Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11

A new article in U.S. News & World Report quotes a couple of psychologists, one sociologist and one historian to argue that people who question the government's version of 9/11 are prone to false thinking.

Initially, remember that, while there are many honorable psychologists and psychiatrists, psychologists helped to create the U.S. torture program, and actively participated in it.

Also, psychologists - such as Freud's nephew Edward Bernays - have been central to propaganda efforts for a century. See also this and this.

Moreover, many mental health professionals have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the official version suffer from emotional problems or defense mechanisms. For example:

  • Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
  • Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
  • Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
  • Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
  • Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Finally, it should be obvious that the opinions of mental health professionals are only as sound as their knowledge. For example, a mental health professional in 1640 would likely have labeled Galileo crazy for saying that the Earth orbits around the Sun.

More importantly, a German psychologist who heard from a patient in 1933 - when Hitler started consolidating power in Germany - that Hitler was a dangerous fascist who would launch a world war, try to take over the world and kill millions would likely be labeled as delusional.

Just as with any field, the opinions of mental health professional are only as good as their knowledge.

Indeed, even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves now say that they don't believe the government's version of 9/11. For example:

  • The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"

  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

Given that even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves don't believe the government's version of 9/11 any more, is a mental health professional who believes the official version really saying that the entire 9/11 Commission is delusional?


Americans have been conditioned to give up everything including their rights, money and homes for fear of being labeled mentally ill, Anti-semitic, conspiracy theorists.


Permanent Head Damage.

At least for some of them.

Total Pack of Liars.

I am disgusted.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

No evidence

I like this statement from the article,

"The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence."

Really, no evidence?

Well, what about all the people who believed Saddam was producing and stockpiling WMD circa 2002, 2003, like Cheney, Hannity and Limbaugh? Should their beliefs be labeled a "conspiracy theory"? Yes!

Nevertheless, check out the comments at the site. They are running strongly in our favor.

Here's another insulting article on Alternet: disgusting!


Unbelieveable how the arrogant MSM thinks it can print anything and we will just accept it. Great posts in the comments section.

CommonDreams is even worse than Alternet.

Alternet has been very insulting to the truth movement.
But CommonDreams will not even allow 9/11truth comments.
I placed my first comment on their comment section yesterday.........not inflamatory, not hateful or insulting.
And yet not only was my comment removed, but apparently I have been blocked from making any more comments!

CommonDreams has never had a Truth friendly article that I've seen, and I have seen some insulting bits.

It's a blackout on the progressive media.

Where do we go?

One thing that often happens

One thing that often happens is that people promoting disinformation hammer the left media with nonsense and offensive stuff, like DEW, anti-semitism, nukes, missiles, etc., and those who have to deal with comments decide to just block anything that isn't official story. Others, of course, have an agenda. Common Dreams does appear to have an agenda, as does Alternet, but I know of at least one disruptor who hammered Common Dreams.

This is one reason it's important to expose disinformation and nonsense and create a distance from it -- the case for blanket blocking of all-things-9/11truth becomes less viable when it's clear that there is a large movement of people who do challenge the official story while rejecting no-planes, missiles, space weapons, nukes, etc.

It's funny

It's funny how when a couple of "professionals" weigh in against conspiracies, mainstream publications jump all over it. If equally similar professionals took the opposite opinion, the article would more than likely never be considered for publication.

It's all bullshit. We can at least take heart that 911 Truth is still on the front burner -- that these "professionals" found it necessary to write something and that US New felt a need to run the story. It means the truth is winning the hearts and minds of more and more people every day. I just hope the mental health professionals listed here take the time to write something thoughtful to US News. It is a constant battle to keep the record straight and we need to be ready to act when duty calls.

BTW the 9/11 Commission WAS delusional, so that argument doesn't help our cause here ;-)

Thanks, George Washington

You are one of our greatest warriors exposing this circus of propaganda. And you did just what I hoped: mention psychiatrists and psychologists who disagree with Swami and Bower, slapping their "you guys are all nuts" cigars from their faces. This labeling shit just doesn't do the job anymore.

Jumping to conclusions?

Two things.

1) Sometimes a conspiracy is a conspiracy.

2) Sorry to repeat myself, but I was among those who BELIEVED the Offical LIE, and it was only therein that I jumped too readily to conclusions. Only g-r-a-d-u-a-l-l-y did I study enough to reject that Official LIE, and understand that the WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7, were almost certainly (99+%) demolished by pre-set thermitic (and maybe other?) materials.

The fact is, I'm still embarrassed at how little I know compared to most of the people I read here at 911 Blogger. And the more I read what the best contributors write, the more convinced I become that the conspiracy was largely US based.

I am also becoming more convinced that there is a ridiculously widespread effort at cover-up, both intentional and unwitting. This is so obvious, I am embarrassed to write it, but we are forced to repeat the obvious because the people who are supposed to do so, aren't.

Well...that's more than "two things," so I'll leave it at that...for now.

I guess

It was your open-mindedness and your candid nature that allowed you to see 9/11 for what is was. I absolutely commend you for that. For me, it was my mistrust of authority (accurately described by those psychologists, they did get something right) and my fury against being 'creative' with facts. I absolutely despise arrogant dismissal of arguments rooted in blind establishment thinking. The main argument put forth is an ad hominem argument, and it becomes clear that validity of arguments must be thoroughly checked before resorting to questioning the sanity of the person or persons putting forth the argument.

Come to think of it, questioning the sanity of such a large, heterogeneous group based on poor (if any) research smacks of deluded thinking ;-)

As for mistrust of authority, I think this Latin saying describes it best: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who guards the guardians?")

Points of agreement

Thanks for the commendation. By the way, I like how you are able to see points of agreement with those with whom you mostly disagree. It's good to see that these psychologists got something right, regarding mistrust of authority. Wasn't sure if your tone in acknowledging that was slightly humorous or not, but either way, it was a good acknowledgement.

It is indeed frustrating that these psychologists have not studied 9/11 more thoroughly, particularly when they are going public with what they know, and what they don't know.

I completely understand

where you are coming from Satyakaama. It took me two years after 9/11 to see through it and see that it was a false flag operation. I hang my head in shame for believing the Mass Media and their lies for all that time. What woke me up was building 7. I didn't even know it came down until two years after the fact. Thank God I finally woke-up. It was hard to accept at first but now I find anything the MSM says hard to believe. Thank God for the internet and for web pages like this one. In my mind 9/11 truth is the most important issue of my lifetime. The truth must and WILL come out. We MUST be relentless in our quest for the truth. The future of our planet depends on it.

Well...just one other thing

There is probably a psychological term for the phenomenon exhibited by the psychologists in denial above. Yes, there is "denial," but there is also, in many cases, a self-protective mechanism going on. A psychologist, or many other deniers as well, doesn't himself or herself wish to be diagnosed as a freak or a crazy, so they approach this in a clinical and faux-analytical fashion (faux because the analysis is oversimplified and nonrepresentative of the scope and reality of the skeptics' mindsets). This is socially safe. It will avoid ridicule. Be subtly smug. Put the people you are observing in a box, so to speak. Use a stance of condescension. Then analyze.

Other times the psychologists are displaying plain ignorance, but in many cases it is specifically the combination of ignorance plus the fear-of-ridicule at a subconscious level and pulsing around their ego.

When will we see the group : psychologists_for_911 truth ?

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

I can see a need for a new group for the 911 truth : psychologists_for_911 truth.



About when we see "journalists for 9/11 truth"

Journalists are seeming part of the worst profession of all when it comes to 9/11 truth. Even politicians seem better!
I couldn't name one important name in journalism that has spent any time at all writing about the overwhelming evidence that proves the official 9/11 story to be a fraud.

Yes we also need Journalists_for_911_truth !

Herblay FRANCE


I have a super neighbour who is journalist and a great family friend. He is very educated and reads a lot of books. His expertise is in Agriculture. However his training should permit him to analyse all subjects. Since 2002 and for the moment after about 60 hours of exchange on the subject , loan of 6 books ( specially Tarpley , Eric Laurant, Giulietto Chiesa ( Guerre et Mensonge ) , ... , many videos Press for truth, 911 Mysteries, 911 Blue print for truth, Loose Change Final Cut, etc he told me last week that he thinks it was really Bin Laden who was the master mind of 911. ( I am starting to doubt that he had ever read the books I passed to him or that he had really visioned the videos !)
But I am not giving up as we need real thinking journalists like Jeff Cobb with the Wayne "Main Line Life"
and I am going to continue to try and understand how two scientific people like him and I do not analyse the 911 murder in the same manner.

The day when we have a Journailist_for_911_truth we will be able to reach all of our world citizens because the know how to write to be understood..

Yours John

conspiracy theories...

skeptics way outnumber slavish adherents to the official fantasy- this was my comment:

"taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook."

These are all positive traits, other than "feeling generally suspicious toward others", which I don't- and I don't buy the official explanations, as even the Commissioners have criticized the process, which was frustrated by false statements by NORAD officials and failure to by the White House, CIA, FBI, DOD, etc. to produce documents. Like the US govt is trustworthy??? These shrinks need their heads checked, and to research A People's History of the United States. A supermajority does NOT trust the US govt, which under Dems and Reps consistently serves the interests of a corrupt corporate elite class at the expense of the public interest. And a supermajority knows that the official BS about JFK's death is BS, too.

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Please help refute Alternet article that insults 9/11 truth

Alternet, a supposedly left wing website, had consistently ignored 9/11 truth...........any of it.
But lately Alternet has posted several articles that are insulting to the 9/11 truth movement.
And yet Alternet has, everyday, articles condemning all of those consequences of 9/11, such as torture and illegal wars and occupations.

It is easy to login and comment on Alternet. Here is the title website of the article today on Alternet, a new low:

The 10 Most Popular Conspiracy Theories

By Vicki Santillano, Divine Caroline. Posted May 28, 2009.

Reptilian humanoids control us? The Government carried out 9/11? Here are the 10 wackiest -- and most durable -- conspiracy theories.

4. The government was involved in 9/11.
This is currently the most researched conspiracy theory on the Internet. Theories abound about the role of the U.S. government in the events of September 11, 2001, but most state that either the Bush administration had previous knowledge of the attacks and didn't act or that it orchestrated the entire thing. Both versions center on the belief that Bush and company wanted to gain more power quickly and get the support of the people. It's been said that the World Trade Center towers came down as a result of planted explosives, that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, and that Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania because it was shot down -- a theory that was only fueled when Donald Rumsfeld accidentally said during a 2004 speech that terrorists shot it down.

Press Banter

I am going to have to say that I do agree with some of what's being said here, because of the number of times that I've seen truther friends fail to check their references. They remind me of people who parrot the government, who fail to check their references. It seems pandemic. Everybody just accepts what they want most so much more easily than anything else.

But, compared to the way two people interact with each other, side-by-side, is worth millions compared to the actual value of this article.

When it is a stranger, and shaky, and so concerned that the sky is falling on his/her head, or any paranoid or violent aspect of the behavior, or whether or not the two people who meet in person feel comfortable and relaxed with each other - that is real value. People make their own minds up on matters - this article seems to me like it would be fluffy reading to reasonable people.

Coop Assembly

Formidable response, George

Well done

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson


it was Columnist Robert Novak who gave "conspiracy theories" a jump start by saying his sources said 9-11 was an inside job two days after the event. "Security experts and airline officials agree privately that the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners was an "inside job," probably indicating complicity beyond malfeasance." Will they deem Novak out of his mind? He practically started it all, didn't he? I think the psychologists are out of their minds. I guess that makes me a prime candidate for the loony bin, and who knows that in this day and age, that might be the safest place to be.

"Conspiracy theories" will always be with us as long as people speculate on what is really going on in an era of incredible opacity in government. Many of those theories will undoubtedly prove to be correct, just as they have in the past.

Novak's comments available online?

Peter Duveen,

Are the comments by Robert Novak regarding 9-11 being an inside job available online?

Mike Zimmer

Announced here at 911blogger

Here's a link

to a jpg of the entire piece as it appeared in the New York Post:

Takes only one question to debunk such studies

How do you define conspiracy theory/theorists?

I liked this reader comment:

The Martha Mitchell Effect

The Martha Mitchell effect is a process by which a belief is mistakenly diagnosed as a delusion by a psychiatrist. This is named after Martha Beall Mitchell (the wife of John Mitchell, the Attorney-General in the Nixon administration) who alleged that illegal activity was taking place in the White House. At the time her claims were thought to be signs of mental illness, and only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane).


Psychologist Brendan Maher named the effect after Martha Beall

Mitchell.[2] Mrs. Mitchell was the wife of John Mitchell, Attorney-

General in the Nixon administration. When she alleged that White House

officials were engaged in illegal activities, her claims were

attributed to mental illness. Ultimately, however, the relevant facts

of the Watergate scandal vindicated her and hence attracted to her the

title of 'Cassandra of Watergate'.

Read a book.

Buy a clue.

Turning the tables

Good information, Kameelyun. The Martha Mitchell Effect...that is well worth bookmarking in one's memory.


For the record

This article was originally written for the magazine _Science News_ by one of its reporters:

Reading between the lines, _Science News_, a nonprofit publication, seems to be largely funded by the federal government and military contractors and overseen by their emissaries:

However this article came to be written, _U.S. News & World Report_ was merely "reprinting" it. Not to let _U.S. News_ off the hook. Doubtless its editors felt some particular motivation to reprint this article, out of all the countless things with which they could fill up their magazine. (By the way, the owner and editor-in-chief of _U.S. News_, billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman, is a well-known neocon: .)