit the Pentagon, and they were training in explosive ordinance and nuke dismantling! So he has a clue about explosions. He did say, "I will deny ever saying that of course because of my job."

My wife when I have her exposed her to 9/11 truth repeatedly states, "Ignorance is Bliss." She would rather feel safe and comfortable in her own perceptions of government reality. I accept that of course as I feel just as comfortable in my reality. She wants to believe the government is working for the good of its citizens, but she knows in reality that is not the truth all of the time.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
I just spent 2 pages explaining details that I was asked for.
Details that ONLY need explaining when you IGNORE the first 7 to 9 seconds of footage.
Every truther video is missing those first seconds.


No we're not. What you're talking about is old news. The reason no one cares what you're saying is because it isn't even relevant in the least to anything we're talking about. The building was demolished in stages. There. What you are watching is not surprising to me. What IS surprising is how you can watch the building free-fall straight down as if nothing, not even air, is in the way, and not think anything is unusual about that.


No circular logic. No spin. Just raw, analytical observation of the ENTIRE collapse, NOT JUST THE LAST 3 TO 5 SECONDS.


Who is only looking at that? Can you tell me and then tell me how you arrived at your conclusion? Are you making up our arguments in your head and then responding as if we said them, or what?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

The other mental note I've noticed with debunkers is the undying loyalty to the government of the United States. "The Government can do no wrong" mentality. I suspect this is because of their current or past military service. As military training is at it's core an exercise in brainwashing, it is no surprise some debunkers with this background continue to hold steadfast in their beliefs despite the facts.


Would you mind terribly defining what a "debunker" is in this context? All one needs to do is read the posts here to see that each side is actively trying to debunk the other.

I am puzzled becuase first you claim debunkers" believe the government can do no wrong", which doesn't apply to any conspiracy theorist I've ever encountered becuase they're usually of the opinion that the gov't is out to kill us all, but then you say debunkers "continue to hold steadfast in their beliefs despite the facts" which can only apply to the conspiracy theorists and their never ending chain of conspiracies within coverups on top of secret plots.

Thus, my confusion.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Although you asked SwingD, it was addressed in both links that I provided above, and I think many here will agree that for discussion purposes "debunker"=="pseudo-skeptic"

www.plasma-universe.com...



The terms pseudoskepticism (sometimes pseudo-skepticism) and pathological skepticism are used to denote the phenomena when certain forms of skepticism deviate from objectivity. The term has been in limited use in philosophy for more than a century, but has only recently been the object of more systematic attempts at defining the concept. The most well known analysis of the term has been conducted by Marcello Truzzi, who in 1987 stated that: Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial — nonbelief rather than belief — critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics.[1]

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics

The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
* Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
* The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
* Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]


[edit on 5/1/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


It's great to hear that you have the support of the school and parents, i wish this was more of the rule, then the exception.

Your take on the military mindset is dead on target. I have noted the very same reality. When you break an individual down by treating them lower then a dog, for a prolonged period of time, then build them up as a bio-robot, there is no option to question or think outside of the box they put you in. When the t-shirt you are wearing says "property of u.s. army" ...your head is included in the package.

Case in point, following post on richarddawkins.net forum




Re: Is Boot Camp Brainwashing?
by dvaughan

As a U.S. NAVY veteran I say absolutely YES. Military indoctrination is undeniably employing a form of brainwashing.

As others have mentioned before it includes:

Sleep Deprivation: Our routine was lights-out at 11:00 pm with a 4:00 am wake up.

Erasing Individuality: The uniform dress and haircut obscures any image of who you were on the outside. No more long hair, short hair, afro, tie dye, cowboy boots, etc. are left to speak to a desired image of self.

Degradation: The initial phase is one of verbal insults and attacks on one's dignity. You are literally called # and scum and made to feel inadequate and worthless.

Rebuilding by Design: The latter half of boot camp was full of praise for your accomplishments and transformation. You are now a naval fighting man and a valued addition to an organization of great accomplishment and tradition.

It has to be this way. The military is what it is. The purpose is defense/offense with killing as a very real potential outcome. You need a herd mentality ingrained so that when orders are given, orders are followed. The more likely a person is to see combat the more intense this process needs to be. Marines are much more brainwashed than any other branch of military service though the elite units of all services (SEALS, Green Berets, etc.) are subjected to an even higher level of psychological assault. Shipboard sailors and airforce members are spared the full brunt.

When you are trying to create a society of willing trained killers could it be any other way?

DV



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

The other mental note I've noticed with debunkers is the undying loyalty to the government of the United States. "The Government can do no wrong" mentality. I suspect this is because of their current or past military service. As military training is at it's core an exercise in brainwashing, it is no surprise some debunkers with this background continue to hold steadfast in their beliefs despite the facts.


Would you mind terribly defining what a "debunker" is in this context? All one needs to do is read the posts here to see that each side is actively trying to debunk the other.

I am puzzled becuase first you claim debunkers" believe the government can do no wrong", which doesn't apply to any conspiracy theorist I've ever encountered becuase they're usually of the opinion that the gov't is out to kill us all, but then you say debunkers "continue to hold steadfast in their beliefs despite the facts" which can only apply to the conspiracy theorists and their never ending chain of conspiracies within coverups on top of secret plots.

Thus, my confusion.


I apologize for confusing you on this forum as to what I consider a debunker to be.

Debunker- a person who attempts to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated by using ridicule, lampooning, or erroneous facts, and logical fallacies most notably the fallacy of omission and the fallacy of attacking the character.

Do 9/11 truthers do that? Sure. I'm sure you would agree that all of us have done that at one time or another throughout our lives.

But a debunker makes these errors repeatedly and on purpose especially with regards to 9/11.

A debunker is also someone who continues to cling to the same belief despite the evidence and facts that invalidate that belief. At that point, the belief becomes a religion and that, sir, can become in itself, dangerous.

I understand your trying to impose your own definition of the term upon my examples. It is ok. That is human nature.

I do apologize for using a logical fallacy by suggesting that all "debunkers" believe the government can do no wrong. But I base this decision on my own personal experience with debunkers.

I do agree, some CT'er, debunkers, politicians, members of religious organizations, etc. do cling to beliefs after being proven wrong by facts and evidence.

In my own experience, however, and I can only speak to my experience, "debunkers" do this far more than CT'ers.

I hope that clears up your understanding. I don't expect a response of course because then we begin to debate opinion instead of fact, and just like butt holes, everyone has an opinion and most people believe theirs smells better than everyone else.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Dealing with debunkers, as accurately described, is consuming and frustrating in large part due to us having to deal with a grieving process. When we take-away/deconstruct what was once embraced in their bubbled world, we are attacked with every dirty trick in the bag or blown-off as nut-cases. I would venture to say that it's not any different then any other significant loss someone typically experiences in life:



At some point in our lives, each of us faces the loss of someone or something dear to us. The grief that follows such a loss can seem unbearable, but grief is actually a healing process. Grief is the emotional suffering we feel after a loss of some kind. The death of a loved one, loss of a limb, even intense disappointment can cause grief. Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross has named five stages of grief people go through following a serious loss. Sometimes people get stuck in one of the first four stages. Their lives can be painful until they move to the fifth stage - acceptance.

Five Stages Of Grief

1. Denial and Isolation.
At first, we tend to deny the loss has taken place, and may withdraw from our usual social contacts. This stage may last a few moments, or longer.

2. Anger.
The grieving person may then be furious at the person who inflicted the hurt (even if she's dead), or at the world, for letting it happen. He may be angry with himself for letting the event take place, even if, realistically, nothing could have stopped it.

3. Bargaining.
Now the grieving person may make bargains with God, asking, "If I do this, will you take away the loss?"

4. Depression.
The person feels numb, although anger and sadness may remain underneath.

5. Acceptance.
This is when the anger, sadness and mourning have tapered off. The person simply accepts the reality of the loss.


You can see this grieving process play out in one of Ghandi's famous insights


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.


So here we are discussing the fallacies and hypocrisies of the theater all around us... some people get defensive, others deny what you are saying is true, some run to their bible to ask god for an explanation, some craw up in a ball in the corner and some welcome the bigger picture.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join