Believing the Impossible and Conspiracy Theories

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.sagepub.com/press/2012/january/SAGE_BelievingImpossibleConspiracyTheories.sp

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]Believing the Impossible and Conspiracy Theories[/font]

[font size=3]Los Angeles, CA (January 25, 2012) - Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories is so strong that it leads them to endorse entirely contradictory beliefs, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science (published by SAGE).

People who endorse conspiracy theories see authorities as fundamentally deceptive. The conviction that the "official story" is untrue can lead people to believe several alternative theories-despite contradictions among them. "Any conspiracy theory that stands in opposition to the official narrative will gain some degree of endorsement from someone who holds a conpiracist worldview," according to Michael Wood, Karen Douglas and Robbie Sutton of the University of Kent.

To see if conspiracy views were strong enough to lead to inconsistencies, the researchers asked 137 college students about the death of Princess Diana. The more people thought there "was an official campaign by the intelligence service to assassinate Diana," the more they also believed that "Diana faked her own death to retreat into isolation." Of course, Diana cannot be simultaneously dead and alive.

The researchers wanted to know if the contradictory beliefs were due to suspicion of authorities, so they asked 102 college students about the death of Osama bin Laden (OBL). People who believed that "when the raid took place, OBL was already dead," were significantly more likely to also believe that "OBL is still alive." Since bin Laden is not Schrödinger's cat, he must either be alive or dead. The researchers found that the belief that the "actions of the Obama administration indicate that they are hiding some important or damaging piece of information about the raid" was responsible for the connection between the two conspiracy theories. Conspiracy belief is so potent that it will lead to belief in completely inconsistent ideas.

…[/font][/font]

http://m.spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/18/1948550611434786.full.pdf

[jberryhill]

1. My favorite

The data from the flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Don’t get me started…

Someone close to me pressed a copy of “Loose Change” into my hands years ago…


A friend who trusts my judgement asked me just the other day about “whether the government blew up those buildings.” After some thought, I finally came up with this simple refutation:

The key premise of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is that the Bush administration staged the events to justify a war with Iraq. If that’s true, why didn’t they clearly implicate Iraq at the time? You know, like, why not use Iraqi terrorists (instead of Saudis) or at least claim that the terrorists were Iraqis? (Instead, they played rhetorical games, to get Americans to associate Iraq with the attacks.)

[jberryhill]

3. Simple - they didn't want to make it look too obvious

I always tell folks that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job. Because if it was, they would have done a better job of covering it up.

(think on that one for a minute)

[zappaman]

4. You think you have all the answers

Tell me what the official story is so I can not believe it...

[jberryhill]

5. I was the ONLY person locked out of that thread

And all I can say is, thank goodness.

Donna Trollmythread

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. The official story is available right here

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

(You’ll pardon me if I don’t copy and paste the entire text into this posting, right?)

[SheilaT]

6. I think that perhaps the Bushies are

quite confused about geography, and couldn't tell the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, because remember they went into Afghanistan almost immediately after 9/11. Iraq came more than a year later.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. They went into Afghanistan because that’s where Al Qaeda was

You may recall that Clinton launched cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-20/us/9808_20_us.strikes.01_1_sudanese-television-bin-mullah-abdullah?_s=PM:US

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan[/font]

August 20, 1998

[font size=3]U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.

American officials say they have convincing evidence that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistans Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies.

…

The president said he ordered the strike against bin Laden and his compatriots because of compelling information they were planning additional terrorist attacks against our citizens and others with the inevitable collateral casualties and .. seeking to acquire chemical weapons and other dangerous weapons.

…

In Afghanistan, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, said that bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his companions. Bin Laden has been living in Afghanistan with the permission of the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic group that controls most of the country.

…[/font][/font]

[cbrer]

8. Guys then please help me out with this stuff

I'm not a chemist.
I'm not a structural engineer.
I'm not an architect.

But I can consult them. Ask questions, and evaluate data. Tens of Thousands of informed opinions are available.

Having watched Zeitgeist (tm) I feel it raised some legitimate questions. Physically speaking. Not talking about who did it, or why. Just purely the physical properties of the structures and the events.

When WTC towers fell they collapsed internally, and fell straight down into their own footprint. Neither one toppled. Any 3 of the internal columns could support the building. Jet fuel burns at a specific temperature. Objects in free fall travel at a specified rate. WTC7 wasn't hit. Many other scientifically based questions. No politics. No chicken little antics. No New World Order stuff.

When issues of forces behind events are examined, some (to me) alarming trends emerge. But I am just asking about the science. Is there a resource you can point me towards, that deals with these things? Or better yet, any of you who can explain this stuff, please do so.

I'd like to think I'm not a total dumbass. And not an alarmist either. I'm also not an anarchist, trying to build a case against a criminal government. JUST the science.

Let the flames begin!

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. “When WTC towers fell they collapsed internally, and fell straight down into their own footprint.”

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Like this you mean?


Here’s the footprint they fell straight down into.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm


May I suggest: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/full-episodes/remembering-911-1/ngc-911-science-and-conspiracy/

[onager]

12. Thanks! Excellent video in that link.

All kinds of experts refute the CT's, including real structural engineers, chemists, etc.

I think this was my favorite part - a demolition contractor rigged up a test that exactly duplicated the theory about "thermite charges wrapped around support columns in the basement." When he set off the blast, those columns were barely marked - let alone brought down.

I gave the NG video to a friend of mine not long ago. His (adult) daughter was hopping on the 9/11 CT bandwagon and watching it seemed to answer her questions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. You’re welcome!

I briefly described the video to my friend (who had not seen it)

I said, “They demonstrate what it takes to implode a building, and the ‘truthers’ just respond, ‘Well, that’s not a valid demonstration. We’re talking about advanced technology here, technology that professionals have never even heard of.’”

OK! So, now the conspiracy includes a band of very fast working covert demolition experts who employ exotic technology that professionals don’t know about.



Then, I realized, all of this stuff is really peripheral to the central argument.

If, the whole point of this very complex conspiracy was to justify a war in Iraq, why didn’t they implicate the Iraqis somehow?


FWIW: One of my “favorite” details from Loose Change was when we are told about when a “B-52” crashed into the Empire State Building, but the Empire State Building didn’t fall down. Close! but not quite. It wasn’t a “B-52” it was a “B-25…” (a much smaller and lighter plane than a B-52, and also much smaller, lighter and slower than the planes which flew full throttle into the World Trade Towers.)


Today, I learned, they supposedly left things like that in there, on purpose, just to encourage people to research it themselves…

http://www.alternet.org/story/40476/?page=4

…

ROWE: What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again.

…

Oh! That’s great! How about distributing an official list of the BS you’ve intentionally left in your documentary or maybe including it in the documentary itself?

[cbrer]

14. Thanks

I appreciate the resources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. You’re welcome!

You know how people go on about the collapse of WTC 7?

When you look at that aerial view, and see the damage to the surrounding buildings the collapse of WTC 7 comes as no surprise at all. (Follow the link <http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm > and check out the cropped close up shot. Check out all of the debris on the roofs and the holes in the buildings left standing.)

[jberryhill]

10. Please post in Creative Speculation

You'll get all sorts of helpful information there.

It may be helpful for you to "unbundle" your bag and stick to a specific question at a time.