Sincere help for 9/11 debunkers

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by soulwaxer


About the 'truther' term, that is a very good observation. The psychological implications of that are immense.

Thanks.

Not. Is psychology going to be the next subject you pretend you are an expert in?

You guys call yourselves truthers. It IS the "9/11 truth movement," right?

"Anyone who does not see my deluded version of reality must have psychological issues. Because I am incapable of using a logical thought process and the 'debunkers' are, it just has to be a psychological issue with them, because there is no way that I am wrong. I am an armchair expert in all things physics, engineering, politics, and even the psychological profiles of strangers on the internet."

Now, you should start by searching up studies done by Dr. Irving Biederman on the neurophysical payoffs of believing that you have "secret knowledge" or that you have uncovered a super evil plot, and the neurochemical reactions associated with these delusional beliefs. It would very much explain the "truth movements" incessant ramblings and complete ignorance regarding all things scientific/factually based.

edit on 6-24-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

You don't have to be an expert in psychology to see that the term 'truther' has a negative connotation to it and that it scares people away from associating themselves with it > a psychological implication of the term 'truther'.

The divide between those who accept the official consensus account of events and those that present what they claim are inconsistencies in that account is wide enough to deem these opposing forces diametric peoples. But, extremely dissimilar opinions aren’t exclusive to the topic of 9/11. After having become a "Truther" myself, I encounter extremely polarized opinions regularly…

• Obama is the man he claims to be vs. Obama is a construct, which would necessitate a government conspiracy.
  
  
• Israel is acting out of legitimate concern for its safety vs. Israel is engaged in intentional genocide and quite literally seeks to rule the planet, which would necessitate a government conspiracy.
  
  
• Bohemian Grove is an exclusive gentleman's club vs. Bohemian Grove is a theater of occult activities, which would necessitate a government conspiracy.
  
  
• JFK was assassinated by Oswald alone vs. JFK was assassinated by persons working for US agencies, which would necessitate a government conspiracy.
  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

So, isn't it possible that the people who accept the official consensus account of the 9/11 events tend to view any alternative account of historical events as less likely? I haven't been able to test this theory, but it would fit with my observations. Wouldn't it be helpful for the groups on both sides of the debate to know each person’s opinions of other controversial events?

I believe the OPs theory is valid, but not all encompassing. Arguments presented by some to refute the OPs theory, claiming an emotional disconnect from the 9/11 events fail to understand the difference between how the conscious and subconscious employ emotion. Other responses typically included specific evidence to refute conspiracy, despite the OP soliciting opinions of a theory that is more philosophic. Personally, I don't think the emotional charge of 9/11 would cause this split of reasoning alone. However, a lifetime of faith that government has their interests at its core might.

I suspect that, many of the proponents of the official consensus account are more heavily invested in the belief that government is truthful, beneficial and protective of its citizens. It wouldn't even enter their minds that none of us in the US are legally citizens in the first place. To then accept more complex scenarios involving elements of government acting in concert to deceive the masses would be inconceivable.

I blame most of this continued disbelief in government conspiracy on the government. For, the government seems unwilling to ever admit its mistakes. Sure, the less conspiratorial crimes are admitted on occasion. But, more disturbing crimes like those that led to water fluoridation (toxic waste disposal) or why the US went off the gold standard (gold bond issuance) will never be admitted to. And why? After all, the actual individuals who committed the crimes are deceased. My guess is that the current power structure sees admissions of this magnitude would have serious repercussions that might diminish their authority.

What say you?

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by soulwaxer
Let me clarify. Science has a tendency to ignore what can't be measured. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. That is based on belief, not on fact. For all things that can be measured, you can't go wrong with science. But in my opinion, the aspects of reality that cannot be measured far outweigh the ones that can be. That's where intuition can be very helpful. And intuition is very important in discovering new ideas.

Science does not have the "tendency" to ignore what can't be measured. Measurement is its number one foundation. It is the starting point of all science. Without at least some for of measurement, there isn't even an hypothesis. So science does not have a tendency to ignore unmeasurable things, it does so by definition.

I disagree with intuition being that important. Sure, for personal choices it can be very helpful. Shall I buy this house or not. Shall I wear the brown jacket or the black one.

But when it comes to technical matters, intuition is much less useful. In fact, engineers are trained not to trust intuition and always check designs using (mathematical) models. This is because intuition is very often wrong. If you put "Intuition" in the references of your paper, you will cause laughter.

edit on 24-6-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I agree with most of what you wrote. But what I meant by science is the scientific community and the whole culture surrounding it. There is a certain focus towards measurable things, and a certain ignorance of immeasurable things. Here is an example of what I mean: When a person has cancer and his medical doctors don't have a workable cure, they will often have a tendency to say that that person is incurable. What they should be saying is that that person is incurable as far as academic medical science is concerned. But there may be a methods of curing this person with other techniques, which can't currently be measured scientifically.

In general, I believe that both the rational scientific approach and intuition in unison are your best bet. One without the other is like a bird with wings but no feathers.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

And so all those people suffering in the wars he is so worried about, would not be suffering if we had all had the strength to trust and face what we saw with our own eyes, in broad daylight

And what did we see with our own eyes? Towers falling?

Let me guess on 9.11 you magically knew the government did it 100%?

edit on 24-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

No, we saw towers exploding and falling at the same time.

No, on 9/11 I didn't magically know the government dit it. But I did know that there was something wrong with the way those buildings came down. Then I blocked that out for several years, partly as a result of the biased media reporting, but also because that did not fit into my view of reality. I've explained the process I went through several times.

reply to post by soulwaxer


I think the buildings were brought down to start a war in the Mideast by Cheney and Halliburton.
We deny it and do not face it because to admit it means our innocence is gone.

It is like when someone dies and you are still in denial..."he's not dead, he can't be dead," that kind of thing.

This is information you just don't want to know.

I agree with the OP.

There are a lot of TRUTHS floating around out there, and each day, more and more people awaken.

For those who are not ready to open their eyes...

well, I just basically ignore them. We all come to the turth in our own time and in our own way.

The problem is, I'm hoping it won't be too late.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by soulwaxer
Thanks for that! The comment you replied to is quite telling indeed. Notice how he doesn't seem to be aware that how many people died is only a small part of the trauma.

Care to point out a quote where you got this idea from? Or are you just making it up?

Of course you are just making it up. You have no idea what I am aware of. But it is much easyer to make up all kind of negative properties for the people you disagree with, so you don't have to deal with the actual arguments that person comes with.

The real trauma is that something happened that we couldn't place. It was surreal. As I said earlier, this was above all a psychological attack on the public. The poster also states that he doesn't have the requirements to form a relevant opinion on the subject. That means that, in his mind, there must still be the possibility that this was an inside job. And so all those people suffering in the wars he is so worried about, would not be suffering if we had all had the strength to trust and face what we saw with our own eyes, in broad daylight... BEFORE we invaded the Middle East causing all that suffering.

Sure, I am open for the inside job theory. Just provide actual evidence instead of intuition. I am that easily convinced.

As for "trust and face what we saw with our own eyes". Who is we? For who are you speaking exactly?

And why are you ignoring my post and instead address me in a post to someone else? Are you avoiding direct discussion? If so, why?

edit on 24-6-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I was rushing through the posts and trying to reply to all of them. This is my first thread ever on an online forum, next to my introduction post. I must have looked over yours and only saw it in a reply to your post. I was too rushed to look for your original post, so I took the liberty of replying through the other one. It was not my purpose to avoid a direct discussion.

My idea you are referring to was based on something you wrote about 9/11 not being such a big deal for everyone, especially those outside the US who, and that you were more concerned about the people suffering in all the wars going on now (I hope I remember this correctly). My reply was meant to point out that you didn't seem to realize that the bigger trauma was the loss of a sense of reality that we all felt. By we, I mean the public in general. Here in Europe we get pretty much the same images as those in the US. I guess I jumped the gun a bit in my interpretation of what you wrote. I apologize for that.

I am going to leave this thread because I've been rushing to keep up for too long and need a rest. I will check in again later tonight or tomorrow. In any case, I've pretty much said what I have to say in many posts, though I would love to discuss further. Not right now though.

Thanks everyone for all the interesting replies.

Since nobody was hurt in WTC 7, Thank GOD they brought it down, its the elephant in the room that debunkers will never respond to. Even the 911 commission wouldn't touch the subject. If you want to believe that a plane hitting the top of a building can make the bottom of the building collapse, then fine, but building 7 will forever be the undeniable evidence that removes all doubt that those buildings were demolished.

And debunkers never talk about what these firefighters saw...

www.youtube.com...


and countless witness testimonies of explosions go ignored by debunkers. Denial is an interesting thing to witness in people

It's a very risky job being a whistleblower..think Bradley Manning (could get death penalty)..as just one high profile example

www.guardian.co.uk...

I thought this was also an interesting headline... but haven't dug into it to verify the claims regarding the Iraq war.
151 Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From War
Blood money stains the hands of more than 25% of members of the U.S. House and Senate

www.americanfreepress.net...

I like this video from a high school physics teacher regarding the building that wasn't struck by a plane, showing it in free fall, which means no resistance for most of the fall. I do remeber from physics at school free fall from gravity is about 9.8m/s2.........buildings can not free fall by themselves...the matter of the building would provide resistance against free fall during collapse.
NIST used the video for their report just like the teacher, the 2nd link shows that the NIST report calculations start their start time early to get a lower speed of collapse to put in their report.





On 27th February, 1933, the Reichstag caught fire. It has never been proved that this was a Hitler/Gestapo plot...but it did allow Hitler to take "dictatorial powers".
Historians disagree as to whether Van der Lubbe acted alone or whether the arson was planned and ordered by the Nazis, then dominant in the government themselves, as a false flag operation. The responsibility for the Reichstag fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.

reply to post by soulwaxer


People would be more willing and less fearful of adopting the views of 911 Truth activists if they felt they were calling for forgiveness rather than retribution and punishment.

The peace movement should call for granting amnesty from prosecution and guarantee of an ample, lifetime pension to anyone who agrees to testify on their roles in the events of 9/11, extending this offer to any members of the US government, foreign governments and/or terrorist groups involved in the planning or execution of the attacks of that day.

Additionally, individuals should step forward and volunteer to spend time working with those who give testimony on crimes they have committed so that they might be reintegrated into society.

Instead of executing Nazi war criminals we should have devoted all the human resources available to us to rehabilitating them, awakening in them awareness of the nature of their actions so that they could have come to understand that they must make amends. If they had remained alive they would have been a living testament to the transformative powers of forgiveness.

Historians and psychologists especially should come out in favor of preserving invaluable study material in the form of the opportunity to converse with the authors of unfortunate historical deeds.

We must find a solution to the existing state of affairs that would be acceptable to both the accusers and the accused. It should solve the problem it sets out to solve without creating additional problems. It should present itself as an ethical means to an ethical end.

In "The Art of War", Sun Tzu said never to surround an enemy. If you do not leave him an out, he will fight to the last man.

For an interesting discussion of these ideas please see (and expand the comments) three posts by “John Stan” here:
www.opednews.com...

Originally posted by soulwaxer
You don't have to be an expert in psychology to see that the term 'truther' has a negative connotation to it and that it scares people away from associating themselves

lol, what?

if there's any negative connotation it's the fact that you guys call yourselves truthers and ironically tell no truths.

Originally posted by TyrannyNews

I suspect that, many of the proponents of the official consensus account are more heavily invested in the belief that government is truthful, beneficial and protective of its citizens.

Truthers constantly make this charge and it's far from being true for everyone. I certainly don't have blind faith in the government. However, I am invested in knowing the truth. It's within the realm of plausibility that some faction of the government or some faction connected with the government had something to do with 911 or with allowing it to happen (though that seems less and less likely to me.) However, none of the controlled demolition theories hold water in my opinion.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by soulwaxer
You don't have to be an expert in psychology to see that the term 'truther' has a negative connotation to it and that it scares people away from associating themselves

lol, what?

if there's any negative connotation it's the fact that you guys call yourselves truthers and ironically tell no truths.

edit on 6-24-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)

-foreknowledge:

ISBN 1-56171-269-8

published in 1993 and written by the head of the Republican Task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yossef Bodansky (born in Israel) is an Israeli-American political scientist who served as Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the US House of Representatives from 1988 to 2004. He is also Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and has been a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). In the 1980s, he served as a senior consultant for the Department of Defense and the Department of State.

He is also a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications and a contributor to the International Military and Defense Encyclopedia and is on the Advisory Council of The Intelligence Summit. Bodansky's numerous articles have been published in Global Affairs, Jane's Defense Weekly, Defense and Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy and other periodicals.

imagine that, almost all the major players are Jews, from the insurance payoff to the security firm to those who scripted it all in PNAC

you want to bear false witness and call the truth lies help yourself... God sure won't and neither will I because it is people like you who are as guilty of every crime committed then and since in the name of peace.

I guess you would have to have a soul to worry about. and afaic I am done with telling you truths you refuse to witness.

It is because of people like you they managed to pull it off in the first place, you could sleep through wwIII as long as it didn't affect your comfort.

pathetic hardly describes it

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

So why does the 911 conspiracy only exist in cyberspace?

Just because it's not being talked about at your job, or in the neighborhood, doesn't mean it's just a cyberspace thing. It mostly developed on cyberspace, because of the free speech possibilities of it.

Alex Jones has been taking about it almost every week in his radio show too.

43 experts speak about the obvious demolition of WTC buildings, especially building 7 that was not hit by a plane



The structural design in twin towers explained, by among others the designer of the buildings


After watching 2nd video, you can see if the official report is true
"the interior core of the building was a hollow steel shaft"

i remember that when i finally faced the facts of 9/11 it's as if i was being hit in the gut with a ton of bricks. my thoughts were as anybody's would be. "why did our gov. do this? how could this happen?" i felt violated as an american. tears came all over again but this time in a different way.

i now knew something i could not unknow. our government was willing to KILL not only in other countries but our own, to get more power and control. accepting this reality is difficult (understatement of the year) and cuts you to the bone. it was difficult for me to accept also because you can't help but feel so helpless. how can we take our country back? that is the real question to deal with now.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by soulwaxer

 

So why does the 911 conspiracy only exist in cyberspace?

Only in cyberspace?

You need to get out more

reply to post by soulwaxer


I call all of this bullshi*.

There are people out there whose solely job is to debunk the truthers.
They are being paid. It's their job. It is their work. OK?
It amazes me you guys don't see it.

Originally posted by TyrannyNewsPersonally, I don't think the emotional charge of 9/11 would cause this split of reasoning alone. However, a lifetime of faith that government has their interests at its core might.

I very much agree with this. Both of these are usually necessary elements. Concerning the lifetime faith in the government, just look at how they present themselves to us. They walk on red carpets, they fly in Air Force 1 and 2, they have grand dinners and parties, hundreds of security staff travel with them abroad, etc. They present themselves as gods, and we fall for it.

Thanks, also for the other points you added to the discussion.

I think that this is true with a lot of people, and I have seen it first hand. I went over to my brother's house one night and the topic of 9/11 came up, my brother's girlfriend was there and listening to the conversation. When she heard me talking about how it was an inside job she freaked out and ran upstairs crying! She didn't come down for almost an hour! She took it so personally, because she is from NY and has much more of an emotional attachment to the story. Denial is very emotionally rooted!