portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Faulty Towers of Belief:

Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11

Part I.
Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11


Laurie A. Manwell
B.Sc. Biology and Psychology, University of Waterloo
M.Sc. Biology (Molecular, Cellular, Developmental) University of Waterloo
Ph.D. Candidate Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Guelph

"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the evil to suspect good."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)

"If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil
deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and
destroy them. But the line between good and evil cuts through the heart of
every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and
love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time
they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always"
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Political and spiritual leader (1869-1948)

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to discuss the 9/11 truth movement with
a family member, friend, or even a colleague, and are met with remarkable resistance (of
course if you are reading this, you most likely do not need to use your imagination). On
the rare occasion, perhaps you've heard, "Hmm, that's interesting, tell me more." More
likely though, merely the mention of alternative theories of the events has of 9/11 drawn
dismissal, joking, or even ire: "I don't listen to conspiracy theories," "Yeah I've heard
some really crazy stories that the government did it," or "How dare you mock the victims
of 9/11!" You begin to wonder, why are some people less willing to examine all of the
events of 9/11 than others? Is it really because they are obstinate or in denial? Is it
because they are apathetic or judiciously lazy? Or perhaps is it because they are
uninformed or purposely misinformed? Are there any other explanations? These are all
very important questions to be explored if all of the properly investigated facts and
evidence of 9/11 are ever going to reach the forefront of public consciousness.

Hence, the purpose of this article is to review relevant scientific studies of the
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes that arise in response to information that
contradicts the deep-seated beliefs that people have about 9/11. If we can better
understand the reasons why people are not willing to investigate and evaluate other
possibilities we should be better able to proceed in a more informed manner and engage
others in more productive discussions of the factual events of September 11th 2001. We
need to find ways to encourage awareness of all of the events related to 9/11, along with
open discussion and debate with as many people as possible - as soon as possible. There
are many people who, if they could recognize and overcome some of the psychological
blocks to exploring alternate accounts of the events of 9/11, could greatly contribute to
the impetus for a new and truly independent international investigation. In fact, after
hundreds of hours of careful consideration, this is how the author was able to reach such
conclusions herself - by the willingness to explore her own psychological biases and
errors in evaluating the events of 9/11, and thus to be better able to objectively evaluate
the evidence. To be able to report information as a behavioral neuroscientist, I rely on the
research method, but as a person who is just as susceptible to bias and error in reasoning
as everyone else, I must also be vigilant that my worldviews are always examined
alongside my scientific views:

We tend to resolve our perplexity arising out of the experience that other
people see the world differently than we see it ourselves by declaring that
those others, in consequence of some basic intellectual and moral defect, are
unable to see things "as they really are" and to react to them "in a normal
way." We thus imply, of course, that things are in fact as we see them and that
our ways are the normal ways. (Ichheiser, 1949, p. 39).

(pdf 265kb)