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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
This is a very,VERY good topic.

I had the misfortune of getting into a theology discussion with a Jehovah's Witness, not too long ago. If you're not familiar with this bunch, they take the meaning of the Bible literally, word for word. This isn't exactly bad, per se, but what *these* people do is read heavily into it and compare different writings from different chapters to derive all kinds of absurd secret meanings. Example- one bible passage says that a day to us is like a thousand years to God, and another passage says God created the world in seven days. Ergo, to their view, the world is only eleven thousand years old(!) or so.

There isn't any scientific study, natural study, fossils, or even logic that will sway them away from these ideas, becuase anything that refutes it is by default "trickery planted by Satan to lead people astray from God's truth". Worse still is that they'll even quote volumes of junk science coming from people who in no way have any background to be making such claims, I've even seen one lawyer using his law credentials to state how evolution is a fraud. It's patently obvious this isn't research, but a desire to believe one thing over the other regardless of what the research shows, to the point where they'll even try to force reality to conform to their dogma. The particular person I talked to insisted dinosaurs (including T-Rex) were all plant eaters becuase the Bible says (according to yet another Bible interpretation) animals only became carnivores after Noah's flood. I'm NOT making that up.

What does this have anythign to do with anything? Well, when the truthers read into secret meanings of"pull it", quote religious professsors tryign to interpret physics, and imagine secret gov't disinformation agents throughout all walks of life planting falsehoods to mislead people away from the truth, all to support the idea of "secret controlled demolitions", I can't be the only one who sees a comparison, here.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Nice video.

But it has little to do with my opinions about 911.

I watched the planes hit the twin towers on TV. There are just too many independent videos for this to have not really happened.

I watched the towers collapse, starting near the point of impact of the planes.
I've read the NIST report of the collapse. I've read the truther versions of what happened.

I've come to my own conclusions. I don't think that they have anything to do with group think or pressure.

I see more group think amongst the truther movement than I would expect. Truthers are reluctant to discount a theory once it is proven false so we continue to hear and see the same arguments over and over even if they have been proved false.

The truther movement has yet to put forth a model of the collapse. If explosives were used, where were they placed to start the collapse and continue the collapse ? If thermite was used, where was it placed? How did the planes crashing into the buildings not set off the explosives/thermite? How did the planes get guided to the exact floors needed? (It would have looked very suspicious if the planes hit 10 or 15 floors away from collapse began. How many people were involved in this conspiracy? Did Silverstein have anything to do with this? (the famous pull it comment) Did the NYFD have anything to do with this?(Since Silverstein told the NYFD to "pull it) Was the news media involved? Who placed the explosives?

The truther movement asks many questions. The truther movement shows videos and says this looks like an explosive demolition. (Yes, it does look like that) But, all the explosive demo videos that I've seen include lots of noise.. boom boom boom as the structural elements are cut, then the collapse begins. I've yet to see one about the towers that sounds the same.

So far, in my opinion, the truther movement has not made a convincing argument.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I've read the NIST report of the collapse.


Really? The whole 10,000 pages or however many it is? Or maybe at least just the part where they actually prove their hypothesized truss failure mechanism maybe?


Truthers are reluctant to discount a theory once it is proven false so we continue to hear and see the same arguments over and over even if they have been proved false.


Can you give examples of these proofs?


The truther movement has yet to put forth a model of the collapse.


The "truther movement" (ie, mostly a bunch of private citizens) doesn't have the resources to do an actual forensic investigation like NIST was supposed to do. Notice that the the majority of people really using the word "truther" or "truth movement" aren't even conspiracy theorists, but "debunkers." I know I certainly don't refer to myself as a "truther," though I've already gotten used to the stupidity of other people calling me one anyway. But I digress. NIST never even analyzed the global collapse, only theorized as to its initiation, and yet you are satisfied with that? NIST never offered a global collapse mechanism, and admitted never investigating any other theories for how the collapse were initiated besides fire and plane damage and that there were things they couldn't explain in all three collapses, but you are inclined to just have faith in them on such important issues? They fit all their models towards achieving that end result, no matter what amount of heat that required, etc., just because they considered no other theories, and that makes you feel justified in your opinions?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I give you an example of a false argument that is often put forward.

"Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel"

That is a true statement but the NIST report makes no claims about melted steel. Also, the jet fuel would have served to start a fire on the floors of the building where the plane crashed. The contents of the offices would have also started to burn. The fire from the contents of the office would have been hotter than the burning jet fuel alone.

The strength of the steel in the parts of the building exposed to this fire would have been weakened.

So, although this is a true statement, it is a false argument.




[edit on 8-5-2009 by Wildbob77]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I give you an example of a false argument that is often put forward.

"Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel"

That is a true statement but the NIST report makes no claims about melted steel.


And what you say here is correct, and I'm glad someone finally argued something from physics.


You'll notice I never made that claim, though, and neither have many others here.


The strength of the steel in the parts of the building exposed to this fire would have been weakened.


That's irrelevant to NIST's failure mechanism though. They couldn't get the fires hot enough to cause the buildings to fail from column failure alone (already including impact damage). The specific theory they proposed was that the trusses experienced thermal expansion, which pushed out on the perimeter columns and caused them to buckle. You already knew that though, right?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually, I did know that the trusses connected the core column to the perimeter columns. I'm also aware that the NIST report states that the bowed perimeter columns initiated the collapse.

I never said that you had repeated this argument. However I've read in on this site many times.

Here are just a few links.
Rosey

Fire not hot enough

Read light workers comment

Fire don't melt steel

If you search this site, you'll see this is a common argument. To me it's been disproved.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by Wildbob77]

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Wildbob77]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I never said that you had repeated this argument. However I've read in on this site many times.

Here are just a few links.


Your first two linked threads were actually referencing the presence of molten steel (and it is a fact that steel was melted at the WTC, at least by the eutectic reactions FEMA reported in appendix C of their report, not even bringing up the molten metal spewing out of the corner of WTC2 and several eyewitness accounts). The 2nd link is explicitly about the fact that the steel "should not" have melted if it were normal fires responsible for the heating (of course it wasn't, as I'm sure we would both agree).




If you search this site, you'll see this is a common argument. To me it's been disproved.


It has been disproved, that the fires did not melt the steel, nor would they theoretically have to, to fail the columns. However, it is ALSO a fact that NIST's models were unable to produce collapse simply from approaching the yield strengths of the columns.

Like someone pointed out in the thread that's your 4th link,


Originally posted by sp00n1
NO, the steel did not get hot enough to loose loadbearing capacity!


Instead, hypothetically (NIST's hypothesis, that is) the expanding trusses and deflecting perimeter columns were the failure mechanism.

It may be true that fires don't have to melt the steel to cause it to lose strength, but it's equally true that no one is even theorizing that the columns failed from being superheated in the first place.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The accurate parallel to be drawn here is between the blind faith believers in the "holy text" and the blind faith believers in the "official story". If you rely on a rigid belief system to give your life a false sense of security and meaning, there is very little room for one to accept that you may have been systematically deceived and lied to.

In the average truther you will find an independent mind that considers all data available... which puts them in a position where they know more then the herd. The notion that truthers have more of a herd mentality then the OS believers is completely backwards in thinking. Which it serves as a prime example of doublethink/doublespeak. ie up is down... down is up...

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." ~ Orwell

[edit on 8-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
To help illustrate the truther anti-herd mentality... there is no one better then Professor Carlin at revealing the mindset.

Disclaimer: for those who get easily offended by colorful language... don't watch this.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
On a very fundamental level the mind is injected/insulted/assaulted with bunk/lies.

Just grab your dictionary and clip to Conspiracy Theory... mine simply states the following:



conspiracy theory –noun
a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization.


The Official-Story/Conspiracy-Theory proselytized by the government and MSM:



19 hijackers with knives and boxcutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history.

Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astonding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on the planet.

Aftermath of Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville, leaves a small crater behind with no visible plane wreckage debris, and no fire or firefighter effort.

Other hijackers pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the WTC, caused three of them to completely collapse straight down into their own foot print at nearly free-fall speeds. (with an unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami found by a "passerby" several blocks from ground zero)

...and yet ironically and unjustly, the proposal that 911 was an inside job is colored and framed as the far-fetched ridiculous one.

This is group-think propaganda psyops at it's finest. Tugging at the collective heart string and ego of a nation to lead the mind down a path of further deception and destruction.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
On a very fundamental level the mind is injected/insulted/assaulted with bunk/lies.

Just grab your dictionary and clip to Conspiracy Theory... mine simply states the following:



conspiracy theory –noun
a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization.


The Official-Story/Conspiracy-Theory issue by the government and MSM:



19 hijackers with knives and boxcutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history.

Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astonding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on the planet.

Aftermath of Flight 93 Crash in Shanksville, leaves a small crater behind with no visible plane wreckage debris, and no fire or firefighter effort.

Other hijackers pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the WTC, caused three of them to completely collapse straight down into their own foot print at nearly free-fall speeds. (with an unscathed passport of Satam Al Suqami found by a "passerby" several blocks from ground zero)

...and yet ironically and unjustly, the proposal that 911 was an inside job is colored and framed as the far-fetched ridiculous one.

This is group-think propaganda psyops at it's finest. Tugging at the collective heart string and ego of a nation to lead the mind down a path of further deception and destruction.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]


psychology is at the root........nice post All seeing 1

The way that you laid out the above definition of conspiracy and the "official story" and the reality that 9/11 inside job is framed as a far -fetched rdiculous one has a couple LAYERS of "PSYCHOPS" that keeps this Counter Intuitive illusion going.

1.First is the Repetition in which the WORD.. Conspiracy is used with a negative stigma..........in case people didn't realize ........when this is done.....WORDS leave an "emotional IMPRINT" in the memory of the mind........thus when you think of the word you get a knee-jerk reaction that associates Conspiracy with lunacy......and re-inforced by a fear of being looked at as crazy by your peers......this is particularly the case when the subject matter deals with the Gov't/military/CIA being untruthful.

2.The second is the basic understanding that many are taught growing up that the Authoritarian Military/Gov't/ CIA is there to protect them and thus as an extention people believe they always have the greater good of the country at heart......and at no time would this greater good be construed as .......willingly sacrificing thousands of amercan lives in order to justify a war......which may make billions for war profiteer's but also possibly serve as a message to the rest of the world not to drop the dollar as a means for global trade...(although this is debateable) but the POINT is that people WANT to BELIEVE there "superiors" are protecting them......the Pain of believing the OPPOSITE is often TOO great to accept.....so it becomes oh so easy to allow your mind to believe what ever it is willing to in order to maintain those comforting beliefs..

So the two points work synergistically.....

3.The last point is the repetition in which the official story is told......by the MSM who are simply INTELLECTUAL PROSTITUTES......but this re-inforces the "accuracy" and Strength of the belief system that agrees with the official story..............

and when someone starts wavering from this belief or questioning it.........perhaps thru internal dialogue or they come into contact with some "truther"

the first two layers of "propoganda/psyhops" will serve well to
1a. Think of any conspiracy as lunacy----
1b. Weigh the costs of the socio-economic pain of being labeled a Loon by your friends/family ....etc

2 Attach a feeling of pain and general lack of safety by thinking someone that was supposed to protect you could have carried out this "attack"

.....thus this is often unpleasent enough .....especially when all of the negative reinforcement is added together to get someone to .....willingly want to go back to their COMFORT zone where they have peace of mind and perceived saftey........not to mention that repetitiion( point # 3) in which the Intellectual prostitutes (MSM) conveys the official story ......work's synergistically with #1........a conspiracy is lunacy..........to double down on the negative re-inforcement and "pain" of trying to believe this was a cover-up....





P.S i think one way to give a more unbiased look at the "alternative views" of 9/11 is to ........weigh the fact that even if some agency that is supposed to be "protecting the USA" decided it was in their best intrests to get rid of a few thousand americans........(instead of being scared by this) you could think logically and realize ...is it true you have a much much better chance of being killed in a Automobile than by some type of Isolated false flag attack (see if you can agree to this)....(and then follow up with ... are you scared to drive the car?) NO!......this may sound silly but this IMO is some of the "leg work" needed to get the "student ready" so that the "teacher can appear"...............the reason i mention this is because i think this is often the greatest obstacle ..........and a protection mechanism which needs to be shown a option where you can have all the intentions of safety ....yet still believe "the good protector did it" and have peace of mind...

[edit on 10-5-2009 by cpdaman]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by cpdaman
 


Kudos, bravo and salute senior cpdaman. Well said and mapped out. I think the psychological phenomenon you have touched base on is what's referred to as "cognitive dissonance".

When someone is challenged to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know, especially if they are fully committed/attached to that prior knowledge, they are more inclined to reject the new information/learning. To admit that one has championed and defended a falsehood is often too humiliating to bare... so the effort becomes one of cherry-picking "evidence" that supports the original or in this case "official story"... but once one objectively reviews/considers all of the evidence/data available with an open mind it becomes abundantly clear that we all have been lied to and for these individuals cognition is freed from arrest to demand answers to legitimate questions.


[edit on 10-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
In the average truther you will find an independent mind that considers all data available... which puts them in a position where they know more then the herd. The notion that truthers have more of a herd mentality then the OS believers is completely backwards in thinking. Which it serves as a prime example of doublethink/doublespeak. ie up is down... down is up...


I wish I could agree with you, but I've spoken to many, many, MANY truthers, both here and on other boards, and I can say that in the average truther you will *not* find an independent mind. Rather, you will find a mind which is not only closed, but boarded shut, and will simply not listen to anythign which contradicts their conspiracy claims.

Here's a sterling example. Here, on this board, I've seen truthers make claims and ask questions which, if they had read the 9/11 commission report, they would have already known. When I ask them whether they had read it, the answer is almost a uniform "No, because the report is nothing but lies". When I ask them to provide an example of a lie in the report, the response is always silence. Just how the heck can anyone say that anything is a "collection of lies" if they don't even know what it says to begin with and can't even provide any example of any lie? They hear from somewhere that such and such is a lie and they're faithfully parrot this decree in knee jerk reflex, but when asked to think of an answer for themselves the result is invariably a short circuit.

Moreover, many...though I do admit not all...truthers rely extensively on a mechanism of outright make believe and circular logic to justify their conspiracy claims. Whenever I ask a question of them, the answer invariably involves some convoluted chain of conspiracies and coverups involving legions of secret agents and disinformation specialists planted throughout all walks of life based upon, well, nothing at all, really, except perhaps upon the need to avoid admitting they might be wrong. Am I the only person who remembers that the gov't behind this insanely complex conspiracy is the same gov't that couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels?

So tell me, just how is THIS a mark of "an independent mind" who "considers all data available"? My intention is not to embarrass, I honestly want to know.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The source of your distorted view of truthers, lies in your unwavering belief in the Official Story. As you put it the government is incompetent but would never lie. Therefore to be a true OS believer-fundamentalist, the 911 Commission Report is analogous to the Bible... yet oddly enough the government/god is incompetent. To follow this logic further, if the Report/Bible is the word of Government/God but Government/God is incompetent... that would make the Report/Bible most likely inaccurate...?

Once truthers recognize that you are following/parroting the OS script many step out of the room, if they stick around they'll inevitably find themselves going in circles... the reason for this is clear, if all you can reference is the OS reports and those who do the same, then you have limited the discussion to only data that supports the OS, which happens to be full of distortions, omissions and nonsensical claims.

What you point out as character flaws in truthers is merely a reflection of a ridged narrow minded position... which in turn makes everyone who disagrees with you appear as ridgedly narrow minded as you.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Dave and Co.-

1. I don't know of any truther that believes the entire U.S. Government was behind the attacks of 9/11. This is a popular fallacy amongst debunkers. This is another version of the "Vast Conspiracy" where everyone and their mother is in on it. In my early research I made the mistake of using the "government" did it. Its a misnomer of course. I'm fairly certain the local post office had nothing to do with 9/11 as they are a part of the Government.

I believe that most if not all truthers should revise their statements to state: "Individuals within the U.S. Government were behind the 9/11 attacks." This is closer to the historical record of course as conspiracies are quite common in D.C. especially with regards to foreign policy and individual behavior. See William Blooms, Killing Hope for a nice detailed account of this issue as one example. It is amazing what our government has done in the past to advance foreign policy around the globe.

So in this regard, your suggestion that an the all encompassing Federal government of the United States can't hand out water bottles let alone pull of a "vast conspiracy" fails. Nobody to my knowledge thinks the 'entire' government was behind 9/11, therefore there is no requirement for a "vast conspiracy"so you can stop using that from here on out.

2. Why do some truthers rely on others research with regards to 9/11? Probably for the same reason that students rely on teachers at all levels of education. Do teachers, truthers, and debunkers make errors? Sure, everyone does. If for example Dr. David Griffin has read the 9/11 Commission Report and publishes a book, I accept that he is an expert on the subject, therefore I do not feel the need to read the entire report. Keep in mind he has editors and publishers who place their necks on the line. Heck, I can now read a comic sorry graphic adaptation of the 9/11 Commission report saving the average person massive amounts of time studying watered down history. The report of course has numerous fallacies, distortions, and omissions as shown by DRG and others. If you want an example, why don't you read it from the source instead of challenging a truther to list one? Or do you do that to make a truther look bad on a forum? I suspect it is the later in an attempt to use a style over substance fallacy.

3. Many truthers I know believed the OS at first. Then they were exposed to the vast amount of information that was omitted either on purpose or not, distorted, etc. that led them to the conclusion their were individuals within the U.S. government that helped aide or create the conspiracy. I'm sure your aware of patriotsquestion911.com. Do you honestly think everyone on there is a tin hatter loony toon? Its not a conspiracy, its a mainstream political reality.

4. One question for you and your opinion: what about the official story created conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11? I'm not asking for the mental state of a skepitc either. Keep in mind, the official story created the conspiracy theories. Where did the idea of CD begin? Mainstream media's live broadcasts that is where. Where did the idea of bombs in the basement come from? MSM live during the day as well as the FBI!

If the official story is true and could hold up in a court of law, there simply WOULD NOT BE A CONSPIRACY. It is important to understand that.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I hope you don't automatically think every one of us are like that or you're not fooling anyone but yourself.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
The source of your distorted view of truthers, lies in your unwavering belief in the Official Story.


No, actually, the source for my view of the truthers come from the truthers themselves. Example:


As you put it the government is incompetent but would never lie.


When or where, exactly, did I ever state the gov't "would never lie"? Please, point that out to me, since I not only never said it, I don't agree with it. I accept their account the same way I accept anyone else's accounts- "yeah, fine, but let's see some proof". I've seen their proof, and now I'm asking you for yours, but all you're giving me is a lecture for not mindlessly believing everythign you say like I was some automaton.

No, It is your own dogma which supplies you with this viewpoint of your critics. Becuase you cannot understand why people don't believe what you yourself want to believe, you simply make up your own reasons to rationalize why. The fundamentalists think we non-believers don't listen to them because we're "led astray by Satan" and you truthers think we don't listen to you becuase "we think the gov't never lies." Of course, it never has anything to do with the fact that these claims we're supposed to believe are so chock full of gigantic holes that you could drive a truck through. Claiming we've all been magically created out of a clod of dirt by some invisible guy is as preposterous as claiming hordes of secret agents planted explosives in a heavily occupied building without anyone noticing.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on us.


To be a true OS believer-fundamentalist, the 911 Commission Report is analogous to the Bible... yet oddly enough the government/god is incompetent.


I did not say it was analogous to the Bible. I asked for an example that, if the commission report is all false, then provide an example why it is false, which you apparently couldn't do. Come to think of it, you *still* can't do.

Dude, I ain't asking for your mother's bra size. I'm asking for an example why the commission report is wrong. You've all but admitted that *you* haven't read it either, so you only wound up proving what I said to begin with.


What you point out as character flaws in truthers is merely a reflection of a ridged narrow minded position... which in turn makes everyone who disagrees with you appear as ridgedly narrow minded as you.


I'm sorry, but you cannot rely on this crutch any longer. I will be more than happy to discuss the facts as I know them and to listen to what you have to say. However, people who use dogma and personal agendas to mold their reasoning, rather than logic, are an anathema to me, and such people are rife among the truther population. So far, you haven't exactly proven me wrong.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
The source of your distorted view of truthers, lies in your unwavering belief in the Official Story.


No, actually, the source for my view of the truthers come from the truthers themselves. Example:


As you put it the government is incompetent but would never lie.


When or where, exactly, did I ever state the gov't "would never lie"?



Look: pot and kettle.

The only realization that needs to be made here, is that every individual is an individual and there is no point generalizing "truther," "government," etc.

I am a "truther" but I am NOT a truther. I don't consider myself one, and every time you (Good Ol Dave) group me together with all these other people (as I'm sure you would), you are doing no better than The All Seeing I assuming you think the government would never lie. See how we box and categorize each other so patronizingly because everyone comes to the table looking down upon the person they are arguing with?

These assumptions are only made when someone THINKS they know who they're talking to, but really don't.

Maybe if stopped using so many completely irrational generalizations, and applying them to every single individual as if it were a true mold, we wouldn't be clashing heads over so much trivial and irrelevant information as having to lay out all our opinions just so we can understand each other before even talking about objective evidence, where any even exists.

If we only stuck to objective information, never read any words into a post that aren't really there, etc., 9 out of 10 posts on this thread wouldn't exist. At least.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


This is why truthers walk away from your propositions. You are full of as many omissions and distortions as the government's reports.

As Swing Dangler accurately put it, Griffin nailed the review/expose of the 911 Report. Anyone can download the 911 Report (pdf) and double check his findings.


Google Video Link


... and this is generally the case for most debunkers... like bible thumpers there is one source of information to draw conclusions from. All contradictory information out side of the report/bible is dismissed as lacking credibility. Truthers question the report, debunkers defend it as an oracle. Why? Cognitive Dissonance



Cognitive dissonance relates to the concept of being exposed to information or having experiences that conflict with our existing base of “what we know.” The theory holds that our minds are not always flexible or rational when it comes to evaluating uncomfortable information or questioning our own beliefs.

The theory holds that “dissonant cognitions” will cause us to dismiss or alter conflicting information or add justification to one side or the other—not necessarily rationally—in order to regain psychological balance. It’s an important concept to consider in terms of the way people block things out or justify things to themselves.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
The source of your distorted view of truthers, lies in your unwavering belief in the Official Story.


As you put it the government is incompetent but would never lie.
No, It is your own dogma which supplies you with this viewpoint of your critics. Becuase you cannot understand why people don't believe what you yourself want to believe, you simply make up your own reasons to rationalize why. The fundamentalists think we non-believers don't listen to them because we're "led astray by Satan" and you truthers think we don't listen to you becuase "we think the gov't never lies." Of course, it never has anything to do with the fact that these claims we're supposed to believe are so chock full of gigantic holes that you could drive a truck through. Claiming we've all been magically created out of a clod of dirt by some invisible guy is as preposterous as claiming hordes of secret agents planted explosives in a heavily occupied building without anyone noticing.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on us.


To be a true OS believer-fundamentalist, the 911 Commission Report is analogous to the Bible... yet oddly enough the government/god is incompetent.


I did not say it was analogous to the Bible. I asked for an example that, if the commission report is all false, then provide an example why it is false, which you apparently couldn't do. Come to think of it, you *still* can't do.
Dude, I ain't asking for your mother's bra size. I'm asking for an example why the commission report is wrong. You've all but admitted that *you* haven't read it either, so you only wound up proving what I said to begin with.

What you point out as character flaws in truthers is merely a reflection of a ridged narrow minded position... which in turn makes everyone who disagrees with you appear as ridgedly narrow minded as you.
I'm sorry, but you cannot rely on this crutch any longer. I will be more than happy to discuss the facts as I know them and to listen to what you have to say. However, people who use dogma and personal agendas to mold their reasoning, rather than logic, are an anathema to me, and such people are rife among the truther population. So far, you haven't exactly proven me wrong.
[edit on 12-5-2009 by GoodOlDave]


Dave, if you believe the government lies, why do you accept the official story without critical analysis? When the 9/11 Commission itself states it was lied to and when Senator Dayton states NORAD lied to the American public, why do you then accept those lies without examining the context of those lies and their implications?



Senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission - John Farmer - says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.


Sentaor Mark Dayton-NORAD lied to the public....

Google Video Link

Dave, you didn't personally ask me for where the report was
wrong. So I will offer one example and we can go from there.
9/11 Commission Lie: Mohammad Atta was a fundamentalist Muslim. Daniel Hopsickler's investigation and interviews with numerous witnesses prove otherwise. I recommend viewing the whole video.

Google Video Link

Let me ask you this, Dave. Why do you you accept the official narrative of 9/11 considering the vast amount of lies, omissions, and distortions that it has been proven to contain?

Here are 40 simple talking points that a skeptic should view: [url=http://911truth.org/article.php?story=2004122115530



[edit on 13-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join