Tag Archives: 9-11 Paranoia Terrorism American prisons

New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile (aka—I’m not crazy, everybody really does hate me….)


Is this building falling or exploding? If you say “falling” you need to take your meds…..

 by Kevin Barrett

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Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11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.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=259824

Well, it’s high time (11-12 years late…?): Justice Delayed may be Justice Denied—but most of the Perpetrators of America’s Greatest Deception on 09-11-2001 are still alive, and can still be punished for Treason….

Sheen and Harrelson to star in 9/11 ‘truther’ film

Film calls for independent investigation into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001

Yahoo UK Movies NewsBy Ben Arnold | Yahoo UK Movies News – Thu, Oct 18, 2012 11:38 BST

  • Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are to star in a new film which questions the official story behind the 9/11 attacks.

‘September Morn’ supports some of the theories of the ‘truther’ movement, which has questioned the established version of the events of September 11, hinting at a government conspiracy.

[Related story: The real life inspiration behind movie conspiracies]

9/11… Sheen and Harrelson to star in ‘September Morn’ (Copyright: PA)

The publicity note which the film is using, rather than give the usual idea of plot, reads: “We the people demand that the government revisits and initiates a thorough and independent investigation to the tragic events of 9/11. In the vein of ‘Twelve Angry Men’ this dramatic piece is set with a stellar and award winning cast.”

Also signed up are Judd Nelson, Ed Asner and Esai Morales.

So far Hollywood has shied away from suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy at the heart of the terrorist attacks, with films like Oliver Stone’s ‘World Trade Center’ in 2006 and Paul Greengrass’s ‘United 93’ taking a non-partisan stance.

But Sheen and Harrelson have previously been vocal with their over what happened.

“I did not want to believe that my government could possibly be involved in such a thing, I could not live in a country that I thought could do that – that would be the ultimate betrayal,” said Sheen during a 2007 interview.

“However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 – how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?”

Sheen was referring to 7 World Trade Center, the collapse of which many in the ‘truth movement’ point to as evidence of a conspiracy, after he was turned on to an alternative explanation by his son Charlie.

Meanwhile Asner, who voiced Carl Fredricksen in Pixar’s ‘Up’, has said in interview: “My bottom line on all of this is that this country – which is the greatest, strongest country that ever existed in the world, in terms of power – supposedly had a defence that could not be penetrated all these years. But all of that was eradicated by nineteen Saudi Arabians, supposedly. Some of whom didn’t even know how to fly.”

The film is being made by the same company which produced ‘A Noble Lie’, a documentary about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

2,605 people died in 2001 when 19 Islamist hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia, while another crashed in Pennsylvania ahead of its target of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, the subject of Greengrass’s film ‘United 93’.

Comment on 3-17 Salon.com Article: “How photos support your own ‘reality'”

Yes, I’m a “9-11 Truther,” and Very Ashamed (of what it says about my Country, that is)…..

I am very sad and ashamed that I do not trust my government, but I think you’d have to be insane to trust this particular government we’ve had for the past twenty years (Bush-Clinton-Bush). There’s a reason why the “X-Files” was so popular in the 1990s—it’s because NOBODY in their right mind really trusts the US Government anymore. Brian Strosser wrote: “That is the beauty of paranoia: once embraced, it relives you of ever having to think again.” I demur!

Whether we agree on the historic details of specific conspiracies or not, however, I think we can or should ALL agree that it is blind faith in the power and righteousness of our Government that has made up one flimsy excuse and lie after another to go out to kill, kill, kill throughout the world while we jail, jail, jail our own people here at home.

One aspect of history that has so far been ignored by the other posters is “pattern”—the repetitive patterns of medium range history that characeterize different eras.

In the United States a decade of political assassinations, started in 1963 with Kennedy, followed in rapid succession by Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, & ending, strangely enough, with George Corley Wallace, who survived as a paralytic cripple the attack on his life in Silver Spring Maryland in 1972. There were attacks on Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan each several years later, but the era of the successful “lone gunman” assassin seems to have ended with Arthur Bremmer and the Alabama Governor.

It seems that the world’s puppetmasters simply decided that it was time for a new strategy, because there had never been a decade of political assassinations like 1963-1972 in U.S. history, and there has not been one since. Or did the psychoses which generated “lone gunmen” just ameliorate thanks to sufficient doses of readily available “soma”?

And then in 1992, a decade of incidents of terrorism started in 1992 with the Federal standoff at Ruby Ridge. Immediately after Ruby Ridge, at the start of the Clinton Administration, followed the February 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the tragedy at Waco (Branch Davidian Mount Carmel) and then Okalahoma City 1995.

After Oklahoma City, the “endgame” became more readily apparent: Congress enacted AEDPA, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, origin, source, and precursor of the Patriot Act, most elements of which had been proposed in 1993 after World Trade Center I…..

But even Oklahoma City was not the “new Pearl Harbor”—that had to wait another five years, and then it happened, with 9-11 culminating the decade of domestic terrorism in the United States—and nothing much has happened since, except that Bin Ladin remains at large (allegedly the most wanted criminal in the WORLD—but it’s nice to have him around to keep people fearful—even if he’s actually just retired and gone on vacation to Rio or something) and American Civil Liberties and the Constitution as a whole are all imprisoned, on starvation diet, and will soon die if not released from their “cold steel storage.”

So IMHO there’s a connection between the Kennedy Assassination and 9-11 all right—both are arguably incidents used as tools of U.S. National Policy.

Why are there prisons being built at breakneck speed around the country with Federal Dollars?

Why is Congress criminalizing almost every form of conduct while judges arrogate themselves the power to violate the constitutional rights of every citizen with impunity AND immunity from prosecution?

Why is former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer resigning from the Governorship of New York for involvement with a good-looking hooker when the entire legal profession has prostituted itself to every value for which “America” ever stood? Look at the attached article on the sordid history of the Bush Administration’s attack on a more recent Democratic Governor of Alabama…it is scandalous and inexcusable!


No, indeed, I think that it’s time to admit that with our Government, if you trust them, if you’re NOT paranoid, you’re truly insane and delusional…

There was one candidate this year who MIGHT have changed all this country’s trustworthiness for the better, and like most of my fellow “9-11 Truthers/9-11 Deniers/9-11 Non-Sheep”, Ron Paul was ridiculed and belittled.