Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 7, 2024, 2:45 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Smut for Smut
#88
RE: Smut for Smut
(March 24, 2010 at 9:32 pm)Pippy Wrote: Right now in how little time can America scramble fighter jets, launch an anti missile system or defend the pentagon with what the fuck ever they have defending the pentagon. Is the answer less than an hour? The failure is the inability to stop the attacks.

And no one knew what was going on! No one knew where these planes even were! They had turned off their transponders! You seriously think fighter jets should have stopped these attacks? How? Your argument is just plain stupid. You might as well blame the police for failing to stop bank robberies.

Quote:Yeah, compare Afghanistan and Lockheed. Who has profited from the subsequent open ended wars, and whose country is occupied? Look back to when Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, and try to fathom the worst case scenario of a government that serves corporate interests above human interests.

So you think the government was complicit in a devestating attack on our own country so that Lockheed can make more money? This is moronic. And how does this benefit whoever was complicit in the government? Because a conspiracy like this would have to go up to at least the Cabinet level.

Quote:First off, when I posited the bacterial flaggelum as an example of something too complex to come from evolution, I qualified it with how it is an old, and not the best, example. I did this because I want to give 'evidence' for my beliefs on par with the evidence you guys are giving me. It's only fair. So no, the silly video that Tav took 2 seconds to post did not change my mind. Because the flaggelum is not the lynch pin of my argument to believe.

And the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex (a buzzword of Creationists, BTW) as tavarish's video demonstrated.

Quote:Pretty much.

And this makes no sense. How is "free will" thwarted if someone has a missing limb restored?

Quote:No, I was making that said analogy to try to share one as pertinent as the driftwood as biosystem analogy. How am I mistaken as to what I said? Are you listening?

Good grief! Go back and reread what you wrote to me. You compared having a missing limb restored to buying an airline ticket and then going in the back yard and flapping your arms. Are you seriously this obtuse?

Quote:Otherwise why would those thinks be valuable? Be moved to be thankful for things in their impermanence.

Things can't have value unless they can't be replaced? What baloney. Why should I be thankful that I can lose my legs in an accident? This is just ridiculous.

Quote:They took over airplanes with box cutters. Unlikely.

Why is it unlikely that a group of five men armed with boxcutters could surprise and overpower a few flight attendants (mostly women) and the two guys flying the plane? Remember - these guys were seated in first class and the bulk of the passengers had no idea what was happening until the terrorists were in control of the plane!

Quote: A plane hit the pentagon. Shoe me more than 3 frames that do not show an airplane. They confiscated over 80 separate pieces of footage from gas stations, hotels and stores along the lfight path to the pentagon. 80 videos, all we are allowed to see are 3 frames that distinctly do not show an aircraft. That borders on a lie. No foreknowledge, lie. The failure is not evidence for conspiracy, it is evidence of lies and deceit.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Video footage from a parking lot was released. The video clearly shows a plane slamming into the Pentagon.

Quote:So these planes wait all day, every day for an attack. These planes have been on alert since before I was born. But the one day we needed them, not a fucking peep. Either gross negligence, or something worse. But hey, as per you , they never happened to train for this one thing. So for over an hour they stood there scratching their heads.

The ignorance in this post is stunning. No one stood around "scratching their head". And it was NOT "over an hour"! Let's look at the timeline:

8:46 AM: American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

At this point, no one knew that this was a terrorist act, or that this was just the first in a series of attacks. For all anyone knew, this was a plane that had gone off course due to mechanical problems. The government or the military would have no reason to scramble fighter jets.

9:02 AM: United Airlines Flight 175 hits the south tower of the World Trade Center

Okay, now we know this is terrorism. The government starts to act.

9:38 AM: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon

That's 36 minutes from the second crash into the WTC. Do you honestly expect that the military could have scrambled jets, gotten them into the air, found the attacking airliner, OBTAINED PERMISSION TO FIRE ON A CIVILIAN AIRLINER (an order which would have to originate with the President) and downed the thing in just 36 minutes? This is insane.

The last plane is rather irrelevant to your argument because it never reached its target.

Is your tinfoil hat on too tight?
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.

God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Smut for Smut - by Eilonnwy - March 5, 2010 at 10:25 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by leo-rcc - March 5, 2010 at 10:34 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by divermike - April 1, 2010 at 6:46 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - April 1, 2010 at 7:27 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Tiberius - April 1, 2010 at 8:07 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by leo-rcc - April 2, 2010 at 5:59 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 5, 2010 at 3:39 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by leo-rcc - March 5, 2010 at 5:43 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 6, 2010 at 12:03 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 6, 2010 at 7:00 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 7, 2010 at 10:32 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 6, 2010 at 4:25 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Zen Badger - March 7, 2010 at 4:23 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by LEDO - March 7, 2010 at 7:29 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by leo-rcc - March 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 8, 2010 at 1:07 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Darwinian - March 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 7, 2010 at 7:33 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Zen Badger - March 8, 2010 at 7:23 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 9, 2010 at 8:20 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 9, 2010 at 9:37 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 9, 2010 at 10:06 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 9, 2010 at 11:29 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - March 10, 2010 at 1:24 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 10, 2010 at 5:53 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 10, 2010 at 10:44 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Tiberius - March 10, 2010 at 2:07 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - March 10, 2010 at 6:27 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 10, 2010 at 11:24 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by padraic - March 11, 2010 at 1:27 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Arminius - March 12, 2010 at 8:58 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Dotard - March 12, 2010 at 9:00 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 12, 2010 at 10:45 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by padraic - March 12, 2010 at 6:45 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 12, 2010 at 10:21 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 12, 2010 at 11:32 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by LEDO - March 13, 2010 at 7:58 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 13, 2010 at 8:18 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by LEDO - March 13, 2010 at 4:41 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 14, 2010 at 3:10 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 14, 2010 at 4:09 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 14, 2010 at 5:30 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Darwinian - March 14, 2010 at 7:08 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 14, 2010 at 11:58 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 14, 2010 at 6:27 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 14, 2010 at 1:36 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 15, 2010 at 2:31 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 17, 2010 at 12:57 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 17, 2010 at 9:33 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - March 17, 2010 at 10:44 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 18, 2010 at 1:32 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 18, 2010 at 8:02 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 18, 2010 at 9:01 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 25, 2010 at 5:41 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 25, 2010 at 3:08 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 25, 2010 at 3:33 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 18, 2010 at 11:04 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 19, 2010 at 9:43 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 22, 2010 at 12:38 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 19, 2010 at 2:16 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - March 19, 2010 at 2:28 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 19, 2010 at 2:39 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 19, 2010 at 1:40 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 19, 2010 at 9:23 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 22, 2010 at 11:41 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by downbeatplumb - March 22, 2010 at 2:02 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 23, 2010 at 1:44 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 23, 2010 at 9:34 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 23, 2010 at 7:21 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 23, 2010 at 9:23 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 24, 2010 at 11:11 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 24, 2010 at 12:02 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 24, 2010 at 9:32 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 24, 2010 at 11:01 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 25, 2010 at 11:53 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 25, 2010 at 8:42 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 30, 2010 at 7:08 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Dotard - March 30, 2010 at 8:08 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 25, 2010 at 9:27 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 25, 2010 at 10:46 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 27, 2010 at 7:03 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 27, 2010 at 9:46 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 28, 2010 at 7:38 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 29, 2010 at 3:07 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Falhalterra - March 29, 2010 at 10:51 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 30, 2010 at 8:05 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 30, 2010 at 8:09 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 30, 2010 at 8:34 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - March 30, 2010 at 10:51 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 30, 2010 at 11:49 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Violet - March 30, 2010 at 8:56 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 30, 2010 at 11:42 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 30, 2010 at 9:02 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - March 31, 2010 at 12:29 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by fr0d0 - March 31, 2010 at 3:30 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - March 31, 2010 at 9:23 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - April 1, 2010 at 1:57 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Tiberius - April 1, 2010 at 4:54 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - April 1, 2010 at 7:39 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Thor - April 1, 2010 at 9:17 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - April 1, 2010 at 11:24 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - April 1, 2010 at 3:29 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Tiberius - April 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by divermike - April 1, 2010 at 8:29 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Darwinian - April 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by divermike - April 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - April 1, 2010 at 9:48 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Darwinian - April 1, 2010 at 8:40 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by divermike - April 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Tiberius - April 1, 2010 at 9:36 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - April 1, 2010 at 10:53 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - April 2, 2010 at 12:04 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by tavarish - April 2, 2010 at 9:06 am
RE: Smut for Smut - by Autumnlicious - April 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - April 2, 2010 at 9:01 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by padraic - April 2, 2010 at 11:31 pm
RE: Smut for Smut - by Pippy - April 4, 2010 at 5:16 am



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)