Another hit for the Cs - 9/11: change in perception

Conspiracy theorists sane and government dupes crazy, hostile according to recent studies

Kevin Barrett
Veterans Today
Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:00 CDTMap Print


Is this building falling or exploding? If you say “falling” you need to take your meds
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Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: "The research...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.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called "conspiracists" or "conspiracy theorists."

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.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

Click to expand...

Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation
Posted on September 11, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
What Do You Believe?

Preface: Americans have learned in the past decade that our government lied to us about:

Iraq weapons of mass destruction (and here)
The case for war against Syria (and see this)
Its involvement in false flag terror in Iran in the 1950s
Pervasive spying by the NSA
Manipulation of the markets by big banks
And various other important topics

But do Americans think that the government lied about 9/11?

A new poll shows that they do. At least about World Trade Center Building 7.

We’re not talking about the Twin Towers … although Building 7 was part of the same complex. No planes hit Building 7, no one was killed when Building 7 fell, no wars were launched on the basis of Building 7, and no civil rights were lost because of the destruction of Building 7.

In other words, Building 7 is a “safe topic” we can discuss without heated emotion. And numerous high-level architects and engineers have already debunked the government’s claims.

Following is a press release from ReThink911 and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – a group of more than 2,000 architects and engineers – concerning a new poll by YouGov.

How would you answer the poll questions?

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was sponsored by ReThink911, a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1. The campaign includes a 54-foot billboard in Times Square and a variety of transit and outdoor advertising in 11 other cities, all posing the question, “Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?”

Among the poll’s findings:

38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;
46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:
46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know; [in other words, more people think controlled demolition than believe the government's narrative]
By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.
30-Second Video Shown to 1,194 Survey Respondents:


“The poll shows quite clearly what we already knew. Most people who see Building 7’s collapse have trouble believing that fires brought it down,” said Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the campaign’s major sponsor. “It simply doesn’t look like a natural building collapse, and that’s because all the columns have been removed at once to allow it to come down symmetrically in free-fall. The evidence of controlled demolition is overwhelming. As more and more people learn about Building 7, public demand for a new investigation grows. People want the truth.”

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), normal office fires caused the failure of a single column, starting a chain reaction that brought Building 7 down. More than 2,000 architects and engineers have signed the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition that questions NIST’s explanation of the building’s collapse.

“Even the government’s own computer model disproves its theory. It looks nothing like the actual collapse,” said Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area. “Not only that, they refuse to release the data that would allow us to verify their model. In the world of science, this is as bad as it gets. I’m glad most people can look at the collapse and see the obvious.”

The ReThink911 campaign calls for a new investigation into Building 7’s collapse, as well as the destruction of the Twin Towers. The YouGov poll and the ad campaign were financed with more than $225,000 in donations from thousands of supporters.

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 1194 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 27th – 29th August 2013. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all US adults (aged 18+).

_http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/poll-more-americans-believe-world-trade-center-7-was-demolished-on-911-than-believe-the-governments-explanation.html

Click to expand...

Buddy said:

I wonder how many people can see an invisible dynamic at work in society that this kind of information reveals? For me, I see a force that's been gaining momentum and acting like a wedge, separating out those people who believe in the official account of 9/11 from society at large.

On a social and societal level, continuing the questioning of the official story, keeping the issue alive in the social consciousness and writing articles that provide feedback on how it's all going, seems to be a very good way to use people's own mechanical thought and behavior in ways that will eventually benefit them. I'm guessing that part of what's happening also includes the idea that when people whose (pseudo) self-esteem is based strictly on social approval find out they are on the wrong side of what they thought of as the main-stream, they mechanically shift themselves away from unpopular minority views.

I think another perception is generally emerging. That is, the perception that 9/11 was never a mere intellectual issue patterned after yes/no binary oppositions based on more or less equally weighted opposing positions or beliefs. It's always been a phenomena of those conspirators who believe in and push the Gov't propaganda and everyone else.

Click to expand...

Courageous Inmate Sort said:

This makes me think of the question of origin, how did it begin? My guess is that this is the role of groups such as this, that incessantly dig for truth and then make it available, starting a ripple effect through society (most likely non-linear).

Click to expand...

Buddy said:

If they're accurate, I think of them as feedback and a *wink* from DCM!

Click to expand...