-
I really do despair at times!
-
Thats an interesting comment Rob, but lets not forget that Osama is a Construction Engineer by trade http://www.engology.com/articlebinladen.htm so, I’d imagine, would have plenty of knowledge how to fell a tower or two. Could it be that he may even have planted bombs or done the prelim damage to the towers weeks before? Plenty of sympathizers all over the place. We’ll never know. But it is convenient to cry foul of the American political powers I guess.
In relation to building #7 being felled so rapidly…. you don’t honestly think that if the American Army was told they had 24 hours to fell a building in an enemy stronghold, that they wouldn’t be able to do it? The Engineers Corp in America are one of the best most efficient units in the world when it comes to difficult engineering tasks. I’d bet they would do it if they had too 😛
Just a thought…. 😉
-
quote Harry Cleary:I’ve seen interviews from all sorts of people that support the theory that God exists, but at the end of the day, they can’t prove it either……….we ‘choose’ to believe it………….if you are saying that you should only believe ‘what can be proved’ then I think you are as wrong as the crazy conspiracy theorists.
Actually Harry, God existing is not a theory. Your proof is in something as simple as the birth of your children, the design of the eye, the ability to recall information in the brain. The seasons are more proof.
Man can not come close to ‘building’ what we have in nature. Everything we use in life, that man has ‘discovered’ comes from looking at nature. From building Planes, to the adhesion of glue. That is proof of a greater being. So its not a theory.
Evolution IS a theory, Darwin admitted it himself.
quote :…The violence of protests now is due to the removal of the right to make that protest and disaffection with the status quo……surely?I think you’ll find the protest came before the law Harry.
In Oz, its not illegal to protest as long as its peaceful. The minute the protest gets out of hand, it becomes a police issue.
The problem is the rent-a-crowd that appears at these things. The G8 conferences attract all sorts of feral’s that are just looking for a fight… to hell with the message.
We see that here on the telly when it comes to the English soccer fans that travel OS for a England V whoever game…. some of the people just go for the disruption they can cause society. Anarchists are a good description, because that is what they are.
Democracy is about the majority voting in their representative. The problem is the minority often don’t accept the umpires decision, and think the only answer is civil disobedience. Thus, big brother is ’employed’ to keep the restless minority in check. The voters have no one else to blame but themselves 😕
-
What a thread 😮 Interesting reading.
As to why the twin towers collapsed the way they did it’s all down to The Thermite Reaction.
This is worth a look
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FWn8QNQWS … re=related
-
Fascinating thread!
Maybe the conspiracy was ‘to do nothing with the information’. It is entirely plausible that the CIA, American Government sat on intelligence (which explains George Bush’s reaction) and used the event to further their aims. Supremacy in the middle east and control of the oil producing countries may be the ultimate explanation. Spies and spooks do exist…..don’t they?. The CIA have been hard at work for years destabilizing countries and shoring up dictators in the furtherance of American interests all around the world. Unfortunately they are not the moral upstanding protectors Hollywood would have you believe. Other countries, including mine,(the Shannon airport stopover) have been willing to comply and assist with this, why?…..because quite simply there is a lot to gain……..its as simple as that. Think what the US defense industry have gained since 9/11!
A good read on the subject of American power is Richard Nixon’s biography, who’s title is kinda apt to this discussion, it’s called ‘The Arrogance of Power’The few videos shown here have asked ‘questions’ that need to be answered…………silence implies a conspiracy at some level. Orson Welles proved long ago that you can make the masses believe anything, if you prepare right, take advantage of their ‘fears’ and nobody asks the right questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VWC8eB9ic
Without getting into a religious hijack of the thread, all I meant Shane was that the proof that God exists is a ‘leap of faith’ it can’t be scientifically proved to those who require that proof, the birth of children and nature are still beautiful and miraculous whether I believe in God or not………while Darwin expounded a ‘theory’ ………….he did prove it!
-
quote Martin Cole:What a thread 😮 Interesting reading.It is isn’t it.
I’m just surprised that so many of you have got the time to read it! The best I can do is to skim. 😀
My attitude to conspiracy theories, whether it be why the twin towers fell down, who really governs us, or any of a thousand others, is to ignore them.
Apart from an occasional whinge, I gave up railing against the system a long time ago and now accept that the world is what it is and that I can’t change it. I just work within it as best I can.
A friend of mine from Brazil taught me that. He said that running a transport business there one law contradicted another, there was no way that he could comply with one regulation without breaking another and that therefore it was impossible to run a completely legal operation. He found it better, rather than fight the system, it was better to find a way around it and if all it took was a couple of bribes to get his paperwork signed then that is what he did.
I don’t get into unnecessary fights anymore.
-
Peter Wrote:
quote :Alex
1 “The Towers were designed to take multiple plane hits, this is fact and not conspiracy”please provide the stress analysis model to substantiate this statement
2 “Jet Fuel does not burn hot enough to melt, let alone weaken the amount of steel involved”
In the correct conditions jet fuel burns at 2700deg steel melts at 2500.
The girders only needed to buckle not melt. If you saw the tanks after the Buncefield fire, you would know that steel does indeed buckle at temperatures far less than that required to melt ithere… http://gordonssite.tripod.com/index.html
also look at Prof Steven Jone’s work.
Just apply a little bit of logic to it.
It will just come down to who you rather believe and who had the largest to gain from it !!Alex.
-
quote John Childs:I’m just surprised that so many of you have got the time to read it! The best I can do is to skim. 😀
I don’t get into unnecessary fights anymore.
If Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford took that attitude…..where would we be John!! 😀 😀
-
quote Harry Cleary:Darwin expounded a ‘theory’ ………….he did prove it!
😮 I don’t think so Harry 😉
My research into evolution came up with many inconsistencies, but this says it better than I could "Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, [says]. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution,” he says. “It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”
T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. “I found that the situation is quite different from that which we are led to believe,” he says. “The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support such a complex theory as that of the origin of life.”
Thus, those who object to the evolution theory should not simply be brushed aside as “ignorant, stupid or insane.” Regarding opinions that challenge evolution, even the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to admit: “It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their proponents were (and are) profound and able students.”
Scientists have never observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory “a mere ‘faith.’” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” he says.
Other experts agree. “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.”
We should agree to disagree on this I think mate :lol1: :lol1:
In terms of proof of God; one way to determine whether there is a God is to apply this well-established principle: What is made requires a maker. The more complicated the thing made, the more capable the maker must be.
For example, look around your home. Tables, chairs, desks, beds, pots, pans, plates, and other eating utensils all require a maker, as do walls, floors, and ceilings. Yet, those things are comparatively simple to make. Since simple things require a maker, is it not logical that complex things require an even more intelligent maker?
That’s my take anyway.
You are right tho mate, this is not the time or the place. 😛 Its just 2 subjects I have strong opinions about 😳
Cheers
Shane -
quote Harry Cleary:If Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford took that attitude…..where would we be John!!D
Would that be the same Bruce Willis who was too frightened to get on an aeroplane after 9/11?? 😀
-
quote John Childs:quote Harry Cleary:If Bruce Willis and Harrison Ford took that attitude…..where would we be John!!D
Would that be the same Bruce Willis who was too frightened to get on an aeroplane after 9/11?? 😀
Is that true John? I knew he was a wuss…. :lol1:
-
quote Shane Drew:You are right tho mate, this is not the time or the place. 😛 Its just 2 subjects I have strong opinions about 😳
Cheers
ShaneOK Shane …..I agree! 😀 But first a joke! There’s always room for a laugh.
One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man
had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian
to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.The Darwinian walked up to God and said, "God, we’ve decided that we no
longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many
miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost."God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was
done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a
man-making contest." To which the Darwinian happily agreed.God added, "Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old
days with Adam."The Darwinian said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt.God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!" 😀
-
quote Shane Drew:Is that true John? I knew he was a wuss…. :lol1:
Yup. Cancelled a planned visit to England ‘cos he’s a scaredy cat. 😀
Our newspapers were full of it at the time.
-
:lol1: :lol1: I’ve not heard that before Harry.
John, I told the wife Bruce and I were similar. I’m a scaredy cat too, we could almost be twins ….. 😉
-
quote Shane Drew:In terms of proof of God; one way to determine whether there is a God is to apply this well-established principle: What is made requires a maker. The more complicated the thing made, the more capable the maker must be.So who made God then 😕
-
The question “Who made God” is commonly used to argue against the existence of the sort of god traditionally believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many other monotheists. Strictly speaking, this isn’t an independent argument because it is not offered on its own. Instead, it is used as a rebuttal to the claim that our universe is too complex and intricate not to have been designed.
According to this common theological argument, nothing so complex as the universe with all of its accompanying natural laws could possibly have occurred simply due to random chance; ergo, it must have all been designed and created by some being which believers label “god.” This can only establish the existence of a creator god, but that is usually enough of a basis for many to then proceed with further arguments to show that a creator god must be the same god of their religion.
The response “Who made God?” can be used to point out an important flaw in the above argument: if the universe is too complex not to have been designed, then God is also too complex not to have been designed. A creator-god is never portrayed as something simple or, more importantly, something simpler than the universe. If this god is at least as complex as the universe, then it needs a designer and creator at least as much as the universe.
Believers will usually respond with one of a couple of common objections. The first is to claim that this creator-god has always existed while the universe has not; because the universe began to exist at some point, it requires a creator in a way that the god does not. Unfortunately, the assertion that this god always existed is unsupported and apparently unsupportable — it’s just an assertion we have no particular reason to believe. The assertion that the universe “began” to exist is also problematic because time itself is a feature of the universe, and therefore the universe does not exist “in” time such that we can talk about a time “before the universe” or a time “after the universe.”
Another objection raised by believers is the idea that their god is a “necessary being” and doesn’t need a “creator.” Unfortunately, this is also unsupported and unsupportable. There is no basis for such an arbitrary assertion, except to try to excuse their god from the same standards they wish to apply to the universe.
Moreover, both of the above excuses made for this god can be equally work for the universe. Why can’t the universe be “necessary” or not need a “creator?” Why can’t we say that the universe has “always” existed because there is no identifiable point in time when the universe did not exist? No one can say — after all, we really don’t know enough about our universe or universes in general to make such judgments. Of course, we also don’t have enough verifiable data of gods to make such judgments about them, either.
Another possible objection, also ad hoc in nature because it is only brought up in order to explain away this argument, is the idea that the “complexity” being discussed only applies to material things. God, being immaterial, is not subject to the same standards. This objection falters, however, because the same people offering it also typically believe in immaterial souls, thus leading to the unorthodox belief of our souls existing in parallel with this god rather than being creations of this god. Although someone could hold such a belief, it isn’t one you will likely encounter; as a result, it is unlikely that this objection can be used consistently or successfully with the person’s beliefs.
The question “Who made God?” does not quite suffice to prove that the traditional God believed in by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others does not exist. It does, however, manage to show that one of the most common and popular reasons used to support belief in such a god is highly problematic and probably cannot serve as rational grounds for belief. And my other question is this….should I apply wet or dry? 😀 😀
-
quote Harry Cleary:And my other question is this….should I apply wet or dry? 😀 😀
Don’t go getting heavy on me man – I thought this was a light hearted discussion :lol1:
-
Peter N wrote:
quote :Alex
1 “The Towers were designed to take multiple plane hits, this is fact and not conspiracy”please provide the stress analysis model to substantiate this statement
2 “Jet Fuel does not burn hot enough to melt, let alone weaken the amount of steel involved”
In the correct conditions jet fuel burns at 2700deg steel melts at 2500.
The girders only needed to buckle not melt. If you saw the tanks after the Buncefield fire, you would know that steel does indeed buckle at temperatures far less than that required to melt itThe first 2 things you state as fact, without any evidence, and that is how conspiracy theories, most of all 9/11 are perpetuated. by people saying “its a fact” when it clearly is not.
don’t believe most of the conspiracy theories about 9/11, for the simple fact that there are so many different ones.
Peter
Peter and others who are interested please read the following report.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu … rtment.pdf
Also
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … &plindex=8
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc … 7463126290
Rather than extracting snippets of information from the unofficial investigations by plenty of highly qualified people please
search for yourself for the as per the quote below.Alex Pirozek wrote:
quote :Most videos, documentaries, speeches are on http://video.google.co.ukMain investigating work carried out by but not limited to
Professor Steven E Jones
Dr. David Ray Griffin
Kevin RyanThe main videos to watch (but these, for sure will lead to watching others)
Improbable Collapse
Loose Change Final Cut
Alex Jones “TerrorStorm”
Alex Jones “Endgame”
Ludicrous Diversion – 7/7 London Bombings Documentary
Zeitgeist, the movieTo ask valid questions is not creating conspiracy, and like i mentioned before it all comes down to who you would rather believe and who stood to gain the most from the attacks.
Alex 😮 😮
-
According to Muslims, 9/11 was an act of God, THEIR God Allah, which of course Christians don’t believe in, but scientologists may very well believe that Xenu did it to make up for being cast into volcanoes, or that it was maybe Ganesh did it, or Vishnu etc.
The point is that everyone who believes in a "God" is right in their opinion, no matter what others think its THEM who are right, and the only reason people believe in their particular "God" is because other people have told them he/she/it exists.
I live a godd decent life, a peaceful and kind life, and treat others well (mostly) but refuse to acknowledge the existence of any type of God, does this mean I am going to hell?
Surely not.I am an atheist.
I will always be one and there isn’t one single thing that will ever even cause me to believe in the existence of a "God"People believe in god "primarily" because they have it indoctrinated into them from a very young age.
I wont say any more on the subject as I see there are people not of my opinion here, but I would just to see people admit there is a possibility they Might just might have it wrong about the bible, which was written over 1500 years by 65 different people, and pretty much all kicked off with a talking snake in a tree persuading some greedy woman to eat a magic apple, a bit Hansel and Gretel like in a fairy tale kind of way in my opinion, just like Christians will dismiss other religions gods as a fairytale i will dismiss yours as one.Let me sum it up with the best quote I have ever seen on the subject.
"I contend that we are BOTH atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do, when you understand why YOU dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
Thread hijack over, (no pun intended)
Steve
-
I think this thread has run its course, it has diversified and could now go on forever.
Debate about the twin towers, could take centuries, debate about religion, well millenniums, at least.
my final contribution to sum up the subject.Are we all talking about the same god that has caused countless wars, inflicted kids to suffer, and the fall of the twin towers, in his name.
I believe that without belief in a god, humanity would have suffered less.That is my last comment, apart from, you are all entitled to your beliefs and opinions.
Peter
Log in to reply.
