2011-12-17

Psychologists on coping with 9-11 truth

Bruecke Note: Before discussion partners realize that I am an industrial-strength 9/11 conspiracy theorist with a bat-shit crazy but well-researched and plausible skewed view of those events, they sometimes use the old yarn, "It would be impossible to keep a secret this big. It would leak out."  Some even go as far as stating their deepest beliefs: "I refuse to believe that our govt would actively plan on doing this to their own citizens." It truly is all about beliefs and belief systems, and how radical truths buried in rabbit holes are discarded by the sheople, not for rational reasons and not because of deficits in the premise, but because their belief systems does not allow room for it. The following video has carry-over into many of the alarmist type postings of the Vatic Project.

Psychologists on coping with 9-11 truth
Uploaded by on Sep 25, 2011
Why is Explosive 9/11 Evidence so Hard to Accept? Psychology Experts Explain.



http://youtu.be/trfCyvLAQd8

"The great masses of the people . . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -- J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." -- Marshall McLuhan




The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

21 comments:

American Action Report said...

You quoted the old yarn, "It would be impossible to keep a secret this big. It would leak out." Do you know how many people were involved in the Manhattan Project? The most closely guarded secret of all time employed 130,000 people.
That said, who's to say that the truth about 9/11 didn't leak out? On YouTube, there are untold thousands of clips showing eyewitnesses and forensic experts telling the truth about 9/11. Many of them suffered violent deaths after they had spoken out. The others are ignored by the corporate-owned media.
I posted the "Psychologists on coping with 9-11 truth" video on my blog a few months ago. I had almost forgotten it. Thanks for posting it again.

Albury Smith said...

Would someone please explain to me the difference between this patronizing and condescending video and ~19:32 of pure ad hominem?

Vatic Master said...

I would be happy to explain it to you if you would be more specific. Your comment was more along the lines of ad hominen attack than a specific complaint, how ironic.

If you will take the time to list specific things you believe were patronizing and condenscending, then I would be able to address your obvious either concerns or trolling and your answer to this will determine which it is. Thanks

Albury Smith said...

Colorado9/11visibility.org, the group represented in the video, claims to know more about building collapses than NIST SEs with doctorates and PE certification, despite the fact that none of its members has a science or engineering degree, so I think it would be more appropriate for them to explain the real science of the WTC collapses than to spend 15 to 20 minutes demeaning those of us who don't agree with them. I have contacted them several times with my "obvious concerns," and have yet to get a substantive response from any of them. "How ironic," but in response to my very polite inquiries regarding some of the 9/11 truth movement claims they endorse, I've received entire emails on the importance of civility in a discussion, but not one answer to any specific question. The red herring you posted looks like more of the same.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Albury Smith,

Your internet reputation precedes you. When I re-posted Craig McKee's articles from "Truth & Shadows", I also read the comments and learned of your banishment(s). One of many internet playgrounds that don't like your games, evidently.

Now that you have a Google Account, you're only a few steps away from establishing your own blog. "If you build it, they will come."

Albury Smith said...

When I encounter flagrant dishonesty, such as that peddled by Craig McKee and others inventing their own truth about 9/11, I prefer to confront the sources directly, not wait for them to come to me. What they do on their own blogs in response to facts and reason is up to them, but honest and legitimate truth seekers wouldn't simply silence dissent by banning everyone who disagrees with them.

Vatic Master said...

Well, Albury, you were not banned here, but came in with an attitude. As to the engineers. My very first banning on the issue of 9-11 occurred on the MSNBC sites that were active at that time. Why was I banned? Because a private engineering association, not the NIST, but a private group of engineers explained in detail in an article they published why the official story could not be true.

So I published it and got banned for it and the would not put up the paper I had read and the link etc for others to see and decide for themselves. Then NIST came along and said fully the opposite and then I found out NIST was coopted and practically owned and so I ignored them altogether. If you have a link to their report, I will appreciate having it so I can read it now that I am more fully educated by my engineer ex about the laws of physics etc and would be able to discern better today than I was then.

Albury Smith said...

Yes, VM; after watching the entire video here and on other sites, I "came in with [the] attitude" that it was nothing more than a not-too-subtle personal attack on everyone who doesn't drink 9/11"truth movement" Kool-Aid, and having had prior dealings with the people who appeared in it, I know that not one of them has any significant education or experience in a field relevant to building collapses, nor any willingness or capability to sustain an honest discussion of the topic, although they're excellent at ducking pertinent questions and talking around it.
I don't know what private group of engineers you cited, or why anyone would even care enough to ban you for regurgitating something you found on the Internet, but the fact that you aren't familiar with the NIST findings, think they're in one "report," and need someone to furnish you with the link speaks volumes to your own qualifications for this discussion. The NIST WTC investigations were conducted by an elite group of government and private industry investigators over a number of years, and the key reports are NCSTAR 1 (towers) and NCSTAR 1A (WTC 7), with the index to all of them at this link:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
Click on the report you want and then on the .pdf link on the NIST Manuscript Publication Search page that follows.
If you can devote time to reading "in detail...why the official story could not be true," then you certainly have time to look at how ~230 of the most educated, experienced, and respected forensic SEs and scientists in the world arrived at the conclusions you think are so wrong. You might also want to compare being "more fully educated by [your] engineer ex about the laws of physics etc" with the resumes of some of the people involved in the NIST investigations:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/team_members.cfm

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Smith,

(or "Agent Smith" or "Albury-bot" as I used to call you, so that you will know with whom you are discussing...)

You statement about "flagrant dishonesty... peddled" is -- ho-ho-ho-hum -- misframed, as usual.

I suggest you watch the video again. Recognize that changing your world view is painful, which is why you lash out with your agency talking points.

But change you must if you want the truth and to be on the right side of it.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Agent Smith,

You excel in pointing out the failures in others, while at the same time failing to see that you exhibit those very failings.

The cherished NIST report that you champion? Ho-hum. It has major holes that were pointed out to you in forum after forum after forum. I should know, because I personally called them to your attention.

I've told you before to build your own blog. If it is indeed truth that you peddle, readers will find you, come to your blog, become informed, and be inspired. I look forward to seeing the body of your work and knowing I have a way to contact you.

Know in advance that your posts here are permitted more for sport and my personal entertainment than anything else. Expect the duration of that to be much shorter than your tenure on Truth & Shadows, because -- ho-ho-ho-hum -- you're a very repetitive and tiresome Q-bot.

In keeping with your entertainment value, kindly answer the following questions.

1) When did you first recognize that the OCT was golden?

2) What pieces of evidence and analysis were laid out that sold you thoroughly on the OCT?

3) Have you had no doubts, no revelation of anomalies, and no evidence contrary to the OCT that made you waiver?

Here's the OCT that you defend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded

Albury Smith said...

Corbett is certainly a master of sophistry and the embodiment of his(?) "Ignorance is Strength" dictum, but the 9/11 plot, cover-up, and facilitating dupes weren't simply limited to "the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission"; they included thousands of eyewitnesses to the crashes and their aftermath, the FAA, NTSB, Val McClatchey, Wile E. Coyote, two major US airlines, Larry Silverstein and the rest of da' Joos, Chimp and Deadeye's successors in the White House, all of congress, the governments of nearly every nation on earth, the FDNY, NYPD, ASCE, Bugs Bunny, NORAD, the PNAC, PA State Police, Richard Myers, Lloyd England, FEMA, Popular Mechanics, the Mossad, Marvin Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of others. Oddly enough, only your 9/11 "truth movement" knows that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri's al Qaeda terrorist group were innocent patsies, since even their extremely wealthy and influential relatives have been silent on this important fact, and with the exception of one hasty denial while bombs were being directed his way, your hero himself was unaware of his lack of any role in the suicide attacks, judging by his and his organization's failure to mention it in the following decade or more. If you don't include this and other utterances of anti-Western hate:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

there's hardly even a discernible motive for the truck bombing of the North Tower in 1993, the suicide bombings of 2 US embassies in 1998, the suicide bombing of the Cole in 2000, or the suicide attacks of 9/11, so it's indeed a mystery that pundits of all stripes suspected al Qaeda as soon as the South Tower was hit, if not before.

To address some of the mendacity and absurd innuendo in the video you linked here, and keeping it brief since you're already threatening to ban me, there's overwhelming and consistent evidence from multiple sources that 19 men armed with pocket knives with up to 4"-long blades, boxcutters, and the benefit of surprise hijacked 4 planes and crashed them, and no reason to believe that they needed any real-time direction from anyone in Afghanistan, regardless of where you think he was, what you think he used, or what medical attention he might have been receiving. "The most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world" consisted simply of using 4 terrorists with FAA commercial pilot certificates to steer 4 already airborne planes in perfect weather conditions into large targets, with passengers and crew unwilling to risk crashing the planes by stopping them, and a defense consisting of 2 fighters on standby near Boston and 2 more near DC, none of which had sufficient time to intercept, or clear orders on what to do if they did.

I'll defer to you on what personal activities Islamic terrorists must engage in, but it's rather odd that your vast array of government insiders and evildoers couldn't have come up with better candidates than the 19 Arabs they finally listed several weeks in late September, 2001, after all name ambiguity and other problems had been resolved. The recovered FDR showed AA 77's path into the Pentagon, but Hanjour only spent the necessary time on Boeing simulators, and it's very possible that he couldn't fly Cessnas well enough to solo, or do a triple Salchow/triple toe loop either.

There were no drills involving airliner crashes on 9/11 or before, and the full NORAD complement was in place when the hijackings occurred, so that's a complete fabrication from your truth seeker.

(continued in next post-exceeded character limit)

Albury Smith said...

(continued from last post)

Barry Jennings existed, but demolition explosives aren't just heard by people within ~100' of them, don't target stairways, don't have a ~8-hour time-delay feature, and ones powerful enough to have severed the W14 X 730 columns in WTC 7 would have blown out all of the windows, deafened him, and most likely killed him, not to mention the obvious fact that they'd have left evidence throughout the debris. Considering the fact that a ConEd substation was right under WTC 7, and 2 planes crashed across the street, it very likely that he heard transformers shorting.

The 9/11 Commission members who criticized the final report do not question its basic findings, and since it wasn't in the scope, it didn't mention any of the destroyed or damaged NYC buildings other than the 2 targeted in the attacks, so your source seems to like straw men. Intelligence agencies don't make a habit of operating openly for obvious reasons, but that's highly suspicious to you and Corbett, I'm sure. Knowing what a terrorist group might do is not tantamount to preventing it, but 20-20 hindsight's grand.

I haven't "waiver[ed]" [sic] in my belief that the mainstream account is essentially accurate, and have seen no evidence to the contrary. I and many other also "champion" NIST, since it's probably the most experienced and respected group of forensic SEs and scientists in the world, with a proven track record of accomplishments. Please note their impact on codes, standards, and practices here:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/about.cfm

and get back to me when Box Boy and his "800 engineers" even publish one finding taken seriously by the ASCE, RIBA, or AIA.

Now be sure to ban me for actually making sense.

Vatic Master said...

Albury, you forgot to mention all the eyewitnesses inside the building who saw the explosions and said so and were then mysteriously eliminated. You also didn't mention who was in control of security and what happened to him.

You also forgot to mention Silversteins own admission that he told the fire dept to "pull" the building which controlled demolition experts on public tv said that means "to blow it up" or bring it down. Also you forgot to mention the problems silverstein had with those buildings with the asbestos and how much it was going to cost him to fix it and you forgot to mention the billions he got from the insurance company and I never say it was the "Joos" who did it, I said it was "Israel" who did it as did the "REAL JOO" Vanunu when he was released from prison.

Further, there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence that absolutely would have served to put someone in jail if they had not been an elite wealthy baron. There are a lot a people in prison right now on a lot less circumstantial evidence than what we have here.

FINALLY, what you can't argue is eyewitness testimony who saw it first hand on raw live feed when those explosions happened from the ground up and windows blowing out just like a controlled demolition. Sorry, but I saw it myself along with another woman who was working with me that day.

I also saw all the firemen and police interviews saying there were massive explosions from charges in the basement along with the head of maintenance who save a guys life. Same thing. I still have not had a chance to read the NIST report, but will and will get back to you on what I see. I will also check out who the NIST people are, where they were educated and if they joined any secret societies at their universities, as that tells us a lot about who they are. In the meantime, please go to our search box and put it "The brotherhood of the Bell: black arts and black sciences". I think you will find that a very interesting read. Thanks again for visiting.

Vatic Master said...

Just read your part II. Sorry, but we don't ban people here unless they are abusive and so far you have dealt with your opinion and not name called although you have gotten close a couple of times.

As the 9-11 commission, they took UNSWORN TESTIMONY from both Bush and Cheney which is a no no, but alas, if you have something to hide, you don't want to get into trouble by lying "UNDER OATH", now do you?

To be honest, I am happy to have an opposing point of view for those who are on the fence. If I had not seen what I saw myself on raw live feed, I would probably still be on the fence myself. I have not put in the time like Bruecke has on this subject, so I should let the arguing go on between you two.

I have focused more on the elites satanism and pedophilia and ways to get out from under these satanists, and he has focused more on the 9-11 actually event. You are always welcome to comment here since I am an avid passionate believer in "Free Speech", of all kinds without restrictions, as long as its respectful and in line with good arguments which you made very well.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Albury Smith,

Your canned rehash of the mind-controlled OCT talking points is b-o-r-i-n-g.

What does Google return when you type in "Albury 9/11" together with a keyword or two from anything you've written in your postings here?

Lots of other websites and blogs that tear your arguments to shreds. Therefore, there is little need for the Vatic Master or myself to ride your little merry-go-round again.

Instead, why not make your postings more interesting? Answer the questions. Here they are again:

1) When did you first recognize that the OCT was golden?

2) What pieces of evidence and analysis were laid out that sold you thoroughly on the OCT?

3) Have you had no doubts, no revelation of anomalies, and no evidence contrary to the OCT that made you waiver?

Albury Smith said...

Please feel free to enlighten me to "all the eyewitnesses inside the building who saw the explosions and said so and were then mysteriously eliminated," VM. The PAPD was "in control of [WTC] security," and I'm not sure what you think "happened to" them, but some were killed in the tower collapses. Hundreds of FDNY were in and around the WTC buildings on 9/11, and you can count on one hand the number of them who are in the "truth movement." Loud explosions are very common in major fires, and demolition explosives don't require someone within a block or two to tell us about them. They're also heard immediately prior to a collapse, and the sounds don't come from hundreds of feet below the collapse initiation level. Willie Rodriguez, the maintenance employee you're citing, experienced what others on the opposite sides of elevator doors did right after the plane crashes, when flaming debris bottomed out in shafts at both sky lobby levels and in the basement, blowing off the doors and in some cases killing people near them, but the other witnesses aren't touring the world and collecting donations for lying about it, or suing innocent people with nonsense. He's also claimed in a totally bogus lawsuit against the whole US government that a secret high-powered microwave weapon emitted a beam from a military C-130 that caused UA 93 to crash, and if you'd like to send him a donation, here's the link to his web site: http://www.william911.com/#
Because of early '70s code revisions, there was no asbestos in the South Tower or WTC 7, and only the bottom 38 floors of the North Tower had any at all, most of which had been abated long before 2001. Please explain why 12 different insurance companies, at least 4 of which were foreign-based (Copenhagen, Zurich London), all paid Silverstein a total of $4.68 BILLION if he publicly admitted to telling anyone to destroy his property. Just feeling generous? "Pull" and"pull it" are not industry terms for demolishing buildings with explosives, and property owners or lessees don't give orders to fire departments. I'd also love to hear why you think someone who committed a major felony would disclose it in a PBS interview, what Silverstein's reference to "such a terrible loss of life [in the tower collapses]" had to do with this alleged order, and when the FDNY got into the controlled demolition business, along with some examples of other buildings, burning or not, that have been blown up by them. His call from the FDNY representative came in mid-afternoon, so if Barry Jennings heard demolition explosives around 10 AM, why were Silverstein and the FDNY discussing at ~2:30 PM WHETHER to set them off? Despite "truth movement" spin and blatant dishonesty, he was very obviously talking about the FDNY's decision not to try to fight the fires in WTC 7, and unlike the controlled demolition fantasy, that actually happened and explains why there were no fatalities when it finally fell at ~5:21 PM.
M.C. Bruecke is obviously not "an avid passionate believer in 'Free Speech', of all kinds without restrictions, as long as its respectful," and applauds banning of anyone who doesn't agree with him, but when have I "gotten close" to violating any reasonable rules of decorum here? Have I threatened to ban anyone? Called someone "Agent -----"?

Albury Smith said...

Actually, Bruecke, "canned rehash of...talking points" is a perfect description of your Corbett nonsense, and if you could "tear [my] arguments to shreds," you wouldn't be so obsessed with banning me, both here and on McKee's dog-and-pony show. I've already addressed 1, 2, and 3, and your "truth movement" has presented nothing that would cause me to "waiver" [sic].

Vatic Master said...

Mr. Smith, please indicate where Bruecke ever threatened to ban you from here. I did not see it, and if he did, he didn't mean it since he has never banned anyone to my knowledge from "this" blog. I can't do anything about something that may have happened on another blog that I was not privy to, so that is a non discussion for me. I can only deal with here.

He did ask some good questions and if you would answer them fully, you may help all of us with understanding where you are coming from on these issues. Thanks and personally, I look forward to your answers that will help to educate me, who is less knowledgable than Bruecke on the subject. Thanks.

Vatic Master said...

American Action Report, thanks for your patience but we got a bit side track and I never answered your post. I did not know you had published that video. I also did not realize that 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project. What a well kept secret that was. I agree, we posted numberous articles on here about missing and murdered whistle blowers and witnesses to various events and some of those were 9/11. So that matches with your info on the same subject. Guess all one has to do is a site search to read about them, see their pictures that were posted with it including O'Neil who was head of security and disappeared two days before the event according to his family who filed a missing persons report with the PD prior to 9-11.

His body was found in the rubble and no evidence he was killed by the falling debri. I was unable to get any info on exactly how he died. Funny no one found his body before the event since he was missing for those two days.

Remember him? He was the senior FBI investigator on the USS Cole attack and discovered Mossad was involved in that as well. The dual Israeli US ambassador to Yemen asked that he be removed from the investigation and when they removed him... he quit his job and fortuitously, Silverstein offered him a job as head of security. Wow, what a coincidence. Funny how all these things came together and ended O'Neils investigation into that Cole event. Reminds me of the USS Liberty.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Vatic Master and Agent Albury,

Allow me to clear up some misunderstanding. Whereas this forum does not have a precedence for banning participants, there is always a first time. Due to my experience with Agent Albury elsewhere, the ice of tolerance is already thin where he treads the beginnings of his inevitable circles.

The three questions I asked of Agent Albury should be answered individually in a paragraph or two each in a manner making clear which question is being answered.

1) When did you first recognize that the OCT was golden?

2) What pieces of evidence and analysis were laid out that sold you thoroughly on the OCT?

3) Have you had no doubts, no revelation of anomalies, and no evidence contrary to the OCT that made you waiver?

I am still eager to see your blog. The answers to the above three questions could be expanded to be your first three postings, before you start re-posting your historical record of web discussions so that your fans can find your words in one place and marvel.

Albury Smith said...

Since you apparently somehow missed it, VM, on December 20, 2011 at 5:27:00 PM MST, Bruecke confronted "Agent Smith" with "Know in advance that your posts here are permitted more for sport and my personal entertainment than anything else. Expect the duration of that to be much shorter than your tenure on Truth & Shadows, because -- ho-ho-ho-hum -- you're a very repetitive and tiresome Q-bot," which I interpreted as a threat to ban me here, whether he can actually do it or not. He's directed other tiresome ad hominem my way on various venues, but I'd really prefer not to stoop to his level and will attempt to stay more on topic. I also have no intention of jumping through hoops for him, since I've already furnished more than adequate answers to his questions, and he continues to ignore them and attack me personally.
To address the John P. O'Neill yarn you just related, he was the FBI's lead investigator into the October, 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen, and in the following 2 or 3 months his team found conclusive evidence that it was another Sudan-based bin Laden/al Qaeda suicide attack on the US, just like the 2 embassy bombings in Nairobi and dar es Salaam in 1998. He was definitely a whistle blower, and one of the most outspoken in the late '90s about preventing bin Laden's group from hitting the US again. To claim that he linked any of the al Qaeda terrorist attacks to the Mossad is a total fabrication and absolutely preposterous. He was instrumental in the 1996 capture of Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 North Tower bombing, and was obsessed with the threat of Islamic terrorism. In late August, 2001, O'Neill began his new job as head of PANYNJ security at the WTC, and he was killed on 9/11 in a tower collapse, not secretly murdered and planted there.
Along with fully explaining the evolution of al Qaeda from its '40s roots in the EIJ and other Islamist groups, The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright is practically a biography of O'Neill, and I'd highly recommend that you read it if you have any real interest at all in 9/11.
Your take on the Liberty incident is also questionable, to put it nicely, and completely at odds with the last 9 WH administrations and congress. If the Israeli government had really wanted to sink it, they would have done a much better job than that, and certainly wouldn't have left a boatload of eyewitnesses behind. Read and learn:
http://hnn.us/articles/369.html