• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

conspiracy psychology debunked

dommyboysinjapan said:
Joey McGee,



No-one in the movement has suggested that the victim's families are liars (that i know of). It has been suggested by DRG, Kee Dewdney and others that perhaps these families were lied to. They base their suggestions on phone call anomalies.

Sometimes members are overbearing and indeed disrespectful to Standley, Combs, Marr, and others. It is a very large movement as you are aware and the more disrespectful actions are the ones that are easiest to remember. Not that I condone it. I don't. You all are working very hard to promote what you believe is the truth. Me too. Actually I'm working hard to learn more things. I am open to inmformation you give me. I see no need to be uncivil.

It is a myth that 9/11 Truthers are anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-Bush or anti-anything. We are good people just trying to seek credible answers to a complex event (that frankly seems to have a lot of problems with regards to a coherent narrative.)

I don't condone any name calling of any kind because I think it is childish and defeats the purpose of gathering information. It is also cruel. I am not a cruel person but I can't speak for everyone in the movement. They get called all kinds of names and it is human nature to recipricate such behaviour.
Click to expand...

Are you ******* serious?
YES some "truthers" DO call the victim's families liars, in fact far worse than that. Some sick ***** claim there WERE NO VICTIMS AT ALL. Some openly mock photos of victims. Have you seen the September Clues crap? The sick twisted VicSIM report? Those people are CLEARLY out of touch with reality, and INSANE.
Many truthers deserve to be called names, are you denying they don't call us names. I find being called a "Sheeple" very insulting. But it's ok for truthers to do that right?

Seriously, think about it. You are defending a bunch of dishonest, disrespectful and sometimes downright sick in the head people!
 
000063 said:
I still cannot understand why people believe a complex gov't scheme that would've involved hundreds, if not thousands, including people who would talk in a heartbeat, no matter what "incentivizing" the gov't had over them, would be easier to pull off than some guy finding two dozen fanatics and getting them to fly planes into buildings.
Click to expand...

There's no amount of "incentivizing" that would match what a whistleblower would make by selling his story. Simply hire an attorney, get immunity, then cash in on books, movies, interviews, etc.

The argument that they are afraid to talk because they fear for their lives doesn't hold water either. It's what they know that is protecting the perps. They're in more danger not telling. Once their story is out there, killing them doesn't do any good. Getting your story out is a lot safer than keeping it a secret.
 
Last edited:
Björn Toulouse said:
Close enough for me.

$75,450
Click to expand...

AH thank you sir!

Not for nothing, dommyboysinjapan, my original statement was "almost $80,000". I think I nailed it! :)

Let's not forget that's just what they paid him. Are his cars, meals, etc written off to the business? Where's the cheddar? Tri, I know you looked into this pretty deeply. Did you find anything like that?

Dommyboysinjapan,
Hopefully this is a giant red flag for you as it seems you're learning a lot about the "movement" from this thread. Welcome to the real world where almost everyone just wants your money. Even if you didn't contribute, you may have led others to by helping to sell the snake oil.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Telltale Tom,
Your presumptuous opening statement is amusing. You presume that there has been 'much' written about it. (I know there has been much written about it based on the speculations of authors and political scientists, but that is not what I asked for.) You presume that if there are a lot of real psychological publications about it that it will be easy to find online. Moreover I am not interested in your disappointment or approval.

This is fine as your opinion but it is just your opinion not psychology.

More speculation here but if your self validation pseudo-psychoanalysis had any merit whatsoever it would come with study samples that exhibit these kinds of behaviours in a controlled experiment. By the way, since Gage was kind of late on his involvement with the 9/11 Truth Movement, I guess his low sense of self identity didn't evolve until the last few years. What the heck was he thinking being happy with his job for so long and then deciding at a later date to feel unfullfilled? Coincidentally, all those feelings of unimportance seemed to well up within him at the very same time he was presented with the evidence of the collapse of WTC 7. Sure is funny how that works. lol
Click to expand...

And I thought you were looking at the matter from a professional perspective and trying to understand the psychology of the people that support conspiracy theories and this one in particular, and also to understand the psychology of the leadership.

I wonder why you dismiss my views that Richard Gage is trapped by the fame and following he found in the truth movement, compared to being an obscure middle-aged architectural project manager doing mediocre work. You say he was happy before 2006 and I assume that you can say this because you know him personally. Can you explain why he was happy with his status as a project manager after 20 years in the profession.? I don’t know many who are.

And why wouldn’t anyone be drawn in by the fame and fortune of being the leader of a group with “millions of supporters” . Maybe he had five or even ten people working for him as a Project Manager, but now he has "thousands" in his team. Wined and dined and transported around the world speaking to hundreds of people. Surely, even if Richard was of a strong moral character, he would be tempted. Poor Richard; people should have more sympathy and understanding for the position he finds himself in.

I also wonder why you dismiss the notion that people are influenced by the constant stream of entertainment that show conspiracies at every level in government. I think 24 is the best. They have government agents collaborating with terrorists in every show. Would you agree that this type of show creates the predisposition of some to believe that things like that really happen.? We certainly need people with imagination, like the writers of 24, to be part of the panel for the new investigation.
 
matt.tansy said:
Belief In Conspiracies Linked to Machiavellian Mindset | Miller-McCune

Abstract: Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire - Douglas - 2011 - British Journal of Social Psychology - Wiley Online Library
Click to expand...

Excellent!

The researchers found that “personal willingness to engage in the conspiracies predicted endorsement of conspiracy theories.” So did a propensity to manipulate others for personal gain.
Click to expand...

Didn't we just talk about Richard Gage and the 75K he makes off his faithful believers by selling lies?
 
Interesting article Matt.

This jumped out at me from Miller:McCune “These studies suggest that people who have more lax personal morality may endorse conspiracy theories to a greater extent because they are, on average, more willing to participate in the conspiracies themselves.”

And I thought that because we are called Truthers, we always have to tell the truth.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Let me EASILY debunk all 5 of the above points by saying this: If any of these "psychological theories" carry any weight whatsoever, then:

1) Why are there no psychological studies to support these theories?
2) Why is it that almost all of the top members and proponents of the 9/11 Truth Movement started out by first believing the mainstream version of 9/11? Most of them did for the first few years until they researched the evidence and then changed their minds. This applies to Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. David Ray Griffin, Jesse Ventura, and virtually all of them! If there is any merit to the above 5 speculations then one would expect they would immediately adopt their conspiratorial views for the reasons that are espoused (pathology, anti Americanism, profit, etc.)
3) The third one has actually been espoused in a number of places including the "History channel documentary: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Fact or Fiction." Think about how incredibly stupid this theory really is! It is more comforting to think ones own government did this than to think it was some outside terrorist group??? Are you kidding me????
4) Why has there never been any medical or psychological diagnosis of people who support 9/11 conspiracy theories if they suffer from any kind of clinical disorder? What basis does anyone have to label them as crazy in the absence of any clinical evidence whatsoever?

I think the so called 9/11 skeptic community that defends the mainstream narrative by using pseudo scientific psychology to push its propagandistic agenda only serves to discedit their own skepticism. It is crystal clear for the above four reasons that one cannot pass off the aforementioned five speculations as true psychology.
Click to expand...


You call that debunking? :jaw-dropp
 
Telltale Tom said:
“These studies suggest that people who have more lax personal morality may endorse conspiracy theories to a greater extent because they are, on average, more willing to participate in the conspiracies themselves.”
Click to expand...



Those who say "the conspirators are afraid to reveal that 9/11 was an inside job because they might lose their jobs" are just that kind of person.
 
matt.tansy said:
Belief In Conspiracies Linked to Machiavellian Mindset | Miller-McCune

Abstract: Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire - Douglas - 2011 - British Journal of Social Psychology - Wiley Online Library
Click to expand...


This is from Patrick Leman of the University of London who I mentioned previously here.

The lure of the conspiracy theory, New Scientist, July 11, 2007. pdf link

Create the perfect conspiracy theory

Pick your adversary

A sense of anomie (dislocation from society and authority) fuels beliefs in conspiracy theories, so pick a big bad organisation of some sort - government or big business is ideal

For added spice, identify a shadowy, secretive society with implied links to your adversary: the more shadowy, the better

Choose your event

You'll need a big, contemporary newsworthy event around which to weave your theory

If it's a sudden, shocking visual occurrence of international import it is more likely to become a "flashbulb memory" for the masses. Your key conspiracy audience, most able to create such vivid "indelible" memories will be between the ages of 20 and 35

Develop your story

Construct your theory from carefully selected information that weaves together into a compelling story

If something doesn't fit, reinterpret it in line with your theory

Create uncertainty: question existing evidence or find new evidence that contradicts the "official" account

Prepare your defence

If someone highlights a gap or inconsistency in your evidence, don't be afraid to tweak your story, but keep the core conspiracy in place

You can allow the finer details of the theory to mutate, but always keep in mind the maxim - "they did it, I just have to find the proof that they did it"

Broaden the circle of conspirators to include those who question your position... "they're denying the truth - they must be involved too!"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Justin39640 said:
AH thank you sir!

Not for nothing, dommyboysinjapan, my original statement was "almost $80,000". I think I nailed it! :)

Let's not forget that's just what they paid him. Are his cars, meals, etc written off to the business? Where's the cheddar? Tri, I know you looked into this pretty deeply. Did you find anything like that?
Click to expand...

hi justin,

here is some (laughable) information from his 2009 - 990 EZ Form. You can get the info pretty easily.

gage-3.jpg
 
Björn Toulouse said:
Those who say "the conspirators are afraid to reveal that 9/11 was an inside job because they might lose their jobs" are just that kind of person.
Click to expand...

Oh I see you are saying that people who are afraid of losing their job are likely to have more lax personal morality.

Doesn't that statement just prove the Miller:McCune maxim “These studies suggest that people who have more lax personal morality may endorse conspiracy theories to a greater extent because they are, on average, more willing to participate in the conspiracies themselves.”
 
Justin39640 said:
Let's not forget that's just what they paid him. Are his cars, meals, etc written off to the business? Where's the cheddar? Tri, I know you looked into this pretty deeply. Did you find anything like that?
Click to expand...

Not that I found. When I last asked for their Form 990, they were officially under the Agape Foundation, but since they are their own NPO, it will be a little more detailed.

I have requested a Form 990 from them today for 2010. We shall see how long it takes to get it. Once I get it, I will make sure to link it.
 
There is obviously a huge number of studies available on conspiracy theories. Hand-waving up a hurricane isn't how you would go about "debunking conspiracy psychology" Personally, instead of imagining my evidence, I like to start with the most likely place to find some references. Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Study_of_conspiracism

Well, that was enlightening wasn't? Just a drop in the ocean of papers probably. Let's see what pubmed says about conspiracy (just a tip boys and girls, pubmed is the greatest health information tool)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=conspiracy

whoa pubmed says 338 results for conspiracy! wow this is going to take forever to go through properly and you don't even have full access to a lot of it. Ok they have a sense of humor and the first result is a joke article about the Easter Bunny. But there's the Douglas paper and a smattering of ingenious research. Of course, it will take some sifting to find the actual studies and evidence, but that's how pubmed works. Lots of good studies and I'm sure you'll understand how to evaluate them and everything.

Then when you find some paper that you disagree with you get to go out and be a real scientist and prove them wrong. Submit your paper or do your own study with your own funding and submit that. If no one listens get a web domain and a youtube account, and if that doesn't work, you are probably insane. Evolution shaped our brains, we have cognitive biases, memes can explain a lot of this. Ya'll have no idea how far you are up poop river without a paddle or even a boat.
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
Actually, I'd say that your side can't logically debate the evidence so you have to fake the psychology (with non-psychology.)
Click to expand...


With this statement, I'm having difficulty in understanding why you wasted so much time and energy on what amounts to an utterly worthless thread. Did you think this was what would finally convince people that 9/11 Truth is to be taken seriously?

Just to reiterate what others have said: you don't have to be crazy to be wrong. Wrong is wrong. That we may wrongly accuse many truthers of mental illness is an unfortunate human habit, but it in no way turns the ignorant beliefs of truthers into wisdom and truth.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Justin39640,



Nonsense. Do you have a link or is it more gut feeling like the 'conspiracy theorist psychology.?'
Click to expand...

So far it seems when you exclaim 'nonsense' or some such blank denial, it actually means 'I'm ignorant of the facts, so I'll just assume you're wrong, without checking the facts for myself'

You were wrong about Richard Gage's salary from AE911Bullcrap, just as you were wrong in your reflexive denial about Dr. Steven Jones' musings about HAARP and Haiti.

So far it's not looking good for you, and I've barely bothered to look at what you've written so far. Like shooting proverbial fish in a barrel, innit?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
It is a myth that 9/11 Truthers are anti-Semitic, .. We are good people just trying to seek credible answers to a complex event (that frankly seems to have a lot of problems with regards to a coherent narrative.)
Click to expand...
It's not a myth if it's true - and it's perfectly true that there is a very strong streak of antisemitism amongst many truthers; there are even strong links between 9/11 Truth and holocaust denial. I'm not going to bother documenting this, as it's fairly easy to demonstrate, and has been discussed on these forums extensively.

You seem very poorly informed about your own movement, frankly.

I don't condone any name calling of any kind because I think it is childish and defeats the purpose of gathering information. It is also cruel. I am not a cruel person but I can't speak for everyone in the movement. They get called all kinds of names and it is human nature to recipricate such behaviour.
Click to expand...

Wow, you sure rush to defend the worst deprecations of your movement. I wish I had a dollar for every time some truther popped up on my youtube channel and called me a 'disinfo shill' for arguing about the physics of the WTC collapses.

You don't condone namecalling, but you don't condemn it either, in fact you slyly shift the blame onto the dreaded 'debunkers'. Nice try, you slippery fellow you.
 
I fail to see what the point of this thread is.

From what I can tell, dommysboy seems to think that the so-called "armchair psychology" applied by the "debunkers" is wrong and therefore somehow validates 9/11 Truth in a way that isn't defined in the slightest.

Got news for you; simply because we tend to collectively refer to 9/11 Truth as "insane" does not automatically translate to we believe the people who promote it are in fact insane. An idea can be insane without the people promoting it being so as well. There are probably a few (VERY few) people within the movement who have some sort of mental health disorder as defined by the DSM, but the vast majority are more than likely simply too lazy to really put in the research and think about the logical fallacies and poor research that permeates the entire movement; plus, they probably think it's cool to "stick it to the man" and feel like they're getting away with something. That's just human nature; look at how many people on the roads don't exactly obey the speed limit, for instance. They'll try to speed just enough to get where they're going a little faster, but not so much that the police will pull them over, essentially allowing them to get away with breaking the law.

Again, though, armchair psychology or no, the fact remains that all the facts and evidence that can be logically reviewed and examined supports the so-called "official theory"; that 19 men hijacked four planes and flew them into three buildings on the morning of 9/11, while one was forced down by the passengers and crashed in a field. There is no hand-waving away these facts; it happened that way, and claiming that our psychology analysis is flawed does not translate to 9/11 Truth is suddenly right. So, I put this question to you, dommysboy; exactly what was the point of this thread? Try to explain it concisely, please; I'm sure everyone here is curious to know exactly what you thought you'd accomplish by attempting to "debunk" conspiracy psychology (which you have thus far failed to do, by the way).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom