Letters to the Editor
-
"Selective Perception" works both ways
As a Professor of Psychology, I agree with Farhad Manjoo that "selective perception" can introduce systematic biases into the ways we perceive and interpret reality. So, yes, people who are distrustful of the government are going to be more likely to perceive ominous and conspiratorial signals in the pictures from 9/11.
However, I would point out that "selective perception" works BOTH ways. Farhad, who seems much less distrustful of our government, looks at the same evidence and blithely dismisses any talk of conspiracy. This proves absolutely nothing at all, other than demonstrating that "selective perception" affects ALL people, not just paranoid leftists.
I also take exception at his assertion that "911 conspiracy theorists ... all rely on photos to make their case." This kind of categorical assertion is sloppy journalism. I am probably what Farhad would deem a "911 conspiracy theorist", yet very few of my doubts about the official 911 story are based on photos. They are based on basic facts of the case (e.g., why did NORAD stand down and not sent fighter jets to intercept the hijacked airliners, why were so many public figures warned to stay away from commercial air travel in the days preceding 911, why did WTC 7 collapse despite not being hit by a plane, etc).
- Stephen Christman, Ph.D.
-
@ Borduin, Popular Mechanics? Seminal Scientific work? LOL
Jayhan's an idiot. Lots of people are. Not all truthers are idiots.
(Yeah I know just me)
By all means people, read that great semen stained work of "scientific" journalism. Popular Mechanics? Popular Mechanics? The horror. The horror.
Then go read this: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
If you want to go at it the other way round, what if they had disagreed with YOUR bias and published a truther article? Would then be selling it as the last word? No. I didn't think so.
Like Farhad and some of the posters here, the authors go for the stupidest, lamest theories out there and then "debunk" them. Scienterrifically!
This is the best you've got? Yellow journalism written by Chertoff's cousin?
Did you believe in the WMD too? How about that Gulf of Tonkin incident? Or the "attack" on the Maine. Maybe you missed the Lavon affair, but hey it never happened right?
-
Adding to Previous Post.
I had attempted to attach this URL to the previous post, but for some reason it didn't show up.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/it-does-happen-in-america.html
It's not directly relevant to 9-11 except to show that the Bush administration is capable on all levels of fairly dastardly political manipulation by and through and around the legal system, as well as any and every other way, and we would all be collectively insane to assume that the Federal Government is NOT involved in structuring history and reality to serve its own purposes rather than to "procure the general welfare" of the American people.
It's almost Easter and I'll certainly believe in the Easter Bunny before I'll believe that George Bush DIDN'T have a hand in planning 9-11.
-
A Strawman is No Substitute for Critical Thinking Either
Quote:
"Here's what's most interesting about this movement: 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- from Jayhan to the provocateurs who produced the popular film "Loose Change" -- all rely on photos to make their case, the same images that the rest of us use to support our version of the story."
Isn't this something of a strawman argument? Is the whole criticism reduced to merely subjective photo interpretations? The photos offer some evidence which is accessible to everyone - that is why discussions often begin there. The public is not allowed to sit in on the private deliberations of those in power who pen the official story.
Why must I swallow whole the explanation of either the establishment or the paranoid? Aren't you presenting a false dichotomy? Am I not allowed to have a critical mind?
Can you honestly say that you have no reservations regarding the conventional explanation for why Building Seven collapsed in the manner it did? Did the government really do it's job in representing all voices when it authored the truth of 9/11 so presumptiously? Who, then, is so talented as to "know" the truth. Someone recognizing our existential dilemna should be frightened of how little we know and wonder at those who offer us certainty.
-
@Gordon Wagner
I mean, honestly, how large a mountain of details would you need to see before you accepted that 9/11/01 was scripted?
For me, this mountain of evidence is lacking one crucial piece: another example of something the Bush Administration scripted, that was executed successfully. Otherwise, you have to compare the stunning success of the 9/11 inside job with things like Katrina, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the outing of Valerie Plame. When I make this comparison, I recall a lesson I learned from watching Sesame Street: One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...
I don't buy the official story. I can imagine some corrupt elites figuring that an attack was likely, and deciding to turn a blind eye. But to imagine this group of bumbling imbeciles actually scripted this thing, involving hundreds of people all with competing interests, requires me to believe in too many things I know not to be true, the main one being "competence in government."
-
You're right Gordon, it's the Jews
It always is.
-
@Billion Angry Bees
I'm wondering, how many different ways can you find to declare your idiocy and vacuousness? With each of your posts continuing to underscore this point, I find the amount of variation you're able to provide to be quite staggering.
As you were...
-
@ christman, AKA "the nutty professor"
Bias does cut both ways. And we see lots of it here.
I agree that pictures are far from the only evidence. Like you, I kept expecting to hear that there were interceptors in the air. But they never came, not even after an hour!
But there were not, just a few - who never arrived on time, not surprising since they never flew at top speed, or were vectored off in the wrong direction. One of the biggest flaws in the official story is the lack of fighter cover that day. Andrews AFB is only 13 miles from the Pentagon. On Sept. 11, they had 150 interceptors there. The first plane was identified as hijacked at around 8:25 AM EST, the last plane did not strike the Pentagon until 9:38. Simple question. Where were the interceptors? Hell where were the helicopters? They could have hit the thing with a SAM too from Andrews, or even the ones that must have been at the Pentagon. But they did not. It all fell down that day, everything. Just a coincidence they say, mere incompetence, yeah right.
As for Farhad he is notorious for his sloppy "journalism" and is not to be taken seriously, just the other day he posted that the errant spy satellite had been shot down by a "cruise missile". Must have been a really low altitude spy sat, like 60 feet off the ground.
But back to psychology. One of the biggest problems is convincing people that someone that they think they "know" like Bush or even Cheney is capable of such acts. Hell they just killed 1.2 million Iraqis, basically for oil, Israel and empire. What's a few thousand people to an extreme sociopath? Nothing, as you know.
Then there is cognitive dissonance, the source of a million "Yeah buts".
I am glad you weighed in, they will have some trouble branding you "crazy" or "stupid", but if I was you I would keep your MMPI test results handy just in case.