Psychologists explain why some people can't accept alternate conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

page: 4
92
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



To BELIEVE means to accept something as true, or false, without sufficient evidence.

So what? Besides I believe you may be confusing belief and faith. Belief basically holds that you may accept that something is true even though you may not have all the information at that time.

BELIEF is stupid, by definition.

No, not at all. Belief is what allows us to progress. Belief allows us to go to a Dr. and allow the Dr. to treat us without ourselves going to medical school.

9/11 is about physics.

Among many other things. Politics, history, religion, economics, sociology, etc.

The 9/11 Decade makes 9/11 the most hilariously stupid event in history.

Hilarious and stupid are not words that would immeadiately come to mind when discussing 9/11. Outside of things I sometimes see on this forum.

People BELIEVING an airliner could destroy a 400,000+ ton building in less than two hours without even asking about the distribution of steel in the building was pretty dumb.

Actually, thats not something they "believe", thats something they "witnessed". Which is kind of the exact opposite of belief.

DUH, are psychologists smart enough to handle Newtonian physics.

Yes. Are you?

Now what is the psychology of people admitting they were dumb enough to ever BELIEVE the official story?

Rational, well adjusted, reasonable, logical and fairly immune to being called "dumb" by people of dubious intelligence. In fact, as well adjusted rational humans they would probably get a little chuckle from the irony.

The psychology of Trusting in AUTHORITY.

You trust Newton, don't you?

Of course this would mean a lot of politicians around the world admitting they were either dummies or liars.

No, not really.

Funny how gravity works the same way all over the planet.

Can you prove that?




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You trust Newton, don't you?


Of course not, Newton is dead.

Physics is not Newton.

Experiments can be done with physics now.



You can just come up with rhetorical bullsh#!

psik



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Funny how gravity works the same way all over the planet.

Can you prove that?


You are free to doubt it all you want.


Show everyone here how smart you are. Talk about variations between the equator and the poles because of the rotation of the planet. I even had one clown talk about variations due to the Moon to prove how smart he was. Endless rhetorical bullsh# is not about solving the problem it is about maintaining confusion.

psik



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You are free to doubt it all you want.

Oh, I don't really doubt it, but can you prove it?

Show everyone here how smart you are. Talk about variations between the equator and the poles because of the rotation of the planet.

It's not because rotation by the way, its because the earth's density changes. But that's not important or responsive, because, regardless of actual mass the way gravity functions is the same. But can you prove that?

I even had one clown talk about variations due to the Moon to prove how smart he was. Endless rhetorical bullsh# is not about solving the problem it is about maintaining confusion.

Like you endlessly talking about how the plane destroyed the building as if the plane stood there with a sledgehammer for two hours whacking away at that building.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I believe this makes the case perfectly. SnF BoneZ.
I don't believe the official story, because my mother taught me, from the day John Kennedy was shot, not to trust the government. It's hard for me, to understand how people, could have ever found security in such.

The PTB blew our presidents head off in front of God and everyone else on national T. V. Get over it.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The same things apply to trying to talk to deeply religious people about how that book may not be right. they just dont want to hear it and face the facts that they could have been living a lie their entire life.

Signs of the weak minded in my opinion. The sheeple want to be sheeple.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I guess it's the same for the most people in here that also can't accept other theories that aren't conspiracy theories. BTW I'm not part of those people, I used to believe in those 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not anymore.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
I know, because either a) they are imbeciles, b) they live under a rock, c) they are gov't employees, or d) all of the above....

Nice video Bonez, you are an ATS 911 forum icon!


So because I don't agree with you and I'm not a govt employee nor do I live under a rock I'm an imbecile. Thought the motto here was to deny ignorance. Apparently not in your case, you are perpetuating it.

Perhaps people don't agree with the alternative theories because the physics behind how the towers collapsed is sound if you understand it. Perhaps some of us were actually there when it happened and had been in the twins the day of and had friends working there and because of those factors said people are confident in what happened.

Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint doesn't make them ignorant. Expecting people to support your viewpoint when every piece of evidence brought up by truthers is refuted is ignorant. This site is to promote healthy analytical discussion on controversial topics, not for folks to say your stupid for not agreeing with me even though I have no proof.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Show everyone here how smart you are. Talk about variations between the equator and the poles because of the rotation of the planet.

It's not because rotation by the way, its because the earth's density changes.


Yeah Right!


Latitude

The differences of Earth's gravity around the Antarctic continent. At latitudes nearer the equator, the outward centrifugal force produced by Earth's rotation is stronger than at polar latitudes. This counteracts the Earth's gravity to a small degree, reducing downward acceleration of falling objects. At the equator, this apparent gravity is 0.3% less than actual gravity.

en.wikipedia.org...

Care to give us more demonstrations of your lack of understanding of grade school physics?

psik



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Welcome to Truther land, where these people constitute a panel of leading psychologists. Just like the thousands of engineers and architects who turn out to be kitchen designers and students.

Check out Jung. It's the conspiracy theories, with their feeling of superiority and initiation, and their provision of handy narrative closure, that are reassurances for the weak minded.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Local variations in topography (such as the presence of mountains) and geology (such as the density of rocks in the vicinity) cause fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field, known as gravitational anomalies. Some of these anomalies can be very extensive, resulting in bulges in sea level, and throwing pendulum clocks out of synchronisation.
The study of these anomalies forms the basis of gravitational geophysics. The fluctuations are measured with highly sensitive gravimeters, the effect of topography and other known factors is subtracted, and from the resulting data conclusions are drawn. Such techniques are now used by prospectors to find oil and mineral deposits. Denser rocks (often containing mineral ores) cause higher than normal local gravitational fields on the Earth's surface. Less dense sedimentary rocks cause the opposite.


from your link.

So, you both are correct. But to say gravity works the same all over is really generalizing it.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

I believe this makes the case perfectly. SnF BoneZ.
I don't believe the official story, because my mother taught me, from the day John Kennedy was shot, not to trust the government. It's hard for me, to understand how people, could have ever found security in such.

The PTB blew our presidents head off in front of God and everyone else on national T. V. Get over it.


In 1968 a turbine car almost won the Indy 500. Then turbines were banned. What sense does it make to ban the fastest technology from a car race? But we have pistons in our cars instead of turbines.

This business of a presidential assassination being more important than the planned obsolescence of automobiles is ridiculous.

But cars are physics like airliners not being able to destroy skyscrapers. But how many trillions have been lost on the depreciation of automobiles in the last 50 years? 9/11 is unimportant compared to that.

psik



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Witch craft. No, not women with pointy hats and cauldrons. In anthropology, the concept of the supernatural as an excuse for life's woes is a major element of all societies.

The text book example is the Wolof grain silo collapse. A Wolof man is taken shelter from the sun under the grain silo when it collapses and kills him. The collapse was caused by time and erosion, but the villagers blame witchcraft by a neighboring enemy.

What I'm getting at is that in the US, our culture is a bit more involved than the Wolof, but at the same time, it's still witchcraft. Hard evidence of the official story, such as coincidental and first-time-ever happenstance, inaccuracies in timelines and magical inflammable passports are all evidence of witchcraft. They are the route less logical, yet more travelled in our society. It just goes to show you that this element of the supernatural is still active in our cultural, collective psyche, even in a world where physics and psychology are so studied and empirically understood.

Society at large still wants to believe in witchcraft on the surface. The underlying logical problems with the story are ignored, as an irrational belief that the "people from the other village" did it all. They brought down our grain silo; they killed one of our shepherds.

PS: My speakers bit the dust yesterday, I'll have to watch the video when I get new ones.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Of course i can fly much easier in some areas than others... some kind of Vortex effect.

I guess what we are saying here is, if you are unable to see those buildings pulverizing themselves in mid-air without even touching anything.... then you are severely brainwashed and deluded by unmeasurable amounts.

No building remaining on top to crush the rest, Volcanic destruction, Fires that are not quenched by LAKES of water...ejected building parts over 2 football fields away that weigh 10,000 pounds...

It is amazing how these facts are explained by "sagging weakened metal" that is caused by Jet Fuel that never burns off, just keeps attacking full force, always getting hotter and hotter.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
so because some people dont bite on everything that the truthers throw out........


I don't believe the film said that at all. But there is solid evidence, and growing, that there was no physical way the three WTC buildings could have fallen the way they did without a hell of a lot more energy than the OS would have Us believe was there. The molten pools of metal contained FAR more energy than jet fuel and office fires account for.

And on and on.

The point of the film is that evidence is discounted in order to maintain a given, to use Dr. Glasser's term, quality world (world view). And if one aspect of that day was lied about (and evidence suggests more than one lie), how many more? And why?


There must be something wrong with them?


Didn't say that, either. In fact, it's normal when the quality world is shattered to try and put it back together just as it was. The point is that without incorporating evidence, One's quality world will never match reality, and One is then, by definition, in denial.


its tactics like this that cause so many problems for people trying to find out the truth


"Tactics?" Really, I saw no "tactics." I saw a straightforward analysis of People, Their tendency to deny that which shatters Their quality world, and Their tendency towards rejection of evidence when the quality world is in jeopardy. All these speakers are professional who described the discomfort that cognitive dissonance creates, and the normal reaction of denying evidence in favor of keeping a quality world intact.

And Their observations match My own in that regard. I personally believe that that normal response is the biggest hurdle We have in getting People to consider the evidence. Let alone accept it.


Wow man........just..........wow


Not so "wow." Rather, simple psychology and the effects the evidence has on People.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Local variations in topography (such as the presence of mountains) and geology (such as the density of rocks in the vicinity) cause fluctuations in the Earth's gravitational field, known as gravitational anomalies. Some of these anomalies can be very extensive, resulting in bulges in sea level, and throwing pendulum clocks out of synchronisation.
The study of these anomalies forms the basis of gravitational geophysics. The fluctuations are measured with highly sensitive gravimeters, the effect of topography and other known factors is subtracted, and from the resulting data conclusions are drawn. Such techniques are now used by prospectors to find oil and mineral deposits. Denser rocks (often containing mineral ores) cause higher than normal local gravitational fields on the Earth's surface. Less dense sedimentary rocks cause the opposite.


from your link.

So, you both are correct. But to say gravity works the same all over is really generalizing it.


So do you think that any skyscraper in the world could not be moved to any other spot on the planet provided the ground could support and that skyscraper would not remain standing.

If the variations are so small that they make no effective difference to the subject then it is the same. If it matters to some delicate physics experiment then it is not the same. We are talking about skyscrapers here not delicate physics experiments.

psik



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I love reading peoples replies to this.
Great post OP.
People just drown in their own ignorance. Let them live in there 'safe little box' where their government is on their side and would do nothing to harm them.
Jesus. Have you even looked at the evidence of all this? Im thinking not, because any rational human being can determine that the buildings were not brought down by a plane.
At least the 9-11 Polls on here show the majority of us have common sense.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
This article is the only rebuttal to these absurd claims that needs to be said to throw this nonsense into the garbage can for all time...

Psychologists explain why people support conspiracy theories
edit on 22-9-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Psychologists do not specialize in anything real, like observing a tower exploding upwards and outwards.

I would like one to tell us how a mind could believe all of the footage showing Incredible amounts of destruction, is just a gravity powered event.

Those 2 towers were ripped apart , blown apart, completely annihilated... and here you are trying to confuse ...lol

Imagine how it is going to feel when the veil of delusion gets ripped off the Believers...it will feel just like those towers felt....



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Your blog states that every floor on WTC has to hold the combined weight of every floor above. From what I know, this statement is incorrect. Each floor has a capacity, true, but each floor does -not- have to carry the combined weight of all floors above it. Each floor is instead held up by the central columns, not by the floor(s) below it. This highlights a potential problem with WTC 1&2.

In the pancake collapse, the buckling and heating at the higher floors caused them to collapse. We know from recorded videos that buckling was present just before the collapse of both towers. Since each floor only has a rated capacity for itself alone and not the floors above it, the collapsing floors were able to tear through the floors below them in rapid succession.

As far as I understand it, the only confusing part is how the central columns did -not- survive the collapse. In the pancake collapse simulations, for example, the core remains.


If the "pancake theory" cannot explain things...then it's wrong. Not saying that theoretically there are no similar theories that would explain the total destruction of the central core along with pancaking, but I haven't seen a one.

So. If the "pancake theory" is wrong, We can't use it to shore Our quality world. We need something that DOES explain it ALL. The theory that explosives were used is simple and explains everything. EVERYTHING. (I could don a delivery uniform and bring in a big box labeled "Dell." Who would think the box contained explosives?)

And so... Why would the Government lie about the explosives? And, as explosives is the ONLY theory that explains EVERYTHING, I conclude it has (by far!) the highest probability of being the truth.





top topics
 
92
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join