• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Truth as a religion

Watching Loose Change was the mass in Latin.
Watching Blueprint for Truth is the mass after Vatican II.
 
Would the Journal of 9/11 Studies(J.O.N.E.S.)be equivalent to their bible? The acronym always killed me, how narcissistic can you be?
 
Hate to be the somber one in this merry little jref exercise in comradeliness, but this 9/11 truth religion must be a pretty good religion. Considering the general fact that you can nearly always count more scientists that repudiate religious faith based belief systems than support them (the average scientist is usually atheist/agnostic), then why do so many scientists and engineers seem to have such adamant support for the non "mainstream" hypothesis? And why are they willing to be publicly quoted on various sites and even appear in numerous documentaries to outline their views?

I know that its a fallacy to count scientists that support a theory ... blah blah "X amount of people support theory A, so it has to be correct". But what seems apparent with 9/11 theories is the lack of scientists debating and refuting the findings of scientists that don't agree with the mainstream account.

I can't seem to find any other "religion" that has so many scientists speaking directly about it in such scientific terms. For example I just watched a recent two hour long documentary about this very subject, it only interviews very qualified scientists, and ends with various testimonies from the families of 9/11 victims. Unless I can find a rebuttal to the points there-in I'm still going to remain skeptical of the official story.

There are no religiously based documentaries that I have ever seen that contain (well over) 30 highly qualified scientists arguing such consistently coherent points.

I've met my fair share of religious fools on both sides of this argument, but to label all people (on either side) as religious is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Hate to be the somber one in this merry little jref exercise in comradeliness, but this 9/11 truth religion must be a pretty good religion. Considering the general fact that you can nearly always count more scientists that repudiate religious faith based belief systems than support them (the average scientist is usually atheist/agnostic), then why do so many scientists and engineers seem to have such adamant support for the non "mainstream" hypothesis? And why are they willing to be publicly quoted on various sites and even appear in numerous documentaries to outline their views?

I know that its a fallacy to count scientists that support a theory ... blah blah "X amount of people support theory A, so it has to be correct". But what seems apparent with 9/11 theories is the lack of scientists debating and refuting the findings of scientists that don't agree with the mainstream account.

I can't seem to find any other "religion" that has so many scientists speaking directly about it in such scientific terms. For example I just watched a recent two hour long documentary about this very subject, it only interviews very qualified scientists, and ends with various testimonies from the families of 9/11 victims. Unless I can find a rebuttal to the points there-in I'm still going to remain skeptical of the official story.

There are no religiously based documentaries that I have ever seen that contain (well over) 30 highly qualified scientists arguing such consistently coherent points.

I've met my fair share of religious fools on both sides of this argument, but to label all people (on either side) as religious is absurd.
Click to expand...

Haleluiah, we have a testimonial ^^
 
carlitos said:
I almost posted this off-topic in another thread, where a truthy person was using logical fallacies, but I thought a new topic might last a bit longer. I think it was Myriad (in one of the video analysis threads) that analyzed 9/11 truth as a religion, but without the benefits of an afterlife. It really is the best description.

  • "9/11 was an inside job" is the creed.
  • "thermite" is the miracle birth.
  • "red chips" are the eucharist.
  • WTC 7 has become the crucifix / Jesus
  • All the technobable is their scripture (in femr2/Major_Tom's case, an illustrated bible)
  • Harrit, Jones and Griffin are the profits prophets.
  • Online petitions and youtube comments are their witnessing / evangelism.
  • "A new investigation" is the rapture.

I wrote all of the above and I noticed the lack of consideration for the actual victims of the tragedy. In a real religion, those people would be saints or something, but the truthy people don't even mention them. The closest thing is Sibel Edmonds, who serves as a type of martyr who, in typical truther fashion isn't a real martyr, still alive yammering on about being "silenced."

Handing out DVDs as a passion play? Judy Wood as Mormonism?
Click to expand...
I actually made this same thread (well same theme) two years ago lol. My first thread actually. I guess great minds think alike. ;)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144690

...^
 
LSSBB said:
I suggest you look up "creationism" / "intelligent design".

"Coherent" is the crux of the issue, also.
Click to expand...

The major difference is that the scientists that support ID or creationism tend not to base their beliefs on science (as there no science to base beliefs like that on) but on pure speculation and wishful thinking.

From what I've seen, the scientists that don't like the physics of the collapses have not based their views on mere faith, but actual evidence and data they can not explain.
 
Zeuzzz said:
The major difference is that the scientists that support ID or creationism tend not to base their beliefs on science (as there no science to base beliefs like that on) but on pure speculation and wishful thinking.

From what I've seen, the scientists that don't like the physics of the collapses have not based their views on mere faith, but actual evidence and data they can not explain.
Click to expand...

That's the problem.

"I can't explain it. God must have dunnit!"
"I can't explain it. Thermite be my salvation!"
 
Zeuzzz said:
The major difference is that the scientists that support ID or creationism tend not to base their beliefs on science (as there no science to base beliefs like that on) but on pure speculation and wishful thinking.

From what I've seen, the scientists that don't like the physics of the collapses have not based their views on mere faith, but actual evidence and data they can not explain.
Click to expand...

Not true. Most of them say non-scientific things like "when I saw the buildings collapse that way, I just knew something was wrong." Nearly every testimonial at AE911Truth reads that way. I pasted a bunch of them here once, not going to bother again.
 
Oystein said:
That's the problem.

"I can't explain it. God must have dunnit!"
"I can't explain it. Thermite be my salvation!"
Click to expand...

Unfortunately yea, the average Joe might think that these two are the only options, and make elaborate conspiracy theories around either event.

I don't care what theories they come up with. We don't know yet, plus I didn't even mention thermite.

All I'm concerned about is trying to explain the definitive data and video footage we have now. And such explanations to explain the collapses have, so far, not been forthcoming.
 
Zeuzzz said:
[...] (the average scientist is usually atheist/agnostic) [...]
Click to expand...


On what do you base this statement? Because...

In 2009, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press polled members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on belief in a higher power. The study found that 51 percent of members polled expressed such a faith [...]

Source: Are Scientists Atheists?
Click to expand...
 
1. Thou shalt have no other Twoofs before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a complete theory graven into stone that beareth any resemblance with the facts.
3. Thou shalt not question nor doubt evidence nor conclusions of thy twoof.
4. Thou shalt not blaspheme against thy lords or profits prophets of thy faith.
5. Thou shalt not seek medical help.
6. Thou shalt not commit disinfo.
7. Thou shalt not get an education.
8. Thou shalt not bear accurate witness towards thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not ever admit you were mistaken.
10. Thou shalt not answer a simple question.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
I know that its a fallacy to count scientists that support a theory ... blah blah "X amount of people support theory A, so it has to be correct". But what seems apparent with 9/11 theories is the lack of scientists debating and refuting the findings of scientists that don't agree with the mainstream account.
Click to expand...

That's because the truth movement is so insignificant and impotent that there's no need to comment on it. If there were the slightest possibility of it being taken seriously, things might be different.

Zeuzzz said:
The major difference is that the scientists that support ID or creationism tend not to base their beliefs on science (as there no science to base beliefs like that on) but on pure speculation and wishful thinking.

From what I've seen, the scientists that don't like the physics of the collapses have not based their views on mere faith, but actual evidence and data they can not explain.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't seen it accurately. Every scientific claim implying an inside job by the truth movement has been refuted comprehensively, usually on this forum. The scientists that "don't like the physics of the collapses" are, in general, not commenting on the actual physics of the collapses, but on an incorrect representation of those physics. In the real world, those physics are very comprehensively understood; those who insist on not understanding them are in effect choosing to be more ignorant than is necessary - another characteristic of a religion, in fact.

Dave
 
Zeuzzz said:
Unfortunately yea, the average Joe might think that these two are the only options, and make elaborate conspiracy theories around either event.

I don't care what theories they come up with. We don't know yet, plus I didn't even mention thermite.

All I'm concerned about is trying to explain the definitive data and video footage we have now. And such explanations to explain the collapses have, so far, not been forthcoming.
Click to expand...

The NIST reports, the studies by Purdue and Arup, the papers by Bazanz, Greening and others are all written in invisible ink. Sorry we didn't tell you how to read them.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Unfortunately yea, the average Joe might think that these two are the only options, and make elaborate conspiracy theories around either event.

I don't care what theories they come up with. We don't know yet, plus I didn't even mention thermite.

All I'm concerned about is trying to explain the definitive data and video footage we have now. And such explanations to explain the collapses have, so far, not been forthcoming.
Click to expand...

It's been explained to the satisfaction of everybody that matters, ie - non truthers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom