‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    21st Century Wire says…

    These four different university studies listed below reveal a lot about the psychology of official story ‘gatekeepers’ and how irrational and emotionally unstable they become when challenged with an alternative view…

    ****

    Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.


    The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

    The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

    Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

    Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

    In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

    Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

    In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

    DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

    Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

    In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

    The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
    “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
    But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.




    yep the tables are turning and tide is changing and debunkers will be nothing more than dust in the wind while conspiracy theorists get the top shelf recognition.

    how about that?
     
    Vlad Ivx and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh good. Another link to a 'no-planes' site.

    This is supposed to represent sanity?
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    oh you are arent happy with that huh?

    how about this one then:

    New US/UK Study Shocks World! “Conspiracy Theorists” Are ‘Sane’; Government Dupes Crazy & Hostile!

    BeforeIt’sNews July 12 2013

    [​IMG]

    A newly released study by psychologists and social scientists in both the United States and the UK is bound to ‘shock the world’, for it has found that those who believe in ‘conspiracy theories’ are considered ‘more sane’ than those who believe in the ‘official versions’ of the ‘contested events’. For most Beforeitsnews readers, this is simply not shocking in the least bit, in fact, it is quite common knowledge. For Americans who still believe the ‘accepted versions’ of stated events, it’s quite possible that they will continue to stay ‘insane’, and hostile! In fact, those now believing the ‘conspiracy theory’ version of events now outnumber those believing the ‘statist propaganda’ TWO TO ONE! Americans are quickly awakening to hidden truths; is it too late? This fact sure would explain why TPTB are so eager to crackdown on Americans. If I were to recommend ONE ‘conspiracy theory’ video for those who haven’t ‘awoken’ to watch, I’d recommend the banned ‘Conspiracy Theory’ with Jesse Ventura embedded at the bottom of this story about the Police State and FEMA Camps in America. We’re running out of time and only MASS AWAKENING may save this country and our very lives and the lives of our children and loved ones. Much more below.
    http://shiftfrequency.com/30354/


    or this one


    New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

    Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:3AM GMT
    107
    25.3K


    1252



    By Dr. Kevin Barrett
    In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”


    Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.


    The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

    The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/



    or this one

    Does the Latest Research Show that ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are the Sane Ones?


    The Towers did not just collapse, they were pulverised.

    Over the past fortnight, many blogs have reproduced and commented on this piece on Iran’s Press TV website, written by Dr Kevin Barrett, which begins,
    Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
    I have known this for years, but anyway, the article concentrates on this: the most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.



    Building 7, as you hopefully know, was the third skyscraper to completely collapse on 9/11, despite not being hit by a plane, and in exactly the same fashion as a conventional, deliberate demolition. For this reason, it is, for many people, the biggest “smoking gun” to the 9/11 attacks being an inside job.


    Not keen to unreservedly trust this state-funded Iranian English language media outlet, I did a little digging (which wasn’t too difficult at all) and found that one of the authors, Michael Wood, was keen on “Setting the record straight” about how, in his opinion, his findings have been misrepresented. Or have they?
    He admits that in his studies, anti-conspiracy commenters were often hostile. This has been obvious to me all along. The entire findings from their study on online debates on articles either side of the tenth anniversary of 9/11 by Wood and Douglas can be found here. In it, the authors conclude that,
    Conventionalist comments (M = 2.08, SD = 1.02) were significantly more hostile than conspiracist comments (M = 1.44, SD = 0.79), t(2172) = 16.22, p < 0.001 (see Table 1).
    This is hardly surprising, as “conspiracist” commentators have likely studied the events in far greater depth than those who believe the official conspiracy theory, which leaves the OCT defenders short on intellectual ammunition and so resort to insults.


    I have found the same is true when I attempt to debate with Richard Dawkins’ adherents. I want to talk about the science, but they know little or nothing about it, so in what passes as defence of their beliefs, they resort to ridiculing scripture and personal attacks in an attempt to conceal their own lack of knowledge on a matter they vehemently defend for no other reason than that it suits their preferred worldview. I was banned from Dawkins’ blog for allegedly proselytising, when what I was doing was replying to the questions posed on scriptural matters by Dawkins’ little piranhas.


    When Subrosa asked me to write a guest post on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, I was happy to oblige and also delighted to discover that she was also unconvinced by the official story. The majority of the comments at her place were supportive of an alternative narrative to the official story and later on, one B.J Edwards hijacked the thread with plenty of hostility and accusations of “denial” against those who dared to disbelieve the government’s story, because as everyone knows, the government never lies!
    Then, very interestingly, when I reposted the same article on this blog, a commenter called ewingsc wrote,

    http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2013/07...-that-conspiracy-theorists-are-the-sane-ones/




    so are all these no planer sites? is that it?
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Enjoy your 'sanity', Jojo.
     
  5. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most excellent report. Truthers are winning the war. Liars are going down in the dustbin of history.

    We had to go to war in Vietnam. President Kennedy was bucking the war powers and had plans to bring the troops home by 1965, so he had to be killed and conspiracy had to be debunked. Conspiracy theorists had to be ridiculed. At the time they had the most trusted liar on TV with the CBS nightly news. "That's the way it is November 22, 1963" Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman. The globalist Pilgrim, Walter Cronkite

    The Gulf of Tonkin which took us to Vietnam was a flat out lie which killed 58,000 Americans and countless Asians.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Conspiracy theorists have to be ridiculed. Otherwise the truth comes out. Remember that tactic.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that if you make the stand that no planes hit the WTC, you should expect ridicule.
     
  8. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never made that claim. Others have. They might be right. I don't know because the conspiracy to cover-up the truth started on 9/11. Before the day was out the world knew that Osama bin Laden did it ... just like 45 minutes after JFK's assassination the world knew Oswald did it. They both turned out to be lies.

    - - - Updated - - -

    LOL. Debunking the debunkers.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't say you did. Try and keep up, eh?
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    crushed nothing what so ever

    those outdated theories were before they discovered that so many conspiracy theories are true.

    never trust a trougher to put ANYTHING in a properly framed perspective

    yep
     
  11. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think I would call someone who reads an opinion piece but doesn't read the study the opinion piece references a debunker.

    Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas have produced quite a bit of scholarly work. I can't find a single piece that agrees with the opinion produced in the link above.
     
  12. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,230
    Likes Received:
    9,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    really???

    No-Planers might be right???

    that is insane idiocy, my friend.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well then look at the names below who agree. Hilarious.

    Lance deHaven-Smith

    Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees

    University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds

    exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University



    oh and they reference official story huggers et al by any name they want to go by.

    they posted quotes, but what the hell thats not good enough for you apparently is it
     
  14. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is idiocy is to believe something you don't know for a fact. I wasn't in New York on 9/11. I know for a fact that the technology exists to make it look like airplanes hit the buildings on TV. And I know for a fact that the TV journalists were lying to America on 9/11. Brian Williams, and the NYFD, had prior knowledge of building 7 being demolished. I don't know what happened. Did you witness the planes hit the buildings? Or do you just believe everything you see on TV?
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83

    more like suffocating them in their own deception. literally everything these debunkers claim as fact is frivolous and has several hidden deceptions.
     
  16. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,230
    Likes Received:
    9,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have friends and relatives that I trust, who saw the 2nd plane on 9-11.

    They have no reason to lie.

    - - - Updated - - -

    FALSE!!!

    they thought the building might collapse due to the observed conditions of the building, and they were right.

    CNN and NBC reported the building "may collapse or has collapsed", and other news agencies jumped on the story and reported it wrong.

    just as some idiots reported a bomb blowing up by the State Department in D.C. and a white van blowing up on the West Side of Manhattan.

    There were lots of false stories.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83

    sure you do

    of course they dont.

    I heard that story too many times, always bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
     
  18. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,230
    Likes Received:
    9,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    winning???

    lol...that's pretty funny.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83

    what observed conditions? who did the report? lets see it condition assessment.
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,230
    Likes Received:
    9,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    my aunt saw the 2nd plane while watching the fires from Grand & Clinton St. in Manhattan.

    my friends lived on the 20th floor of their building facing southwest Manhattan, and had a clear line of sight to the WTC. They too saw the 2nd plane.
     
  21. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So? You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I know as fact. I don't believe everything I see on TV.

    As a 20 year building contractor I know that buildings don't just fall down. You can believe the fairytale if you like. I am not going to believe the nightly liars on TV anymore. No legitimate building expert believes building 7 fell from fires. Just take a couple of hours out of your life to watch the building experts.

    MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<<
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is all sounding VEEEEEEEERY familiar..
     
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,230
    Likes Received:
    9,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    neither do I.


    steel structures built without any reinforced concrete to hold them up, will indeed collapse due to fire.

    its happened several times before and it will happen again.
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It didn't JUST fall down from fires.......geeze,you're like talking to a drunk college student
     
  25. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,230
    Likes Received:
    9,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truthers don't know the difference between static and dynamic loads.

    They think the WTC was built so that if 30 floors come crashing down 10 feet, the lower floors will be able to hold such a mass.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page