Paranoid Personality Disorder and the 9/11 "Truth"

[Jay Ref]

Conspiracy Theories Explained

That police car? That song on the radio? That man with a cigarette walking by? They must be part of a massive international conspiracy.

Kapur calls it "biased inductive logic" -- a top-down effort to explain the feeling that everything seems important. The cognitive parts of a schizophrenic's brain create the paranoid tale in an effort to explain the constant red alert blaring from the dopamine circuits, using any stimuli available. This is why delusions are culturally appropriate. African schizophrenics may fear they've fallen under the spell of a shaman, while Kapur's patients in Toronto think that the Mounties are after them.

An example of the type of inductive logic rife within the CTer community is this:

Argument from analogy

An (inductive) analogy proceeds from known similarities between two things to a conclusion about an additional attribute common to both things:

P is similar to Q.
P has attribute A.
therefore
Q has attribute A.

An analogy relies on the inference that the properties known to be shared (the similarities) imply that A is also a shared property. The support which the premises provide for the conclusion is dependent upon the relevance and number of the similarities between P and Q. Fallacy related this this process is false analogy.

A controlled demolition causes a quick collapse.
WTC #7 fell quickly.
Therefore WTC #7 was a controlled demolition.

Right there; the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement is revealed to be based on a false analogy proferred by people who are undoubtedly suffering from various levels of paranoia.

The resistence to objective reality and slavish devotion to "teh movement" are diagnostic markers pointing to a paranoid social disorder. These people are extremely hard to treat as they function to some extent and are extremely suspicious of their health care providers. They live lonely lives of delusion and suspicion.

Sad really, but then along comes the "truth movement"....in reality a club for nuts who want to network and feel better about themselves.

How 'bout that for TRUTH?

-z

[chipmunk stew]

John White, as someone interested in the psychological aspects of 9/11 Truth, I'm interested in your thoughts on this article.

[Dogsmilk]

A controlled demolition causes a quick collapse.
WTC #7 fell quickly.
Therefore WTC #7 was a controlled demolition.

Right there; the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement is revealed to be based on a false analogy proferred by people who are undoubtedly suffering from various levels of paranoia.

I'm kicking myself for responding to such childish piffle, but just to point out that the leap between the alleged logic employed re wtc 7 to 'paranoia' is itself an argument from analogy.

Personally, as someone who's worked with people with such unpleasant and destructive diagnoses I find using such concepts to make digs at people with different opinions to be in rather poor taste. Please grow up.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

What sort of brain type buys the official story, 911 commision report ,all those 911? I dunnit OBL videos they keep on finding, Fox news....

[aggle-rithm]

What sort of brain type buys the official story, 911 commision report ,all those 911? I dunnit OBL videos they keep on finding, Fox news....

A non-paranoid brain type. Most people don't dispute EVERYTHING they hear. It could get to be a lot of trouble. (Miss, do you actually expect me to believe that these grapes are REALLY 39 cents a pound?)

[SHERITON HOTEL]

...the tooth fairy, Santa, the war on terror, friction powered steel smelters...

[aggle-rithm]

...the tooth fairy, Santa, the war on terror, friction powered steel smelters...

Another symptom is that they mutter to themselves.

[Ignatz]

Another symptom is that they arrange to have it all ways (from the General forum, edited to limit it to the carrier business ) :

Also, I read at a forum that according to the Hal Turner show, “based on inside sources”, a US aircraft carrier will be sunk and blamed on Iran as a pretext for war. We do after all have carriers in that region.

Based on all of the chatter, something will surely happen. Then again, a lot of this is also well-timed fear-mongering to scare the masses in to the arms of the "security aware" GOP. There are some big elections coming up and the right's biggest issue based on the polls is security.

In other words if the carrier is sunk, it's a conspiracy.
If it isn't sunk, it's a conspiracy.

[Johnny Pixels]

Another symptom is that they arrange to have it all ways (from the General forum, edited to limit it to the carrier business ) :

Also, I read at a forum that according to the Hal Turner show, “based on inside sources”, a US aircraft carrier will be sunk and blamed on Iran as a pretext for war. We do after all have carriers in that region.

Based on all of the chatter, something will surely happen. Then again, a lot of this is also well-timed fear-mongering to scare the masses in to the arms of the "security aware" GOP. There are some big elections coming up and the right's biggest issue based on the polls is security.

In other words if the carrier is sunk, it's a conspiracy.
If it isn't sunk, it's a conspiracy.

Sink an aircraft carrier? Well I guess they want a new Pearl Harbour...

But on a more serious note, this shows how out of touch CTists are with their theories. An American aircraft carrier would be one of the most difficult ships to sink, because it is the most valuable and therefore the most heavily defended. If the US were to sink a ship and use Iran as a scapegoat, it would be a small patrol vessel, one out on its own, not a ship admist a giant battlegroup. Aircraft carrier sounds better though, but then I wouldn't be surprised if the ship changes depending on the CTists mood, and/or actual events.

[chipmunk stew]

Another symptom is that they arrange to have it all ways (from the General forum, edited to limit it to the carrier business ) :

Also, I read at a forum that according to the Hal Turner show, “based on inside sources”, a US aircraft carrier will be sunk and blamed on Iran as a pretext for war. We do after all have carriers in that region.

Based on all of the chatter, something will surely happen. Then again, a lot of this is also well-timed fear-mongering to scare the masses in to the arms of the "security aware" GOP. There are some big elections coming up and the right's biggest issue based on the polls is security.

In other words if the carrier is sunk, it's a conspiracy.
If it isn't sunk, it's a conspiracy.

Sink an aircraft carrier? Well I guess they want a new Pearl Harbour...

But on a more serious note, this shows how out of touch CTists are with their theories. An American aircraft carrier would be one of the most difficult ships to sink, because it is the most valuable and therefore the most heavily defended. If the US were to sink a ship and use Iran as a scapegoat, it would be a small patrol vessel, one out on its own, not a ship admist a giant battlegroup. Aircraft carrier sounds better though, but then I wouldn't be surprised if the ship changes depending on the CTists mood, and/or actual events.

"Dinghy capsizes in Lake Po'Monkey, soaking everyone on board"

Dubya did it!

[aggle-rithm]

Sink an aircraft carrier? Well I guess they want a new Pearl Harbour...

But on a more serious note, this shows how out of touch CTists are with their theories. An American aircraft carrier would be one of the most difficult ships to sink, because it is the most valuable and therefore the most heavily defended. If the US were to sink a ship and use Iran as a scapegoat, it would be a small patrol vessel, one out on its own, not a ship admist a giant battlegroup. Aircraft carrier sounds better though, but then I wouldn't be surprised if the ship changes depending on the CTists mood, and/or actual events.

Those neocons just want more money for their defense budget, so they can buy more aircraft carriers, so they can sink them in a false-flag operation, so they can get more money for their defense budget....

[John White]

John White, as someone interested in the psychological aspects of 9/11 Truth, I'm interested in your thoughts on this article.

I'll get to it soon

[John White]

Paranoid schizophrenics are prone to delusions, tales in which random events become deeply meaningful. Some believe in complex conspiracies; others think they are Jesus Christ.

OK so far

These stories sound crazy

I suppose they do

But they may be the brain's efforts to make sense of its own internal messages, suggests * Kapur, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and vice president of research at the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Everything is the result of the brains efforts to make sense of its own internal messages. This actually says nothing. Boy if the human race only understood this

In addition to other brain abnormalities, schizophrenics have too much dopamine. Just as addicts' desensitized dopamine systems make them feel that nothing matters, high levels of the neurotransmitter make schizophrenics believe that everything is significant.

Theres science for this, agreed

Because the addict's dopamine-driven salience system keeps telling her that something very important is happening, ordinary events appear intensely meaningful. That police car? That song on the radio? That man with a cigarette walking by? They must be part of a massive international conspiracy.

But this does not mean that the view that there is an international conspiracy is proof of schizophrenia. Here this article is starting to slide

Kapur calls it "biased inductive logic" -- a top-down effort to explain the feeling that everything seems important. The cognitive parts of a schizophrenic's brain create the paranoid tale in an effort to explain the constant red alert blaring from the dopamine circuits, using any stimuli available. This is why delusions are culturally appropriate. African schizophrenics may fear they've fallen under the spell of a shaman, while Kapur's patients in Toronto think that the Mounties are after them.

Kapur has a theory. But again, this does not show the view that there is a conspiracy is evidance of schizophrenia. Have critics any idea how dangerous this is?

Did Stalin conspire (I:E: plan in secret) to engineer events contrary to the states public pronouncments? Did Hitler? Did Mao?

Guess what they did with people who tried to put out that information

Kapur cautions that this theory is still speculative

Right

but it could support a radical idea: treating schizophrenia with cognitive therapy. If drugs control the overactive dopamine system, patients may then gradually unlearn their delusions.

Now we are into spin: there is nothing radical or new about such a suggestion. Just what were the schizophrenics on the wards tonight taking as their compulsary meds?

Therefore, the extension of this article is: "Belief in Copnspiracy Theory is proof (strong indicator) of schizophrenia, and ergo anyone who exhibts such belief should be treated/considered for treatment with psychiatric drugs"

I'm sure that is a view held to some degree by a number of JREF members, for which I can only say:

"Forgive them, they know not what they do"

And read some R D Laing!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=

I wonder what the result of a poll asking critics "should truthers be sectioned for their own good" would be?

[John White]

For critics information (as I have little confidence they will put time into the link out of simple curiosity) Laing is one of the giants of psychiatry who had a truly progressive view of what is still a proffesion in its infancy (no matter how learned it likes to project itself as) ,and which is engaged in much treatment that is essentially barbarity, due to entirely economic considerations:

Who wants to put money into trying to actually cure mad people? Far better simply to control them, with profits for a lifetime for the drug companies. No corporate profit in councelling and therapy: which is why the mad don't get them, only the wealthy mad

His view on schizophrenia is that it an entirely healthy reaction of the mind cleansing itself of toxins in the psyche (Toxic ideas). If given time and compassion and a minimal policy of drug intervention, he had amazing success with curing cases. He was really hated!

Essentially, he said that the individual could not be blamed for their reaction to an insane world. Not something an insane world liked to hear

[John White]

A controlled demolition causes a quick collapse.
WTC #7 fell quickly.
Therefore WTC #7 was a controlled demolition.

Right there; the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement is revealed to be based on a false analogy proferred by people who are undoubtedly suffering from various levels of paranoia.

Btw, this is nonesense. I know critics are fans of this kind of reasoning but it really doesnt stand up

What we have is a situation where a building fell

This event has not been explained convincingly by any official statement (however proud critics are of their own theories)

Holding the view that the building was CD'd is the result of asking "If not fire, what else could account for a collapse of a building in this way". It is an end product, not a leap of illogical reasoning

To prove this is easy. All critics have to do is ask:

"If we hypothesised that the collapse through fire theory was incorrect, what other theory could account for the known evidance?"

If any of you find anything other than CD at all convincing, let me know so I can call you a nutter

Thats if critics can actually manage the exercise. Flexible mind required

Jayref's post has all the hallmarks of meerly tarring one's opposition with unsubstantiated derogatory allegations. This is in itself evidence of a psychological weakness, and I do love irony.

[jsut_peopel]

Holding the view that the building was CD'd is the result of asking "If not fire, what else could account for a collapse of a building in this way". It is an end product, not a leap of illogical reasoning

To prove this is easy. All critics have to do is ask:

"If we hypothesised that the collapse through fire theory was incorrect, what other theory could account for the known evidance?"

If any of you find anything other than CD at all convincing, let me know so I can call you a nutter

See there is your problem right there. Your initial assumptions are wrong, so regardless of how logical your reasoning is, your answer will be wrong. Crudely put, "* in leads to * out."

[John White]

Dont dodge the question. If critics have truly applied critical thinking (as opposed to simply thinking critical) then they must have applied it to their own reasoning. A belief that WTC7 collapased due to fire can only be held to be sound if and when other hypothesis have been considered and rejected. If critcs cannot say "there is this other possibile explanation but I rejected it as being highly unlikely" they havnt actually followed through a critical thinking process at all, and are willfully deluding themselves

I know your an engineer, but its really not that difficult to grasp. If critics havnt considered other hypothesis, they are in no position to cast aspirtions against truthers reasonings

[chipmunk stew]

Dont dodge the question. If critics have truly applied critical thinking (as opposed to simply thinking critical) then they must have applied it to their own reasoning. A belief that WTC7 collapased due to fire can only be held to be sound if and when other hypothesis have been considered and rejected. If critcs cannot say "there is this other possibile explanation but I rejected it as being highly unlikely" they havnt actually followed through a critical thinking process at all, and are willfully deluding themselves

I know your an engineer, but its really not that difficult to grasp. If critics havnt considered other hypothesis, they are in no position to cast aspirtions against truthers reasonings

Many of us have considered various intentional destruction hypotheses and found them to be severely implausible. Part of the problem is, the people suggesting CD hypotheses are rarely prepared to defend them or even to explore them--they merely try (unconvincingly, IMO) to poke holes in the structural damage/fire-induced heat theory, and then they punt to unnamed "independent investigators" (who they faithfully believe will discover some kind of intentional destruction mechanism) to develop alternative hypotheses.

So let me be the first to say to you directly: there is this other possibile [sic] explanation [several, in fact] but I rejected it as being highly unlikely [severely implausible, actually].

[Ally]

shurrup stu

[chipmunk stew]

shurrup stu

Yes, sir.

[jsut_peopel]

Dont dodge the question. If critics have truly applied critical thinking (as opposed to simply thinking critical) then they must have applied it to their own reasoning. A belief that WTC7 collapased due to fire can only be held to be sound if and when other hypothesis have been considered and rejected. If critcs cannot say "there is this other possibile explanation but I rejected it as being highly unlikely" they havnt actually followed through a critical thinking process at all, and are willfully deluding themselves

I know your an engineer, but its really not that difficult to grasp. If critics havnt considered other hypothesis, they are in no position to cast aspirtions against truthers reasonings

I didn't dodge the question, I merely pointed out that your "WTC7 collapsed due to fire" example is inaccurate. It is the same dodge CTers make when they claim that WTC 1+2 couldn't possibly have collapsed due to fire so it must have been CD. For some reason there is a strange inability of some people to address the cumulative damage these buildings sustained. Instead they pick which ever aspect of the damage they want to and ignore all the rest.

If you are modelling something, your initial assumptions are very important, they will determine how useful your model is. If you ignore large chunks of information, then your results will be useless. And that is exactly what you did in the post that I commented on above. You then, even after having this pointed out to you, made exactly the same mistake in your next post. It seems like willful ignorance on your part I am afraid.

[chek]

Dont dodge the question. If critics have truly applied critical thinking (as opposed to simply thinking critical) then they must have applied it to their own reasoning. A belief that WTC7 collapased due to fire can only be held to be sound if and when other hypothesis have been considered and rejected. If critcs cannot say "there is this other possibile explanation but I rejected it as being highly unlikely" they havnt actually followed through a critical thinking process at all, and are willfully deluding themselves

I know your an engineer, but its really not that difficult to grasp. If critics havnt considered other hypothesis, they are in no position to cast aspirtions against truthers reasonings

I didn't dodge the question, I merely pointed out that your "WTC7 collapsed due to fire" example is inaccurate. It is the same dodge CTers make when they claim that WTC 1+2 couldn't possibly have collapsed due to fire so it must have been CD. For some reason there is a strange inability of some people to address the cumulative damage these buildings sustained. Instead they pick which ever aspect of the damage they want to and ignore all the rest.

If you are modelling something, your initial assumptions are very important, they will determine how useful your model is. If you ignore large chunks of information, then your results will be useless. And that is exactly what you did in the post that I commented on above. You then, even after having this pointed out to you, made exactly the same mistake in your next post. It seems like willful ignorance on your part I am afraid.

Still perpetrating the claptrap JP?

Asymmetric damage + scattered fires + heavy smoke = perfect simulation of a CD

Engineer, you say?

Seems like the wilful ignorance is coming from one direction, and it ain't from the truther's camp.

Hey it just occurred to me - what if in one of those one-in-a-trillion accidents of history, it just happened that way accidentally, yet that was the trigger that blew the lid off the whole scam.
Wouldn't that be, like, really cool?

[Patrick Brown]

So religious people are completely sane? Reality and our semblance of order in the world relies on a common consensus. If it's possible to control millions nay billions of people / minds with religion (it would seem to be possible) then wouldn't it be possible to control the masses with another well crafted fairy tail?

The issues for me isn't just about 911 it's about being aloud to think 'for my self'! When people think for themselves they begin to see how the wool has been pulled over their eyes. They also become a threat to the predators that propagate the mind control mechanisms that most take for granted. I'm sure many people hear about the 911 CT but choose to ignore it as it disrupts their safe little world and probably sends their mind reeling.

I think that dogged adherence to the CT or the official story is probably not healthy although it may feel good for a while. I don't know what happened on 911 and I only happened to hear about the CT a few months ago and it blow me away. There is certainly something suspicious about the events of 911 and people that deny this fact are indeed living in a fantasy world.

[aggle-rithm]

Still perpetrating the claptrap JP?

Asymmetric damage + scattered fires + heavy smoke = perfect simulation of a CD

Engineer, you say?

Seems like the wilful ignorance is coming from one direction, and it aint't from the truther's camp.

Hey it just occurred to me - what if in one of those one-in-a-trillion accidents of history, it just happened that way accidentally, yet that was the trigger that blew the lid off the whole scam.
Wouldn't that be, like, really cool?

Part of the "scaling up" problem is that if you observe a chaotic incident (such as a building collapse) on a very large scale, from a distance it looks smooth and symmetrical. Up close it is just as random and chaotic as the scaled-down version would be. That's because from a distance, you are seeing the AVERAGE activity of the component parts, most of which follow a common path that is determined by gravity or inertia. Up close you tend to see how each component part behaves.

If you've ever seen film of an avalanche from a distance, you can see what I mean. It just looks like a big slice of the mountain begins to move downhill as one unit. If you saw it close up, however, it would look very different.

[John White]

Dont dodge the question. If critics have truly applied critical thinking (as opposed to simply thinking critical) then they must have applied it to their own reasoning. A belief that WTC7 collapased due to fire can only be held to be sound if and when other hypothesis have been considered and rejected. If critcs cannot say "there is this other possibile explanation but I rejected it as being highly unlikely" they havnt actually followed through a critical thinking process at all, and are willfully deluding themselves

I know your an engineer, but its really not that difficult to grasp. If critics havnt considered other hypothesis, they are in no position to cast aspirtions against truthers reasonings

Many of us have considered various intentional destruction hypotheses and found them to be severely implausible. Part of the problem is, the people suggesting CD hypotheses are rarely prepared to defend them or even to explore them--they merely try (unconvincingly, IMO) to poke holes in the structural damage/fire-induced heat theory, and then they punt to unnamed "independent investigators" (who they faithfully believe will discover some kind of intentional destruction mechanism) to develop alternative hypotheses.

So let me be the first to say to you directly: there is this other possibile [sic] explanation [several, in fact] but I rejected it as being highly unlikely [severely implausible, actually].

Thats fine be me: my point is that you would not be a genuine critical thinker if you had not, on which I am sure we agree

[John White]

Lets get back to this, shall we?

Paranoid schizophrenics are prone to delusions, tales in which random events become deeply meaningful. Some believe in complex conspiracies; others think they are Jesus Christ.

OK so far

These stories sound crazy

I suppose they do

But they may be the brain's efforts to make sense of its own internal messages, suggests * Kapur, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and vice president of research at the Canadian Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Everything is the result of the brains efforts to make sense of its own internal messages. This actually says nothing. Boy if the human race only understood this

In addition to other brain abnormalities, schizophrenics have too much dopamine. Just as addicts' desensitized dopamine systems make them feel that nothing matters, high levels of the neurotransmitter make schizophrenics believe that everything is significant.

Theres science for this, agreed

Because the addict's dopamine-driven salience system keeps telling her that something very important is happening, ordinary events appear intensely meaningful. That police car? That song on the radio? That man with a cigarette walking by? They must be part of a massive international conspiracy.

But this does not mean that the view that there is an international conspiracy is proof of schizophrenia. Here this article is starting to slide

Kapur calls it "biased inductive logic" -- a top-down effort to explain the feeling that everything seems important. The cognitive parts of a schizophrenic's brain create the paranoid tale in an effort to explain the constant red alert blaring from the dopamine circuits, using any stimuli available. This is why delusions are culturally appropriate. African schizophrenics may fear they've fallen under the spell of a shaman, while Kapur's patients in Toronto think that the Mounties are after them.

Kapur has a theory. But again, this does not show the view that there is a conspiracy is evidance of schizophrenia. Have critics any idea how dangerous this is?

Did Stalin conspire (I:E: plan in secret) to engineer events contrary to the states public pronouncments? Did Hitler? Did Mao?

Guess what they did with people who tried to put out that information

Kapur cautions that this theory is still speculative

Right

but it could support a radical idea: treating schizophrenia with cognitive therapy. If drugs control the overactive dopamine system, patients may then gradually unlearn their delusions.

Now we are into spin: there is nothing radical or new about such a suggestion. Just what were the schizophrenics on the wards tonight taking as their compulsary meds?

Therefore, the extension of this article is: "Belief in Copnspiracy Theory is proof (strong indicator) of schizophrenia, and ergo anyone who exhibts such belief should be treated/considered for treatment with psychiatric drugs"

I'm sure that is a view held to some degree by a number of JREF members, for which I can only say:

"Forgive them, they know not what they do"

And read some R D Laing!

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=

I wonder what the result of a poll asking critics "should truthers be sectioned for their own good" would be?

[aggle-rithm]

I think that dogged adherence to the CT or the official story is probably not healthy although it may feel good for a while. I don't know what happened on 911 and I only happened to hear about the CT a few months ago and it blow me away. There is certainly something suspicious about the events of 911 and people that deny this fact are indeed living in a fantasy world.

...according to you.

[aggle-rithm]

Lets get back to this, shall we?

Everything is the result of the brains efforts to make sense of its own internal messages. This actually says nothing. Boy if the human race only understood this

In a way, I suppose you're right, but most of these "internal messages" have some direct correlation to an objective reality that can be shared and evaluated. The point made by the article, I think, is that some people try to attribute an objective reality to purely subjective thoughts.

[Patrick Brown]

I think that dogged adherence to the CT or the official story is probably not healthy although it may feel good for a while. I don't know what happened on 911 and I only happened to hear about the CT a few months ago and it blow me away. There is certainly something suspicious about the events of 911 and people that deny this fact are indeed living in a fantasy world.

...according to you.

You want to watch that anxiety condition before it gets out of control!

The problem is people just don't want to wake up, it disturbs them from their fantasy lifestyle. People will find every excuse under the sun not to watch a 911 CT documentary. I've experienced this on several occasions and it's rather bizarre. I suppose it's all part of their conditioning and I'm not talking shampoo here!

[chek]

Still perpetrating the claptrap JP?

Asymmetric damage + scattered fires + heavy smoke = perfect simulation of a CD

Engineer, you say?

Seems like the wilful ignorance is coming from one direction, and it aint't from the truther's camp.

Hey it just occurred to me - what if in one of those one-in-a-trillion accidents of history, it just happened that way accidentally, yet that was the trigger that blew the lid off the whole scam.
Wouldn't that be, like, really cool?

Part of the "scaling up" problem is that if you observe a chaotic incident (such as a building collapse) on a very large scale, from a distance it looks smooth and symmetrical. Up close it is just as random and chaotic as the scaled-down version would be. That's because from a distance, you are seeing the AVERAGE activity of the component parts, most of which follow a common path that is determined by gravity or inertia. Up close you tend to see how each component part behaves.

If you've ever seen film of an avalanche from a distance, you can see what I mean. It just looks like a big slice of the mountain begins to move downhill as one unit. If you saw it close up, however, it would look very different.

Dear oh dear, I think you're getting confused AR.
It was the Towers that did the impersonation of an avalanche.
WTC7 was the 47 storey one that went straight down as if on rails.
You can hold a straight edge against your screen to check the chaos factor involved.
Perimeter + 70ft.
Textbook.