EPT-Mynock
Bush Conspiracy Video - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Mynock
4492 Posts
-Mynock | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On March 27 2006 09:56 NewbSaibot wrote: Ok under, so flying a 747 is difficult. Whats your point? It obviously happened. Theres no arguing that it is hard, the pilots dont make 100k-200k/year for nothing. But remember, these terrorists didnt just up and grab the controls for the first time. They advanced through 3 degrees of certification in prop driven aircraft, and had flight simulator training for the 747. Once it is airborne, it is simply a matter of finesse for the most part. I aggree that pulling those turns and managing to actually hit the buildings to be very very difficult, but again, it DID happen, so I guess they just got lucky. "lololol", iraq is not the oil epicenter of the world, it's just a good breeding ground for democracy and to spread western influence, which may one day give us access to that oil surrounding it. Kinda like vietnam, imagine that. The supposed terrosts-pilots were all... well... n00bs, the trainer of one of them was surprised he was able to lift the plane off the ground... And Iraq does have more oil reserves than both US and Russia together, so it actually is the oil epicenter of the world  | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11603 Posts
| ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On March 27 2006 10:00 Mynock wrote: Well, see it this way: there's the Bible, it contradicts both scientific explanation as well as common sense on every step, yet there are so many believers. Why? Probably because it's the easy way out, but I'm not really sure. As I see it, this is the same case right here. Common sense vs. the peace of mind. And what surprises me are people like DTDominion. We seem to be on exactly the same side when it comes to religion, yet we disagree completely on the 9/11 issue. Maybe I'm wrong, and this case somehow deserves the benefit of the doubt, but I have to say that - so far - all the contradictions and discrepancies point towards a huge hoax. With tons of questions left yet to be answered. -Mynock It's not at all the same. Scientific consensus and a preponderance of evidence all agree on huge factual errors in the Bible. I haven't seen more than very isolated scientific/technical people saying that 9/11 was definitively "a hoax", much less a consensus. Nor have I seen one piece of solid technical literature that refutes any of the major "conventional wisdom" regarding 9/11. That doesn't mean that the conventional wisdom is necessarily true, and I do think the 9/11 investigation could have been better. But it would be a cover-up almost impossibly difficult to pull off -- we'd have heard from a lot more people with a lot more first-hand knowledge, and a lot sooner, if these theories were true (imho). If you have solid technical articles on the subject of 9/11, I'd be interested in seeing them. I am not interested in anyone's ideas of the structural engineering of the WTC unless they designed it and/or are at least an M.S. in the that specialty of mechnical engineering. In addition, I think someone on the "hoax side" in this thread just suggested that the US fabricated Pearl Harbor so we had a reason to nuke Japan. How am I supposed to argue with someone like that? | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On March 27 2006 10:05 lololol wrote: Surprised or not, you dont achieve 3 pilots licenses without being able to fly the plane, and pass the test. They sucked ass as pilots, but they COULD fly. Unless you think american pilots crashed the planes, or they were remote controlled, the terrorists pulled off the impossible. Being a pilot myself i personally dont think it is all that difficult at least if you have had some training, to basically just steer the plane. Yes i know there are all sorts of claims about stalling the engines and proper thrust and so forth, many of which do hold significant value when it comes to controlling something so big, but again, the planes DID hit. I will probably never fly a jet, and definatley not a 747 so i'll leave it at that, but we did not watch some special fx extravaganza on tv, so what are we arguing about here again?The supposed terrosts-pilots were all... well... n00bs, the trainer of one of them was surprised he was able to lift the plane off the ground... And Iraq does have more oil reserves than both US and Russia together, so it actually is the oil epicenter of the world Oh, and the worlds largest oil reserves lay in Saudi Arabi, not Iraq, ok? Good... Im not discounting the value of taking over Iraq when it comes to oil, but it isnt the best target, and such an attempt would be too obvious. The best reason to attack Iraq with an oil oriented goal in mind would be to spread our control over the entire region through the next several decades, by which time the middle east would be like a 2nd america and by then, im sure our control over the oil would have naturally fulfilled itself by our very presence. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Also the Gospels are not history, they are not biography and not even really eye-witness accounts, but a specific and then-new form of literature which was literally the speading of the good news. Now the different accounts of authors and the seemingly shifting positions of Paul throughout his letters are not the only internal inconsistancies in the bible, but here is what you have to do: try to understand something about these people, the development of Christian thinking and what if any evidence the textual sources offer on the truth of Christianity. The bible deserves better treatment than to be scrutinized by a lot of people who have probably not taken a single thought about it. I could go on and on about specifics, but people need to understand that Christian theology, even by the 4th and 5th centuries, was broader and less dogmatic than many of the scientific "truths" that we are acquainted with today. So when you talk about this "preponderance of evidence," proving against "the bible"'s truths, I hope you know what, if anything you are talking about, because the wider academic community on bible studies does not seem to have as many answers or verifiable conclusions as the tl.net academy. | ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
Another major factor in the equation is of course - altho the Bible does "deserve better treatment than to be scrutinized by a lot of people who have probably not taken a single thought about it" - that the other holy doctrines deserve no less. Just as you cannot isolate the examination of the Bible unto a few characters from it's timeframe or a few interpretations of it's teachings, you cannot isolate the Bible from the rest of the gospels either. The Torah, the Qur'An, the Bhagavad Ghita all deserve equal treatment, and if you are willing to put the time of origin into the scales as well (two thousand years), then even more so than the Bible, with Christianity being after all, one of the youngest religions in the World. Which then of course is chaos and order encompassed. I think it's probably even more inconcievable to dissect than you say it is Moltke... Question is whether it's necessary. -Mynock | ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Are the gospels supposed to stem from divine origin? We know that the original of Mark, for example, wrote in Greek of questionable quality. This is not Moses speaking to God on Mount Sinai. In the accounts of the gospels where Jesus does become ressurected, he tells his disciples to go and spread the gospel. From a historical point of view, that was all the gospels were doing, celebrating Christ\'s coming to earth, his salvation of man from sin, and his ressurection, spreading his word. None of the gospel writers knew Jesus personally. Likely the first, Mark, was transmitted from oral accounts which were circulating in Judea at the time, but which are lost to us. The Quelle too, is lost to us. When you want to find the truth about the gospels, what do you have? Well you have the Bible. You have early Christian gospels and writers. You have a few Roman historians such as Tacitus. You have a few Jewish historians such as Josephus. You have a few (later on) Rabbinical sects who describe Christians as heretics. Really not much there for cross-reference. The four gospels say that Jesus perform miracles and was ressurected after death. What evidence have you against it but conjecture? So as far as anything about the phenomenon is \"disproved\" by contemporary science, it is disproven only in the sense that it cannot be scientifically proven that men can be divine or that men I can be ressurected after death (although if I stick to Catholic teaching it was Christ the God and not Jesus the man who was ressurected...hope I get this right.) But then, didn\'t the Jews at the time already know this? There\'s really little advantage the modern mentality holds over the ancient, except that we no longer live by the assumptions of an ancient Jewish culture, and a lot more that we don\'t know. As for the doctrines you think worth considering, that\'s your choice, but to me Christianity, and not just the bible, but the theology which evolved in the past 2 000 years under the Catholic church, has developed a wonderful view of human nature, including the process and transmission of original sin, which I find a valuable guide to understanding human phenomena which I could not otherwise account for. I consider the Christian understanding of sin not only as true to experience, but also the fundament of the moral civilization that I had inherited from this world. To some extent, even back when I thought Christianity was a load of nonsense believed by weak people desperate for hope, I was already closer to following the teachings of the bible than I realized. You cannot live in the West and not be morally influenced by it, and in this respect the Quran and the Bhagavad Ghita do not come near it in importance. Of course any Christian knows the Torah as well. But let's go back to your question: there's the Bible, it contradicts both scientific explanation as well as common sense on every step, yet there are so many believers. Why? I admit I asked myself this question once, but it stemmed from a desire to judge rather than to understand. Studying history forced me out of my stubborness and realize that once in a while, hey, the guys on the other side are not necessarily simpletons. Some opponents are indefensible simpletons, but ones which have survived for 2 000 years... it's like what Orwell said about a poem: it either defends itself by surviving, or it is indefensible. And I am Burkean enough to believe that man in the long run is a wiser specimen than he is in the short-go | ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7631524045446340770&q=september 11 its shocking really... | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
| ||
|
[angst]chraej
1445 Posts
On March 27 2006 17:47 PaeZ wrote: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7631524045446340770&q=september 11 thats awesome, makes me want to join the military | ||
|
threshy
Qatar550 Posts
On March 04 2006 12:42 mensrea wrote: Ploy, 1. Let me make it perfectly clear - I do not believe there was any "conspiracy" relating to the 9/11 incidents. The most I will allow is that perhaps there may have been a government cover-up with respect to the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania (Did it crash because of a heroic on-board attempt by the passengers to strike a blow for freedom? Or did the US Air Force shoot it down?), but I wouldn't characterize that as a "conspiracy" so much as damage control and public relations. 2. I actually have that article myself in print form. That article by popular mechanics was almost singlehandedly responsible for a drop in that mag's subscription figures. If I had the time and patience, I WOULD refute that article, almost point for point. It is populist, poorly researched and biased as all hell. As I said, I do not disagree with that article's conclusions (I see no serious evidence of a conspiracy by the US government to inflict 9/11 on its own citizens), but articles like that one, shabbily reported and amateurish as it is, is precisley why so many people think there actually was a conspiracy. And for the record: Popular Mechanics is categorically NOT a "very good science magazine". I know of very few serious scientists or engineers who either contribute to it or who subscribe to it. 3. Bottom line: In broad terms I agree with your conclusions about conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 - but the source of your conviction leaves very much to be desired. Mensrea, As usual, you are a voice of reason in a cacophony of squeals and jabbers. I would ask you, though, what brings you to the conclusion that there is no conspiracy? If it is a lack of evidence, I would suggest that the burden of proof doesn't really lie on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists--after all, from watching the video (which has both good points and bad) and from reading other sources, it seems clear that there are some difficult questions with potentially easy answers, answers that the government is strangely reluctant to give. So, there is that. If it is something else, I'd like to know. | ||
|
EntertainMe
864 Posts
On March 27 2006 17:54 DTDominion wrote: Mynock, I believe in Jesus's divinity and His message, but I agree with you in that a lot of the Bible is just hard to take seriously. How can you believe Jesus is divine/GOD and His resurrection from death and yet fail to take a lot of the Bible seriously? You do not believe Jesus is God. That much I can tell from your post. Jesus' first miracle was turning water into a high quality wine. You know water? Turning into a wine? Obviously it's impossible. Science clearly denies it. Without faith, Bible is just another book. | ||
|
PaeZ
Mexico1627 Posts
On March 27 2006 18:17 [angst]chraej wrote: thats awesome, makes me want to join the military yeah its cool and all that, but poor guys that were bombed and the other dudes that were shot, i still do not know who were they...  | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
On March 27 2006 18:45 EntertainMe wrote: How can you believe Jesus is divine/GOD and His resurrection from death and yet fail to take a lot of the Bible seriously? You do not believe Jesus is God. That much I can tell from your post. Jesus' first miracle was turning water into a high quality wine. You know water? Turning into a wine? Obviously it's impossible. Science clearly denies it. Without faith, Bible is just another book. Nice job reading. I'm pretty sure that I said I believe Jesus is god, maybe you missed the part where I typed it. My problem with the Bible isn't scientific reasoning. If the great flood happened, which I believe is plausible, then God can just will it into existence. That's not my problem with it. If you read the whole thing about Cain it talks about his wife. She came from where? The Bible often misses little details like these that make it hard to take it 100% literally. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
If you read the whole thing about Cain it talks about his wife. She came from where? The Bible often misses little details like these that make it hard to take it 100% literally. From Adam and Eve, where else That's the only logical conclusion......unless it was Eve herself :S | ||
|
NettleS
522 Posts
| ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
On March 27 2006 19:21 TeCh)PsylO wrote: The problem with this video and many others like it, is that it attempts to answer its own questions. It is perfectly legitimate for people to ask questions about 9-11, and any responsible society should demand answers from their government. It is irresponsible to suggest that we have those answers, and those answers are the ammo to attack the government in its complicity. In the process of doing this we facilitate the governments (a fairly abstract term) ability to avoid the issue by introducing accusations and information that can transform legitimate questions into political debate and god forbid, bible talk. Not once has the country collectively asked a serious question related to 9-11 and waited for a response. The result is that an event that should have defined our country only allowed our short comings to become the staple of our national policy. Killing our enemies and destroying their ability to exist is a shortcoming? A slightly different interpretation of our national values than my own I see. | ||
| ||
