Skip to comments.The inner worlds of conspiracy believers - Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are...
Posted on 05/24/2009 12:22:13 AM PDT by neverdem
Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests.
Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.
A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.
Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas, Swami says.
His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of RutgersCamden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a persons convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.
A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
“taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.”
Sounds like me. I’m not one who believes these theories about 9/11 or for that matter Obama’s birth certificate. The fun thing to do when you meet these guys at parties which happens alot here (keep Austin weird?) is to get them going and then find a few things they can’t agree on and let them go at it.
They forget all about you with your Osama did it idea and start screaming over planted explosives or alien lasers or zionist businessmen etc etc. It’s great viewing with popcorn and Shiner Bock!
I think maybe the shrinks are in on it...(/"conspiracy theorist")
and seriously deluded.
The South Park episode on this is definitive. One in four people are absolute idiots. It’s really no more complicated than that.
Inquisitive is a kind and soothing word. They’re “inquisitive” and “suspicious” about everything _except_ for conspiracy theories, which need satisfy no standard of logic, evidence or rationality.
Most Americans have watched dozens of slow motion building demolitions on TV.
To my eye, the close up slow motion films of the two WTC’s going down looked exactly like every other planned implosion I ever watched.
For weeks after 9-11, I assumed the terrorists had used explosives to trigger the collapse of both buildings.
Only after I learned that the intense heat from the jet fuel fire could soften and weaken uninsulated steel did I completely change my mind.
One thing does still mystify me about the implosion theory.
If it really did happen that way, why do so many people think the USA government did it, and not the terrorists?
Wow, I like those videos, too, but I never compared them to a planned implosion and still dont. In one shot, you can see the first tower tilt before the smoke pushes out from the collapsing floors above
I am just surpsised at how many idiots dont know that hot steel is not as strong as cold steel regardless of whether it is melted or not.
What!?!! You don't think Rosie is qualified as a metallurgist? [big grin]
To me it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are usually from the bottom up, and you can clearly see it happening before the mass of the structure falls on it's own footprint. That was not evident with towers at all. In fact, it was pretty obvious that it was a top down collapse.
I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what words to use to describe the effects, but to me, it doesn't look anything like the controlled demolitions I've seen...
Effects were similar, but instead of needing any explosives, the fire would have been enough to weaken the steel supporting the massive weight of building above it, thus the pancake effect.
WTC 7 seemed strange to me, though, with neither aircraft impact nor fire to weaken structural elements.
Maybe someone can explain that one to me.
I;m no 'troofer', but I am curious.
Effects were similar...
The only similarity was the obvious effect of gravity. Other than that, it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition as far as I'm concerned...
The fires heated the structural elements of the towers supporting the structure above the fire floors, having the same effect as a controlled demolition would have. Had those structural elements all not been heated similarly and simultaneously, the upper part of the structures would have toppled, collapsing at the site of the greatest weakness first, and causing the upper part of the structure to fall over rather than remain more or less vertical and pancake the floors below it.
In that sense, the effect was similar to a planned demolition (of any building in a developed area) which would not have toppled the building, but caused it to fall vertically, more or less on site.
“What!?!! You don’t think Rosie is qualified as a metallurgist? [big grin] “
Hey, you stinker...You just blew the post that I was working on :P
Oh well, I will continue to read the rest.
Never saw it as a planned implosion from the simple fact that each collapse start in the area of the aircraft impact just like you would expect...
Not only is Rosie not a metallurgist, she’s not even a moron. What’s just below moron? Idiot?
Rosie thinks (that’s just too sweet a word to use to describe her mental processes, and so’s “mental”) that the ignition temperature of a substance is as hot as it will ever get. Thus, if jet fuel “burns” at 410 degrees F, then obviously it can’t melt steel - or even sugnificantly weaken it. This is one of the most blatantly stupid, ignorant, mindless, moronic conclusions ever reached by a so-called intelligent being.
Jet fuel will burn at 10,000 degrees F even easier than it does at 410, and not only that the process just keeps getting hotter and hotter as the heat is trapped in the local environment. But such notions are to Rosie as pearls before swine. Finally! An appropriate metaphor!
And of course the building wasn’t designed to take a hit like that. The insulation on the steel supports was blown off, the central core damaged and a sudden hot fire from the jet’s fuel.
Who could build with that possibility in mind?
Well, the architects, for one. They described how the towers were actually constructed to take a hit from a 707.
You absolutely nailed it!
And I bet you've never even needed to read a pamphlet on psychology to come to that clear conclusion!
Last year one of the networks was replaying their 9/11 broadcast in real time. It was pointed out to me that the second plane struck the second tower at a much lower level than the first, in order to increase the effect of gravity on the structure-weakening fire.
And it was the tower that was struck second which was the first to collapse.
Controlled implosions start from the bottom up for exactly the same reason, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.