So What???

Some people are trying to slime Steven Jones in a Karl Rove-style attack by claiming that a Mormon who believes that Christ visited America is not credible. This blog points out that such attacks are as divisive as claims that all 9/11 truthers are anti-semitic, or that 9/11 truthers are crazy, or that 9/11 truthers are all bleeding heart liberals (all false claims used by government apologists to divide and conquer).

Michael Rivero is an atheist. Alex Jones is religious. Steve Bhaerman is a yogi. Rabbi Lerner is Jewish. William Sloane Coffin was Christian, David Ray Griffin and Bob Bowman are Christian. Kevin Barret is a muslim. Joanna Macy is Buddhist. Celestine Star (who produced a prominent 9/11 movie) appreciates native american beliefs.

SO WHAT??? Those are their personal beliefs. They are all promoting 9/11 truth. THAT's what counts.

I am sure there are sufis for 9/11 truth, and pagans for 9/11 truth, and wiccans for 9/11 truth, and sikhs for 9/11 truth, and hindus for 9/11 truth. There are certainly many atheists for 9/11 truth.

About 50% of scientist are atheists and about 50% are religious. SO WHAT? People's ability to think straight and reason in their field of endeavor and their personal beliefs are different things.

I believe that -- in some ways -- religion versus atheism is the same false split as conservative versus liberal, and that people that promote this split are harming the country.

Just as many people are waking up to the fact that the powers-that-be have created a false left-right schism, and that in fact we ALL agree on things like truth and freedom from false flag manipulation, we must wake up to the fact that atheists that attack 9/11 activists who are religious or religious people who attack 9/11 activists who are atheists are causing UNNECESSARY disruption.

Indeed, while atheists believe that religious people are silly, quantum physicists could attack the beliefs of atheists who believe in a Newtonian world-view as silly.

Its like the story of the 3 blind men who all feel an elephant with their hands, and then get in an argument when the one who feels a leg insists "its a tree" and the one who feels the belly insists its a sandstone boulder and the one that feels its tail insists its a giant snake. Isn't it possible that atheists and religious folks are experiencing different parts of the big picture and describing different things? Stop being like the silly blind men!

The bottom line is we should all stop disrupting the forward momentum of the 9/11 truth and justice movement by pulling Karl-Rove-like attacks on people's character. Instead, focus on whether or not what they say and write about 9/11 makes sense.

Let me make one last point directly to the atheists. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are correct and that there is no God. Given that only 5% of Americans are atheists, you will alienate 95% of the population by criticizing religion. Will that help you to be an effective 9/11 truth and justice activist? No, it will mean that you are assured that you will alienate most people, and so 9/11 truth will never hit critical mass, and the 9/11 perpetrators will go free. In other words, on a strictly practical level, dissing religious people will make you a very ineffective 9/11 truth activist.

So I suggest everyone just drop fighting about religious beliefs, and respect that EVERYONE -- religious, spiritual or atheist -- has a right to his or her own views.

My 2 cents...

damn, why cant we vote on

damn, why cant we vote on this? it gets a 10 from me. and for the record im agnostic(some would insist on calling me atheist) and dont think that all religious people are "silly" just like not all religious people think atheists are "silly".

Edit: now the voting button is there. my fault.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

persistence of irrational belief is an important topic of study

post removed for being long and boring. (smile)

Hmm...

Does this mean I shouldn't vote for Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney because he is Mormon? :-)

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

One of my best friends...

Growing up was a Mormon. I didn't think any less of him for having multiple girlfriends. (kidding, but I did have a Mormon best friend).

So What?
WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

haha

if thats the song i think it is then yes, very explicit language that involves goats and someones mother.....

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Then...

thought so.....

im at work right now so i couldnt exactly check for myself,haha.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I could imagine...

A teenager clicking on that while he or she's parents are around. I sent dz an email saying that if he thought it was inappropriate, to delete it. I just couldn't resist.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

at least you posted a big

at least you posted a big red warning, haha.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Well...

To stay on topic, I did have a Mormon best friend growing up. His name was Jason. We worked together at a movie theater as ushers. You may remember it Chris. The Eric in Feasterville (which is no longer there). I think people who make the argument that because of someone's religion, we shouldn't listen to what they have to say, are ignorant of what America stands for.

I apologize if my original joke offended anyone.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

cant say ive heard of it.

cant say ive heard of it. but i totally agree, as an agnostic i obviously dont have to worry about someone bashing my religion or discounting what i say because of it but you'd be surprised how much flack "the other side" gets from religious people. i have met some truly terrible people of "faith" and some really amazing and understanding people of "faith". im not against religion im just against people pushing theirs on me. this Steve Jones thing really smacks of desperation though and ive seen the whole "he thinks Jesus visited america" thing a lot more lately. we must be scaring some people.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Michael Wolsey...

Said to me recently, "We're over the target." Whether that means Controlled Demolition/Steven E. Jones is responsible, or whether the amount of people joining our efforts, and the amount of activism taking place has really made them scared (I think it's the latter), I don't know.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

cant it really be denied

cant it really be denied that both are responsible?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

The reasons we are where we are...

Is because of the efforts of those who have been doing this for years, because of Steven E. Jones, because of what I mentioned, and because the facts speak for themselves.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

you see, we agree on

you see, we can agree on something and the sky isnt falling and i still dont see pigs flying. :-)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Wow

I'm pretty mellow (or resigned) about what my teenage kids hear, but I'm glad this is what came up on Google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4FAKRpUCYY&eurl=

So who's the band?

What do mullahs do when they

What do mullahs do when they get bored? They get stoned...

isn't it the great thing about this, that we can all get together on finding the truth on 9/11, regardless of religious beliefs?

The Church of the Holy Equation

In what religious institution or faith does one find the catechisms of math, logic and physics?

(applause)

"Let me make one last point directly to the atheists. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are correct and that there is no God. Given that only 5% of Americans are atheists, you will alienate 95% of the population by criticizing religion. Will that help you to be an effective 9/11 truth and justice activist? No, it will mean that you are assured that you will alienate most people, and so 9/11 truth will never hit critical mass, and the 9/11 perpetrators will go free. In other words, on a strictly practical level, dissing religious people will make you a very ineffective 9/11 truth activist."

YEAH, boy. I voted you a 10 for that paragraph alone. Very well put! And the same thing applies, for the same exact reason, with any other kind of "bigotry" (I'm tired of that word -- too tired to think of a better one, LOL) in this movement. Even alienating the 5% is unacceptable; they have the same right to be in this movement as anyone else does. The fact is that ALL Americans (except the few perps) were the targets on 9/11, so all Americans belong in this movement! It's that simple. Each of us must make our peace with the fact that we're going to be working alongside people WE DON'T LIKE. The goal is bigger than our human differences. We can get back to arguing over those once we finish exposing the perps and bringing them to justice.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

He claims to have scientific evidence for his religious beliefs

Since I have discussed this matter on more than one occasion, let me observe that, in doing so, I point out that, ordinarily, I would not discuss a person's religious beliefs, but in this case the man claims to have "scientific evidence" to support them. In particular, the belief in question is that Jesus Christ visited North America after his resurrection. Jones claims that, if this had happened, we would expect to find evidence of various kinds in the artifactual record. He maintains that Mayan artifacts display stigmata (strictly speaking, what I suppose we could call "stigmata analogs") in the form of indications of wounds on the side, the wrists, and the head from his punishment prior to and during crucifixion. The problem here (a) this is largely a matter of subjective interpretation, (b) there readily available alternative explanations, and (c) he does not arbitrate between them. Indeed, I find here the same pattern of single-minded focus upon an hypothesis without serious consideration of the alternatives, just as he has done with thermite/thermate. His evidence for thermite/thermate is inconclusive, yet he treats it as though he had definitive proof.

In courses on "Science and Pseudo-Science", I used an excellent text, Kenneth L. Feder's FRAUDS, MYTHS, AND MYSTERIES (most recently, 4th edition). In Chapter 9 (on "The Fantasy of Ancient Astronauts"), he discusses the inkblot phenomenon, where different persons can see different things in the same artifacts. (Psychologists used inkblots to allow their patients to project their thoughts and feelings for study.) An example is the "face on Mars" phenomenon Feder also discusses, where, from some perspectives, a geographical feature on Mars resembles a face, but from others, not. When we discussed his claims in person over the phone, Steve told me he would send me a copy of this paper, which he has not done. But even if one were to assume that the artifacts in question display signs of crucifixion, that was a common mode of putting persons to death in those times and it would be very difficult to associate with one crucifixion to the exclusion of all others.

I don't understand how someone who touts the scientific method could abandon it in the case of their religious beliefs. I have explained this each time I have discussed it, and transcripts of my discussions may be found on 911scholars.org. George Washington (Alex Floum), who is closely associated with Steve, does not explain any of this, which does not surprise me. There is a stream of misrepresentations and false claims coming from the "Scholars for Truth and Justice", including taking credit for Ed Haas' plan for The National 9/11 Debate, where I, as captain of the critics, put together a team of seven to represent 9/11 truth. The NIST refused to debate and, after repeated efforts, Ed reluctantly abandoned the idea. He deserves the credit and I find it despicable that these people would not acknolwedge him as the source. In fact, this new organization did not even exist at the time this event was planned! This is rather ironic since it is such an obvious injustice, given the society's name.

Moreover, resurrection from death is not a scientifically supportable phenomenon, so I find it rather odd that someone is speaking out to defend Jones in a case where the stance he has taken is so blatantly indefensible. Neither the existence of God nor the non-existence of God is subject to scientific investigation on any defensible conception of God or of science. Perhaps Jones wants to use the standard of accepting as true anything he sincerely believes. Well, that's OK as long as he does not confuse it with science. Since miracles are violations of laws of nature, beliefs in miracles, such as returning to life after death (this is real DEATH, not merely a near-death experience, which is fairly common and scientifically explainable), is not a position that competent scientists espouse, especially in their scientific research! But then the use he makes of thermite/thermate in 9/11 verges on the miraculous and the evidence he offers for it bears comparison. I don't expect my efforts to explain these things are going to make the least difference to those with their minds made up, but perhaps a few will understand the situation better.