U.B.S., a "Swiss Bank" in Name Only
This post has been re-edited and moved to my new blog, " Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports" here
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Psychology of 9/11 Video Fakery Denial
The Psychology of 9/11 Video Fakery Denial
[From a 911 Discussion forum] : "A while ago we were deeply discussing the no plane theory - well, I said I didn't think it was possible to do such C.G.I. in 2001 "
My reply :It appears to me that there is a simple choice involved here. You can choose to believe either:
[1] that CGI [i.e. computer generated imagery] was physically and technically impossible in 2001 and that therefore, large airliners _could_ fly whole inside and through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings with no on-film evidence of them either breaking up or even slowing down outside the buildings upon initial impact, while leaving almost perfect cookie-cutter holes documenting their passage in [but not out!],
or,
[2] that large airliners cannot fly through buildings in one piece [even in 2001 !] , it is physically impossible for them to do so, and that therefore CGI _had_ to be possible back then.
A simple process of deductive reasoning with two choices, each choice with two , black vs white [ie no grey areas] "a" vs."b", "impossible"vs "possible" scenarios to weigh/consider before reaching a conclusion, it seems to me.
That is, the physical [a] "impossibility" or [b]"possibility" of CGI technology being in use in 2001,
weighed against the physical [a]"impossibility" vs [b] "possibility" of airliners fully entering 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece without slowing down, while creating "Roadrunner" style entry holes at alleged entry points into those buildings.
How one arrives at choosing the a's and b's of what is and is not possible here, at least in your case, appears to be a result not of starting from the crucial and necessary position [ for honest scientific review] of complete neutrality in reviewing all evidence before reaching a conclusion based on neutral review of that evidence; but starting instead from a pronounced, consistent, pre-bias towards the evidence presented by both the government, and by the largely government funded "scientific" and "journalistic" community that supports them and is in turn supported by them [hows that for impartiality?], with the result being your eagerness to consistently ignore what are generally accepted as immutable principles of [i] basic scientific research procedure [ie purposely ignoring one's own pre-bias in all assessments of evidence untill all evidence is collected/reviewed from a position of impartiality], and [ii] supposedly immutable, widely accepted laws of high school physics such as Newton's 3rd law of motion, in order to either consider or claim that CGI technology was not around and usable in 2001.
To summarize, to avoid mental discomfort , [i.e. you are employing a psychological defense mechanism], and therefor merely out of convenience, you are choosing to seriously consider/believe that CGI technology was not possible in 2001, in order to to be able to continue to believe that it was [and presumably still is] possible for airliners to defy fundamental laws of physics and crash into and through steel and concrete in the manner depicted in the videos [ i.e choice [1] ].
It would seem that the opposite conclusion [i.e. choice[2] no planes into buildings -faked videos] is simply too much for you to handle. Psychologically speaking,I understand your need for convenience. After all, most people would rather continue in denial of the truths and inevitable conclusions which must be drawn from choice [2]- it is simply to much for both their ego's, and their world view.
The mental gymnastics and contortions of both procedural and evidentiary denial such as you consistently display here are far from uncommon, and actually the norm, just basic ,self reinforcing,defensive "grasping at straws" such as a proposed "impossibility of CGI in 2001" issue in order to evade having to change one's hastily drawn conclusions and to continue to support your ego's pre-existing world view .
In short, it is impossible for you to conclude anything other than what you have-your ego and its belief system demands defense when threatened by uncomfortable facts, and will use any excuse [i.e choice [1] ] it can come up with to reinforce itself and carry on in the manner it is accustomed to.
[Another all too common example of "grasping at straws" would be the "what about the plane witnesses" defense, when any average fairly honest cop will admit that eye-witness testimony is almost completely unreliable to the point that in cases brought to trial it is almost inevitably disregarded as being a reliable verification of anything, one way or another.]
Although your average , cartoon and movie-watching , non-critical thinking troglodyte may well believe that airliners are fully capable of behaving in the manner depicted for fl.175 in the "amateur" videos when confronted with 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, you have no such excuse, given your claimed background.
e.g. please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzDzX4XP7E
Still, I' m constantly fascinated by the denial mechanism at work from whatever source -thank you for your entertaining ,transparent denial [ie choice [1] ] - you rational, unbiased, "scientifically- minded" person, you!
For the original comment thread, click here.
[From a 911 Discussion forum] : "A while ago we were deeply discussing the no plane theory - well, I said I didn't think it was possible to do such C.G.I. in 2001 "
My reply :It appears to me that there is a simple choice involved here. You can choose to believe either:
[1] that CGI [i.e. computer generated imagery] was physically and technically impossible in 2001 and that therefore, large airliners _could_ fly whole inside and through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings with no on-film evidence of them either breaking up or even slowing down outside the buildings upon initial impact, while leaving almost perfect cookie-cutter holes documenting their passage in [but not out!],
or,
[2] that large airliners cannot fly through buildings in one piece [even in 2001 !] , it is physically impossible for them to do so, and that therefore CGI _had_ to be possible back then.
A simple process of deductive reasoning with two choices, each choice with two , black vs white [ie no grey areas] "a" vs."b", "impossible"vs "possible" scenarios to weigh/consider before reaching a conclusion, it seems to me.
That is, the physical [a] "impossibility" or [b]"possibility" of CGI technology being in use in 2001,
weighed against the physical [a]"impossibility" vs [b] "possibility" of airliners fully entering 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece without slowing down, while creating "Roadrunner" style entry holes at alleged entry points into those buildings.
How one arrives at choosing the a's and b's of what is and is not possible here, at least in your case, appears to be a result not of starting from the crucial and necessary position [ for honest scientific review] of complete neutrality in reviewing all evidence before reaching a conclusion based on neutral review of that evidence; but starting instead from a pronounced, consistent, pre-bias towards the evidence presented by both the government, and by the largely government funded "scientific" and "journalistic" community that supports them and is in turn supported by them [hows that for impartiality?], with the result being your eagerness to consistently ignore what are generally accepted as immutable principles of [i] basic scientific research procedure [ie purposely ignoring one's own pre-bias in all assessments of evidence untill all evidence is collected/reviewed from a position of impartiality], and [ii] supposedly immutable, widely accepted laws of high school physics such as Newton's 3rd law of motion, in order to either consider or claim that CGI technology was not around and usable in 2001.
To summarize, to avoid mental discomfort , [i.e. you are employing a psychological defense mechanism], and therefor merely out of convenience, you are choosing to seriously consider/believe that CGI technology was not possible in 2001, in order to to be able to continue to believe that it was [and presumably still is] possible for airliners to defy fundamental laws of physics and crash into and through steel and concrete in the manner depicted in the videos [ i.e choice [1] ].
It would seem that the opposite conclusion [i.e. choice[2] no planes into buildings -faked videos] is simply too much for you to handle. Psychologically speaking,I understand your need for convenience. After all, most people would rather continue in denial of the truths and inevitable conclusions which must be drawn from choice [2]- it is simply to much for both their ego's, and their world view.
The mental gymnastics and contortions of both procedural and evidentiary denial such as you consistently display here are far from uncommon, and actually the norm, just basic ,self reinforcing,defensive "grasping at straws" such as a proposed "impossibility of CGI in 2001" issue in order to evade having to change one's hastily drawn conclusions and to continue to support your ego's pre-existing world view .
In short, it is impossible for you to conclude anything other than what you have-your ego and its belief system demands defense when threatened by uncomfortable facts, and will use any excuse [i.e choice [1] ] it can come up with to reinforce itself and carry on in the manner it is accustomed to.
[Another all too common example of "grasping at straws" would be the "what about the plane witnesses" defense, when any average fairly honest cop will admit that eye-witness testimony is almost completely unreliable to the point that in cases brought to trial it is almost inevitably disregarded as being a reliable verification of anything, one way or another.]
Although your average , cartoon and movie-watching , non-critical thinking troglodyte may well believe that airliners are fully capable of behaving in the manner depicted for fl.175 in the "amateur" videos when confronted with 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, you have no such excuse, given your claimed background.
e.g. please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzDzX4XP7E
Still, I' m constantly fascinated by the denial mechanism at work from whatever source -thank you for your entertaining ,transparent denial [ie choice [1] ] - you rational, unbiased, "scientifically- minded" person, you!
For the original comment thread, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)