The 9/11 Forum

I strongly suspect that a MIHOP scenario is what actually took place on 9-11-01, and for this reason I'd like to ask the participants of this forum if they think I should seek some sort of professional help.

I've read many times that people who tend to believe in a 9-11 conspiracy theory probably have more deep-seated problems they can't deal with.

What do you think? Is a person who strongly suspects high level US Govt complicity in the events of 9-11-01 because of the queer nature of the WTC 7 fall or because the Pentagon video survellience on 9-11 was apparently inferior to that of your local gas station, or because the Pentagon damage seemed way too small to be caused by a 767, just paranoid? Or maybe just a loser?

Or maybe a pretty good person, but they are perhaps susceptible to criminal conspiracy theories?

Is such a VP just the product of the dillusional minds of millions of people?

Allow me to address the general question, not concerning you in particular.

One of the annoying things about JREF "debunkers" is their endless pronouncements about truthers, usually based on a factoid, but a factoid just begging for context so that it's significance can be ascertained. Invariably (I almost wrote "almost invariably", but I really can't think of any exceptions), they are resistant to any sort of psychological or anthropological considerations that might mitigate their endless (and usually monotonous) condemnations, and are also just as disinterested in any serious research (of the anthropological kind) on truthers or other "conspiracy theorists" that might generate solid information on the truther community.

Gee, I wonder why that is? Not exactly of the scientific mindset, now, are they?

I recently listened to a therealnews.com segment, which had journalists discussing why financial journalists did such an awful job predicting the credit crunch. (On JREF, both max photon and I drew parallels about the government's capacity for lying on financial matters to it's (apparent) capacity to lie about 9/11). Wouldn't you know it, but a Financial Times journalist had a Ph.D. in anthropology, and argued for an anthropological interpretation? Another journalist spoke of "cultural momentum", and it's associated psychology. Intelligent journalists are perfectly capable, during their introspective post-mortems, to try and understand a complex phenomena without a simplistic straight-jacket of players analogous (at least in its stupidity) to either "in on it" ("it" being some sort of conspiracy) or "thinks it's ridiculous, so why bother". Ah, but nuanced arguments that do justice to complex phenomena isn't a JREF strong point.... *

If you want a flip answer to your question, which is insulting to boot, you can simply post it at JREF, and you will get a whole bunch of 1 and 2 line responses from pretentious "debunkers". But even if you ask truthers, who of course don't view themselves as irrational or neurotic, either, what do they really know about the facts of the matter? All they can do is speak for themselves, and their impressions of any other truthers that they know (or know of.) Not exactly a solid method for drawing conclusions about a group of millions of people.

I wish some serious research on 911 Truth adherents would be done. The fact that so many years have gone by since 9/11, though, and there doesn't seem to be much at all, suggest that there will not be a good answer to your question, ever.

* Too bad we couldn't get journalists of the intellectual caliber evident in therealnews.com segment to address the question. I really think this is a task for university anthropologists and psychologists, but where are they? Probably having serious discussions with intelligent journalists about politics, is my guess.

Metamars:

Interesting post.....

Here is a very good example of JREF "debunking" at its finest!

It was posted yesterday (Nov 10th, 2008), by an entity who calls himself "Technoextreme. In the post copied below Technoextreme expresses, (in no uncertain but anonymous terms), his opinion of David Chandler's video analysis and calculation of the WTC 7 collapse acceleration:

"In order to do the type of analysis that he is talking about we first have to know where he got the video and the camera. The weird thing is that they could be doing analysis on video that is missing information. You have optical distortions that you need to correct for which you can't do with that software package (Technically, don't need the camera).
EDIT:
After re-watching five seconds of the movie he validated my opinion. He's a )*(Y&(*&ing moron that isn't an engineer because an engineer wouldn't be caught dead doing the moronic, half brained, idiotic things he is trying. YOU DON'T CALIBRATE THE FREAKING IMAGE USING LINES DRAWN ACROSS IT. IT'S A BLOODY DAM COMPLICATED PROCESS. WARNING. WARNING. DO NOT FALL FOR STUPIDITY. THEIR ANALYSIS IS STILLBORN.
EDIT EDIT:
I was right. He's a mathematician/physicist. You would think the electrical (Yes this is electrical engineering's domain.) engineers would help out."

All I can say is: Sad, really sad ......

Let me be a bit speculative to possibly save time.

I'll guess that the single most common source for a MIHOP VP is the fall of WTC 7. And this MIHOP VP is not the result of any quantitative features of the collapse such as fall time or the height of the rubble pile or any physically measurable features of the fall.

It is due to the direct perception that qualities of the collapse were rather peculiar.



So a simple form of the main question of this thread could be: Do you think that people who see how WTC 7 collapsed as highly suspicious are just being neurotic? Or are they just a big bunch of losers, perhaps?

Could there be any just, rational basis for suspicion of foul play considering the way in which WTC 7 fell?

MT,

I think it is rational to suspect or place a probability on MIHOP, but not rational to "believe" or be sure about MIHOP.

Some reasons why I think MIHOP is a possibility:
1. Anthrax attacks on Democratic leaders and the media while trying to make it look like islamic terrorists. The FBI appears to be no where near solving this case. What was the motive? Was Ivin's a rabid anti-democrat and hater of mainstream media?
2. The Bush administration has demonstrated that they are willing to mislead to accomplish an agenda
3. The Bush administration has demostrated that they are not particularly concerned with casualties or human rights (e.g. American Soldiers, Iraqi civilians, ground zero rescue workers, torture of prisoners, etc.) in the context of accomplishing an agenda.

Nonetheless, I think the probability is low that a few individuals within the government operatively supported the attacks with intent. I think the probability is extremely low that more than a few people within the government operatively supported the attacks with intent.

/Greg

Nonetheless, I think the probability is low that a few individuals within the government operatively supported the attacks with intent. I think the probability is extremely low that more than a few people within the government operatively supported the attacks with intent.

Thanks for replying. I want to understand where you are coming from concerning 9-11 events because you have mentioned you suspect LIHOP. You seem to have a very rational and skeptical approach to processing information so I am particularly interested as to why you tend towards LIHOP.

In this thread I would like to first limit ourselves to the collapse of WTC 7 in considering whether MIHOP is a truly rational perspective.

The questions will move from specific to general thus:

1) Do you think that people who see how WTC 7 collapsed as highly suspicious are just being neurotic? (The case of WTC 7)


2) Do you think that people who see the photos of the damage to the Pentagon as being shockingly inconsistent with the claim it was made by a large commercial jet (767) are just being neurotic?


I don't want to tackle the rationality of a general 9-11 MIHOP VP without focusing on the 2 cases above.



The 2 cases above seem to be the pillars of a MIHOP VP. Both cases challenge both the Govt account and a LIHOP account of events.

I may add a third pillar of MIHOP, which would probably be the anthrax attacks.


Let's use these specific 9-11 events to determine whether or not a MIHOP VP can be considered to be fundamentally rational or whether we are, in fact, dealing with a bunch of losers and whiners.

MT,

1) Clearly there is something strange about the collapse of WTC7.
a. Based on the work Einsteen, OWE and Dr. G are doing here, it appears it fell faster than most conventional CD's.
b. Even after a very long investigation, some of the best scientists in the country (i.e. NIST) have failed to explain the collapse.
c. Virtually no steel was saved for forensic purposes.

Personally, I have trouble finding a motive for taking down the building. There are easier ways of destroying incriminating evidence. Furthermore, anything that is computerized (essentially everything) is backed up off site. There is also the ubiquitious question of how many would have been involved in destroying the building and how they are kept quiet.

2) The plan that hit the Pentagon was a 757. Given that I am not particularly knowlegable about the Pentagon issues, my impression (based on the composite pictures) is that the damage is consistent with a 757 impact.

Not being a psychologist, I am unable to classify deep suspicion in these contexts as neurotic (i.e. paranoid). I think, however, that it would come down to the individuals world view more than these specific issues in trying to assess this.

I saw an interesting article at 9/11 Blogger regarding just this issue:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18483

Major_Tom wrote:I strongly suspect that a MIHOP scenario is what actually took place on 9-11-01, and for this reason I'd like to ask the participants of this forum if they think I should seek some sort of professional help.

To put it simply, no.

Carl Jung as an answer for this in regards to how politics as an effect of the neurosis on the individual psyche.

Carl Jung wrote:"If, for a moment, we regard mankind as one individual, we see that the human race is like a person carried away by unconscious powers; and the human race also likes to keep certain problems tucked away in separate drawers . . . Our world is, so to speak, dissociated like a neurotic, with the Iron Curtain making a symbolic line of division. . . . It is the face of his own evil shadow that grins at Western man from the other side of the Iron Curtain"

Major_Tom wrote:I've read many times that people who tend to believe in a 9-11 conspiracy theory probably have more deep-seated problems they can't deal with.

This as been claimed many times, but is totally unfounded. People will and always had problems they can't deal with before 9/11 and for many years afterwards, so it makes that argument invalid.

Its a great distraction though, because it doesn't answer the question of whether there was a conspiracy or not on 9/11.

Major_Tom wrote:What do you think? Is a person who strongly suspects high level US Govt complicity in the events of 9-11-01 because of the queer nature of the WTC 7 fall or because the Pentagon video survellience on 9-11 was apparently inferior to that of your local gas station, or because the Pentagon damage seemed way too small to be caused by a 767, just paranoid? Or maybe just a loser?

Some would argue you are both Major Tom, although I would disagree.

For a start, you do not appear to show any signs of paranoia which is quite evident in those who suffer with it, or are going through an episode of paranoia.

And as for being a loser, that is just subjective.

Major_Tom wrote:Or maybe a pretty good person, but they are perhaps susceptible to criminal conspiracy theories?

Some people are more susceptible to criminal conspiracy theories than others, I'm sure it could be demonstrated in some kind of test but a persons susceptibility as nothing to do with whether a criminal conspiracy as taken place or not.

Major_Tom wrote:Is such a VP just the product of the dillusional minds of millions of people?

Well apparently so...and that is all you need to qualify that statement. lol

When people put others on a high pedestal, they can be perceived to be higher or above the parameters of normal unethical human behaviour, when the reality is it is actually delusional to think ANYONE can never do any wrong.

Cheers

Stundie

well, if i think the sky is blue, and the sky is blue, does that make me a paranoid loser?

that little logical statement should put you at ease. it is not paranoia when they ARE out to get you.

i believe it's irrational to NOT question the obvious smoke and mirrors cover-up perpetrated the government, military and media.

I strongly suspect that a MIHOP scenario is what actually took place on 9-11-01, and for this reason I'd like to ask the participants of this forum if they think I should seek some sort of professional help.

Quite the gentlemen our posters are.

Could you imagine the reaction such an OP would receive at the JREF forum? I would have been drop-kicked right out of the forum.


I am obviously being a bit sarcastic in the OP, not actually weighing the possibility of seeking professional help.

Carl Jung wrote:
"If, for a moment, we regard mankind as one individual, we see that the human race is like a person carried away by unconscious powers; and the human race also likes to keep certain problems tucked away in separate drawers . . . Our world is, so to speak, dissociated like a neurotic

I am increasingly seeing the collective reaction to the recorded fall of WTC 7 as possibly the single most interesting question of 9-11, and it is a psychological question, not one involving the physical sciences.

Consider the spectrum of varied, highly intriguing reactions which people have when looking at a video of the fall of WTC 7.


To the point, what can this tell you about the condition of humanity in general?



Or imagine a large hall full of engineering "experts" gathered to watch the known video clips of the fall of WTC 7 and then being treated to a lecture of the official NIST explanation of the cause of the collapse, given by a NIST representative himself.

Now imagine you could read their inner thoughts during this process. Wouldn't that be fascinating?

How much true human individuality would you be able to observe in the room? Imagine the possible question and answer session that could follow.

Imagine the degree of internal and external sheepishness manifest.

How many of those present would really be capable of rational, independent thought and sincere questioning of the contradictions before them?

Do you see my point? Why this is rather interesting psychologically?

Major_Tom wrote:Quite the gentlemen our posters are.

Could you imagine the reaction such an OP would receive at the JREF forum? I would have been drop-kicked right out of the forum.

I am obviously being a bit sarcastic in the OP, not actually weighing the possibility of seeking professional help.

Hi Major_Tom,

It's good to question ones sanity by asking yourself are you mad to believe in the possibility of a conspiracy. Even in your humorous and sarcastic OP....lol

Major_Tom wrote:I am increasingly seeing the collective reaction to the recorded fall of WTC 7 as possibly the single most interesting question of 9-11, and it is a psychological question, not one involving the physical sciences.

Consider the spectrum of varied, highly intriguing reactions which people have when looking at a video of the fall of WTC 7.

To the point, what can this tell you about the condition of humanity in general?

I have always been interested in psychology but I'm not sure if watching the video of WTC 7 can tell us any thing about the conditions of humanity as a whole.

However, you are correct in that it usually boils down to a psychological question once all the physical science and questions are done.

I'm sure if you showed the video to random people in the streets with no prior knowledge of the building and it's relation to 9/11 and asked them to tell you how they thought the building collapsed, I'm sure most would say it looks like it was a controlled demolition.

There are no other examples or comparators of buildings collapsing in this manner without the use of explosives, some people might suggest otherwise , some might suggest they just don't know. I'm sure there is some footage of a news anchor commenting on how they thought the collapse of WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition.

From a psychological point of view, the judgement of those viewing the video will be nothing more than a guess based on there previous experiences and knowledge and it doesn't really tell us much, other than how they viewed it.

Of course scientifically, this doesn't address the question of whether it is a demolition on or not.

Take for example the science of the free fall collapse times of WTC 7 which have recently been discussed on this forum for instance. The evidence and analysis suggest that it fell at free fall speeds for a few seconds during its collapse.

As far as we are aware and understand, there isn't a method for this type of collapse to happen naturally without removing the resistance underneath it and it begs the question, how did this happen?

One choice is a Demolition theory which when the physical science as been done, is a much better match than a single column fire induced collapse theory for the simple reason, if one columns fails, then there is still resistance in other columns which would not allow a free fall time to be recorded.

Another choice is a single columns failure which doesn't explain the free fall collapse speeds analysed and recorded.

So to continue with the official theory requires the denial of the evidence which disproves it.

Now a true skeptic would always suggest that there is a possibility that we did actually witness a single column failure in the 1st building to ever collapse at free fall speeds from fires due to some paranormal event we are currently not aware of. (Which I'm sure there will be some debunker explaining this paranormal event as we speak!) This possibility is very small and there are numerous reasons why this is even less likely to have to be true considering that other buildings in the surrounding area received much more damage from debris and fire yet they didn't collapse.

Therefore which theory is more likely?

This is where it becomes a psychological argument.

As one of the answers is psychologically quite uncomfortable fro certain people to digest and deal with.

I'm sure you can guess which one? lol

Major_Tom wrote:Or imagine a large hall full of engineering "experts" gathered to watch the known video clips of the fall of WTC 7 and then being treated to a lecture of the official NIST explanation of the cause of the collapse, given by a NIST representative himself.

Now imagine you could read their inner thoughts during this process. Wouldn't that be fascinating? How much true human individuality would you be able to observe in the room? Imagine the possible question and answer session that could follow.

Imagine the degree of internal and external sheepishness manifest.

How many of those present would really be capable of rational, independent thought and sincere questioning of the contradictions before them?

Do you see my point? Why this is rather interesting psychologically?

Psychology is very interesting and a great way of understanding the thought processes which drive behaviour.

One thing we must look at is the beliefs of those experts though as this can skew our view of the world or what we witness. As in some people are likely to trust and hold faith in what NIST say, others would be more skeptical, depending on their preconceived ideas surrounding 9/11 before they went to the presentation. A true skeptic must always remain agnostic, even when there is more evidence supporting one theory over another.

Communication is a 2 way thing liberally speaking and this would be a key factor to how any presentation would be received and responded too. There are many other attributing factors as to how the experts would behave which would be in direct response to how NIST present their evidence. Some will comply, other won't but if we analyse the behaviour of a complier and someone who doesn't in that every behaviour as a positive intention.

Think of a positive intention along the lines of Dawkins Selfish Gene in that we do everything to ensure our own survival whether that is physical or mental or altruistic or self serving. Imagine someone murdering someone, despicable as it is, there is always a positive intention, whether it is to silence someone, claim insurance money, gratification of power and numerous other reasons.

However, in certain environments communication can be manipulated or even stifled. Just look over at the JREF forum for numerous examples of this...lol

If we look closely at the behaviour though of the individual or group, which is linked to the psychology of how we act and see the world, then we can understand the mindset using this simple rule of positive intentions for an analysis of how they think.

If NIST were trying to BS independent experts most, if not all would see through their charade! NIST would have about as much credibility as Laurel and Hardys construction company. That is simply too risky.....I can't imagine NIST ever doing any presentations with real experts for the simple reason they would be made to look like fools.

NIST as opted for a tactical way of defeating opponents by creating reports, making them final and just simply deny and ignore any points or criticism because it's now case closed. Therefore no further communication on that subject.....it's final you know!

Cheers

Stundie

I'm sure if you showed the video to random people in the streets with no prior knowledge of the building and it's relation to 9/11 and asked them to tell you how they thought the building collapsed, I'm sure most would say it looks like it was a controlled demolition.

Exactly. But I'd guess the same video shown to groups of engineers within their workplace environment would yield a different reaction. These folks would give more carefully guarded responses, very few risking being viewed as a "crackpot" by their "peers".

These random people on the street would actually be more free to express their views to a stranger than engineers in a group of their fellow workmates.

I'm not sure how many of you have had the opportunity to experience the extreme levels of conformity to which groups of engineers within a large corporation are subject.


Giving the "wrong" (nonconformist) answer to the WTC 7 question in a public setting could cost the career-minded (and aren't the large, large majority of engineers career minded?) engineer his possibility for future promotion into management.

The level of sheer conformity and political sheepishness within large US corporations is something that needs to be experienced to be believed.

If NIST were trying to BS independent experts most, if not all would see through their charade! NIST would have about as much credibility as Laurel and Hardys construction company. That is simply too risky.....I can't imagine NIST ever doing any presentations with real experts for the simple reason they would be made to look like fools.

I agree. The forces keeping the herd of NIST "experts" all singing the same tune are much more subtle. Given the comment about the person on the street above, wouldn't you think that at least one person on the team, when analyzing WTC 7 collapse video as a group, wouldn't at least in his private thoughts express:

"Damn, that sure looks like a CD".

Hard to believe that this thought didn't cross the minds of at least a few of them, though they wouldn't dare express it openly...because...


shoot, folks, you know why.





But this deserves it's own thread.