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.

 

Groupthinkers for 911 Truth

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
This needed its own thread.

On this 911 forum I see the same old discussions; gravity this, or physics that; lengthy posts about the minutiae of chemicals found in the dust of the WTC, arguments about the flight paths taken by the jets; dismantling of a Bezant paper over here; genuflecting to engineers and architects over there, and plenty of mud slinging everywhere. I’m no angel, as I’ve contributed more than my fair share of mud and I’m sorry about that, mostly.

In my posts I try to point out the role the media played on 911 and continue to play in our lives in general, and for the most part I am treated well, often politely ignored, or more often the target of derision by both the “truthers” and the “trusters”, and some folks in between.

This site’s logo proudly proclaims “Deny Ignorance”, which I find ironic because it banishes certain topics as “hoaxes” by policy, no matter the validity of the argument, preventing new, unseen, possibly credible information from being seen without the taint of a "hoax" label. In light of that fact, how can any of the ATS denizens be satisfied with the quality of the 911 conversations? They’re like ads for High School class president; sure we can get all excited about it, and we can high five each other, but what have we accomplished in 10 years?

We’re no where nearer the truth than we were ten years ago, and if you’re anything like me, you won’t be until you challenge yourselves to prove your own beliefs, not to me or to the next guy, but to yourselves…and you won’t be able to do that by only reading things you already agree with. At least that was my experience.

I had to force myself to read all the really distasteful topics that offend liberal programming, and I suspect you’ll need to do the same to overcome your programming.

What we’re doing here is called “Groupthink”, and it’s not limited to the 911 forums, or to ATS. It’s everywhere; it's part of our social engineering called “education”, and “entertainment”, and other nifty words. But it’s still just Groupthink:


Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking. While this often causes groupthink to be portrayed in a negative light, because it can suppress independent thought, groupthink under certain contexts can also help expedite decisions and improve efficiency. As a social science model, groupthink has an enormous reach and influences literature in the fields of communications, political science, social psychology, management, organizational theory, and information technology.[1]

The majority of the initial research on groupthink was performed by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University. His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972).[2] Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) [3] developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) [4] pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures on groupthink decisions.
.


en.wikipedia.org...

Groupthinkers for 911 Truth aren’t going to stumble on the truth anytime soon, and until you break away from the crowd, feed your demons, and question your convictions, I’m betting neither will you.

Based on their words and the history of their deeds, it is my position the intelligence services have used their media to brainwash much of the Western world to believe impossible things; and the 911 myth is one of those impossible things.

It is also my position the 911 Truth Movement itself, at least the “organized” movement is also owned by the same media that have been owned by the same intelligence services who have been controlling the topics of public discourse for generations. These are the people who gave us the War of the Worlds psyop, the Apollo Moon Landing psyop, and not to mention Hollywood where they even tell you what they’re doing with movies like “Wag The Dog”. In my humble opinion the most important subject of 911 is the of the role of the media. Media are ther preferred weapons.

The CIA fellas know all about Groupthink, and they’re expert in the use of propaganda, that’d be the stuff we like to think are sports, movies, TV “programs”, News, music, education, advertising and politics. They’re not even shy in their naming standards, did you notice? They’re even telling you you’re being programmed.

In 1981, William Casey as head of the CIA stated in his first staff meeting, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”. And I do believe he meant everything.

Why do you think you can trust the media when history has proven they are the mouthpieces of the rich and powerful?

I’m tired of hearing what rich people think, and I’m sure most people would be pissed if they knew they were simply repeating what rich people want repeated.

The Truth Movement and all the major “stars” must be considered extensions of the CIA’s disinformation program, Operation Mockingbird, which means every one of us needs to examine what we believe, and why, especially if we believe it because we watched it on TV.

If you think I’m wrong; fair enough. Why?

edit on 16-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Well, let me jump in here and say for the OSers, that they're going to say they don't Groupthink, just provide evidence of what really happened, and that you, as a conspiracy leaning person haven't yet actually provided any concrete proof of 911 being anything but what was shown on tv and told to us then and since, over and over again.

Right? Am I right?

Cheers



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Thanks for the response...I'm surprised to even get a response!

Operation Mockingbird is usually only brought up to bludgeon the OSers, but it's sacrilege to turn it against the truth movement.

I'm betting if any OSers show up, the response will be it'll be ridicule; introspection will be right out, same for the usual suspects from the official Truth Movement groups.

Cheers to you too.
edit on 16-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Group think is everywhere but particularly so in the 9/11 "truth" movement. I have mentioned some of Professor Stephen Jones shady connections and oddities in other threads only to be ridiculed. Responses like "why would he lie?" or "look at how he's risked his career" seem proof enough for some.

I've been guilty of joining group think before, in fact, it's very difficult to avoid and to maintain your original doubts and suspicions without having them whittled away.
I'm not going to scuttle your thread by mentioning any specifics about 9/11 that I have issues with. I am glad that you mention this as each of us should be constantly on guard about what we believe and how easily it can be subjugated by the supposed wisdom of group consensus.
We all want to fit in and feel we belong somewhere, even among the 9/11 truthers but if we're willing to cast aside our own questions to gain a sense of belonging we have committed an intellectual heresy against ourselves.

Always view the evidence with a critical eye, but do the same with the opinions of others who would try to sway your own beliefs.
Personally, I don't care if anyone agrees with my thoughts or not.
The truth is something we all need to establish for ourselves and if it makes you unpopular, so what? You still have your integrity.
Question everyone and everything.
Trust can be your own worst enemy.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Thanks for the comment.

It is a pack mentality, and although I am frustrated with it, I understand how it goes...I was right there for many, many years.

I think the biggest hurdle is getting over the TV...once that was shut down for good, it was easier for me to see the real world.

Wasn't it Marx who said "religion is the opium of the people"? Well, that was before TV.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Well thinking can point you torwards facts, but facts need a source. I agree that too much time has been spent on the details.

Lets assume that the airplanes exploded/collapsed indeed because terrorists have flown airplanes in the towers.
If those terrorists have been trained, shielded and protected by elements within America, it really doesnt change anything regarding who was pulling the strings. And there are people from within the us government or bureaucracy who have come forward with just those allegations. There have been people of status flatout admitting that 911 was an inside job and that it is common knowledge among the secret services.

We have plenty to go with now which is rather solid, yet still, too much time is spent on details that are rather vague. What is a more important lead to follow up on? How it has been done, or people on the inside, reliable sources making allegations on how the government was involved? I dont know about you, but if people from inside the CIA, FBI and other agencies come forward and flatout say that their investigations in that matter were blocked by their superiors, VISAS given to unqualified people through higher channels, then I kinda lose interest about the physics of the collapse.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Thanks for the comment.



Well thinking can point you torwards facts, but facts need a source. I agree that too much time has been spent on the details.


Sounds like you have something specific in mind here...what facts are you referring to that are lacking a source?



Lets assume that the airplanes exploded/collapsed indeed because terrorists have flown airplanes in the towers.


Let's not assume anything.



We have plenty to go with now which is rather solid, yet still, too much time is spent on details that are rather vague.


Got any examples? You're being rather vague here.



What is a more important lead to follow up on?


How can you know what is an important lead until they are all followed?



How it has been done, or people on the inside, reliable sources making allegations on how the government was involved?


Reliable? Are you building further assumptions based on your first assumtion?



I dont know about you, but if people from inside the CIA, FBI and other agencies come forward and flatout say that their investigations in that matter were blocked by their superiors, VISAS given to unqualified people through higher channels, then I kinda lose interest about the physics of the collapse.


You mean like Sibel Edmonds did?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 




We’re no where nearer the truth than we were ten years ago


I do disagree with this. I only woke up a couple of years ago and have seen a much stronger case build up over that time. There is still a lot of debate and questions going on but with a growing community getting behind it and sorting through all the different facts, versions and possibilities in a logical and reasoned manner ground is being made and closing in on the traitors. It is only a matter of time until a critical threshold is reached and the siege begins.

There are a lot of deep and powerful forces behind all of this so it does take a lot of rock hard facts, analysis, explanations and public pressure which is still continuing to build around the world. If the public does fail to address this then you may as well through out common sense for humanity and plug in the machine to do the thinking for them.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Sorry, "groupthink" does not apply here. Do a little more research. It only applies to small cohesive groups that have a lot of personal interaction. Not mass media. One of the best studies done on "groupthink" was the descision on whether or not to launch the space shuttle Chanllenger.

You are trying to apply this concept to the population as a whole. Doesn't work. Too many variables and too many sources of infromation. I know the tack you are trying to navigate. Convince everyone that you're right because you are not subject to "groupthink" because you are aware of its influence.

Another interesting study was conducted informally by a professor of mathematics, I believe from Cambridge University. He was attending a country fair where one of the popular fundraising games was to pay to guess the wait of a prize bull. Anyone who guesssed the weight within a pound won the bull. Now, I have no need for a bull but of course this was a country fair attended by a lot of farmers. Well, at the end of the fair no one guessed the weight and therefore no one took the bull home as a prize. The professor was curious and asked if he could review the game slips. I think he said there were over a thousand. To his great suprise the average of all the guesses was within one pound of the actual weight of the bull.

The lesson? Sometimes the "group" is closer to the truth than any individual.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
All you have to do is use commonsense to figure out what 911 (probably) was.

Is the CIA infested with NWO operatives? - yes!
Is it thoroughly infiltrated by the KGB? - yes!

Was this attack entirely forseeable? - yes!
Did the KGB have a burning desire for revenge after the US role in afghanistan? - yes!
Was AQ's no 2 a KGB operative? - yes!

Did they have plenty of warnings, intell that should have alerted them to this op? - yes!

Would a group of high level people sit around a table and plan to blow up a building with the worlds media filming it from every angle live on TV?

To top it off would they then plan to fly a cruise missile into the Pentagon - and passit off as a passenger plane?

Would they let the OP go through because it suited the NWO purposes - then to avoid people digging into the circumstances too much - would they set up a whole whirlwind of complete bull# called 911 truthers, to so taint the whole subject with looniness that no repectable person would ever want to be publicly associated with it?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Yankee451
 




We’re no where nearer the truth than we were ten years ago


I do disagree with this. I only woke up a couple of years ago and have seen a much stronger case build up over that time. There is still a lot of debate and questions going on but with a growing community getting behind it and sorting through all the different facts, versions and possibilities in a logical and reasoned manner ground is being made and closing in on the traitors. It is only a matter of time until a critical threshold is reached and the siege begins.

There are a lot of deep and powerful forces behind all of this so it does take a lot of rock hard facts, analysis, explanations and public pressure which is still continuing to build around the world. If the public does fail to address this then you may as well through out common sense for humanity and plug in the machine to do the thinking for them.


Yeah, you're right...I used "we" because I was already sounding like I was scolding. I stand corrected.

I do feel like the truth will be known within my lifetime, but I'm impatient.

Thanks for your comment.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Sorry, "groupthink" does not apply here. Do a little more research. It only applies to small cohesive groups that have a lot of personal interaction. Not mass media. One of the best studies done on "groupthink" was the descision on whether or not to launch the space shuttle Chanllenger.

You are trying to apply this concept to the population as a whole. Doesn't work. Too many variables and too many sources of infromation. I know the tack you are trying to navigate. Convince everyone that you're right because you are not subject to "groupthink" because you are aware of its influence.

Another interesting study was conducted informally by a professor of mathematics, I believe from Cambridge University. He was attending a country fair where one of the popular fundraising games was to pay to guess the wait of a prize bull. Anyone who guesssed the weight within a pound won the bull. Now, I have no need for a bull but of course this was a country fair attended by a lot of farmers. Well, at the end of the fair no one guessed the weight and therefore no one took the bull home as a prize. The professor was curious and asked if he could review the game slips. I think he said there were over a thousand. To his great suprise the average of all the guesses was within one pound of the actual weight of the bull.

The lesson? Sometimes the "group" is closer to the truth than any individual.


Always a pleasure to hear from you Hoop. You certainly sound like you think have me all figured out.

I'm not sure how a consensus gained through propaganda is not groupthink, but thanks for your comment.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


Hello and thanks for the repartee...

I'm no longer convinced there is any difference between the CIA and the KGB. Both are working against the common folk, sometimes in tandem, sometimes in competition, but always against freedom for the little people.

911 opened my eyes to the liklihood that governments are simply middle-management for the owner class, and the amount of propaganda required to make us believe governments and national bounderies have any import is amazing. I guess I'm trying to say that political theater isn't limited to politics or borders, and the New World Order is just the Old World Order with better graphics.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



I'm not sure how a consensus gained through propaganda is not groupthink, but thanks for your comment.


I know you don't, that's why I suggested some additional research, maybe some formal education. Learn the diffrence. Propaganda, no matter how well engaged is of limited value and effect. Particluraly in a social setting as open as the USA. You are assuming that because there may be a consensus and what you percieve to be propaganda, that in fact, the consensus is a product of the propaganda.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Gotta love him always showing up on 9/11 threads, even with nothing to say but still here...

We are not allowed to groupthink, dont forget we are nutcases...



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Feel free to explain and provide some URLs.

The evidence of 911 has led me to open up the Pandora's Box of evil being perpetrated in our names, by folks whose actions prove they think we little folk are on par with pond-scum.

People, like you Hoop, who believe the OS, appear to be succumbing to Groupthink because the fairy tale explanation of al Qaeda is much easier to accept than reality.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
reply to post by hooper
 


Gotta love him always showing up on 9/11 threads, even with nothing to say but still here...

We are not allowed to groupthink, dont forget we are nutcases...


I'll take that to mean "whatever happened to the good old days when you could post anything you wanted and no one ever challenged it"?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper
 


Feel free to explain and provide some URLs.

The evidence of 911 has led me to open up the Pandora's Box of evil being perpetrated in our names, by folks whose actions prove they think we little folk are on par with pond-scum.

People, like you Hoop, who believe the OS, appear to be succumbing to Groupthink because the fairy tale explanation of al Qaeda is much easier to accept than reality.



Here's a little something from your own post:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup....


Sorry, society at large viewing various forms of media is not a "deeply involved cohesive ingroup".

Just because more than one person shares an opinion does not make an argument for groupthink.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Juanxlink
reply to post by hooper
 


Gotta love him always showing up on 9/11 threads, even with nothing to say but still here...

We are not allowed to groupthink, dont forget we are nutcases...


I'll take that to mean "whatever happened to the good old days when you could post anything you wanted and no one ever challenged it"?


No, I mean why do you step in every 9/11 thread if its so clear to you the OS story is a fact? Kinda makes you think...



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





Here's a little something from your own post:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup....


Sorry, society at large viewing various forms of media is not a "deeply involved cohesive ingroup".

Just because more than one person shares an opinion does not make an argument for groupthink.



You know, you and I have a history of not exactly getting along, so I might have a less than objective opinion of you; but an honest man might think you didn't fully read the post.

Let me put it in context:



His original definition of the term was, “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972).[2] Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) [3] developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) [4] pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures on groupthink decisions.


You were quoting part of one person's original definition, while providing a case study for the rest of the paragraph:




when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972).[2] Since Janis’s work, other studies have attempted to reformulate his groupthink model. 'T Hart (1998) [3] developed a concept of groupthink as “collective optimism and collective avoidance,” while McCauley (1989) [4] pointed to the impact of conformity and compliance pressures on groupthink decisions.
.



The purpose of this thread was to share my belief that the best way to learn the truth is to examine your own beliefs first, to honestly convince yourself they are sound; to challenge what you already accept as fact.

I was very surprised at how deeply the rabbit hole goes, but like the CIA fellas always say...the truth will set you free.

I sense you don't agree.




edit on 17-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join