‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

no thats my point and if you want to hug the official story you have to hug blob planes and planes missing wings.

 

ronstar derailed the thread, try to pay attention.

 

No, that is your point. Sorry, your attempt at denial is just too ridiculous and absurd. You just assert without bringing any evidence to the debate. You have been unable to back a single one of your nutter claims.

Tell me something, Einstein...if the planes were CGI...what was the process of adding the images of the planes to TV videos, all the hand-held camcorders and cameras? How were they able to not only add the plane to all those devices but, get the perspective, contrast, and context correct?

Oh, and why aren't the people, who own all those images, exposing the fact their photos were altered?

It's just too easy to expose the no-planers.

 

using any of the clips you wish, prove any one of those plane clips are real. simple to do if they are.

is this a real plane yes or no?

 

got a citation for that? Why would these psychologists say the troughers are nutters then?

seems you have a problen there.

 

I reject the premise that truther psychologists on a conspiracy website say this.

But here is the thing, what you like for proof of planes?

 

they are from universities not conspiracy web sites. so now what ya gonna do?

 

so I decided to do a little research for the lunatics, found that whoops OP is all based on lies:

http://cartesianproduct.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/what-presstv-doesnt-tell-you/

http://www.academia.edu/1207098/Dead_and_alive_Beliefs_in_contradictory_conspiracy_theories

The bolded part describes the mind of a conspiracy nut.

- - - Updated - - -

No the analysis is from a conspiracy website and they lied..... it really sucks to get fooled so often doesn't it.

 

that has nothing to do with these studies.


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.

 

great example of the OP lies

PressTV states:
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.”



In fact the report states:
We also found that hostility was higher in persuasive arguments made by conventionalists than in those by conspiracists. As 9/11 conspiracism is by and large a minority viewpoint in the West (WorldPublicOpinion.org, 200, this makes sense: conventionalists, rather than focusing on presenting novel information, instead attempt to enforce conformity to the majority viewpoint (Latané, 1981). While the inter-rater reliability for hostility was good, there is a risk that we may not have captured the full spectrum of responses, as we specifically excluded comments that consisted solely of threats, insults, or ridicule. As such, although we cannot say with certainty that conventionalist comments are more hostile on average than conspiracist comments, we can say with some confidence that this is true among comments that also contained some amount of persuasive content.

 

My first link debunks you PressTV quote in your OP....

Laurie Manwell is a truther nutter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN1miCxLT8Q

http://wearechangeseattle.org/interchange-the-truth-about-911-graeme-macqueen-and-laurie-manwell-2

 

accept that even University folks can be nutty conspiracy theorists.

 

Well, since the OP is not done with the topic, I'll ask him why he thought the study referenced in his link was more current than the conclusion of the study I posted.

 

You can say that again. You have to laugh at the people still bizarrely trying to argue they weren't demolished. It's just a complete denial of reality and the laws of physics.

 

they are quoted in many other unrelated sources. you have not shown them to be psychologically inaccurate or incorrect

- - - Updated - - -

oh but you will find plenty of that here!

- - - Updated - - -

so anyone who disagrees with your politics is nuts huh

 

Cool. What laws of physics have been denied?

 

yeh so when the conspiracist scored a point the oshuggers went more bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy

 

Now why would you need to ask that question? An obvious law of physics is claimed to be violated. If you don't know, then perhaps you should take a physics course before you try any more debunking of truth.

 

Actually, I have...more than a couple so, what laws of physics are being denied? You're making a claim, now support it with proof....or, can't you do that?

 

I can't teach you physics on this forum. NIST claims that Newton's laws of motion were violated in three WTC buildings on 9/11.

 

so when faced with facts more name calling.

 

No they did not.....
In fact anyone who knows physics can understand what NIST said is completely in line with the laws of physics. Claiming differently without proof is just like screaming on the street corner.

 

i corrected your interpretation, no name calling

 

How much building construction experience do you have? Some of these guys have over 40 year building careers. They disagree with you.
MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<<

 

yeh you just have to figure out when they are deceitfully referencing their model and the real building.

its all about deceit the same kind as is used here by some troughers