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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
So when we factor into the equation, the fact that people are most receptive to new information (disinformation) when they are in a state of shock/vulnerability. There is a window of opportunity to insert ideas/direction in focus that at any other time would not pass typical scrutiny. The following video illustrates three such cases that i think are key to understanding the script we have been spoon fed right before and right after the towers fell.



Note... even as the towers were burning and immediately after the collapses, a stream of disinformation laying down the key official 9/11 myths was being actively being put in place via the MSM ... "the impact of the planes weakened the structures... the "intense" fires caused the collapses... Bin Laden was the only possible suspect"

[edit on 4-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Do you actually believe this fluff you provided? How in the nine hells can psychologists be in ANY position to refute or back up any claims to do with the mechanics of a collapsing building. You claim to be a psychologist so you tell me what psychology entails and I would be willing to bet all the money I have ever made and ever will make the mechanics of collapse will not be even close.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


That's the 3rd time in this thread that you've made that post, which equates to "spam", but I'll let the mods deal with that. I already answered your question here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You are kidding?... i hope.

If not, then you must be so absorbed in the lies that you can't possibly see the liars. A prime subject of a successful convert of the manipulators/propagandists.

The psychology we speak of, is the ways and means of applied intent to suppress dissent and to manufacture consent for the Official Story. In order for the magic trick to work the magician needs to convince/distract his audience to believe/see only what s/he presents as reality.

The title of this thread should be self evident, especially to those who have taken a few psychology courses in college. For those who need some translation. Think of a basic introductory course in a field of inquiry then it's most advanced level(s) of study/inquiry/research applied to current real life circumstances/situations.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Oh puhlease, you act as if your position has been extensively proven despite the fact that no so called "truther" has been able to offer little more than skewed intrepretation of physics, overplacement of trust in handpicked sources choosen because they state what feeds into your theories and youtube videos. Which is why your thread is little more than ad hom BS calling those that disagree sheeple, sure you do it in a more wordy way but the classic BSchtick is the same.
Now, would you like to get into the meat of the issue and provide evidence of say CD like proof of explosives being placed in the building and I don't mean windows being broken and dust and debris be blown out of it due to the massive amount of air being displaced by a collapsing building. But the proof of the explosives being placed there by government agencies.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Oh puhlease, you act as if your position has been extensively proven despite the fact that no so called "truther" has been able to offer little more than skewed intrepretation of physics, overplacement of trust in handpicked sources choosen because they state what feeds into your theories and youtube videos.


What are you doing right now? Ranting? Yes, that's called ranting.

Private citizens were never responsible for providing a forensic investigation of 9/11. Some government entities took it upon themselves to explain what happened.

Can you show the "meat" from those reports, that was used to justify the theories the government peddles? The answer is "no," you can't. But you could certainly try to find it, but you would be unsuccessful.

I think it's funny when people ask me to prove my case. I never had a case, that's a logical fallacy. But it's no problem at all to see through the popular theories when you really look to them. All they have going for them, is that they ARE popular, by sheer mass mentality alone, and may I suggest that you are a prime example of this mass mentality, Watcher. If you feel that sells you short, show me what evidence you have going for what you believe.

I know you can't do it. You just rant, etc., exactly the same things you accuse others of.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, you are full of it and are little more than a childish name calling against those that disagree with you with little else but names to fight with. You have a stance, I question that stance, not once have I insulted you. I have a stance as well, you accuse me of being sheeple because of my stance without even really listening to what I am saying and branding me with yet another BS label. With VERY little ability to back that up, short of mental acrobatics. But the funny thing is you can seemingly prove ANYTHING with the proper amount of mental acrobatics. Or should I say, feel like you have. You do not understand why I disagree because you refuse to take the time to try to understand why I disagree and instead spend your time in childish insults framed with what you think to be the facts about why I take the stance I do. And that is all this thread really is. And before you pull the excuse "those that agree with you do that too" I would like to point out I am individual and thusly NOT ACCOUNTABLE for the actions of others.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I stopped reading after you called me a child (actually I just quickly skimmed key words after that) and I doubt I really missed anything.


I didn't see any links in there either so I'm assuming you don't really have anything to offer as far as any substantiation at all of what you believe?

I don't come here to get into a pissing contest or to see how much science the average internet browser understands. I'm trying to stimulate minds into functioning towards a higher purpose. If you can't even find some simple proof of the theory you believe, I don't think you have a right to be calling other people names based on what they believe. My theory is that all you "debunkers" have no idea what you're talking about, and you're only proving my case right now.


Seriously, I have asked every single "skeptic" here to post their favorite proof from the NIST report, from FEMA, from anywhere, and none of them even bother! Why?!

[edit on 5-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I knew you wouldn't, or at least knew you wouldn't attempt understand what I am saying, zealotry's blinders does that to one. Oh and I didn't call you a child. I called your actions childish. At least get that right please.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


That's odd because I was under the impression that the line that now reads "you are full of it and are little more than a childish name calling against those that disagree with you" used to say "child" instead of "childish." So you said I was "little more than a child." The grammar structure even still implies that you said something along those lines, came back and just added the "ish." But I digress, I really don't even care what you called me.

The point is, I saw an emotion-driven rant, I challenged the mentality behind it, and I have yet to see that mentality produce anything to support its position, but I have seen more ranting.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It ties directly into this conversation and the very nature of this thread. Explaination has been offered to you personally ad nasaum as I personally know because I have watched and dealt with you in the past and you repeatedly distort whatever is said to said into whatever it is you wish to be said.
But this thread is about how psychologically people that disagree with you are sheeple. Which you are unable to support beyond the standard BS.

On that note I direct you to an excellent thread made by SkyFloating that talked about on another subject that leads to this base name calling BS: Skeptics and Believers dont exist

[edit on 5-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Explaination has been offered to you personally ad nasaum as I personally know because I have watched and dealt with you in the past and you repeatedly destort whatever is said to say whatever it is you wish.


That's a cop-out. Evidence is evidence, etc. I am a very reasonable person. If you can prove something, I can recognize a proof. If you don't think I can, why don't you post it anyway instead of shrinking down and backing out? If I can't properly interpret a legitimate proof, it will still speak for itself just because it's a proof of something, you see?

How familiar are you with physics, engineering, etc.? Are you one of the people that defers to "expert opinion" when it comes down to it, or do you make it a point to be familiar with what you are speaking and understand all points about it yourself, logically and intuitively? Guess which one I care about, and which I don't give a flying flip about? Is that why you REALLY won't try to post any evidence?

Here's an example that's been coming up a lot lately: the FEMA report, in its appendices, proves that a eutectic reaction occurred on the surfaces of steel columns from WTC7 and WTC2 at least. That also means that whatever the eutectic compound was melted the steel, which is how the holes were corroded through them. FEMA never offered an explanation, said further investigation was needed, and NIST never returned to the topic. But that is unequivocal proof that a eutectic mixture was applied to WTC columns, one way or another, and that it did indeed melt that steel and cause very severe corrosion to it. Furthermore, eutectic reactions of the kind specified in the report happen in brief periods of time, on the same time scale as familiar thermite reactions, and not over periods of weeks or months. Note that if the reactions did occur for that long, it would also mean that steel was rendered to the form of molten iron for that long as well due to the mechanism of the reaction.

I can tell you about things like that, but would you understand it, or would you defer to your perceived consensus, rants, etc? Or do you actually want to investigate it personally and come back and tell me what you've found to confirm or deny what I just told you?


But this thread is about how psychologically people that disagree with you are sheeple. Which you are unable to support beyond the standard BS.


I wouldn't know, because no one that disagrees with me has even tried to show me any evidence yet. That doesn't do much to convince me that people who disagree with me aren't "sheeple" though.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, no it isn't a cop out. It's an observation, you ask to hear someone else's view, then if it does not jive with your own you immediately grasp for the constant insults of sheeple and etc.
I happen to know a great deal about phsyics and engineering, it has been a interest of mine even before the horror that was 9/11. You will of course call me a liar but your welcome to that and I don't expect any less considering.
Also, firstly, I am not defending the NIST or FEMA kindly stop assuming I am it does not factor into why I believe as I do. The only person to bring those up are you.
Secondly, the subject of this thread is about proving psychologically why the people that disagree with you are sheeple is it not?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
It's an observation, you ask to hear someone else's view, then if it does not jive with your own you immediately grasp for the constant insults of sheeple and etc.


I only used the word "sheeple" (in quotes) as a response to you using it first. I haven't called you a single name, and you confuse the hell out of me by repeatedly telling me that I have. I keep re-reading my posts and yet I don't see anywhere where I called you any derogatory name.

I don't care what someone's opinion of any matter is. I was asking for proof of something, anything relevant (I don't believe the planes were holograms).


I happen to know a great deal about phsyics and engineering, it has been a interest of mine even before the horror that was 9/11.


Then I'm confused as to why you completely ignored the eutectic corrosion I just mentioned. That's the only proof of anything either of us have offered so far, and I'm still trying to escape all this ranting so we can focus on things like that.


Secondly, the subject of this thread is about proving psychologically why the people that disagree with you are sheeple is it not?


Even if it is, I didn't post this thread, and that's not what I'm trying to prove. Why did you totally avoid what I posted about the FEMA report?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You chimed in, in support of this thread none the less. And even talked about how those who disagree with you are only doing so because they are following MainStreamMedia or the Official Story. I extrapolated it into the less moderate *but still equally insulting as it IS the same thing* cry of sheeple. Now, perhaps, if you suprise me and act contrary to what I have largely come to expect from you, we could have a discourse about this, perhaps in u2u as this thread is little more than yet another idioticly veiled insult that has very little to do with the debate and more to do with name calling because of the debate. But for the love of the gods please leave the name calling and the "you only believe something because you follow what "they" say" out of it. Civility is not to be done with out in any intelligent discourse.

And incidently,

Originally posted by bsbray11
Even if it is, I didn't post this thread, and that's not what I'm trying to prove. Why did you totally avoid what I posted about the FEMA report?


I repeat,

Also, firstly, I am not defending the NIST or FEMA kindly stop assuming I am it does not factor into why I believe as I do. The only person to bring those up are you.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
talked about how those who disagree with you are only doing so because they are following MainStreamMedia or the Official Story.


Yeah, that's what I think. Just like people so many years ago thought the Sun revolved the Earth, just 'cuz. It was obvious to them, it made them mad to question it, they didn't want to think about it obviously, didn't feel they needed to. It's arrogance that comes from a feeling of safety in numbers I guess. Like you say you don't even want to provide any evidence for what you believe now, because I won't accept it anyway. That is such a lame excuse to not post something.

You have never discussed 9/11 with me in any technical depth. You don't know what I would or would not say to any particular piece of evidence yet. As far as you know, I may have missed something that you have seen. Why are all of you unable to support your own theories with provable facts? Every single one of you I have asked, Swampfox, jthomas, you. None of you even give so much as a lab test or anything that can prove something of relevance, you don't even try. Why?


What DO you think about the FEMA report's analysis of severely corroded steel samples taken from WTC7 and WTC2? Do you think they're trying to fuel conspiracy theories, even though everyone else seems to have totally ignored it as a source for this information? I personally think it was a legitimate analysis, they genuinely did not know what could have caused the corrosion, but published the data anyway. They admit being unresolved on another of other issues, expecting NIST to cross all the t's and dot all the i's. What they were able to conclude, though, was that a eutectic reaction ate holes through the steel, and that sulfur in the compound lowered the steel's melting point considerably.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   


The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one ...and... What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.*


With regard to the accusation that the term "sheeple" is used here as an Ad Hominem is in itself more of an act of deflection/distraction the then the term itself. The point of this thread is in part an effort to gain a better understanding of how people who act like sheep are so easily manipulated. Sheeple as an urban lexicon entry is simply short hand for a particular group of people.

Recognizing that when most people are Given "Expert" Advice, Brains Shut Down, it's important to note what constitutes "expert". In the world of debunkers, "expert" is anyone who is directly or indirectly on the government pay roll... and those who have blind faith in our government.







*Adolf Hitler



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
On the matter of maintaining a deception as a key deceiver; when exhausted and under pressure people sitting-on-a-lie are most likely to slip up and blow their own cover-story. Word-substitution mistakes are more characteristic of problems in planning speech caused by a person rushing through word/phrase/descriptor preparation and/or omitting a sub-process in substituting fact with fiction:

Three significant slip ups that reconfirm what we have come to understand to be the reality:



1. Roemer slips that a missile...plane hit the pentagon

2. Bush slips that explosives were set off at the WTC towers

3. Rumsfeld slips that United 93 was shot down in Pennsylvania.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
As for a simplified straight forward answer to our current state of compliance/apathy, here's a blog entry to a similar/related inquiry that sums it up nicely with a dash of wit:




Because the popular opinion is that you're crazy if you think anything else, and no one wants to be seen as crazy.

Because no amount of controversy will convert the nonconvertible, and it becomes tiring beating your . against a wall.

Because everyone is more concerned with keeping their house and car than seeing unjust, immoral wars ended, and war criminals prosecuted.

Because the govt is "good" again, and would never lie to us. BO is in power so all is well.

Because there is something fun to watch on TV


source: www.reddit.com...



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
... 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...

In order to give proper credit where due, the original author of my first link above apparently posted this thread here at ATS about 2 years ago (but I found the information at the author's blog page).

The Skeptinazi Credo: "Conspiracies Don't Exist"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks again to ATS member IgnoranceIsntBlisss.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join