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
Journal of 9/11 Studies Manwell June 2007 3
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:
