9/11 Survey

To better understand the psychology behind 9/11 denial - that is, the psychology behind those who still believe the official fairy tale about 9/11 - I'm doing a survey. The survey seeks responses both from people who do and those who do not believe the official version.

If you're not sure why psychology may be important to spreading 9/11 truth, watch this interview with Watergate-whistleblower and former White House counsel John Dean; and see this essay.

I am not a psychologist or sociologist. However, I know some very high-level folks in these fields who are 9/11 truthers. Once I compile the data, I'll get it to them, so that they can figure out whether there is a more effective way to reach the large sector of the American public who still buys into the 9/11 fairy tell as told by the 9/11 Commission.

This survey is totally anonymous. Email your responses to georgewashington.911blogger@gmail.com, and I will destroy the personal information and email after I count your response data. You can always use a one-time webmail address to send me responses. (Please don't post your responses below, as this will probably lead to a childish thread. Instead, please limit this thread to comments about the survey questions themselves,and the worth of gaining psychological and sociological insight into people who accept the 9/11 Commission's story.)

Some of these questions are admittedly very personal. However, I give you my oath that your responses are confidential, and this type of information could conceivably greatly push 9/11 truth forward. For example, if it turns out that most 9/11 truthers were the youngest in their families, then we know that we have to reach out in a more effective way to first-born kids. If 9/11 truthers tend, instead, to be first-borns, then we've got to figure out how to break through to the younger siblings.

If enough of you respond, I promise to pass this onto some of the world's leading psychologists and sociologists, and then report their suggestions for how to make the 9/11 truth more effective.

Here's the survey:

1. Do you believe that the U.S. government may have had a hand in the 9/11 attacks?

2. What is your birth order in your family (e.g. "first of two children" or "third of four children")?

3. Do you consider yourself a conservative or a liberal?

4. Is/was your father a conservative or a liberal?

5. Is/was your mother a conservative or a liberal?

6. Do you believe in God?

7. If your answer to question number 6 is affirmative, what religion or type of spirituality best describes you?

8. Do you consider the world a basically dangerous or basically safe place?

9. How old are you?

10. Are you a man or a woman?

11. Do you have any children?

12. Would you have an easy or a hard time standing up to someone who is trying to physically intimidate you?

13. Were you ever physically abused before you were 18?

14. Were you ever sexually abused before you were 18?

15. What word first comes into your mind when you think of authority figures: trustworthy or untrustworthy?

16. Were you picked on as a kid?

17. Not including the Internet, what are the news sources where you obtain most of your news?

18. Do you have any interest in psychology?

19. Have you ever had a "mystical" experience?

20. Are you liberal or conservative in expressing your sexuality?

21. Did you have a happy childhood?

22. Do you consider yourself smart or not?

23. How was your relationship with your father when you were a kid?

24. How was your relationship with your mother when you were a kid?

25. Do you live in an urban or rural area?

Good idea, but....

This is a worthy idea, but I think you would be better served if you went to your psy/soc friends with the questions so that they can help you craft a valid set of questions. I am afraid that the questions, as posed, will not provide autthoritative results. Also, any result is going to have limited value since the respondents self-select. It really should be a ranom sample. Sorry to be a wet-blanket, but it would be a shame to spend all the time and effort and not get the most trustworthy result.

Yeah. For example, my answer

Yeah. For example, my answer to 3, 4 and 5 would be "no", which I suspect is not what the interviewer expect ;-)

Conservative / Liberal

My thoughts exactly. Well, I suppose we Finns are not supposed to participate anyway. ;-)

Qualitative vs. Quantitative

The questions asked in the poll can be analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. That would generally make this a qualitative survey, determining a specific analytical approach.

Qualitative surveys seek to ask open ended questions allowing for the discovery and catagorization of both unique and common responses. Quantitative methodology gives you stats that make for more convincing results, but lack the potential for responses the survey taker had not considered.

We can examine the results from the question, "Do you believe in god?", in two steps. First we would look at all the responses, and qualitatively catagorize the most frequent responses, including an 'other' catagory, being the outliers. Second, we could then look at the statistics our catagorization has revealed.

Qualitative methods can be more revealing, and more fun, but the result is more dependent upon the analytical capacity of the researcher.

As far as the relevance of the poll? Whatever the result, it will obvioiusly be only a reflection of the input of those who found the poll, and wanted to participate. So the results will reflect the opinion of those who come to this website, and like to take polls. Assuming that's taken into account in the summary of your methods, the survey will then be as valid or revealing, as your method of analysis, and the the care with which you draw conclusions.

I'll be interested to see the results of this survey. That's a lot of work. Thank you.

International Truth Movement

GW, Is this poll intended


Is this poll intended for those that DO question 9/11, or for those that DONT question 9/11? In other words, is this interview for me, or for the unaware?

nm, it appears by the 1st

nm, it appears by the 1st question that it can be for either or..

helps when you read i guess ;)

ill see if i can get some ppl i know to take it.

Show "More evidence refuting the 9/11 Truth Movement" by Anonymous (not verified)

damn, that U turn before the

damn, that U turn before the pentagon was pretty darn impressive according to the magnetic heading graph..

thanks for the heads up (despite your tone)!

* Is it possible that

* Is it possible that someone who understands that stuff can give an "executive summary" of that PDF document linked to above?

* What "U turn before the Pentagon"?

* What "tone"??

i was simply referring to

i was simply referring to one of the charts which shows the planes heading (0 to 360) over the period of the flight.. where it does the U turn it is pretty much flawlessly straight..

and i was referring to his tone in stating 'More evidence refuting the 9/11 Truth Movement'.

Autopilot acrobatics right into renovated section of Pentagon?

Those Arab coke-head/alcoholic patsies were also expert in autopiloting planes to do acrobatics? When will these lies end?

Just a quick comment, if I may.

The term aerobatic (lots of people say acrobatic, I don't care) is used too often and rather incorrectly when describing the maneuvers of the 9/11 flights. Pilotsfor911truth, myself, and others, comment more honestly after examining the Flight Data Recorders like this; It was the 'precision' of the flying that strains credulity in the Official Narrative (performed by half-ass pilots high on fanaticism and/or coke, and/or hangovers).

The precision of flight paths and cock-pit instrumentation settings is what raises eyebrows.... NOT the loops, hammerheads and eight-point rolls... which the FDR in no way indicate, neither were the G's all that high nor prolonged. The difference between precision alone, and aerobatics, generally implies inverted flight maneuvers or sustained g's.

Just stick to the concept "precision", it's no less difficult and more honest for the truth movement to use.


Okay, I just took the survey. It's not perfect from a research perspective, definitely, but it might be an interesting intial springboard for someone wanting to do a more focused, more controlled study.

One problem immediately apparent to me: "Do you believe in God?" What are you trying to figure out here? The follow up question about religion/spirituality seems to exclude people who "don't believe in God." I am a Buddhist; I don't believe in God per se, but religion is nonetheless a driving force in my life and a motivation behind my involvement with 9/11 Truth. In other words, some religions are non-theistic. What are you interested in finding out here, exactly?

Interestingly, I was talking about this exact thing last night -- the need to investigate the psychology behind 9/11 Denial. Particularly of interest to my friend was an investigation of the process whereby one becomes willing to examine the counter-narratives. What is behind the inability of some people to even "go there" at all? There is probably already-extant psychological research that would be relevant.

Anyway, I think this is a great idea.

just from personal

just from personal experience i've found that those unwilling to look into 9/11 evidence typically won't because they feel incredibly small (some also seem to idolize the amazing people with large amounts of power), and believe their personal opinions have no real affect on the world.. likewise they are often too busy with life, or too busy enjoying our luxuries, to trouble themselves with something that might make them focus on the unsettling..

Great Idea

I'm sure the perps have people well schooled in psychology. From a point of extreme objectivity, aren't known truths in fact the bonds giving organic ideas cohesion and therefore validity? For example, crossing the street will put you on the other side, is a truth that is virtually undeniable. So the perps would in fact have to poison the discourse with a huge amount of falsehoods masquerading as unverifiable truths (i.e. no planes into WTC's 1&2) in order to confuse the public.

What would be really interesting would be to find someone who was once a bona fide "truther", and now believes the offical story. If in fact that person could, or does exist, he/she is truly the missing link.

Missing Link

That person would indeed be the missing link, and very, very interesting. Someone who alleged that he had "reverted" was posting here for a while last week, but he might as well have signed in as Trolly McTrollbutt in terms of the amount of credibility he had as such.

OTOH, people seem to do a little forward-backward maneuvering as they process the information, and this too is of interest. For instance, I had really seen my dad "click" into realizing the official myth is in fact a fable, but then a week later found him opining that "The fact of the matter is that we don't know what happens when a plane hits a big skyscraper; maybe that's what happens." (Yes, yes, Building 7, yadda yadda -- but more importantly, here's an example of the physical evidence lacking the magical, globally persuasive ability that so many people ascribe to it. A dose of Able Danger, August 6 PDB, and thank God, all this recent Condo-sleeziness has fixed him right up,)

Hear hear!

I too know people who have been initially quite shocked to find out about the holes in the official story but who then cling to the fact that the alternateive versions aren't 100% proven to decide on a "wait and see" non-commital attitude. These are the people who will say very honestly that they would like to see a debate by knowledgeable people on both sides (something which is impossible since no one will debate in favor of the OT.) This is a convenient way of staying "out of the fray" as it were, and is a pretty cowardly position to take, since they rarely if ever become activists for the position of "let's have a debate". Those are at best people who will not actively support the OT. Too many people taking that approach could spell trouble for the truth, though.

Maybe our best bet is to appeal to people's sense of indignance--people do NOT like being lied to, especially by smiling backstabbers. Even aside from 9/11, what Americans need is a bit more righteous anger, to match the appaling level of decit and corruption that is constantly denied, swept under the carpet, and ignored when revealed. I know it's there, and this thread has made me think about what possibly makes people different--why some are afraid to take a stand openly, why others are thrilled to see me in the streets doin my thing... I think maybe one thing to consider is that it's hard to pin down anything right now since we are experiencing an unprecedented rapid transformation from a numbed and deluded mass to a mix of holdouts, inkling-havers, and full-on truthers. Are we making progress (i.e. increasing awareness and visibility?) most definitely. Will that trend develop and evolve into a mass of people big enough to wield real political power? That remains to be seen. For now, we should be happy and encouraged by our success. We have the confidence that comes from knowing we are right, which is what has gotten us this far. The perpapologists get more nerve-wracked by the day, and lots of them have to be wondering right now whether they really want to go down with this ship. I certainly don't get that sense from Truthers, who seem more energized, numerous, and WELCOMED every day that goes by. That's what happens when you have a knowledge gap (things like building 7) that can give a flase impression of the strength of an argument or movement. As the number of people aware of building 7's collapse increases from 60% or so to 85-90% I think we'll start to see things hitting the fan, and progress just gets easier after that.

Will all this happen before the October "Surprise"? Will it matter if it doesn't? Stay tuned, this is REAL history in the making after all! The question is who will survive to spin it their way for future generations, us or the perps. Shouldn't someone already have set up some kind of betting pool online so that we can gauge where the smart money is?

Sense, Cents, and Scents

Didn't Mr. Christison say as much? He's that old retired CIA guy... there's an interview with him posted here, somewhere.

For him, is was not so much an emotional or convoluted psychological issue, as much as an issue of intellectual honesty. He worked through it on his own from that angel... course, that's his story and I'm sure he's stickling to it (I don't really sense any deception or ulterior motive yet, but we'll all keep an eye on him. Right?)

I would venture that the vast majority of people, the 100 million or so unwilling to even entertain the discussion, are speaking more from the "gut" of emotion, jingoism and/or simple straightforward fear of something clearly unsavory. This large group of common and perfectly natural people, are not suffering from some lack of ability... but I would charge the Department of Education with having played some substantial role in "helping people to not have to deal with intellectual honesty"... "hell, don't even bring up the topic of psychology".

My one and a half cent worth.

Ken Jenkin's DVD

There is a great presentation by Ken Jenkins, who produces David Ray Griffin's films, called "Psychological Resistence to 9/11". It is really, really good on this topic.

I don't know if it is on the web or not, but it is worth searching out.

Maybe somebody out there knows...

worth at least three cents that

I would venture that the vast majority of people, the 100 million or so unwilling to even entertain the discussion, are speaking more from the "gut" of emotion, jingoism and/or simple straightforward fear of something clearly unsavory. This large group of common and perfectly natural people, are not suffering from some lack of ability... but I would charge the Department of Education with having played some substantial role in "helping people to not have to deal with intellectual honesty"... "hell, don't even bring up the topic of psychology".

Agreed. Most people could easily understand everything about 9/11 if they wanted to. The first people who did probably were people who disliked Bush, naturally. Then those who may have been OK with Bush but don't trust his associates. Then people who liked Bush but dislike being lied to more. At the end (before we get to the liars who know and don't admit it) are those people who like you say, are speaking with their hearts not their minds. I think the Dept of Ed is less to blame than the media and other molders of thought, but I agree that the number of people genuinely believing lies is far greater than those who are running around lying through their asses, which is better news than it sounds. There is plenty of room right now for Truthers who want to either overtly or covertly work on those who are genuinely deceived. This could be done in many creative and subtle ways, think about the kinds of messages that might resonate with those folks, talk to them from a conspiracy-skeptical point of view (maybe hook up with an overtly Truth friendly associate and play "devils advocate in front of hard-core deniers, just make sure to shoot yourself in the foot.) As people see other who they think are like them having an epiphany in front of them they develop a model for their own transformation one day, whether they know it or not. Remember, people LOVE to imitate and copy each other. Be their transformation for them. Show them the way. Some people can't be told--they have to be shown surreptitiously, that's just how some people think.

right now i'm pondering how

right now i'm pondering how anyone who believes the govt/media fairytale could even be aware of this survey -

I'll take this to the social networking area

spread it around a little ;-)

hope you don't mind a lot of emails.