The newest attack strategy against those who question 9/11 is to say that we are creationists. If you regularly read social networking sites, newsgroups, or bulletin boards, you will see this slur being used regularly.
Is it true?
Well, initially, everyone who believes in creationism started with a religious belief, and then tried to make arguments which fit that belief.
On the other hand, every single person I know who questions 9/11 initially believed the government's version of events.* However, once we looked at the evidence of what happened - the documentary, audiovisual, physical, chemical, and historical record - we began to realize that the government's story has more holes than swiss cheese.
There are numerous accounts of people who set out to defend the official version but, after meticulous study, were shocked to learn that that version is impossible.
In other words, they followed the scientific method, which is the opposite of creationism. Indeed, many scientists followed this exact route in reaching their conclusion that high-level people within the U.S. government aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks.
Similarly, legal scholars are trained to weigh conflicting evidence, and determine which side's story is believable. Many legal scholars followed this route before concluding that elements within the U.S. government are guilty for 9/11.
Moreover, I don't know a single person who questions 9/11 who is a creationist (and I know a lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement).
Many 9/11 skeptics would label themselves "spiritual, but not religious". These folks aren't fundamentalists in any sense of the word, let alone creationists.
Quite a few 9/11 skeptics are people of traditional faiths, either Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Mulsim. But I don't think a single one of these people is a creationist.
The "creationist" label is just another in a long line of false attacks on those who question 9/11. It is another example of government apologists' never-ending attempt to move the goalposts.
*I have heard of perhaps 5 people who doubted the government's version from the start. However, their skepticism did not come from some pre-existing, rigid or dogmatic worldview. Rather, they had been given tips by intelligence officials or others about the impending attacks, and knew they should have been prevented, or they were physics professors who knew that the destruction of the Twin Towers defied the law of physics which would apply to normal "collapses".
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
George WashingtonGeorge Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
This doesn't make sense - not that much doubters say does
One would think that Creationists would be hard-core followers of God-sent bush. I mean if anyone were to believe the official version of 9/11 they'd certainly believe that this Earth was made in 6 days, that Earth is at the center of the Universe and the Earth is flat.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 1059 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 10:28:08 PM
thx for the lawyers list, didn't know you'd done that. I hope some enterprising attorneys will create a database of 9/11 evidence- whatever physical there is, but even more valuable might be the mountains of reports and official statements that are false or contradictory and may be evidence of a lie, fraud, treason, perjury, etc.
What would a real 9/11 investigation look like? What evidence would be looked at, witnesses subpoenaed, questions pursued, etc.?
i believed the official story though the claim of "surprise", no air defense, total collapse, instant guilt were all troubling. At that time I still believed the MSM would report a big story, and i remained only mildly troubled over the years, despite periodically hearing news reports that contradicted the official account- like USA Today NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons. It was all working out really well for Bush, I noticed; PATRIOT Act, 2 geo-strategic conquests and possibly more, high popularity and little dissent, but I assumed the Dems, 9/11 Commission and "liberal" media would have turned up serious criminal negligence or worse.
Then I saw loose change, found 911Truth.org, cooperativeresearch.org, 911research.wtc7.net, 911blogger and many others, and found that the official story is only supported by holes, half truths and lies
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 295 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 748 comments)
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM
I spent a good portion of my life as a devout Catholic trying to reconcile science with religion. Ultimately, I gave up. I now hold with the late Stephen J. Gould that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. This means that the scientific method prevails in performing and advancing science, while moral principles should prevail in worship and human relations. Creationism is not harmless because it claims to trump science and the scientific method whereas, to the extent that people actually believe in it, creationism impedes the advancement of science and robs its practitioners of the full richness of understanding that science brings us.
Still, kudos to creationist Bob Gormley for recognizing that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives. It took me nearly 4 years to see that light ...and I am the physicist mentioned in George Washington's blog who was 33 years with the Naval Research Laboratory. To redeem myself, I've since done extensive resesearch on the 9/11 attacks and advanced some original hypotheses as to how the real conspirators likely carried them off. The reader can check out these hypotheses at my website: www.impactglassresearchinternational.com
by
David Griscom (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 21 comments)
on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 10:21:43 PM
If someone is a creationist, that alone does no real harm. The harm comes when a creationist insists on teaching this mythology to others, particularly in a setting like the public schools.
Creationism is a faith-based belief that is in no way confirmed by evidence or experiment. It's claim to truth is strictly from a literal interpretation of the bible. This kind of knowledge, has no business in the public schools of a country that professes a separation of church and state.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 7:54:40 AM
The word, theory, tends to confuse some people who fail to distinguish its scientific meaning from its vernacular meaning. In the vernacular, theory has a pejoritive meaning that suggests uncertainty. In scientific vocabulary, the same word has a quite different meaning.
The word, theory, has numerous different meanings that depend on context. An informative discussion of this can be found in Wikipedia, from which I quote below.
In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of naturalphenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
There is a hierarchy of paradigms within science that begins with a conjecture (given little credibility) and rising to a theory which is the name given to the strongest kind of paradigm there is about physical phenomena. We talk about the theory of gravitation or the theory of Newtonian motion or the theory of relativity or quantum theory or the theory of evolution. By saying these are theories, scientists say that these are the strongest possible kind of scientific knowledge.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 10:40:05 AM
that their ancestors were apes I must agree with them fully.
The apes responsible for 911 are in the whitehouse. When they hold a book upside down I can imagine their father exclaiming "Jr. You stupid F_ck cant You do anything right?"
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 352 comments)
on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 9:12:27 PM
It doesn't really matter if you started off believing the official story, and then got convinced otherwise, the point is that you now treat the science and engineering of 9/11 as a religion. Many people started out believing in evolution, and then "got religion". Suddenly all their scientific method training was out the window, and they're just fine with it.
No amount of DNA and fossil evidence makes a dent in the thinking of someone who is religiously devoted to the idea that man was created by God from Adam's rib, or whatever, and no amount of solid sensible evidence that damage, heat and gravity brought down the towers -- nor the sheer lack of evidence otherwise -- seems to make much difference to the truther.
A scientist is open to evidence being presented that might render his current theory invalid. NIST's theory of collapse initiation gracefully and without protest "evolved" from that of FEMA, because they had more evidence and time to evaluate it. If there were truly any evidence that explosives were used, excluding of course irrelevant issues of subsequent foreign and domestic government policy, scientists and engineers would be right there with you en masse. But their position would be based on evidence, not religion.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 479 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 4:03:36 AM
You can add me to the list of people who doubted the official story of 9/11 from the start. It's not that I had an alternative theory to offer (I still don't), but there were aspects of the official story that just seemed too much like a script for a television show. It was all very dramatic, this beautifully scripted conspiracy that went off without a serious hitch, or maybe just a little hitch in Pennsylvania for dramatic impact. The dramatic special effects were just so well tuned for a television audience. To me, something just didn't smell right.
The thing that still bothers me the most was how quickly and suddenly the whole story line was developed and revealed to the public. After about 24 hours, the FBI had the full story, they knew exactly who did it and the route they had traveled. Just like on the television series 24.
None of this proves anything, but from the begining it was enough to make me reserve judgement. Since then there have been other things that have made me even more doubtful. In no way does this mean I think I know what really happened, however.
by
PrMaine (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 7:45:47 AM
I do and always have believed in Creation. However, I do not believe it is to be taken literally. I do believe that God is our Creator, but I also believe in science and evolution. I was shocked and horrified on 9/11 too...but, I remember thinking that something was very wrong with the official story. I am an ardent 9/11 truth supporter and I have no doubt that Cheney and his monkey were involved in those attacks on us. So, just for the record, there those of us who love and believe in God and are still capable of independent thought and looking at facts with an open mind.
Peace
by
Patrick Roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 8:49:08 AM
What exactly is the point to all of this? After all this time it is clear that facts mean nothing to most people. Even here in the twenty-first century with the mountain of archaeological evidents, there are still people that believe in creationism. Just as there are many the believe the official myth of 9/11. If by now people haven't woken up to reality, I suspect they never will. I doubt seriously that many people even think about 9/11 anymore. Furthermore W and the boys are not alone in their culpability for 9/11. They most likely where not the ones to orchestrate this horror. And all politicians from both parties are complicit after the fact.
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 193 comments)
on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 9:20:13 AM
What? Who would have believed what? What are you trying to say? Are you making comment about the fact that I see W and Dick are only puppets to the masters? They may be more closely connected to the masters, but they are still only fallowing orders. Just like all other presents and vice presidents have and will. 9/11 was a way for the masters to not only gain more power but also spread some wealth to a small circle in order to strengthen their loyalty and help. What is so hard to understand about this?
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 193 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 8:54:14 AM
The rabid neocons, I mean the ones with the serious infection, have managed to pull off a plot of shear genius with the 'attacks' of 911.
Any sensible, realistic glance at the verifiable evidence would make an eigth grader fall over laughing. And any in-depth study of the nuts and bolts holding the story together reveals that the darkness of the human heart knows no bounds.
But much like the police investigating crimes by the police, the 911 Commission sold the American public a steaming pile of horse sh*t and most bought it. Some have even gotten used to the smell.
Observe the desires and agenda before 911. Observe the results post 911.
Access to the Caspian basin, opium production restored in Afghanistan, regime change and occupation of Iraq, Iran now in the cross hairs, expanded military adventures, (including long sought space-based weaponry), willing surrender of countless basic rights by Americans, and the heavy hand of Big Brother welcomed by the majority.
So much for governing through hope when ruling through fear can be achieved with the 'hijacking' of four airliners.
by
Michael McCoy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 139 comments)
on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 3:27:30 PM
