Newest Ad Hominem: Those Who Question 9/11 Are Creationists

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 are atheists. For example, Michael Rivero regularly rails against religious dogma. These folks certainly don't believe in creationism.

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".

and . . . Social Biologists!

Here's a good social biology joke:

Q: Why did the goose fly south for the winter?
A: It just felt like the right thing to do.

I beg to differ

See, I consider myself a conservative creationist: I'd like to see us conserve creation!! (thanks to Caroline Casey for that take on the issue...)

Also, I do subscribe to a certain big bang theory, though now I prefer to call it a big controlled demolition theory..... : ) It's an apt creation narrative if you will; all hell breaking loose since that infamous moment (of evil)......

Noel/ fifthworld

Sit, be still, and listen
Because you are drunk --
And we are at
the edge of the roof.


If you are taking a survey...

I am an athiest, and I was slow to come around to this whole "truth" thing. From the word go, I figured that something strange happened, but I didn't even see Building 7 for years (some still haven't).

For a long time I figured they let it happen to use it as a excuse to go to war.

It wasn't till about 2 years ago that I started to understand just how wrong the story was.

You're right, creationists start with a belief then form the facts around it....

that was never my intention. I don't want this to be true. For the first 6 months of my search, I was looking for the "evidence" to dismiss the truther movement. I never found that evidence, but I found lots, lots more on the other side.

Who writes this stuff?


I'm a little bit surrpised by this entry.

A blanket statement like "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," while it may be true, since you qualify the statement with "I don't know," why even bother to get into the issue. You may end up pulling a Ron Paul, who disavowed the 9-11 movement publicly in order to retain respectability for his campaign. (I respect and support Ron Paul, by the way.) You go on to say: "In other words, they followed the scientific method, which is the opposite of creationism. " This is an interesting statement, but this forum is not the place to address it in the detail it deserves. You do point to the crux of the issue when you say, "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 would just say that the intellectual dishonesty with which the establishment has approached the creationist debate is being extended into the 9-11 debate, so the opposition is already well-practiced. Remember that much of the establishment view is an attack on the value of the individual, in direct opposition to religious thought, and this forms much of the crux in the debate on creationism. This is why it is so easy for them to wipe out 2,700 people, and why they use any method possible to attack religious views, which may constitute their primary obstacle. Creationism, however one may view it otherwise, is a theory that imparts great value to the individual, where stems much of the opposition it has received, and not from its intellectual underpinnings, which is a different matter.


Creationism isn't science. you may not be aware of that, but if you know anything about what the so-called 'debate' is around, and know any of the claims creationism makes and their respective refutations, you'd know that is not science at all. there really is no real 'debate'. just as a guy i heard once talking about this subject, saying that it's just like you're not really hunting if you've got a barrett 50 cal and you're shooting dairy cows.

anyways the real intellectual dishonesty is coming from the creationism arena....just because they're in the minority doesn't mean that the 'establishment' must be wrong on this subject too. i'm usually rooting for the underdog, but only if they really have a point. not just because they're underdogs.
you may think it's some war on religion, but currently atheists/agnostics are anything but a majority. they are also the least trusted group. religion has long been the 'establishment' against the individual, in direct opposition to free thought. the only reason religion is seen as having a 'war' against it is because increase of knowledge is pushing it to the side. it's called science.

i'm very glad GW addressed this issue as i'm sick and tired of having this feeling that i'm in a camp full of religious zealots and i'm sick and tired of the so-called 'intellectual' atheists (as opposed to normal atheists) out there subscribing to this trend that to be an atheist, you must believe the official story of 9/11, to therefore have an immediate talking point against islam...and to think that questioning 9/11 makes you a creationist/fundie type. noobs they are to the concept.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosophe

Well I'm not a Creationist

Although I no longer belong to the Church, I'm not an atheist either. I'm an agnostic. :)

a thought from 9/11 scholar George Carlin

"I'm not an atheist, and I'm not an agnostic; I'm an ACROSTIC ... the whole thing puzzles me."

Sit, be still, and listen
Because you are drunk --
And we are at
the edge of the roof.


As long as...

...we pay attention to these distractions and let "them" frame the debate instead of ignoring it and framing the debate in our favor, we end up on the defensive, and we lose. Ignore the distractions, stay focused, stay on message.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Nothing new really

I've seen that old ad hom argument for years on the net. Michael Shermer and many so-called "skeptics" use the same mangled logic:

If you can't accept the government's account of the 9/11 attacks, well then, you are just like those creationists who can't accept scientific explanations for natural events!

Yes, it is a lame argument, but surprisingly it has a great emotional appeal among self-styled skeptics. Among internet skeptics, creationists and ID theorists, as a group, are probably more reviled than Holocaust deniers. "Conspiracy theorists look for patterns and connect dots between random events, just like creationists do. You don't want to be associated with those damned creationists, do you?"

Ironically, Dennis Prager, a believer in ID, makes the absurd generalization that those who hold to "9/11 conspiracy theories" are
mostly secular people. Since they don't believe in God or any higher power, they have to believe that the government is an all powerful force that controls everything.

Just one of many arguments pulled right out of his ass.

obviously from his magazine,

Michael Shermer is a CAREER skeptic. anybody who makes a career out of a simple mode of thought is a damn moron and overzealous. he has to find things to be skeptical about.
yet, as a so-called skeptic, he's not exactly what you would call much of a skeptic of the official story...isn't that a bit inconsistent?
He makes awesome points on religion, but that's because religion really is based in myths and fairy tales. While other things are regarding events that are still murky...yet he thinks the same can be applied to that. he's a damn fool.
how's this shermer, i'm a skeptic of you knowing how to correctly apply your logic to different subjects...wouldn't you support my skepticism?

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosophe

This is Rich and Highly Ironic....

...since many of the probable 9/11 perps are contained within BushCo and required a contrived alliance with Christian Fundamentalist Mega-Church Extremists (i.e., "Creationists") to get enough votes to make a stolen election ('00) plausible.

Now the trolls and shills in service of those perps use the "creationist" label as a pejorative to smear The Truth Movement....

Pretty funny, actually. These people have no shame.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

When they fight us head on, on the facts, they LOSE big time!

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

-- Mahatma Gandhi

They tried ignoring us and we grew.

They tried ridiculing us and we grew even more.

They sort of tried to fight us and they realized that they would lose every time on the physics, facts and logic; so they retreated back to ridicule.

We've seen the "holocaust denial" and "anti-semitic" smears, we've seen the "video fakery and space beam" smears, we've seen the "America haters" smears, we've seen the "far right wing nut" smears, we've seen the "paranoiacs" smears, we've seen the "insane left wing nut" smears, we're seen the "psychologically easier to believe" smears, now we're "creationists" who have no understanding of science and they still refuse to debate us on the facts in public.

(Now that I've stopped rolling on the floor laughing, I can continue with this comment)

I hope that it is as obvious to most of you as it is to me how clearly desperate these folks are getting. They have no recourse at this point but inane mud-slinging, and their trough of mud is getting really low at this point. They will do anything to hold on to their respective bases. I will be very interested to see if anyone on the "right" attempts to use this latest smear as it insults much of their base, I suspect that this will only come from our friendly, neighborhood left gatekeepers, as they will do anything to maintain their denial.

"Is that sand I see in your ears, Mr. Shermer?"

I have been ridiculed for being different since I was 12-years old, so this is nothing new to me.

My advice is to take the high road, keep calm, remain civil and just quietly recite the physics, facts and logic.

By simple virtue of repetition we will continue our march toward the truth, brothers and sisters, do not be distracted by insults.

Smile, "kill" them with kindness. The only way to make an adversary a friend is through love.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Yeah, with the "creationist" smear they've layered....

...."religious fanatic" on to "racist" (anti-semetic) in their attack to turn off leftists or liberals...both things that negatively push the left's buttons of revulsion and distaste...

And they'll keep portraying the Truth Movement as the "wacky liberal fringe" and "Bush Haters" to self-described Republicans (although any day I expect "violent anarchist" to be added to appeal to the right's appetite for Law & Order....)

Divide and Conquer.


9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

9/11 truth uses logic and science

9/11 truth uses logic and science for the results that it accepts. I think it'd be kind of hard to accept fire breathing dragons living on earth now and that the earth is only 10,000 years old. That stuff only washes with the uneducated or the educated that are trying to make a buck on the sheeple.