A new study out on July 8th says ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile.
Furthermore, the study goes onto state those who scoff at conspiracy theorists, laugh at them,
etc, are themselves victims of a psy-op campaign, a conspiracy if you will, launched from an
alphabet agency of the gov. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
PressTV - New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
GOOD STUFF! & ThanksMore, more I'm still not satisfied.
Frontiers |
Of course teaching them to read would be a start.
psik
This is awesome:
"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." PressTV - New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
It highlights the attitudes of "sheeple," who refuse to believe even the evidence before their own eyes, preferring instead to buy into whatever government propaganda is handed out to them. I've seen demolitions in action, those buildings did not appear to collapse of their own weight.
Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
Hahahahaha, yeah that's a great idea!If someone simply can't accept the idea that the government could tell so big a lie, show them some of the clear proof that the government faked the Apollo moon missions.
The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
One of the main reasons I start Apollo-hoax threads is to wake sheeple up to the idea that the government tells gigantic lies so they'll be more objective with the 9/11 issue.
The proof that Apollo was faked is so clear that it makes a good shill-detector.Hahahahaha, yeah that's a great idea!
C'mon, everyone, rally round this one. .
This is a freebie for the PTB. It's Sunday. I don't get paid double time to shill. But if I kiss enough ass, maybe they'll upgrade my pay scale.The proof that Apollo was faked is so clear that it makes a good shill-detector.
The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
I see the shills are starting to invade this thread.
The proof that Apollo was faked is so clear that it makes a good shill-detector.
The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
I see the shills are starting to invade this thread.
Like the Apollo issue, the issue of building 7 is so clear that anyone who tries to obfuscate it will just end up looking silly. That's why the shills on C-SPAN avoid the issue.
C-SPAN Callers Won't Shut Up About 9/11 Inside Job - YouTube
A lot of people who still don't think 9/11 was an inside job don't even know that building 7 fell. We can help by showing them the info.
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports - Part 1
Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org - YouTube
World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth
Do YOU get double time? Anyway, this is my shill beat. It's already covered.Well, I'm pretty sure that they went to the moon...
Not to completely rain on your parade ..... but
( just me playing devil's advocate )
I believe its possible to take any premise at all,
like say Caucasians are more prone to become junkies.....
and assemble a scientific team to do research & surveys
and come up with data that supports the foregone conclusion.
HOWEVER, these things eventually get sorted out
case in point, a 19th century Doctor set out to "prove"
that black people have smaller brains ..... eventually his work was debunked,
but shows what can happen.
I invite all sides of this very intense debate to examine very carefully
what sort of data they are working with and check your results....
its a sick sad world!
Why don't you three state you opinion on whether building 7 proves that 9/11 was an inside job?
FMR. CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC., EXPLOSIVES TECH SPEAKS ON 9/11 - YouTube
Not at the temperatures under consideration here. Doesn't need to melt, only needs to lose residual capacity below that required to support the imposed load.Here's another: Steel melts…
Hahaha, kettle/pot.Now, with those two out of the way… Anyone seen Obama's Birth Cert? I haven't…
Not at the temperatures under consideration here. Doesn't need to melt, only needs to lose residual capacity below that required to support the imposed load.
Hahaha, kettle/pot.
To put the best possible spin I can think of for moon-hoaxers: I doubt anyone's questioning the mechanics (as in pertinent branch of physics) of getting there, I think they're pointing to anomalies which indicate that it didn't happen, even if it's theoretically possible to get there.Here's a clue: Mathematics provides for certainty in many areas, not the least of them is the potential for accurately sending a vehicle from earth to a known point beyond the earth's atmosphere… it's not even particularly difficult.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?